By: Jay Dyer
Since Jan Irvin and his website commenter buddies have decided to declare me a CIA shill, I am going to respond, which I normally do not do to this retardation. First, the reason for this is due to a certain nobody who demanded that I interrogate Richard Grove about something on someone’s blog, as if my show was dictated by the demands of some random person. After accusing me of doing all this for the cash green pesto (yeah, so much bling in personal blogs), this person erected a tirade on Jan’s site that I was CIA (and also a 3rd grader – 3rd grader CIA). My reading of Jan’s site led me to a new podcast with Joe Atwill (repackager of old higher critical inventions with his new spins) where Jan and Joe discuss a good bit of material that just happens to be my material from weeks prior. Atwill’s information is based on his September 22, 2015 article about Brave New World as related to Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
Perusing Atwill’s materials, I cannot find any previous connection along these lines and in his article he even implies it’s a new thesis for him, writing that for him it is a new connection he made: “Did Shakespeare have such an occulted meaning for the expression ‘Brave New World’, and how should we now understand the phrase?”
So, my contention here is not that Atwill never wrote on Shakespeare or talked about Huxley, but that his claim here to his new connection is something novel. Having myself written on Renaissance era hermeticism and alchemy and Elizabethan drama years back (linked below), none of these connections were new to me, but you’ll note that in my analyses I cite sources. Now my talk on Brave New World that discusses Ariel, its biblical meaning, Prospero, The Tempest, Bacon, the New Atlantis, and America as the magical Brave New World was posted September 7, weeks before Atwill’s September 22 posting, with the exact same analysis, but no citation or reference from Atwill. My talk was also posted on multiple platforms, garnering thousands of views across the alt media spectrum from Icke to Rense, so it was not some hidden talk. Furthermore, Atwill has emailed me in the past concerning an interview, so he is aware of my work. Particularly pay attention to 22:00 mins on.
Note that my talk was uploaded September 7, 2015, weeks before Atwill’s new discovery, and subsequently played for thousands here as well, still prior to Atwill’s post. As a side note, the Tempest link at Atwill’s page is now a dead link, in case he is editing it at this time to fill in blanks, so to speak.
If Atwill has written on these matters previously I’d be glad to know and will apologize and retract my error. Otherwise, the response from Irvin has been nothing but “CIA shill! CIA shill!” and that I have no basis for what I say because Atwill has talked Shakespeare for years. Of course, that is not my contention. My contention is specific and my response to Irvin calling me a CIA shill is simply to point out that Irvin is still butt hurt over losing the debate he had with me, leading to his subsequent meltdown emails cussing and ranting in a hissy fit over the fact that he didn’t understand meta-logic or why foundationalist epistemology plus materialism (which he adheres to) is nonsensical. Jan’s coopting of medieval pedagogy as if it were him freeing it up from Roman Catholicism is laughable to anyone educated in medieval philosophy. This is the real reason Irvin’s issues and why he will not publicy debate any of these matters again, due to not even knowing the subject matter in question (so much for “logic”) – because he was already refuted:
The irony is that for all of Atwill’s supposed critique of masonic mind control and Irvin’s anti-establishment bent, Atwill promotes the same masonic mythology one finds in writers like Kipling’s Man Who Would Be King, where naturalism and empiricism are ironically the foundations from which his flawed critiques of the biblical texts come, directly rehashed from German Higher Criticism of the 19th century in figures like Julius Wellhausen. Those of us who have done textual studies and canonics know this material is laughable, but it’s all the more ironic when Irvin’s penchant for empirically-based materialism is the most contradictory, fallacious and establishment-promoted worldview there is. So who is the “shill” here, given that I don’t promote the Atlanticist/UN-based worldview of higher critical Gnosticism and have written dozens of articles refuting the Royal Society-based empirical materialism Irvin loves? If Irvin is willing to have a public debate, he can come on my show and we’ll do it. I am always willing to respond to the anti-metaphysic, flawed methodology of Enlightenment rationalism and empiricism.
–The Olivet Discourse and Apocalypse as A.D. 70 Destruction (textual study through Josephus)