This episode is with an interview with Ian T. Taylor, titled “In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order” and is being released on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2012. This interview with Ian was was recorded today, December 18, 2012.
I should point out that Ian is a Christian, and we’ve decided to put our religious differences aside and focus on the research, so those of you familiar with the trivium, please don’t kill the messenger, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Ian is not the first Christian that we’ve had on the show, and we should know better than to dismiss all of his research due to his religious biases. Just sit back and listen to what Ian has to say, and how it overlaps with my own recent discoveries. Ian finished writing this book 28 years ago, and he’s 81 years old, so please forgive him where age has taken its toll. It is my opinion that Ian’s religious beliefs do cause a few unfortunate blind spots, that are covered extensively in my interviews with Joe Atwill – if you’d like more information there. However, these blindspots are easily overlooked for the wealth of valuable research that Ian has provided. So please hear him out, in full, including the 2 chapters from his book that we’ll be playing directly following my interview with him.
Ian was born in the UK and graduated with degrees in metallurgical engineering. He immigrated to Canada and spent nineteen years as research metallurgist with the Aluminum Company of Canada and obtained patents including a novel process for the manufacture of armor plate. He became a Christian in 1974, lost his position as metallurgist and joined David Mainse, Canada’s TV evangelist. He became producer of 39 television programs of the “Crossroads” series including a 13-part TV episode exposing the fallacies of the theory of evolution. He wrote the book In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order in 1984. In 2008, the book was updated and expanded to 518 pages, and it is available from Creation Moments.
In 1996, at the invitation of Creation Moments Inc., Ian Taylor moved to Minneapolis and, working under the terms of NAFTA, became their president and the voice of their daily radio program, Creation Moments. After two years he returned to Canada and is still the voice of this popular radio program now heard daily on over 1300 stations in the US and others overseas. He continues to research and lecture and has traveled throughout North America, most of the South-East Asian countries including central China, Russia, the Balkan countries including the Crimea and many of the European countries and the UK.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMn14.htm
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMo15.htm
My paper on Darwin, Huxley and McKenna: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/how-darwin-huxley-and-the-esalen-institute-launched-the-2012-and-psychedelic-revolutions-and-began-one-of-the-largest-mind-control-operations-in-history/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 3:28:32 — 119.4MB)
a creationist against darwin? no way, where did you find this guy?
Try not to kill the messenger and please listen to the entire thing before commenting. Please use critical thinking and apply the trivium, as discussed at the intro of the discussion. Thanks.
As it says above, had you read it:
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person’s circumstances (such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A’s interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A’s circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: “Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false.”
There are times when it is prudent to be suspicious of a person’s claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person’s interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
“She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican.”
“I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views.”
“Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine.”
“Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation.”
Darwin Shmarwin. I don’t see how it matters what associations Darwin had. The creationist focus on Darwin is itself an ad hominem argument.
I’m sorry to say that I got half way through this three hour episode and, not having encountered much about what the discussion had to the New World Order, gave it up.
On the subject of origins (having come up empty-handed on the NWO) I would comment as follows:
The abundant evidence suggests that humans have a common ancestry with the other apes and, going progressively back through time, every other living thing on Earth. Saying that it doesn’t “prove” it is a cavil at the nature of scientific induction, rather than a refutation of evolution itself, and would serve to “refute” any scientific conclusions ever made.
Taylor also said that intermediate forms have not been found, but that’s not true. On the gross level there are fossil whales with vestigial hind legs, for example. On the molecular level the fossil trail is also unambiguous. For example, the Human chromosome 22 shows the evidence of having fused from two separate chromosomes, because of the presence of vestigial telomeres and a vestigial centromere. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29 That is consistent with the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromsomes and all other apes have 24 pairs, and so a common ancestor of all apes would very likely have had 24 pairs of chromosomes.
Hi Robert, try to go and study all of the information on Wasson and McKenna, as well as the brain database, if you’d like to see how it all connects. The two chapters played are quite clear.
Again, I didn’t have him on for Darwin and evolution itself, but for the eugenics and BS that’s been promoted with it via the Huxleys, UNESCO, etc. If you can’t see the obvious connections, then at least you didn’t finish listening, or maybe that’s why you can’t figure it out… Guess you’ll never know.
You were too focused on the narrow, probably screaming and missed the message, which you achieved successfully, while missing the overall connections, and then when you don’t hear the entire thing, you bitch that you don’t see the connections.. I’d expect more from you… not to use fallacies and kill the messenger and not even get the message… Hear the entire god damned thing, take what’s of value and toss what isn’t, as it said at the very beginning. I’ve already replied to someone else to listen first before commenting. So you’re telling me that you can’t filter through information to take what’s of value? You have to toss the entire thing? Didn’t Gene cover your very attitude in episode 49?
…bangs head against wall.
Hi Jan, I acknowledge what you’re saying (minus the screaming.. I wasn’t). It was a matter of effective use of time, a case of too much crap to sort through to get to the useful bits. Life is too short to regard every haystack as worth searching.
Hi Robert, you’ve just failed the trivium and killed the messenger.
Thanks for your BS appeal to emotion fallacies and lame excuses for poor thinking.
I’ve no time for this type of thoughtless “thinking”.
And by the way, I wouldn’t have posted it if it wasn’t a haystack worth searching….
I refrain from various ad hominems I’d like to use on you at this very moment.
Margaret Meed, Wasson, Casteneda and on and on and on, the Elite distorting “indigenous” cultures to serve their own agendas.
and thanks to that McKenna clip where the questioner references the Mutant Message Down Under book, I went back and looked into that book and found the same was true there, a total distortion of Aboriginal culture to serve the new age agenda. Unfortunately that book was influential on me in my formative years. Un-programming oneself is a full time job!
Here is a great summary link on the Mutant Message:
http://www.creativespirits.info/resources/books/marlo-morgan-mutant-message-down-under-timeline
and thank you Jan, for the interview!
At least someone gets it. Thank you, Sarah.
This mutant message thing is quite interesting…
So they got Wasson to destroy the Mazatec
Castaneda, Myerhoff and Furst to destroy the Huichol culture
Michael Coe to destroy the Mayan culture
Marlo Morgan to destroy the Australian aborigines
XXX – to destroy the Ayahuasca using south Americans,
I’m sure we can go down the list and plug in the names of various peoples who used these same tactics to target various cultures…
Consider, for instance, Dr. Bart Dean’s book on the Urarina Society in Peru… the entire book is an anthropology study written as a way to infiltrate and destroy the Urarina culture.
Interesting interview. Its ironic that the average person has ultimate trust in say, NOAA, or the Weather Bureau–to tell them if its raining or sunny , hot or cold outside, yet if an 80 year old scollar whos on the good side happens to be of christian faith—well, that just soils the message!
Im going to try relate the Co-opting of Darwins work, which sounds like it got twisted by men with their own agenda, and wasn’t even complete–to the AINCHENT art of mind-control.
IMO
They know how to kill two birds with one stone-OWN the mind, and then OWN the land.
If you are aware of the Order of the Quest, their plan seems strangely synchronistic with the pattern of “Manifest Destiny.”
Recent habits of the Order include establishing the place called “America” based on “freedom”, or, “the enemy of the enemy is your friend” only to destroy it 300 years later, or establishing the Fed Reserve only to abolish it 100 years later. Also the “freedom” to buy , say, AR accessories one decade, then ban them the next–its really “tax-farming”–the BATF gets 500 for every permit application–see THEY, since they really control a large portion of key elements, can build things just to destroy them, as part of their Plan. Your brainwashing is a huge component of the Plan. Its WHY they have to destroy what they build. We eventually catch on to the pattern. Part of my proof is the “Eagle” on the back of the FRN and the “Phoenix” of the Hadenausee or Iriquios League both bear the logo of the Order.
Makes me think the Order has got to be MORE than 6000 years old at least. This is the group that would be ultimately behind “mind-control”, “Science”, “Education” as we know it. This body wants you to think that the East and the West are separate and have always been opposed, yet my research says they have the same mother.
The co-opting of native wisdom to an Anglophile-based “Messianic” Mystery Religion. Defiantly a pattern there.
And you know what? “OUR” resourses, our trees, and water, and minerals–are all up as collateral on the World Finance Stage.
And someday, the bill will come due.
elly do you have any websites video or articles you would recommend on the order of the quest? Are you another independent researcher or do you just read about these issues as a hobby?
This interview was almost as bad as Jan’s “Urgent Release” Terrence Mckenna article. It seems that you’re going down the Alan watt road, as he speaks of this book almost every episode. Let’s not forget that he is a fraud, and has been exposed as one as well. it was even revealed that he stole the information from his “books” from someone who is even crazier than him self “Glen Kealey”.
There are definitely a lot of interesting connections between all of these people, but not a lot of hard evidence to support your claims. If you consider evidence, to be something like your Terrence Mckenna FOIA request, where it literally says nothing of value, then I guess in your mind you have tons of “evidence”. I could care less if Terence Mckenna worked for the CIA, but that document says absolutely nothing, and you will never admit when your wrong.
Now please don’t call me a “Troll” or accuse me of ad hominem attacks. You did nothing but name call people who disagreed with you as “stupid” on the Terence article.
“So they got Wasson to destroy the Mazatec
Castaneda, Myerhoff and Furst to destroy the Huichol culture
Michael Coe to destroy the Mayan culture
Marlo Morgan to destroy the Australian aborigines
XXX – to destroy the Ayahuasca using south Americans,”
This is ALL speculation Jan. You have to actually prove these before you make such accusations. I’m not saying it’s not true, but you actually have to PROVE who “They” are, and the relationships between “Them” and wasson etc.
This is very shoddy scholarship, and you would be laughed out of the room if you were trying to prove this in a real academic article. Remember, you’re the one making the claims, so the onus of proof is on YOU, Jan.
Try to understand that these ppl were messengers, selling sophist explainations to the masses. Those driving the NWO agenda will never promote themselves, and since the ppl named are the front men for such an agenda they can claim plausable deniability to any accusations. Those with real power in the NWO maintain that power by being anomous.
Take in info like a student of the trivium, before you come across as someone who THINKS they know it all. Research is learning
People doing good things for good people don’t need to obfuscate information, everything is out in the light of day, so the Mckenna artical is very relevant if this understanding is know
Hey Jan,
Listened to this interview yesterday and was reminded of an article I’d seen earlier in the week. It sourced from this Study: http://www.uwo.ca/its/brain/iqmyth/
Wasn’t sure if you’d seen that one. It goes along with what you were talking about regarding IQ.
“The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.
No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used…(fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain. “
Independent research scientist Dr. Ray Peat talks about the dogmatism in science, especially within the field of genetics, largely based on Darwin’s work. The effects of this can be seen even today with the idea that just everything under the sun is genetic– eg. cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, Huntington’s disease, behavior, even learning in terms of brain cell death–as well as always assigning a evolutionary purpose for changes in an organism (vs. being an adaptation to environment, for example).
Peat mentions “an intense and widespread campaign to suppress any approach to biology other than the ‘new synthesis,’ neo-Darwinism, with its doctrine of mechanistic genetic determinism and its doctrine of random variation.” This came to mind when you mentioned that book you read, Jan, in which they disprove Darwin one minute and cozy up to him the next.
This is from his article “Adaptive substance, creative regeneration: Mainstream science, repression, and creativity” which also talks about Malthus, Mendel, and other relevant topics http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/adaptive-substance.shtml
Some research scientists followed the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who believed in “soft inheritance” – in which genes can be altered by environment and passed down through generations. (Actually Darwin had a similar theory, but was “disproved” by Galton using an irrelevant experiment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). Today this is known today as “epigenetics.” The description of paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope offers an insight into the implications of Larmarkism: “Edward Drinker Cope was a neo-Lamarckian as he believed it allowed living things to be in charge of their own destiny as opposed to the Darwinian view of living things being a puppet at the mercy of the environment. Cope’s neo-Lamarckism had claimed that the organism could respond to any challenge by choosing to adapt to a new way of life.” Your diet and environment–things that you can affect in order to change the expression of your genes positively, increase your intelligence, and not only for yourself, but for your children and grandchildren (as stated by Dr. Cate Shanahan in Deep Nutrition that it’s been documented to span several generations–I think she said 3). Just the kind of ideas eugenists would not want to promote. It’s no wonder the ADA is persecuting unlicensed people offering nutrition information, even offering rewards for turning an offender in (google the article in Forbes).
Lamarckism then became taboo. Research on embryonic regeneration was cut altogether (which offered different views on what cancer is, as well as aging and cell death). Regeneration is referred to as “the streaming organism.” Whereas the neo-Darwinistic idea we hear about a finite number of brain/liver etc. cells, it is known that these organs can regenerate (http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/06/28/the-streaming-organism). But that’s not what is being promoted.
Hans Selye, a Lamarckian research endocrinologist who coined the term “stress” and came up with the General Adaptation Syndrom of stress, found that the body does not differentiate between types of stress, it causes inflammation just the same. The other component is the development of a pathological state from ongoing, unrelieved stress. However, this is something that is downplayed in the public, as people are encouraged to seek conventional medical treatment. An example fo this is diabetes, in which some of those diagnosed are instead generating high amounts of adrenaline & cortisol, which is breaking down their own tissue for conversion to glucose, therefore the high blood sugar.
Anyway, I can go on about all the medical misinformation out there that Darwinism has influenced. This is something that I’m still poking into, as well as the work of independent scientists like Peat, Selye, Gilbert Ling, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, and James Shapiro.
Another good one:
“George Orwell, whose novels showed some of the ways language is used to control people, believed that language should be like a clear window between minds, but knew that it was habitually used to distort, mislead, and control. Scientific and medical practices often follow the authority of culture and indoctrination, instead of intelligently confronting the meaning of the evidence, the way chimpanzees are able to do.
Not so many years ago, people believed that traits were “determined by genes,” and that the development of an organism was the result of–was caused by–the sequential expression of genes in the nucleus of the fertilized egg. When B.F. Skinner in the 1970s said “a gestating baby isn’t influenced by what happens to its mother,” he was expressing a deeply rooted bio-medical dogma. Physicians insisted that a baby couldn’t be harmed by its mother’s malnutrition, as long as she lived to give birth. People could be quite vicious when their dogma was challenged, but their actions were systematically vicious when they weren’t challenged.
An ovum doesn’t just grow from an oocyte according to instructions in its genes, it is constructed, with surrounding nurse cells adding substances to its cytoplasm. Analogously, the fertilized egg doesn’t just grow into a human being, it is constructed, by interactions with the mother’s physiology. At birth, the environment continues to influence the ways in which cells develop and interact with each other.
Even during adulthood, the ways in which our cells–in the brain, immune system, and other organs–develop and interact are shaped by the environment. When Skinner was writing, many biologists still believed that each synapse of a nerve was directed by a gene, and couldn’t be influenced by experience.”
Ray Peat – Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, and science
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/authoritarians.shtml
Interesting comments Sandy. Have you read Evolution in Four Dimensions, by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb? There is a video by Jablonka here
http://videolectures.net/sep09_jablonka_eifd/
I’ve been following Mae-wan Ho’s work since 1998. I found her approach exceptional, especially her important theory of quantum coherence, that is barely recognised by those who subscribe to the “central dogma.” Jeremy Narby has made some extremely valuable contributions, originally in the Cosmic Serpent that he was dismayed to find virtually ignored by the science community; so he wrote Intelligence in Nature. What do you make of Bruce Lipton’s ideas?
I think there is evidence of a real sea-change among biologists, as the recognition sinks in that “junk” DNA is far from superfluous & Dr Ho’s Quantum Jazz is a far more evocative analogy http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php
Thanks for the reference. I was not familiar with Dr. Mae Wan Ho.
A very thoughtful address by Richard Dawkins that covers a lot of useful ground touching on issues discussed here, for example sensible remarks about eugenics, morality, original sin, natural selection, C19th morality etc entitled “Now praise intelligent design” April 2012 Global Atheist Convention, Melbourne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wXEjQ1kdU
Genes and socioeconomic rank always will stratify co-extensively, which is just to say that people tend to mate within their own socioeconomic class and within their own race, if not within their more specific ethnic group.
Racists and elitists can cast socioeconomic stratification in terms of a genetic merit system, in which socioeconomic status derives from cognitive and/or behavioral predispositions that derive from genes. We have to denounce such racism. But at the end of the day, people’s strong tendency to mate with socioeconomic peers minimizes mixing across socioeconomic strata and ends up producing the same stratification that elites work to rationalize in racist terms.
The sociogenetic classes that result are to a significant degree self-perpetuating — because people tend to mate within their own class.
This dynamic suggests a program of what might be called Neoeugenics, which would promote interbreeding among socioeconomic classes. This might be the only way to dampen the class distinctions that, as this point, plague humankind and maybe always did. A selling point to which to draw attention is the phenomenon of hybrid vigor, or heterosis, which is the phenomenon of a (indulge me this instance of Darwin-speak) fitness advantage resulting from cross-breeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
OK, That’s not a serious proposal. But, short of something like it, it’s hard to see how we get around the dynastic character of the upper circles.
Jan toward the end of the interview you were talking about a bacon and egg breakfast. What do you think about the following: In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, Edward Bernays conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a hearty breakfast.
I’m fully aware of Bernays. See my interviews with Sally Fallon. Cheers.
Hi Jan,
As this is my first post I would like to say that I’m a big fan and think you are spot on with most of your work, theories etc. particularly in your processes of dissecting information/studies and so forth and ripping apart of fallacious arguments (though sometimes it seems some peeps may get more than they deserve – admittedly I am not used to having to answer the same arguments over and over via a message board so I do imagine it gets quite frustrating).
However the main reason I was compelled to post this (I have tried before but for some reason the registering process kept failing me) was to complain that I found it too hard to listen to the computerized narration of the book chapters. Besides the constant vocalization of ‘semi-colon’, ‘open bracket’ et al, as good an attempt as the software made It just could not synthesize the necessary inflections and emphasis points an essay of such structure requires to be intelligible enough for serious consideration and certainly not for a pleasant listening experience.
Anyhoo thanks again for all your work and sorry If this is not the proper place to discuss such matters, If you could refer me to a more suitable forum ‘twould be appreciated though I have got it off my chest for now.
Toodle pip x
Hi Jan,
I loved the interview and it was lovely to see brilliant minds from different orientation finding common ground loved it!
I must agree with Lewis, it would be wonderful if you could get Ian to read and record them, I’m sure he would?
Great work both of you
[...] An Interview with Ian T. Taylor – “In the Minds of Men: Darwin and The New World Order” – #1… http://www.gnosticmedia.com | December 18, 2012 [...]
Genesis was IMO not written as historical fact, but as an allegory.
Listening to how western society has struggled to balance the creationist idea with that of evolution. The extent to which it has perplexed the thinking of the Judeo-Christian culture. I find it ironic that they haven’t considered that today the Genesis story holds more truth then in any time during our history.
Human evolution is now on the threshold of the door that allows us to self determine our own evolutionary path. Right now we are hesitating as to whether to proceed, but how long before we are forced through it or else face extinction? The outcome of that action may not be certain. One thing that is certain when we go through that door we will be departing from the Garden of Eden.
Imagine for the moment the tree of knowledge is the evolutionary tree, the fruit is the knowledge that we have harnessed to manipulate our DNA. I love the fact the snake is also the symbol used on the Caduceus. That they are arranged in the double helix ascending the staff or “evolutionary tree” is strongly suggested, do the wings imply salvation?
The garden is the world we have lived in until we began DNA engineering “creations evolution”. Man has now plucked the knowledge from the tree and this is the Genesis moment “mans evolution”.
In the first Genesis man chose to seek independent knowledge from God, in the new Genesis he seeks to make life. In the first genesis god’s disapproval could be interpreted as selfish or as a non benevolent attitude. In the second version it becomes more appropriate, would you as a parent allow your child to play with a loaded gun? Are we possibly opening a door into Pandora’s Box?
I think we are already trough the door, I hope we are up to the job.
I don’t know if you like film, but the comment on British rugby made me think of the most recent film by the Mexican Carlos Reygadas « post tenebras lux » which hasn’t been released yet, but I saw it at the Festival du cinĂ©ma nouveau de MontrĂ©al. The film is mostly in Spanish, with parts in French a bit in English. The part in French is really strange, as it takes place in a sort of hetero sauna where people fuck. At the beginning, there is a cartoonish-like red devil/demon that is poking around the home of the protagonists. Then, two or three times, there are random, have-nothing-to-do-with-the-plot intervals of British boys playing rugby, on the field and in the locker room.
I just wanted to add this. A lot of people dismiss Reygadas’ films as intellectural tripe, but I think they’re deeper than that.
/ thomas