And welcome to Caribbean Rhythms. I am honored to have on episode today, a dear friend, a secret poster. And I like very much his articles. I've discussed them on this show before. He write on religion and on vitalism, this much overused word, but he understand through tradition and meaning of vitalism and on the problem of nature. I welcome to Caribbean Rhythms, my friend, Gildhelm. Gildhelm, welcome to the show. Yes, mr. Pervert. Thank you so much for having me on. Yes, it's very nice And I want to talk to you about you've written some excellent articles on this problem of religion in United States There are claims now that there is a religious revival, especially among zoomers for some reason by the way this whole

Generational talk has re-entered discourse every other 4chan thread is some kind of generation fight talk It's the Zoomers versus the Millennials versus the X and Boomers and so on. I think a very contrived dialogue. But that aside for now, the claim is that there is religious revival, that young people are returning en masse to the pews or praying all day or this, and I think factual basis is non-existent. That's basically what you are saying in these articles. These things that, by the way, for audience to understand, if you haven't, I've told this, some older people were amazed when I told them there are even these claims, Gildhelm, because everyone knows it's bullshit. And yet, Mr. Tucker, Tucker Carlson, and many others, talk about hopeful signs that young

people have become religious and were beaten over the head with this on all kinds of social media. You wrote about this extensively. Would you mind talking to audience some about this? What's going on with the claims of religiosity among zoomers? Yeah, you can call it the great revival, the silent revival that people just can't shut up about because it seems like every other week you get another article or another podcast, another news segment where they're essentially looking at either some anecdote or some study, some poll, and then they're taking that and they're saying that this is right now the inflection points where we're going to see the zoomers, the young men in particularly, are going to flock back to the churches and from that standpoint we

can have the grand cultural and religious revival that people have been looking for for the last 80 or so years in this very steep decline from really the peak of Christianity in America in the 1950s down to now where where, you know, if you look at the silent generation, people who were born right before World War II, it's something like 50% of them were Protestant, and you had about 20% of them were Catholic. So any form of what they call nuns or irreligiosity is very rare among older people, which seems obvious. But if you go down now with Generation Z, we're down to about 20% Protestant with about 15% or 16% Catholic. So you have a vast majority, maybe 50%, 60% or so, affirming some sort of irreligiosity or belief in what they call nuns, atheists, haggles.

Well, when you say nuns, I think of actual nuns, you know, habits, but that's not what it means. It means non-denominational or something like that. They struggle to encapsulate the vast ways of rejecting Christianity, essentially, the degrees of non-belief. So they just made up a whole new term for it, and they call it nuns now. Either way, this is where, according to essentially every single high-quality poll that we have, year after year, we can continue to see a decline, not just within each generation, but between them as well. So as you step down from silent to boomers to ex-millennials and so on, they get less and less religious. And in between the generations themselves, year after year, they continue

to get less religious as well. So, you know, there's plenty of people who are guilty of promoting this nonsense, really. I try not to be too cynical with explaining why they might be yes but in some instances it definitely they deserve to be criticized very harshly for it well we can be as cynical as you like i have my own theories but go ahead gildhelm what what do you think but and by the way what do they base this on there are some polls of their own they keep bringing up but in your articles you show why those polls are very misleading yes i i think the the strongest claim and where all of this started um well i mean if you go back in American history, every so often, there's something like this where actual or not,

people will promote some sort of a revival. But in this past few years, I think what started it is what they called the Asbury revival in Kentucky. The what? The what? The Asbury? Okay. Asbury. All right. A-S-B-U-R-Y. It is. It's a small community college, like a Christian private college in Kentucky, has about 2,000 students or so. In 2023, the students were having a worship service or this thing. They stayed late, and they continued to hold their service for several days. Of course, the local news and eventually Fox News and all the way up through the chain found out about this thing. Within the week, you had 60,000 people at this small little college, and they just completely swapped the town into an open air

sermon, essentially. The problem is, I read a couple of articles a few weeks ago where people decided to go back and ask the pastors and churches, how has this large revival impacted your services? Has it increased church attendance? Is the local students more enthused, more zealous now? And every single one of them report that it's changed absolutely nothing. Because once this event is over, you have to go back to class, go back to work. Most of these people came out of town, they got to go back to their families. But ever since then, it's just been an onslaught of this... I think that generated the interest in the idea of this happening. And ever since then, through 2024 and 2025, all the way up to now, there's just been an an incessant barrage with it.

I think 80% of this is actually the New York Post. There's a lot of people to blame, but in New York, I don't know if people remember, but it wasn't like 10 years ago, this magazine, the New York Post, was essentially a tablet, but now all of a sudden it's kind of quietly reshaped itself into the source for conservative pro-Trump information. I guess they figured out where the audience is, but I remember in 2024 or so, they had this one article, just to give you an example. The New York Post has just been lying to Christians and leading them along for three years now. They had one where they were talking about the Orthodox Diocese in New York, the same exact name. Young men are flocking to the pews for the Orthodox Church. You see, I mean, we do see a lot of Orthodox-

Wait a minute, the Orthodox American Church? Yes. All right. Go on. Yes. Go on. Yes. Yes. And this is specifically in New York City or the New York Diocese that they were talking about. So they just open it up and say young men are flocking back for the first time to the Orthodox Church. They hardly even go into the data. They just list interviews with priests and young men and all the different anecdotes. you go find the data for it, they're basing all of this on a yearly increase of in a diocese of about 100,000 people, 30 new people. Three-zero. And that is what they generated the entire interest for that order. They keep doing it over the years. They had one, this one was really egregious. They see, I think it was titled Catholicism Sees Major Resurgence Among Young

men. And they posted data from the Harvard CES, which is a good data source. And they were showing that Gen Z for the first time is equal or greater parts Catholic as it is opposed to Protestant. So all the other generations before were overwhelmingly Protestant and very little Catholic. But now they're showing from the 2023 data that for Gen Z it is 21 Protestant and 21 Catholics. Forget the rest of that set, which is now atheist or agnostic, besides the point. But for an article, this was published just a few months ago in 2025, you have to wonder why they're using 2023 data. Because the 2024 data is right there. And if you look at that, then the Gen Gen Z, it's only 16% now. So they had the new data available, but they went back to

2023 data just for the sake of the article itself. It's got like 10 paragraphs of interviewing young people saying about how this is it. The woke left is finally going to get what it's coming to it. Everybody's flocking to the cross. They're just lying to people. I think in the article you wrote also, you showed the same thing. They use misleading polls or misreported data from polls and also low quality. I think you contrasted, I forget which one was the good quality one and the bad one, but I think the Barna, is that what it's called? Yeah, so the Barna one was really egregious. So the two that you do want to look at, there's two of them, there's the Pew Religious Landscape Survey and the Harvard CES cooperative election

study or something like this. They spend money on these, they go out, they interview people in person, real good data. And they've been doing them since 2007, so you can compare them year over year. Barna, on the other hand, I don't really know how good they are as actual pollsters, but they're not sampling the general population. Barna is a Christian pollster. It's meant for churches. So when you had Billy Graham's son go on Fox News a few months ago, and he had this whole 10 minute segment saying that the Barnapole is showing that Gen Z men are the first generation to buck the trend that with each successive generation down, you see less and less church attendance. For the first time, according to the Barnapole, which it does show, Gen Z is attending

church more often than millennials. The problem is, again, it's not the general population. If you look at the Harvard and the Pew surveys, it's very clear that church attendance is continuing to decline among Gen Z. And so what's even funnier about it is if you look at the data, exactly what it says again, let's say this was a general population survey. It's showing that Gen Z is attending church two times more a year than their millennial counterparts. I haven't really been explained to what a revival looks like yet, but I assume it's more than Gen Z deciding that they're going to go on Easter and Christmas. Yes. Well, this is very funny, Gildhelm, because also when you or others point out the fakery of these polls, others respond with,

Well, that is true that the church attendance is declining, because many of the churches have become woke, but actually, that religious spirituality is rising. And yet, however, I think the polls that you rely on, which are the high quality ones, the Pew one and the Harvard one, they show not only church attendance declining, but also religion being used less than before in making life decisions, you know, more people saying that they want to rely on the reason and science, again, whatever that means in their minds, but they want to rely on these secular things for making decisions, actually less prayer than before and so on. Is that correct? Yes, essentially any type of metric of religiosity that you can get your hands on. I think in

sociology, they call it BA, VB, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, anything of that category, you put it to the pole and it's just declining sharply across the board. It doesn't matter. Yeah. Go on. Yeah. A good example, like you mentioned, was where people are gathering their ground or source for truth. If you ask someone in the 1950s where they get their source of truth from, it would be unequivocally the Bible. It would be Scripture. They wouldn't need anything else. But now if you go today, you look at polls, they're consistently—if you ask them, do you get your source of truth from science or rationality? Virtually nobody's going to say no to that. But if you ask them if you get that from the Bible, then you're going to get your

predictable 50-50 split on that issue, or atheists are just going to say no, flat out. Yes, and of course they want to claim all atheists are Sam Harris or ideological this new atheism, but many people just casually don't care about religion if I get it right. And Gildhelm, this whole thing is quite funny because, okay, you look at what you just said about the Orthodox Church in New York or that. Now that's very funny to me. I've been online, must be 20 years now or this, and I can tell you that on the hard right or the new right, call it whatever you want, I was on these forums long before they became popular and anyone who was there who isn't a liar will tell you the most consistent predictor of mental illness, of, you know, the worst kind of schizo posters, not funny

interesting schizo, just reliably hysterical, is conversion to Orthodox Christianity. Now let me take a step back for a moment. I grew up in that religion myself somewhat, and there are people in the United States in England, in the Anglo world, who convert to Orthodox Christianity for legitimate reasons. They're usually older married men, past their 40s, who go to their Anglicans or something like Episcopalians. They are tired of going to lesbian hour at their church. They want to convert to something for their children to go to a normal Christian church. And because of traditional hostility to Catholicism and other such things, they don't want to do that. And there are certain theological similarities between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Anglicanism actually.

So some very smart posters, I hope I'm not being indiscreet, there is one named Macrobius who is my friend for many years, and a genuine believing man in this, and he's an eccentric, you know, they all tend to be kind of quirky and eccentric. Those are very few, I can count on one hand this. But beyond that, let's say a single man who becomes, let's say, online right wing and decides that he will convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. That is usually one of a sequence of things that such people do. For example, if some remember the name Matt Heimbach or whatever, that's a good example of this. One year he pretends to be a National Socialist. The next year, he pretends to be Hezbollah, then he becomes maybe a pagan, and then he becomes Eastern Orthodox or this.

And to me, the idea is that there's an Orthodox revival in the United States. After having seen this thing online for 20 years, it's so insane. And I think I know exactly what's going on that... Do you know who runs the New York Post? I don't remember. Is it Sohrab Amari and these people? Because what's going on there is one of them had some friend convert to this because they became internet brainfucked. And then they published this article based on what you just said, you know, 30 new conversions in some years, you know? Right. Yeah. They don't tell you that in the article at all, but it's the whole point. No, I don't know who runs the New York Post. I just I know that I think they've they've latched on to the right consumer market

Yes, yeah, because I guess I don't know when they decided to change over from the tablets with the conservative publication But it was definitely within the last decade probably within the last few years And you know based off the type of engagement that they get from these types of articles I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves. Yes Well, what you said before about this lack of religiosity among the young, I think that's just, Roman, really anyone that's just casually observed by any objective, you know, I've mentioned this to a number of people who don't go online, don't read the New York Post, and they found the idea preposterous, and some of them are religious men themselves. But okay, let's not argue from anecdote.

I want to ask you, I want to ask you what you think is behind, why are they saying this? Is it just wish fulfillment and part of the thing of, oh, Trump came into office and now things are changing and they're changing, there's a right wing revival and religion coming back any day now and we are, you know, the handmade stale but good and traditional marriage returning and everything, is it just wish fulfillment or is there something worse going on behind this, you think? Yeah. I mean, aside from people like the New York Post, I think doing this for very cynical reasons. They're doing it for clickbait reasons, yeah. Yeah. It's for their bottom line. I think that's what it is for those cases. for the true believers, if you will, I think there's two things going on. One, like you said,

I think it is wish casting. They want to promote the idea that this association with conservatism and Christianity is something that the youth can look forward to as something that's hip and cool. All their friends are doing it. It's a new drug that can go on. But yeah, so they're trying to sort of will it into an existence by demonstrating that it's something that is unlike previous times completely acceptable to do. The other thing is a little bit trickier to deal with. There's definitely an implicit association, I think an incorrect one ultimately, between Christianity and the belief in Christianity and just the right wing as it exists flatly. You can see this a lot with the Turning Point USA crowd and so on. They do not see a meaningful divide or even possibility

of a type of right wing that is not explicitly centered on the religious cause and its many others. And so now you do see sort of a fracturing that's been inevitable through that issue among the right wing. We've been dealing with it incessantly for the last, really since right before the Trump election. You go all the way back to the whole project 2025 thing, which is good or bad as that is, the left immediately latched onto that as as the proof of what's, you know, that was the entirety of their campaign, was saying that Project 2025 is gonna destroy the country. Really, I don't even know why that document existed and was put out, but if you read it, and you read the impetus, the founding mission of people like Heritage, that is one of their primary goals,

is to reorient the Conservative Party back onto the Christian cause, which I don't even really know what that means because was it not before? Yes. Yes, exactly. In fact, I want to talk to you maybe in the next segment of this episode about the failures of the conservative and religious movement for the last few decades in the United States. But you mentioned Turning Point USA, and you know, after Charlie Kirk murder, they had this whole funeral and so on with his wife and this and I didn't really watch I saw just some clips and it's kind of like this thing where we thought these people the evangelical let's say right-wing had disappeared in 2016 with the coming of Trump people forget that it was what determined the GOP before for Trump.

It was the heart of the Karl Rove strategy for the GOP and so on. And it's the source, in my opinion, of a lot of nonsense platitudes that had basically wrecked the right in the United States. Trump came in as a response to that and actually they had never gone away. They just were not posting online really, but they were always there. And now, you know, here they are again, and it's in some way very dispiriting because I have very low expectation, Gildhelm, for what will happen in the long run to the right after Trump is gone. I don't want to name names and make more enemies and so on, but whoever you think will come after Trump, and it's not even really about them, the particular candidates on the right, Because none are billionaires, and therefore none are their own men.

And it's not just that they have to rely on donors and this, it's that they do not, because they're not billionaires and do not have a public, I would say, audience base of their own like Trump certainly did before he ran, they don't have self-confidence to strike their own path. And so they can only go through channels that have been laid out from, I think, before. I'm trying to say that basically after Trump, the GOP will probably revert to the same religiosity and really it's Pharisaism that it had before, but now just, you know, louder. I mean, they took all the wrong lessons from the Trump moment. The lesson they took is the lesson that little Marco Rubio took in the 2016 primaries. If anybody remembers, he started to talk about how Trump has a small dick and this and to

In other words, to be exceedingly vulgar and loud, thinking that Trump was popular because of his style, because of his grandstanding and so on. So they try to ape that aggression and grandstanding and boastfulness. And just, I guess, it's Karl Rove or Mike Pence 2.0, they just scream louder, you know, and they want to make themselves sound like they're something new or different. But I don't see what's changed, Gildhelm. I think in some way this is also what you're saying. And to me, the constant beating over the head with the Zoomers are truly becoming religious. It's part genuine wishfulness that the right will win. But I think this cynically interpreted, it's more wishfulness that their right will win and really that with this, they can finally bury Trump once and for all.

Of course, they will never put it that way. But that's what it is. Trump was the singular break in how the GOP operated for decades. He got rid of the religious humbug and the Pharisaism, tried to focus it back on three or such important issues and policy matters that were not even especially GOP policy matters before, namely trade, immigration, and stopping stupid foreign wars. And the GOP has always used religion to mask their failures and betrayals on precisely those three matters. So I'm sorry to go on this monologue, I don't know if you have thoughts on this, but to me this is a way that they want to politely bury the Trump moment and bring back essentially the Karl Rove thing, you know? Yeah, I think there's a handful of people that have never forgotten the 2015-2016 primaries.

They were absolutely humiliated by this playboy billionaire guy who comes along and he's got his hot supermodel wife behind him from a foreign country and he's slashing a katana. And now he's in the Oval Office telling Hexeth to blow up Mexicans and everything's going great. But I don't think they ever forgot just the sheer humiliation that they suffered in 2015 and 2016. as much as they've been integrated into this new kind of Trump right that exists now I think you know much like any other political faction they're going to seek to go back to the the status quo in whatever case they can because Trump in his in his new coalition you see this a lot with the pro-life people very recently he forces them to compromise in ways that they do not enjoy at all you

You had a lot of people in the pro-life crowd very stupidly, right at the peak of the 2024 election, saying that they were going to abstain from their vote because Trump would not commit to banning abortion at the federal level, which would have lost some of the election probably. But they're not really... That's so typical of the old conservative wing, the John McCain's of the world. not worried about winning and ruling the country, they're more worried about projecting some sort of image. But I hope the future leaders of the Conservative Party in the right wing, whatever comes next, they understand that going back to the Karl Rove type politicking is not an option anymore. Because whenever you had in the early 90s, or really through

Reagan all the way through Bush, again, we had a country that was very happily and very overwhelmingly Christian. So you could generate a very sizable voter block just by generating votes from the evangelical churches. Even with the successes that they had from the religious block, they didn't even have the Catholic vote at all for those reasons. But now, what does even the of the electoral strategy look like if you're going to emphasize your policy as being the one true extension of the Christian religion when Gen Z and future generations are going to be somewhere 50 to 60 percent non-believable? Yeah. Well, Gilhelm, we go to break soon, but I wanted to – well, let's hold off break for a second because I want to comment on what you just said.

I don't think people realize that running a political party or political movement in the United States is not necessarily, and many other countries I don't want to, is not necessarily about winning elections or changing the course of a country. It's about jobs and getting jobs for your nephew and being relevant and so forth. And so I don't think they stopped for a moment to consider that why did people vote for Trump A lot of people in upper Midwest, Nevada and so on, voted for Trump in 2016 and the other times I think he won because they held their nose. They said, I will vote for this guy GOP has his name next to GOP. I never vote GOP, but I'll vote for him because he's different. And he does not. I think it's specifically Trump's secularism, why he did win new states that that he did.

He also signaled and promised very strongly to religious people that as part of the deal he will give them what they want and that locally they could have what they want, which I think the rank and file religious men and women are very happy with, but the religious political activists not so much, right? I think actually Trump took away a lot of people's livelihoods when he got Roe versus Wade, you know, repealed and so on. So they don't really care, in my opinion, about who actually will – what part of electoral coalition will a religious signaler win. I don't think they will be able to carry the same states Trump did. So yeah, they go in the opposite direction, but not to beat a dead horse – I've said this before.

Conversely, you have a number of influencers now on, let's say you had them already by 2018, 1920 on Instagram is called the religious right-wing sewer of Instagram. And it's spread from there to other social media, including on X and other places now. And it has to be a very strong, let's say, Hillel community center slash after school church special atmosphere guild home. These new influencers that come out of nowhere on shows like Jubilee and various astro-turfed outfits like Riff TV. If listener, I have many listeners around the world who are not on Twitter and not on social media so I apologize to you but basically what I'm describing are they come up for example with ex rappers so there's this character sneaker you don't

need or want to know who that is but he's a failed SoundCloud rapper or other ex they love rappers for some reason you know it's the typical Spike TV kind of TV Jewish consultant type that the GOP has always tried to use and And they're like, oh, the kids love the hip-hops, and we're going to get these guys who do the hip-hops, and they will do the streaming, and then they will tell people to go to church and to embrace religion. And there's many varieties of this, to the point where any new shyster who come get national attention for supposedly being anti-woke can then think they will get an audience and money and attention by surely, very safely embracing religion. And it's just nonstop beating over the head with this for the past two years.

And I believe that what we've been talking about on this segment, the fake, literally fake polls and fake reports of a religious revival are meant to provide the factual basis, you know, for the excuse, you know, for this. So here it is, kiddies, here is a hip-hop artist, you like the hip-hop, right? Now remember to, you know, as I said, it's like the Hillel and after school church special thing. What do you think this, Gildhelm? Yeah, I try to remind people as often as I can that the online sphere, maybe not before, in 2024, I think, certainly had a very tangible impact on the outcome of that election. It generated a ton of interest for Trump. A lot of the groundwork was done through the online spheres.

But in previous times, there was an assumed bubble for our spheres, where what we said didn't really escape and it didn't really impact the outside world. But now everybody is sort of consciously aware that what we're saying and what we're attempting to influence is going to make it out to people who are now attentively aware of what's going on at the surface. So with that added factor now, people when they're getting involved, even just to have fun online, the people that are being shown to them, they may not be entirely organic. People understand now what kind of power can come through the influence of putting the right people and the right cameras at the right time. And they're going to do that as often as they can, however noble the intentions

are or not. There's a lot of money flowing into a lot of these characters. Riff TV was probably entirely. I mean, I can't even remember the statistics for how many subscribers versus their daily views and things like this. But for a lot of these people, it just looks totally inorganic and there's a lot of money. Ah, yes. 1 million followers on Twitter and I think they would get something like 500 views on their YouTube video. I cannot imagine this. But listen, Gildhelm, let's go for a quick smoke break, and we come back to discuss. I think you have some knowledge, facts, opinions about history of the conservative movement in the United States, their failures, the failures of the religious institutions in the United States, and especially their complicity

in promoting mass migration. What do you think this? Should we take break and come back, talk to this? Yes, break sounds good. Yes, we go for smoke break and we will be right back. And I'm back with Guildhelm. We are talking about the religion fag problem and I'm going to go in I'm going to go in dry on the religion fags in the years ahead Guildhelm and I want audience to understand that if you are a religious man or such that doesn't mean you necessarily. I'm not talking about the average religious believer or even intelligent religious commentator or writer. By that, I mean something very particular, I mean especially the GOP activist wing that opposed Trump, the Ted Cruz and such people in 2016, those types, the Karl Rove types in the years and decades from before.

And also the associated, let's say, professional commentariat, professional conservative industry. It's an industry and a closed shop where religion is used as a litmus test of entry. And it is these people who I'm talking about. Now, when Trump came in, they were all viciously opposed to him. They still are, but they pretend not to be. They've adopted many of his words and postures because they know it's a loser to do otherwise. But they're the same people that they were before. And I don't claim to be speaker for Trump movement or any such things. But let's say secular right people or pagan right people of whom there are very few admittedly, but we had all the, let's say, ideas in the 2010s and so forth, and we've been viciously banned in the years since 2016-17.

I believe with the collusion of these so-called religious conservatives and I say so-called because to them really religion is at most a matter of social and political utility and really of career utility to themselves. And my point is that many of us have tried on let's say broadly, many of us on broadly the Trump or the new right side have tried to be friends with them and to say we have a common enemy in the left. Let's focus on that. There is no reason for infighting. And instead, all we get is complete hostility. And the primary focus of these people, I won't say is just on me in particular, but it's on me and people like me. We are their mortal and primal enemies because they see us as a threat to their careers. They are not primarily

directed against the left giltham that this is become so clear after so many years they will never change they will never change and it's we will talk about this on this segment the failures of the conservative movement for decades the fact that you know jewish and christian intellectual so-called are complete uh yes collusion allies on it's a closed shop on the GOP side and after Trump I think the logic of this will re-establish himself because Trump for all of his good is just one man, it's not his talent, his thing to change, I don't even see a path by which he could have changed the conservative, the character of the conservative movement, he would have had to build his own parallel thing and he

never did that and after he's gone it's going to be the same thing from before but different and I'm tired of the religion fags as defined as they did just now and Gildhelm in the year ahead or two, I'm planning to go and try against them because they are going to be, I think, as an obnoxious element in American and world society as the left has been. I don't know how you agree with that or not, but listen, you don't have to address my monologue just now. I know you have articles yourself and opinions about the collusion of these religious conservative bastards with the mass migration phenomenon. Would you mind talking some about that? Yeah, of course. You have every right to be skeptical of this crowd. Kamal Ataturk, peace

be upon him, has a good quote about—some addressed the National Assembly of Turkey where he was recollecting, I think the phrase that he used was a thousand and one disasters and sufferings that the Turkish people had suffered because of the insistence of the ruling hyper-religious class from the last days of the Ottoman Empire that had pushed it into stagnation and inability to respond to the changing modern world. But I mean, For the conservative end of it, especially in America, yes, I don't know any other way to put it. Any time that they have been given unbridled power, we have not seen anything like what the proponents of it now are looking for. In many cases, it's been the precise opposite. You can look all the way back to the 1920s, with the Catholic Church first establishing

its first humanitarian and immigration networks. This is when Catholic Charities was founded, it was at the National Council of Immigration Charities or something like this, I can't remember the name. But it is essentially... That's from 1920s? Yes, yes. It's a very old Catholic Charities. Calvin Coolidge was trying to stop mass migration from non-WASP regions, is this what you're saying? Yes. Yeah, and he lost, as evident by the contemporary demographics, and even going further. But people a lot of times will respond to all these different NGO networks, such as Catholic Charities and whatnot, and saying, oh, well, let me stop you. I'm sorry, I want to talk about this, but I get angry because I slight drink and I want

to get into quite some detail about the history, because I know you know a lot about the history of these movements, not just from the 1920s, but having to do also with the Kennedy Hart Siller Immigration Act, and so forth, and who the organizations behind that, and really Basically the whole NGO immigration complex for the last few decades and the involvement of religious NGOs, religious people involved in that. I want to talk about that in some detail, but let me go off for just a moment because you mentioned Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 on the previous segment and now I remember it as you're talking this. Eventually they attached themselves to Trump and tried in the run up to the 2024 election to hijack Trump agenda by pretending that it's really about their own things having

to do with the banning of pornography or whatever other many things they listed there, which was very easy for then the left to pick on an attack. And you say, well, it doesn't matter because Trump won. Trump won, he could have won much bigger, I think Trump won despite that, not because of that. And this year in particular, we'll come back to this later in this segment, but there is some contrived fight supposedly between, on one hand, the so-called Ben Shapiro people, and on the other hand, the leadership of Heritage Foundation. And to me it is two retards fighting, they are the same thing really, and the Heritage Foundation people are some of the biggest bastards. I'm sorry, I have to say this, Gildhjem, because people should know the Heritage Foundation

so-called had, okay, I'm sorry to make this personal, I invite you Gildhjem to talk more interesting things. But maybe my audience should know, as two years ago or three years ago, something like that 2022, I think the head of operations of Heritage Foundation at that time, and I have screenshots, I can show people, was running spaces on Twitter, massive spaces with Mr. Fuentes of whatever his account was at the time, to field quote quote unquote, BAP experts, okay, that was the primary concern of the head of operations of Heritage Foundation at the time, to dox me in mass spaces, do you understand these people were absolute and still are obsessed with me, obsessed with people like me. They see people on the right who do not buy into the whole religious discourse thing as

Their mortal enemy far more than the left by the way, and I see this So-called fight with with Ben Shapiro over whatever nonsense. They had as a complete contrived. It's not even kayfabe I'm sure that they believe they're fighting over something vital But it's really two retards fighting over who will take the mantle of let's say the the neo Karl Rove GOP after Trump is gone, you know know, is a really awful situation. I don't think people who are outside, I'm sorry to get somewhat personal and into the details of social media and my own things and so on, I don't think people realize just how bad and awful it is going to be after Trump is gone. I see a wasteland up ahead and the GOP may win well in 2028, may win even by a large

margin because the left is so hollowed out and I don't know who they have right now that they could run. But in the long run, Gilhelm, it looked very bad and I want to just get ahead of this because the whole ecosystem of the online has been complete wiped out. MAGA does not exist, for example, on Twitter anymore. People forget they were all banned during what followed 2017 and then 2021, the so-called Q posters and so on, and a lot of the MAGA posters were completely wiped out, tens of thousands of accounts. The people you see now who are impersonating that are not that, and so a certain loop of information that was happening between, let's say, the MAGA base and Trump or his people who could look online and see what was being messaged, that's all gone.

The people who are impersonating that now are the people from Gab and from forums like Iron March and from I would say actually a lot of maybe Bangladeshi bots or something impersonating MAGA if you look at their metrics. So listen Gildhelm, I'm sorry, I apologize, I know maybe you don't want to talk this and You shouldn't. But I wanted to let people know what Heritage Foundation and these kinds of things are. You had recently this after school church special out of nowhere influencer Sarah Stock posting the most ridiculous things on Twitter coming and then getting caught up in some kind of sex scandal. And the point isn't the sex scandal to me or even the hypocrisy. The very ideas that were being presented were idiotic parodies of what the new right is.

And it's basically, as I keep repeating, repetition of the Pastor Hagee phenomenon, where you have people instrumentally using religiosity to promote their own careers and then getting caught up in inevitable hypocrisy and so forth. But the whole thing is hopeless from my point of view, Gilderim, that the posters that you mentioned who had helped Trump in 2016 and who very briefly broke the hold of this deleterious discourse between the left and the right that was present in 2007, those posters are mostly all gone. There are some who remain. I'm shocked people still look around because the signal has been drowned out by countless retards that Elon let me not blame Elon I think maybe he delegated to whoever at X but whoever is putting this stuff on hmm is not doing anyone you understand

what I'm saying the old posters that you mentioned are no longer there Guildhelm what you see now is complete a complete fake copy and I am afraid that it in many ways already too too late there is nothing anyone can do at this point for what is coming after Trump. I will only promise you and my audience that I will fight humbug and Tartuffery and lies and phariseism wherever I see it and normally that's been on the left but what the right is largely becoming now is something just as bad I'm afraid. Anyway, I hope you don't mind in this long interlude, Guildhelm. I- Well, no, maybe Heritage was right to attack you because you told all these innocent tradwives to start doing porn and then, and now they are. So maybe this is all your fault, but no, they- It's really shocking.

The people at Heritage are, I'm sorry, you keep me going. So they have this person, Sarah Stock, who's doing the Karl Rove GOP thing. I'm a religious person, you need to submit to me and such. Meanwhile, she's attending parties, I'm sorry if I'm being indiscreet, but she's attending parties in Orange County, GOP parties, while at the same time naming the Jew so-called on Twitter. Now, you tell me how sincere that is and who these people really are. You have James Fishback, so-called candidate for governor in Florida, who's pretending to be anti-Semite on Twitter to massive acclaim, and last year he was Barry Weiss's close adulator, you know, and worked with Barry Weiss, you see what I mean? And the cynicism of all this is staggering, and it's all, as far as I can see, so it's

It's a way to sabotage whatever is left of Trump moment and replace it with what existed of Karl Rove from before. And it's the same, it's the exact same people from before, Gildhelm, you know. I'm sorry, I don't, now you'll say I'm getting conspiratorial. Maybe it's the drunkenness speaking, but listen, I want to, yeah, I was telling these girls to do porn, Heritage Foundation was protecting them, I was trying to corrupt their womanhood, I understand what you're saying, Gildhelm, but let's go back and talk about this thing you started. I'm very curious about your opinions and research about religious involvement in the mass migration phenomenon in the 20th century and now. Yes, so I'll go with two points.

First off is that as far as the NGO networks and so forth, all of the advocacy, the boots on the ground, the tent camps, all these things, is overwhelmingly a product of Christian institutions, most of whom are associated directly with the primary church institutions inside of America. Just look at the Catholic Church, for example. The United States Conference of Catholic bishops has a whole subgroup as part of their institutional structure called the Migrant Relief Services or something to this effect. And if you go on their webpage, it proudly claims right on the front page that the Catholic Church is the largest refugee resettlement group in the world, personally responsible for up to 30% inside of the United States. And that's just the

Catholic Church. You also have the Lutherans who have been involved for ever since before Hart's cellar. They were a huge influence in that regard. You also have the Southern Baptist Church. I'll come back to them in a moment. But the other part of it is not only are they using the laws on the books to filter in as many people as they possibly can into the country, understanding this as part of a, there are true believers in the scriptural command to assist the sojourner. Abraham with the four gates of his tent open, you know, anyway, go on. Yes, yes, and you have to leave the edge of your cornfields for the poor Mexicans going, driving down the highway with four cars piled up behind them with the big in tow. Are you aware

Where this, in America, if you drive on a highway, especially in the south of the Midwest, you'll see these fucking shitbox Honda Civics towing like 10 trucks at a time, and they're all hitched up with zip ties, and they're all heading back down to the southern border where these fucking Guatemalan junkie shops are going to strip the catalytic converters and off. There's no telling how many people they've killed with this, but now you can't buy a car here anymore. But anyways, go back later. Yeah, whatever. The other part of it is all of these Christian institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist, and the mainline, such as the Lutherans, were completely instrumental in shaping how our laws,

as we have them now, and how it's changed from the 1950s on to what they are now. So not only they're using the laws that we have to bring in immigrants, but they are actively lobbying to change them to be more favorable in open borders. Well, I guess I'll go chronologically. Most of our contemporary legal framework as regards to immigration, such as the visa programs, programs, green cards, refugee allotments, and things of this nature. Most of it comes from first off with Reagan amnesty, and then the 1990 and 1991 immigration bills. Those were lobbied extensively by the Catholic Church and by the Southern Baptist Conference. The that preceded the Reagan amnesty bill was something called the Hesburgh Commission.

This was hosted by Theodore Hesburgh, the president of Notre Dame, and he basically hosted this big congressional hearing, and all of the different bishops and church representatives and so on and so forth basically came together to advise Congress on how to best humanely go forward with structuring the new immigration system of the United States. Because at the time with the Reagan GOP was actively seeking to strictly control immigration. The thing that they were really wanting to go after was to penalize employers for hiring illegals. They wanted very strict penalties so that you could essentially cut off this big pipeline of illegal employment. But the Catholic Church particularly responded very forcefully saying that if we're going to agree to legislation of that kind

in any extent, we need to keep it in line with our mission as the Catholic Church. And this is from bishops, by the way, very high ranking, saying that if we're gonna agree to this, then you need to make sure that the central impetus this bill is amnesty for legals and their families. And this is exactly what happened. So you get the bill passed and there's this huge effort to drive out the number of asylee and legal immigrant applicants. And where the Southern Baptist churches come in is that they personally, they would essentially organize big drives. They would have vans that would drive people to the churches and they'd have all of their paperwork lined out in a big table. and you just run through the church and you sign out your forms and you turn it in and then

eventually you're a citizen. The Southern Baptist churches alone were responsible for giving several hundred thousand people citizenship that were previously legal and bound to be deported under this bill. But they understood it as a personal mission to drive up as many people as possible because they're all going to be in their pews. I guess. Most of these were Indonesians, bizarrely. They have statements. They have a big conference every year and they put out their yearly statements or whatever. If you look in the 1986 one, I believe, or something around here, it's them proudly boasting about how many Indonesians that they've just slammed into the country, for the glory of God, of course. Indonesians run under the radar, Gildern, but I have to say, I do like their food.

I think Indonesian restaurants in that country are consistently good, both in Java and Bali. Anyway, this tangent… You're like, you're like, mad Iglesias. They can come as long as they have good Indonesian taco trucks. But they don't. I have not seen, in the United States, very hard to find Indonesian restaurant that very good. But anyway, please go on. This is very interesting. I know that you have some knowledge regarding Southern Baptists and others in lobbying for the Kennedy immigration, the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, and so forth. Yes, Hart-Celler is actually—it's a little bit of the other way around. Hart-Celler was mainly, first off, through the Catholics. – there was some Jewish involvement, of course, but the main – Well, we'll come back to this, I'm drunk, I will cut in.

Everyone knows the involvement of the – I will not say that word because it's a polite show, I do not want to embarrass you – everyone knows about the involvement of Jewish organizations in mass migration. We've talked about this many times, he-us and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and many other such. That's not the thing. But to me, a lot of discourse lately is about trying to cover for these others, these others who are their brothers in the faith, Gildhelm. The peoples of the book and these others in the faith are doing just as much. Anyway, please go on. We'll come back to that. Yeah. Just to give you a quick example of that, HIAS, frequently blamed for the Biden wave and so forth. If you look at the federal funding that the Biden admin gave out to the

Catholic Church and to HIAS, the Catholic Church got something like $3 billion over the last few years, while HIAS got, I think, I want to say $300,000, maybe $3 million. So it's by like a factor of 10, maybe more, the difference in this, because if you think about it, the Jewish caucus, however overrepresented they are in their efforts and however zealous they are in it, they're never going to match up to the money and the manpower that something like the Catholic church has. So you can talk about over-representation as much as you want, but when you're talking about like just the raw cultural and political force behind these things, you're going to have to look at what is actually dominant in the country. And so when you go back to Hart-Celler,

there were only two. It was the Catholic Church and it was the mainline Protestants, such as the Lutherans. And so Robert Kennedy actually sent a letter of thank you to something they had in 1961. Like I was saying with the Hesburgh Commission, Hart-Celler had something very similar before. In 1961, I believe, they had this big, sudden coalition, a big meeting of all the different churches. Essentially every Southern, every mainline, every Catholic, even the Eastern Orthodox churches were here in droves. No denomination despaired from this. It was the National Council of Churches, and they all sat down and they all agreed the current immigration, the quota system, it's more racist. We can't have that anymore. We're

children of God. These Kenyans are our brothers. We can't abandon them like this. You have to remember, this isn't the backdrop of the Cold War. So this is reaching peak insanity of being the chaperone of the world. But yes, they basically, almost word for word at this National Council of Churches decided that this new way of going about immigration where we repeal the national quota system is going to be the way forward. And this is good for the Catholics and the main lines because it strikes a sort of pluralistic bargain where all of these new entrants into American society, as different as they may be, when they come down and sit into the pews, they'll be real Americans because they're believers in God. This is the only

thing that they determined that was an American inside of these churches was just your belief in God. They implicitly associated citizenship and Americanness with Christianity, much like some people still do today. And so once this church council was done, Kennedy sent them a personal—people talk all the time about how the Jews made him write a book by the nation of immigrants or whatever. But he sent a letter of thank you to the council of churches saying, what you're doing is excellent. We're going to use every word of this." And actually they did. Basically, word for word, what this council had requested was passed as a heart cellar, as we know it today. The national quota system was completely destroyed, and the rest is history,

and we're dealing with the consequences still today, because they thought that they could strike a pluralistic bargain where the Kenyans would come in and they would be wholesome, tried Americans and that was that yes I see well this this very strange killed him but tell our tell audience I think I mean I don't understand this idea of religious nationalism if I may interject with slight you know because nationalism may have a religious component but when you say something like Christian nationalism, Jewish nationalism. Well, let's look away from that for a moment. What is Muslim nationalism? Muslim nationalism is not readily recognizable as nationalism at all. In other words, it's very multiracial and multinational. The whole idea is that

the Ummah, the Association of Believers, that determines everything. So when you look at something like ISIS, the leadership was Chechen, they had fighters from everywhere, the Tunisians were very strong in that and so forth. And so it was a multinational coalition under a religious heading. When you look at Israel, people call it ethno-nationalist. It may be true in the sense that for the Jewish religion at the moment, religion and ethno know, whatever, is very closely related. But that's only by the deed of the rabbis that it is so. In other words, they say that the Yemenis who follow the rabbis, the rabbinic system, are just as Jewish as, let's say, a Polish man like Netanyahu, you know. And so Israel actually is quite multiracial in the original Ashkenazi population that

founded that country, which was originally essentially a Yiddish country, but now it becomes where they are 35 percent of the, I think at most, 35 percent of the population of Israel, and most of them are Arab of some kind. yes they follow the rabbis so therefore the rabbis say they are jewish and yet what i'm trying to say that even in the case of something like israel religious nationalism has led to a mixing of nationalities and so i don't understand what people mean by christian nationalism in the united states because on one hand they could mean that christianity is a very strong component of American national identity, which is certainly true. But I'm afraid, Gildhelm, that what it really ends up meaning in practice is that the Mexican

brothers in the faith, see if that's the most important part, why isn't the Mexican campesinos from Chiapas? Why isn't a four foot seven with scarification from Panama and Chiapas? Why isn't he your brother in the faith? Because after all, it's called Christian nationalism. So they come to the United States and they have to be accepted. And in much of what we've talked about, when I attacked, let's say, Charlie Kirk's wife and so forth, I don't like that whole evangelical style. But the reason I don't like it is because I know that so-called American conservative society, which you do as a real patriarchal, right? You go to one of these evangelical communities in Texas or Arizona, they're completely run by women. Like, I guess that's because

her name is Erica, right? So I called him Eric. So I'm sorry, but Erica and Eric Kirk, they're the Erica Kirk runs the United States conservative movement. Do you understand? You go to Arizona community with Evangelical, it's run by people like Erika Kirk, and they will absolutely oppress the men that I know, men whose lives were destroyed, not by feminist leftards, but by people like Erika Kirk. Numerous times they use feminist law, feminist attitudes, and so forth, and you go to any church in that place and they're all about maximizing Bantu, let's drive food drive for Africa. we adopt more African children for Malawi, please. It's all like that. And I found outrageous the pretense on social media as we say that, oh, these people are exceedingly conservatives

and traditionalists. And in practice, we both know what they are, Gildan, and this part of what you're saying, excuse the long tirade, you know? No, I remember going to vacation Bible school as a kid, and we had this big contest we had between the boys and girls to see who could bring in the most spare change. And we would bring in these big rolls of coins and whatnot, they'd be on two different scales. And we would basically see who could bring in the most money because every single one of these coins was going to go buy Bibles for poor Haitian kids. And I don't know if they would be reading those, but yeah, to your points, but very Pretty much every single church, evangelical church, they're some of the most generous

people in the world. Probably the most. They're frequent to remind people of that. The problem is not a single penny is staying inside of the country to people, whites basically. They're people here. Every single cent is going to some Guatemalan community outside of Dallas got hit by a hurricane, so they want to build some houses there. They'll grab up all their kids, load them into a church bus, and they'll just go hammer nails inside boards for six or seven weeks, buying truckloads of Bibles that no one knows where they go. But this is exactly what they're doing. The point is they're very true believers in this kind of It's not just an affliction of the boomers, of the liberal class, you know, it is utterly pervasive throughout churches, with every single one I've been to has had this.

Yeah, displaying their superior virtue, I think they are true believers in that. But Gilderl, now that toward the end of the second segment, I want to bring up the so-called Judeo-Christian matter and this complicated matter because let's start just by talking about the Kennedy Immigration Act, the Hart-Celler Immigration Act. It used to be called the Kennedy Immigration Act because Mr. Kennedy was its face and then it started to be called the Hart-Celler Immigration Act, which I guess is what it really was because people wanted to emphasize that it was really orchestrated by Jewish organizations who hated the homogenous ethnic identity of the United States and wanted to replace this with third world whatever.

And I think that's true, by the way, but at the same time, by emphasizing that, again, they're trying to cover for the fact that it wasn't just Kennedy, some loose guy who who was senile and he was used by evil Jewish interests, he was representing a large portion of factions, as you are describing himself. In his case, I think he did not like the fact that after 1923, is that it, when the Coolidge Immigration Acts were passed, the United States privileged Northwest Europe, privileged WASP, Anglo-Saxon Protestants or white Protestants in general from Europe as immigrants to the United States. He wanted to replace this. He acted very much as an ethnic boss. He wanted Irish coming from Ireland to support his own ethnic group and so on. But it wasn't just him, there were many

others like that. Do you want to comment on this? I have many thoughts on this. Well, let me just ask you first, what do you think about that? Uh, pertaining to the Jewish involvement, particularly, or? Well, pertaining to the so-called Jewish versus the Christian involvement in the Hartzler slash Kennedy Immigration Act, my opinion is they were equally involved and the whole pretense of an opposition between Christianity and Judaism in the United States is a fiction promoted on social media in the last couple of years in practice, they are in lockstep and they are, you know, brothers in the faith. Yeah, and that example particularly, and many others as well, there was virtually no disagreement to be found because both sides thought they had a

lot to gain from this. This was not like a painful negotiation or a compromise or anything like that where the both of those two sides just agreed to get along for just a moment to reshape the country or one was taking advantage of the other. They both believed, although incorrectly, that they had much to gain from this. So, you know, what's funny about all of these, when the Christian institutions in various churches decide that they have so much to gain out of opening up the country to the foreign mass that come in to be fellow Christians with them. Those denominations are invariably destroyed within immediate generations. Like, what happened to the white Catholic in the Northeast, especially in the cities,

like in Chicago or New York? They don't exist anymore. They're not there. The Catholic Church itself has completely changed inside of America. As far as the main lines who were above everyone else asking for this, they were the primary drivers of Hart's cellar, not the Jews, not even the Catholics. Can you explain that a bit more? I didn't even know that, but you wrote on this? Yes. There's a good book called Open Hearts, Closed Doors, Immigration Reform and the waning of mainline Protestantism by Nicholas Pruitt. And it basically just goes through all of the different characters and involvements of particularly the mainline churches involving themselves in establishing the Council of Churches and basically lobbying with complete sincerity

for this to be the new policy of America. As unbelievable as it sounds, they completely overhauled the nation's immigration law because they thought it was too racist. I remember this was in the 1960s, civil rights movement and all of this. All of this is all part of the same understanding. But they also wanted to distance themselves a little bit from the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union had this very funny image of a totalitarian racial empire of sorts. an atheist one on top of that. So they wanted to distance themselves as utterly from that as possible. But in the end, what happened to the main lines was first and foremost, this is actually probably the start of the Billy Graham types, the evangelical movement, as we know it today,

comes completely naturally outside of this complete rejection of the continued liberal type of politicking from the main lines. But yeah, so the main lines were completely crushed by this. The new foreign masses, the Kenyans were not, turns out, very understanding of Lutheranism. They didn't get it, I guess. They didn't find it funny. So they moved on to whatever else. Most of them are Southern Baptists now, I guess. But yeah, for the Southern Baptists, even for them, they continue this liberal line. Going back to, I told you about their annual meetings, they put out resolutions every year. They put out something like for every year in the 1970s, I think six times affirming the woman's right to choose for abortion, which is just

totally bizarre. So you can also talk about their role in promoting and continuing the dominance of Roe versus Wade for a long time, even though now they're threatened to sabotage an entire movement over someone's unwillingness to ban it at the federal level. But there's a certain self-annihilating tendency to these institutions where they beg and beg and beg for a certain type of proper exegesis of their Christian worldview, whether or not their constituents actually want it, which is another thing they usually don't. You look at the Catholic Church now, the people that are fighting most against their immigration ordeal are Catholic organizations themselves, such as like Catholic Vote, Judicial Watch to a certain extent, but it doesn't really matter,

they continue on anyways. Yes, I understand. Well, this unusual thing, but Gilder, I do want to address the Jew question for a moment because online there is the pretense that the way to oppose nefarious Jewish influence in American politics, especially, let's say, they don't often say, but in regards to immigration policy and so on, is the embrace of Christian identity or Christian religion. And my point to this has always been that in practice, the two are indistinguishable. At the operational level, the Jewish organizations and Christian organizations have been arm in arm in busting open America's borders. I don't even know if it's about covering for the Catholic Church in this regard and so on. It's about herding people into, let's say, the churches, the calculation, I would say.

And it's not like every influencer or person promoting this is aware of it or rubbing their hands and plotting in a smoke-filled room consciously of this. But the net effect of herding people into churches and into the Christian religion will be philosemitism and open borders, because in practice, whatever people on Twitter may claim in practice, these, you know, you go to any church in the United States, whether it's Catholic or yes, Orthodox, or certainly the evangelical and Baptist churches, they all have traveling rabbis that they welcome, and they go to each other's services, as far as I'm aware. And in practice, they're great friends. And this whole Judeo-Christian religious nationalism thing is really about kind, you know, it is

about busting open American identity to, as you say, Kenyans or Filipinos, Guatemalans, many others who can come in under being nominally Christian or whatever and join the American nation. I mean, why not? I mean, Rabbi Yeshua deemed all this excuse to be too pagan if you, but do you have comment on this? I'm not saying it's grand conspiracy, but it averages out to what I just said, that the two in practice are the same, and so that you understand the pretense online is absurd. Yeah, it's just another example of what we so often deal with, where the exaggerations and the worldviews that we see online are completely out of touch with what is going on in the mainstream. can compare. I wonder what would you do if you could gather some type of a polling on

the beliefs of Israel and Philo-Semitism and all that among the various different pastors and clergy around the country and then just put that right next to Andrew Torba or something like that and just compare and contrast a little bit. Yeah, for people who don't know who Andrew Torba is, I'm sorry, Gildan, because I have to tell people, I was on Twitter for a while and then I was banned for about two years from 2021 on, and subscribers to this show kept going up because it has nothing to do with Twitter. I guess I have international audience, they're not online. Andrew Torba is a retarded Maltese, I think, man, who founded a forum called Gab. It wasn't a forum, it There's a website like Twitter, alternative to that. Now, strangely enough, he named it gab.ai, you know.

I don't know if you know what the Gabai, do you know what a Gabai is, Gildhelm? No, I do not. A Gabai is the rabbi's helper in a synagogue. A Gabai's, I mean, it literally means rabbi's little helper, literally, that's what it is. And he named his website Gabai, and I asked him, why would you name it that? He said, oh, it's the AI domain, but he didn't have to choose the AI domain. These people all have some very strange backgrounds, Gildhelm, so he has this corralling effort. Strangely enough, they were quote, unquote, hacked. Everybody's information was given who signed up to that forum. Now they've all joined Twitter. Twitter has become the new gab, essentially. And yeah, it's a goodbye, rabbis, little helpers. But the pretense of all these people

is that very performative, showy Christianity is a sure aid against the international jury. And I'm sure that's a fine pretense online. And then as soon as in practice, as I keep telling, when people actually join religious organizations, they will be quite easily herded, Gildhelm, into philo-semitism and open borders, because that's what religions, that's what you're saying on this segment, that's what these religions both average out to in real life, you know? Before we go, I mean, feel free to talk about this, but I know you have some opinions about, all these people have one thing in common, both the Christian and the Jewish side, they attack viciously so-called pagans, by which they mean not only neo-pagans and so forth, which I have mixed opinions about,

They mean also secular people, people who are not religious, not showily atheistic, but have maybe right-wing views or circumstantially right-wing views. Maybe they don't even think of themselves as right-wing, let's say broadly secular right, center right, who want to not be religious. They viciously denounce these people as godless pagans, whether it's the so-called Christian nationalisms or the Jewish neocons and so on. They both see the pagans as the enemy except the difference is, excuse me, just to give a background for what you and I have talked about this, but the pretense from some of the Christian nationalisms is that paganism is an evil Jewish plot or something to separate people away from their Christian religion.

But in real life, Gildhelm, you and I both know is not that at all. And I know you have some opinions about this. Actually Jewish organizations are obsessed with this idea of neo-paganism, are they not? Yeah, and the Christian ones are too. I think the last book that Charlie Kirk had set the floor to was—oh yes, you thought this one was about you for a few minutes. Luckily, we were wrong, but it's called The Pagan Threat by I think Lucas Miles. He's one of the head guys for TPUSA. It is one of the most bizarre books I've had the pleasure of skimming, basically saying that the modern left do things like trannies and child porn and chopping off cocks, things of this nature. They're all the resurgence of ancient pagan

demons from ancient pain. Yeah, I skid the book. I didn't see you in there, surprisingly. I thought you were going to be. I did see, however, I didn't see... Sorry, go on. It's just the book to me. Fine. I'm not in the book, I thought. But, you know, Charlie Kirk was murdered by Antifa Faggot and his last book was to blame the pagans for it. Whatever. Go on. I know. But no, he does have about four or five pages in there explaining how Beyonce and black girl magic is evidence of researching paganism inside America. But no, all of these guys have this bizarre obsession with the pagan demons coming back. It's not just TPUSA. It's probably most exemplary of this is Tucker Carlson. It seems like every other week,

we have to learn that some pagan demon is coming back to rape our children or something. And by the way, every single baguette dork we've had to deal with in our little spheres for the last, I don't know, six months or so, is immediately after they go on a show with Tucker. I can't explain this. Help me complete the list. You've got first Thomas Massey with his APAC button thing, and immediately after that we have to deal with him ever since. You had the Flint Test thing, you've got Dave Smith. just on and on and on. Every single... Ian Carroll, every time we've got some fucking idiot that we have to deal with suddenly getting all this popularity and running their mouths on things they don't know about, it is because of him. But no, anyways, I don't understand how they attack

paganism for this. They're more superstitious than me even on it in regards to paganism. like they they are true believers in the what is the Anaximander Greek where it was like gods are in everything like I can't remember but yes they are natural animus don't say that that would make me like the Morgilhelm but listen no no I have to say that I have to I have a funny story this is this is exactly what I think they are natural animus like this is why they chopped off the noses of the ancient Greek statues and such. They believed in the Jewish practice of nullification, where if you essentially defaced the statue, you get rid of its inborn Daima. And they're still doing this today. I have a funny story. Last Halloween, I was taking my family trick-or-treating,

and it was in a subdivision next to the old Assembly of God church. I think this is like downstream of Pentecostals or something that actually me and my wife used to go to. And they had this big fucking bonfire and just people dancing around it and singing. Everybody was just standing bizarrely like, what the fuck is going on over here? Nobody knew what was going on. You check online later and they had sent everybody invites to a sort of festival they were having, where they're inviting everybody to bring their tarot decks, their crystals, every other pagan artifice that they may have been tricked by the devil into buying, and they're going to cast this into the fire while they were singing praises. This sounds

very much like Thargelia or something, where they're purifying the household of bad spirits. Yes. No, they are in 2025. But Gilhelm, please, before we go, no, this is very interesting, but we can continue on next segment. But I know you had some thoughts about some Holocaust focusing on the pagan thing. I just want the audience to understand because they don't have the factual, you know, the library that you and I have of incidents of, let's say, Jewish-Christian collaboration in hysteria over religious matters, over the so-called pagan threat and so on, and it's just, they go online, maybe, and they see a completely misleading thing, and in real life it's the very opposite, right? There is a long standing, as you are saying, thousands of years old, actually, Jewish-Christian

collaboration against the so-called pagans, by which they mean not just pagans, they mean secular people too. But you have a particular example, I know they attack my throat as we talk about it, but you have a particular example that I know you had in mind about this, no? Yes. For this, we only want to show the best Jews, the most Jewish of Jews that we could find. For this I would, his name was Manfred Gerstenfeld, he was the chairman of the steering committee of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, and he directed their post-Holocaust and anti-cinematism program. Wait, Gerstenfeld? That's almost as good as Finkelstein. Go on. Yes, yes, yes. So I think this guy might be Jewish. He says he was born in Austria, so maybe he's just German, but yes.

He has, I don't remember when this was published, but the Jewish community has been as attentive as the TPOSA crowd of the renewal generated interest in any form of paganism or type of secular philosophy. And so he published a big paper that, it's kind of funny, I wish people would go read it. It's called Neopaganism in the Public Square and its relevance to Judaism. And if you scroll to the bottom, he's got a section called Establishing a Watch. And I'll just read a short paragraph, and it's pretty blunt. So what does the return of paganism mean for Judaism? It forces us to focus on the importance of Jewish law and tradition, which proclaims that nature is not the dominant force in the world, nor is it sacred. There is a unique divine force above nature.

laws represent the world of the savage and the barbarian. The Noahide laws represent civil society. Civilization must be intolerant towards the barbarous. No compromise is possible between the monotheistic God and the polytheistic deities." So I would be hard-pressed to find a Christian that would disagree with that in any sort of sentiment. This is the basis of both of their their religious traditions, that the one God is giving them the light and the reason to slowly but surely raise them out of the barbarous constraints of nature. Yes. Two nations in Europe. Sorry, go on. Yeah. When people always chimp, like any article I make based on the immigration question or anything with paganism, you know. The natural response is like, well, you know who really

benefits from Christianity declining, don't you? It's the Jews. Oh my goodness. Listen, before we go, I know exactly what you're saying. Yeah. Two nations in your womb. There's a book about, well, it's quite good academic book by some, I think is named Yuval Israel. He is a professor at some university in Israel, actually, but it's about medieval and Christian Judaism and the supposed opposition between the two. Well, I suppose, Gildhjelm, that if you look at the wars between Protestants and Catholics and then you consider Orthodox too, between these sects, there are so many wars and conflicts, And so to them, it may appear like they're mortal enemies. But from the outside, everyone understands they are friends, you know, and there used

to be a doctrine in medieval times, the doctrine of the three imposters. I think maybe people who are still listening this far in this segment can look up the three imposters and what that meant. The three men who deceived mankind, you know, being Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. But I just want the audience to leave this segment with some brief historical thing about when you look at the history of Europe after late classical antiquity was destroyed and Greco-Roman civilization ended and you see the behavior of the Christian church toward the Jews, which is supposed to be right now, you're supposed to think they were terribly discriminated against and so forth and yet somehow they prospered in Europe and continued

and you say well they did that despite and yet the church gildhelm as you know ruthlessly stamped out not only pagans but certain other things like the cathars right there was a crusade against them they were physically exterminated they were they were genocided They were all killed. And yet, the Jews continued very fine in Europe. And actually, if you look, the church was always their protector, including during the Crusades. You know, this whole pretense now that the two of them are opposed or whatever, or that it's as absurd as the claim that the different Christian sects are opposed. In fact, they're all brothers in Abraham's tent, you know? What do you think about that before we go to break? Yes. I mean, to your point, there is a long history between these two traditions.

The embattlement between them is not evidence of any intrinsic disagreement, as you point out. But they're going to both respond to secularism and paganism. And by the way, In a way, the main thing, back to that article I mentioned, he also understands paganism in the same way that you're talking about. It's not just, you know, the actual re-establishment of the worship of old gods or anything like this. He understands it as just any prioritization of the values of nature above strict Noahide laws. Yeah. So he also goes at length talking about the ecological movement, and especially in the 1970s and such, and how this is actually very bad for the Jews. Maybe it is, I don't know. Yes. Go on, go on. Yes, but no, I mean, much of this that we're talking about responding to is

just silly to begin with. It's not mainstream in any sense. But I hope this segment does, you know, just remind people of the standings of these different, the history of many of these agents. I believe the online antisemitism, so-called mainstream antisemitism movement, whatever the people who promote it may be, the people who espouse it, they may be sincere. Who knows? They may be schizophrenic. But I do think it is promoted by the old GOP interests and a a Judeo-Christian alliance and so forth. And it's always been the same thing, Gilderoy, you will not tolerate the sorcerer in your midst. And so you see the way they treated sorcerers, both the Jews and the Christians treated them exactly alike. Schopenhauer points out the way Spinoza was treated and the way Giordano Bruno was treated,

communication and burning at the stake. And they've always done this, not just to, you don't have to worship an idol of Woden in the woods. If you are just a man who believes in science, who wants to investigate nature, who wants to go your own way, they will call you a pagan and essentially want to burn you at the stake if you get any prominence. That's my point, Gildan. I think you agree on that. I think we should go to break. We were testing the audiences who were at one hour were testing audience attention. What do you think? Very good. Yes, I think I think they can handle it. Yes. I've enjoyed talking but come back. I'd like to talk to you about what you just mentioned the ecological movement and nature

and vitalism and so on. You want to come back talk briefly about this? Yes, of course. Very good. We come right back. I must smoke some more and we come back. Welcome back to show I'm here with Gildhelm, we're talking many things about religion and conservative movement in the United States and now we have, I want to talk with Mr. Gildhelm about the problem of nature and idea of so-called ecology but before Gildhelm, I have to tell you some nature of personal discomfort because I was on this trip to Haiti and before that I went to Jamaica So it ended up being about two three week trip over all and then another country. I can't say and While I was away. I Wrote message to my cleaning lady telling her please Clean my towels and my sheets before I come back and guess what?

I come back and they're not cleaned at all. I asked her what happened She say oh my husband didn't show me that message I have to communicate to her with WhatsApp through her husband. And what happened now is the towels are dirty and I had to go to like a Zara like thing to get other towels. But before she can clean those, because I'm afraid to use directs from a manufacturer, they can have things on them. So now I have to use dirty towels and they smell bad because of the humid atmosphere and long use and I put on skin and it makes my skin smell bad, it's disgusting. So to offset that while we were on break and before, I have put coconut oil on my skin because now it's an antiseptic, coconut oil is antiseptic at the molecular level,

at the cellular level, okay. It's used as an antiseptic in the dairy industry to clean dairy equipment and I put it on my skin partly. It has a nice tropical odor and it is antiseptic and then I also put Ter der Mis, you know, the perfume a few, and now I feel my skin is supple and covered in coconut oil and also Hermes cologne. How do you feel about this? Is this okay? I'm glad we had the same idea. I've been lathered in oil this entire time. This is very good. We are recording here a show on—listen, tell me, though, we were talking about the United Judeo-Christian—I know they pretend that they're different now and that it's it's part I do think that I look it has to be partly kayfabe because you have Rabbi Shmuley promoting whatever debate he has

with Mr. Alex Jones and so on and it to some extent it is self-conscious kayfabe the Judeo-Christians are completely united against the so-called threat of paganism. And I say so-called because it isn't just, again, if you worship Apollo at temple, you go to Cape Sunnion or whatever, or you reenact. By that they mean if you are secular, if you are, let's say, secular right, especially if you want to follow the dictates or forget dictates, just the preconditions of science. If you want to live in that kind of society, They call you a pagan or a neo-pagan and hate you. And lurking in behind everything is a certain tradition that I've tried to study that was very prominent in Europe and parts of the United States before 1950. Then it got discredited because of World War II.

But it's this thing, it's this thing that's much misunderstood, Gildhjelm, do you want to – I know you have your own special views on that, and for the audience who doesn't know, Gildhelm has talked at length about ideas of vitalism and this thinker, Klages, we will – I hope you'll come back to the show, Gildhelm, there's no time to talk about it now, but just to introduce audience to your ideas of – you mentioned ecology and nature and the threat that Judeo-Christians feel coming from that, do you want to comment on that at all? Yes, that's pretty much been the central focus of all of my leisureable endeavors in reading and so forth. What really interests me is nobody really, if you take it from the political

element for just a second, hardly anybody on the right is truly dedicated to any sort of prioritization of nature or a believer in Darwinism or evolutionary theory. Because, I mean, you've got the Christian and the Judeo elements on one side, which it strictly contradicts with the teaching that man is elevated by special covenant above the rest of nature. And, you know, going back to, Darwin was actually not all that controversial when he came out. There were two books before that did all this work for him in Europe, by Spencer and Robert Chambers. And bishops at the time were responding to these books. It's like, I don't want anything to do with that black book. If it's true, then all of our endeavors in Africa have been

for nothing. And so they were chipping out over all of their humanitarian endeavors just being for nothing. But yes, as I've done this research, I've come upon, I would call three distinct modes of looking at nature. They're slightly related in some ways, but I think the end of the day, they are incompatible, in a way. Vitalism is actually, it kind of gets lost in translation a little bit. Vitalism, first and foremost, as it should be understood, is the English translation of Lieben's philosophy, the philosophy of life, profit of that, which would be Nietzsche and everyone that comes after. But you also have a specific type of biological vitalism, which is very different in some ways. You should think

Wilhelm Reich, Karl Reinbach, I believe, and the Odic force. What these people were attempting to do is illustrate that life itself was fundamentally different from the non-living, and they ascribed to that some type of inborn vital force that operated within life. Schopenhauer to some extent also belonged to this category, but as he got older, he only died I think five years before Darwin had published, but he was responding to some of those books I just mentioned. As he gets older, he's in very interesting ways trying to integrate his theory of the will with that type of philosophy. Let me interject for a moment to give my own opinion briefly on what you just said and some background for the audience. Darwin, as far as I know,

read Schopenhauer quite in some detail. His letters show this, his notes show this, and I've always understood Darwin as just the English scientific mechanistic version of Schopenhauer. He takes Schopenhauer's insights about nature, he tries to translate them into some kind of mechanistic system to show the same thing in, let's say, quantifiable scientific way, which I don't think is very bad at all. I think Darwin is right about natural selection and so on, I just think it's incomplete. But to go back for audience about fundamental meaning of vitalism as it would be found in Schopenhauer, he believes that there's a metaphysical – I'm misrepresenting it here somewhat, but I'm doing it in shorthand for audience

to understand – he believes that the same thing that is felt within you subjectively as will is also inside all natural phenomenon, including inanimate ones. In this way, he may be different from some of the thinkers you mentioned. But that principle, that is vitalism in some way, the belief that there's a fundamental force behind natural phenomena that runs them and in particular that connects the organism to its environment in some kind of spontaneous way. And again, I'm simplifying it greatly here, but it's compatible with a pessimistic view on life as well as an optimistic view. So Schopenhauer was very much on the pessimistic side of, you know, he believed in nirvana and renunciation of the will because he believed

these processes I'm talking about to be fundamentally evil. And again, I'm greatly misrepresenting in some way for purposes of simplification. But this is just to tell audience very briefly Vitalism does not mean going to the gym and banging girls and whatever. Cappuccino pussy cigarette. It's vitalism, yes. You know, as much as those things are nice, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's a view about how nature works. Sorry, go on. Yes. Yes. Yeah. You're actually underselling the, the connection between Schopenhauer and evolutionary thought just a little bit. It actually got more Schopenhauer as, as things went on. Probably the best disciple of Schopenhauer now, you'll never believe this, is Richard Dawkins. He has this book, The Selfish Gene, which succeeded in completely

transforming our view of evolution. From Darwin all the way on, our understanding of evolution was either that something was done because it was for the good of the species, or it was good for the individual working inside of that population. When Dawkins comes along, he introduces, now with a full understanding of DNA that was acquired in the 1950s, he's showing the concept of something called the replicators, which would be either DNA or RNA. And the singular purpose of these replicators is to inhabit all of existence with copies of nothing but itself. So this is very clearly just the will at the genetic level, in my view. And now you have this gene-centric view of evolution where everything is this eternal strife and contest

between individual genes where one must necessarily dominate the other. It reads very Schopenhauer to me, which I'm very interested by. And the weird thing is with Dawkins, all of his opponents of this view of evolution are libtards. The computing theory against the gene centric view of evolution, they call it either group selection or multi-level selection, which is just a way to cope and say it's not really group selection, but it is. But group selection is basically, you know, you're good for the tribe, good for the people. We all get along and contribute to the same pile and so forth. The main proponent of this right now is a professor named David Sloan Wilson, and his daughter is actually the Libtard mayor of Seattle at this very moment.

She just won. So you can imagine all the conversations at the dinner table of her growing up, instructing her that we're all in this together and that we must contribute for the good of the species and so on. But I guess at the Dawkins dinner table, it would be a little bit different where you must kill everything else. Well, it brings up another thing. I'm sorry, as we are drunk and I interject on things that you say bring to mind. In a lot of biological sciences and evolutionary theory, there's the pretense that there's no prescription implied and that they're not saying that life should be this or that, but for example, they're not saying that the telos or the end of life is reproduction, they're just describing natural phenomena. If you press them, that's what they claim.

But in practice, it's never quite like that, is it? They actually do say, as you just pointed out, I mean, I've seen this many times with these people, they say very often that, yeah, they do believe that reproduction is the end of life or whatever, that the group being is the end of individual life, as in the example you just brought up. So it's always teleology snuck in through the back door, you know? Yes, yeah, of course. I mean, I suppose it's only natural to refer back onto that, you know, we just have certain ways of thinking about these things. But yeah, I mean, the traditional definition of evolution is the increasing and prevalence of a certain type of allele, a gene, essentially, over every other in that population.

There's several ways to do this that maybe don't really pertain to reproduction, but is the essential way that life operates. You can go all the way back to the stellar theory and things like this. Going back to the biological vitalism, this belief that a rock lacked some type of quality, some type of inborn attribute that the bacteria did possess, this completely fell out of favor in the 1950s, as you said, because not only did we start having a good understanding of DNA, discovering its structure and so forth, but we were also developing theories pertaining to abiogenesis. Finally, once and for all, which had been disputed for three centuries prior, was this causal link between the non-living and the living.

think about how life operates, it's got a few, in the scientific understanding, it's got a few essential qualities. One, it's a self-contained reaction that generates its own metabolism. With energy from the outside, it can make its own things. It's able to make replicates of itself, and it's able to be selected for or against based on its qualities inside of that environment. So now in modern theory, we have things called autocatalytic sets, which is basically giving all of those attributes. You think of the hereditary information being put in RNA or DNA, but now we can show that you don't even need complex structures like that. You can just put it in a simple chemical reaction where basically one output of that reaction feeds back into as a catalyst for that very reaction.

so it's got this own self-feeding loop. But the interesting thing about that is if you have two of those same identical sets next to each other, these reactions, and one of them takes the slightest benefit where it's able to speed up this reaction or create more copies of itself, again, this is the reproductive telos that you're talking about, then that one will necessarily dominate the population. So this is what biological vitalism had struggled with for some time, but I'll give you a chance to comment on that, but I have a thought on Lieben's philosophy. No, I have no comment on that. Please continue. This is fascinating. I should say that in regard to, you say that Dawkins is a Schopenhauerian and he has quantified in a genetic sense the Schopenhauerian

insights. I have never thought about it that way. It could be so. I think maybe you're right but I should I should say that from a quite different direction there are people now working on and I don't want to be indiscreet but maybe this will encourage friends to work faster you know our friend Hakan from you may remember but certain others are working on the behavior of certain plans And I will not say more than that, but which exhibit behavior, you know, they do not have a nervous system, you see. And nevertheless, they exhibit behavior as if they did. And how do they do that? And the whole point of what Schopenhauer is saying that there is an innate intelligence inside things that coordinates correspondence between an organism and its environment and

so on, that is prior to what we understand as consciousness or intelligence or even a brain or nervous system, you know? And if that exists, again, the pathway by which it exists may be as yet undiscovered. I'm not saying it's metaphysical or magic. It may be some type of chemical signaling or something else, but I think it will be proven right in the near future because there is no other way to explain certain natural phenomena that people are just now focusing on. I will just say that and I hope I'm not being indiscreet, but this show does not have a huge listenership and I don't think there's risk of this getting out. Maybe if it gets out to friends they will just speed up their work, which I want them to do. sorry, Guildhelm, go on. Yes, so you are, go on. That sounds interesting.

I mean, even if they don't uncover what they thought they were, they probably would be something very interesting and of value to that. But as you're saying, like an inborn quality of an organism's ability to relate to its environment, this type of vitalism can survive, I think, even through the complete onslaught of modern science, if you do what the vitalists, or many of the vitalists did at the turn of the 20th century, such as Claugus was one of them, if you, they called it generalized vitalism. What you're doing is you're not employing this to make a fundamental discontinuity between the living and the non-living. What you're actually saying is the same things that you're ascribing to the living, this inborn force, its ability to relate to its environment, is also possessed by not

just the living, but everything that exists, period. So this goes back to Schopenhauer. He's not just talking about living things, although it serves as a good example of it. It's the whole of reality. And so Claugus, I think way that he goes about this is he talks about how everything has a certain type of a character to it. This is picking up on Nietzsche and his very early contributions to psychology. So you can think of a physiognomy or something like this. Someone's face gives off a certain type of character, the appearance of something is somehow related to its inborn qualities. And so you can do that not just for living things like people, you can do it for classes of living things such as races of people or nations. You can do it for skyscrapers, you can do it for books,

you can do it for the sun, which is something that Robert Chambers had did in his theory of Revolution, it was vital for him that the descent of life had been related to the geologic processes of the Earth and tectonic theory and then the formation of Sun and so forth. So if you dispense with the idea that life, almost in, I'd hesitate to call it the Abrahamic sense, maybe the Platonic sense that it has a fundamental different quality to it than the living does. And you start to ascribe, I guess it would be a sort of animism to the non-living that these things actually are living in some sense or in sold. Then you start to have a lot more room in working and applying this line of thinking. And I think it's very fruitful to pursue. Many great thinkers in the past

have. You are saying the inanimate world is alive also? Yes, yes. What's interesting about all of these sort of philosophers of life through the 19th and the 20th centuries, all the way up to World War II, where this was just cut off brutally, on one hand, they're known now as philosophers, but on one hand, they were also poets, and on the other other hands, they were all great men of science. Schopenhauer contributed with Goethe on the theory of colors, and he had his own thoughts on evolution. Nietzsche and Clagas were the founding fathers of psychology to a great extent. And so, if something that the audience can take away from this maybe is, there's this long question of the relationship between nature and religion and science and so forth throughout the last few centuries where one

decides that he must necessarily be an atheist or some sort if he is going to take a serious inquiry into nature. I reject that utterly and I think there are plenty of very valuable thinkers in the past that have done this. Another one if I could mention was Ernst Haeckel. He's the German Darwin. He had many theories. He's utterly indispensable to Darwin and popularizing that. One of the things that he did, he essentially founded a new religion of his own, the monistenbund, the monist league. He basically, if you take the line of thought that biology necessarily bleeds into chemistry and chemistry goes into physics and into quantum physics, you get the notion that everything is fundamentally connected and one in some

sense. And so naturally he's going to pull off of the philosophy of Spinoza. And so there's some very interesting—these people had a whole catechism that they developed. They seriously intended it to be like a replacement for Christianity for the scientific man. This was religion for the scientists. Yes. It reminds me, Gildhelm, of when Schopenhauer says that Spinoza and Giordano Bruno had their natural home on the Ganges, and instead they were born in Europe and therefore subject to the coarse hands of bigoted Judeo-Christian, whether it was rabbis or in the case of Bruno priests, you know, excommunicating and burning them at the stake for their pantheistic views, you know? Yes. This was a huge controversy around Spinoza. Spinoza almost broke Europe through his contributions.

that was carried straight on through Gerta and Schopenhauer. It's almost like a single torch that is being passed down from Spinoza. They call it the pantheist controversy, I believe, is what it was called. The moment you start having natural science come into the field, I think it's interesting that you see these certain types of philosophies pop up where where you're not looking at fundamental discontinuities in nature, like this thing has that form and belongs to that category and these two things may never cross over. What you go back to is more of the pre-Socratic understanding where everything is in flux in some sense. The evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, who lived in the last century, he actually attributes

the changeover from the presocratic concepts such as flux over to the platonic, where you have very solidly defined forms and such. He attributes this to a very long delay in the eventual coming of evolutionary thinking. And he also thinks that this is why the German idealists, even though they were right on the cusp of getting it, because they had completely dedicated themselves to the study of nature, they still had this hobbling on them of trying to define everything as discontinuous, or yeah, discontinuous as opposed to fundamentally related in some sense. Well, yes, and this goes to Nietzsche's claim that the Socratic schools and Plato, but all of the Socratic schools really were fundamentally un-Greek and were late in position into Hellenic

culture and Hellenic ways of thinking. But on that note, Gildhelm, I ask as we are nearing, I think, the end of our third segment and of the audience's attention span and you are welcome back to discuss these matters on any show and in the future because they are profound matters and I think we are just giving the audience a taste here of things. But there is this Nietzschean sense of, well, the God of the Bible spoke the world into existence, and he did that and exists outside the material world. And in the universe of the Bible, it's very grand, the vision of divinity. You cannot take that away from the Bible as much as you and I extol Greco-Roman antiquity or Norse antiquity, you have to give it to them.

The Bible does contain very sublime poetry, and yet the God of that Bible lives outside all creation that he speaks into being. And eventually, this niches point, that God, once belief in him falters, nothing is left because the world is dead by definition, matter is dead, and so the source of modern problem fundamentally and of nihilism is that postulate of the divinity outside of existence. Before we leave, do you have commentary on that? I think it bears on much of what we've said, at least on this last segment. I think this is, as I'm still developing it, of course, this is, I think, essential to my understanding and my personal philosophy. When you, the ancient, or excuse me, the Greeks, when they were first exposed to Christianity,

the common slur that they had for them was to call them atheists, because they were denying divinity in several important ways, all except one. And so when you take this conception of God that is fundamentally outside of the world, it becomes difficult to experience Him as such. You can't really just go out and touch or see in the way that an ancient Greek would or as Achilles would as he's being drowned in its commander. You have to intuit and rationalize your way to God. And so you introduced this concept of logocentrism, as Claugus had coined it, and the inevitable product of that is when you've already got the conception that something can be thrown away through reason, as the Christian worldview had done to antiquity, what's one more?

quickly, monotheism does have a tendency to exhaust itself into atheism. And I think the only way to get around this is to, even if you are a Christian, I have seen ways of attempting to do this, returning the eminence of the divine that is, in a sense, fully immersed in the material world. Everywhere you look and everything that you see, that you experience, some divine force going on. Just like Turko Carlson believes. This is important, yes? So, yes. I think if any sort of relationship between religion or philosophy is going to survive this world that we inhabit that is defined by incessant tinkering and rationalizing and so on, this is the way that it's going to be done. This is very interesting. You're saying they

circled back around. But Gilhell, now we can invite Tucker and all these people and Candice Hall. All they have to do is adopt the conception that, you know, anything that is divine outside of Yahweh is not necessarily evil. It can just be, it is. We can introduce them to that in a Burning Man type festival of our own. Yes. Think of us, think of us. I like Iceland for Maybe, no, that's too good. No, I think maybe Bermuda, this is good. Bermuda Triangle, we do that for them. They would go for that. Much cappuccino pussy cigarette, I think they're all saying. Gilhelm, listen, there is so much more to talk about. You are welcome back anytime. I want to talk more of such things with you, but I think it's late into the night for both of us and audience might be, yeah,

I think we have to put them in concentration. Listen, Gildhelm, I think I must go. I think my cleaning lady wants. Yes, okay, very good, yes. Yes, try not to lather up too much in the oil. Yes, well, very good. Very good, it's good to meet you, Gildhelm. Please come back any time, and we talk soon on many holy and unholy matters. Until next time, bap out!