Terry Wolfe Spits on Spirit

On Geopolitics & Empire, Hrvoje Morić did an interview of Terry Wolfe called The New Age, The Great Awakening & the Green World Order. Terry was raised as a Mennonite and writes The Winter Christian, which he describes as a thought experiment:

It asks tough questions by imagining severe possibilities, and ruminates on the hypothetical: “What if the Bible is 100% true, the world is fundamentally evil, and our generation will face the ultimate showdown with Satan’s endgame?”

Hrvoje described the interview as about:

… the proliferation of gnosticism, the new age, and theosophy in alternative and independent media. It seems that apparently much of the "truth movement" or "trutherism" itself is gnostic, new age, theosophy and is part of the deception which paves the way for and initiates the true new world order that humanity will embrace. The Great Awakening is the theosophical Age of Aquarius. New age and occult ideas such as "Christ Consciousness," quantum spirituality, and one-ism are seeping into churches and society and this is intentional. The Aquarian Conspiracy is an "open conspiracy" that works through a "network of networks". The goal of the "new or Aquarian age" is to fuse all beliefs into a new inclusive and tolerant universalism meanwhile eliminating any exclusive or "intolerant" faith (e.g. biblical Christianity). Terry lays out his thesis of the coming collapse and Green World Order.

On my Debunking Democracy thread, Gabriel of Libre Solutions Network wrote:

I commented on Geopolitics & Empire's interview with Terry Wolfe's and floated the idea that it would be interesting for them to talk it out in a roundtable format. I would love to see you as a participant on that to represent a ... different side of the discussion.

In response to Gabe’s general idea of a roundtable, Terry had written that he would welcome that and Mathew Crawford, who Hrvoje had interviewed previously, said he would love to be part of that. I responded on that comment thread, writing:

Gabriel sent me here on a response to my recent post that looks at both democracy and spirituality. My approach to a 'good argument' is that it first needs to state the question and then define all salient terms within it. From the description, your approach juxtaposes Biblical Christianity against every other theory of God spanning millennium, continents and cultures and lumping them all together in one jargon soup.

Even the term 'Christianity' usurps both the definition of God and the concept of Christ as a who rather than a what. It presupposes that the default is one person who God loved better than the rest of us put together. That's a version of Christianity that's a personality cult. Religion should be a forum for asking the big questions, starting with our true relationship to one another, not defining God first and only leaving our choice as believing in that version or none at all.

As Mathew knows, I've done a decade of research on the Bible and have come to conclusions, backed by facts and logic, that challenge the existence of Jesus and posit the authorship of the Bible as an imperial psyop that destroyed the true Christianity of the zealot revolution, which was bringing down the Roman Empire.

If you're looking for a real representation of an alternative, and not a straw man jumble of spiritual psychobabble, I'd love to be part of that roundtable.

Terry Wolfe answered:

You studied the Bible for a decade and still think it was written by the Roman empire, you aren't qualified to have any discussion.

I replied:

Oh I studied it much longer than that. I went to Catholic grade school, HS and college, entering as a religion major. I suspect I've studied it longer than you've been alive. It wasn't until after I was 55 (I'm 67 now) that I realized it was a literary fiction written for nefarious purposes. And at first I resisted that, and the evidence kept coming in. Once I considered it seriously, it was irrefutable. Which at some level you know. Or you wouldn't be so afraid to debate it.

Terry retorted:

Saying that you're Catholic, going to college for religion, and only "realizing" at 55 are all evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. New Agers will say anything to promote their Movement That Has No Name.

I answered:

Another way of saying "Has No Name" is 'has no label.' Once a label is attached, we're no longer talking about my ideas and yours concerning God, we're just pointing to authority figures as bigger or better. In a true exchange of ideas, you would define what you mean by Christianity and by New Age. Otherwise, we could both be defending something that isn't what we think.

I've never been a part of any movement and don't presume to speak for anyone else. Do you? It's hard for me to imagine telling someone they have no clue when I don't know what they think or what their evidence is.

On my stack, I make a distinction between challenging ideas and attacking people. I welcome all of the former and don't allow the latter. So here is some of my research, in case you want to think about it for yourself and not reject it based on someone else's authority: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist? and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-is-the-og-psy-ops

And when you do have that roundtable with Mathew or others, there are rules that go back to ancient Greece for discussing ideas without rhetorical tricks: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/how-to-have-a-better-argument. Thanks for responding.

Terry did not respond to this.

---

women in winter

Later in the thread, a commenter named carole wrote:

This interview insulted my intelligence. I am 69. Never called myself a Christian. Like to explore different ideas. Do not like fundamentalism of any kind. The conversation is so mixed up and the examples are so way off. Usually the geopolitics is my go to place.

Terry rebuffed her with:

Which part offended you the most, condemning Hitler or saying that humans are not gods?

I wrote:

As far as I can tell, Carole, we may be the only women watching. It's interesting that Terry starts by saying some men wanted him to come be their pastor because their wives were getting suckered into New Age philosophy and they needed someone to argue back. I don't think Terry believes women have the intelligence to think for themselves. Unless they agree with him, I'm sure.

Curious too that he states New Agism works by presenting false dichotomies, yet isn't that what he does here? If you're not a fundamentalist Bible thumper, then you must be a theosophist UFO Flat Earth No-Viruser. I guess now that 'conspiracy theorist' has lost its punch, with so many of us claiming it proudly, he needs a new way to discredit people. And so Terry does the exact thing he's deriding, by lumping them all together.

He also acts like you were offended, which is quite different than saying the interview insulted your intelligence, and then accuses you of being a Hitler supporter or thinking you're god. It's telling that more than half of the comments he hasn't liked.

If you do like new ideas and geopolitics is your thing, you might like this latest of mine. It looks at the morality of 'Christian' values in WWII: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/poppy-wars-and-manchukuo-monsters.

Terry countered:

The majority of my audience is female and would laugh at your weak smear attempt.

I agreed:

I have no doubt they would ridicule me. No one is as vicious towards other women as women who look to men for approval, as I've talked about often: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/michael-tsarion-myth-of-the-terrible mother.

And only a woman who feels inferior to men would fall for a creation story that blames her for pain and death and ends with god's command to submit to her husband: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-blood-of-eden.

Since the Bible is your authority, let me ask you your thoughts on two of the (many) troubling reasons that I, with others, consider Yahweh to be a sociopathic creation of megalomaniac men:

When Noah, backed by god, curses all the descendants of Canaan to be slaves in perpetuity to the descendants of Shem. How do you justify that? And when god orders the genocide of the Amalekites down to the suckling babe. Is this the god you believe in?

Terry quipped:

I love hearing from crazy New Agers who hate the Bible. Say it all loud and proud!

I continued:

Terry, I'm asking you a simple question and you're dodging it by throwing out insults. You can open your own Bible and read the story of Noah, yes? I'm not saying anything that isn't in there. I'm assuming you know the story of the Amalekites, right? If we agree that these stories are in there, then I'm not 'hating the Bible' by quoting it, agreed?

The story of Noah's curse was used by slaveowners as justification that Africans were the descendants of Ham (along with Egyptians, Arabs and some Asians according to Josephus) and so god intended them to be slaves. To kill a race of people down to the suckling babe is as extreme as genocide gets, yet god is angry that they left one man alive.

Are you saying that you weren't aware of these stories, or that you don't believe slavery and genocide to be sociopathic? I'm trying to engage in a discussion of ideas and you just come back with insults.

And he came back with:

My teacher has a saying:

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you."

To which I closed with:

You just keep on doubling down, Terry, calling me a dog and a pig no matter how much respect I give you as a person while arguing your ideas. And of course there's no ego involved when you describe your thoughts as holy pearls of wisdom, not to be wasted on someone who would crush them.

By all definitions of verbal attack, this is what you're doing by calling me names but you reverse it and say you won't answer my challenge to your ideas because then I would attack you. Is Hrvoje in agreement with you on insulting people instead of discussing their ideas? Mathew and I share research and he's interviewed me, and we talk sometimes with great mutual respect. I don't understand whether debating ideas using facts and research is new to you because no one actually does this in your world.

You are, however, true to your hero Jesus in this, who calls the Canaanite woman a dog and refuses her the bread that's due to children, then says that even dogs can get the scraps that fall from the table. This shows a clear continuum from the story of Noah where the Canaanites are cursed to be slaves. It's the morality of a slaveowner class, with which you identify. So I can see why it would be threatening to your worldview of superiority to have that challenged.

---

the debate coach

This all made me feel like I was a HS debate teacher trying to explain the rules while the football jock says, “I’m not even going to answer because I don’t debate dogs!” then high-fives his buddies while the girls sigh, “Isn’t he sooooo clever?”

Is this really what gets a billion (with a B as he brags) views these days? Although my daughter is not surprised and says religion and putting down women are catnip to the manosphere. A lecture on rhetorical fallacies, not so much. So let’s look at the points made in the 2.5-hr interview:

• Lumps theosophy, New Age, Christ consciousness, One-ism, quantum spirituality together because they’re anti-Christ and that’s wrong [really means anti-Jesus since ‘Christ consciousness’ isn’t anti-Christ, for instance].

• Uses David Icke as an example and says that all conspiracy theory is rooted in Gnosticism, which is a flavor of New Age ice cream—although it emerged right after Jesus, he says, which seems like a contradiction.

• Gnosticism is a Satanic worldview of an evil prison planet. It goes along with the no-germ people and the Flat Earthers.

• Hrvoje says this explains the obsession with the Jews, and the ‘occultacracy’ and mysticism.

• Terry states this is a false dichotomy trapping open minded people into a camp of spiritualized science. This is a theosophist plot from the 1930’s that includes Russell Brand and Kanye West. Hitler was a theosophist.

• “Where I see this going is demonization of fundamentalists, more and more pressure from young people, especially females, because they target them with the love and tolerance and this idea that we shouldn’t be discriminating, all paths to Truth are valid. It’s a PC family friendly notion that we’re the tolerant ones and those who don’t go along with it are the intolerant ones. Tolerance will be the sledgehammer that destroys Christianity.

• Terry then shows a clip of a random YouTuber who says it’s okay to murder if your intention is to understand murder. He states that she’s typical of New Agers—we’re all One, there’s no distinction between me and you. She perfectly aligns with gnosticism and thinks we need a female priesthood. This is what they all believe, he claims.

• Merging religions is Satanic, globalist. Promoting the coming age of unity is a plot to bring about the New World Order, except it will be Green.

• You as a Christian can be holy by rejecting this evil. “We’re being targeted for extinction but we win when we talk.”

• Hrvoje sees conformity as pressure being put on Christians. Terry concurs that you need to step up your discernment and think for yourself. Avoid the temptation of ‘inner circle’ groups because “we know the truth.”

• He ends by stating that censorship is just the beginning. It will turn into imprisonment, martyrdom and purging, just like Jesus. But the true Christian needs to embrace this.

---

rhetorical phallacies

Shall we count the ways?

1. Straw man argument. A random YouTuber who says murder is okay represents all new agers, gnostics and non-fundamentalist Christians.

2. Ad hominem attacks in name-calling rather than answering.

3. Guilt by association with everything from UFOs, no virus and Flat Earthers thrown together with gnostics and ‘New Age’.

4. Ambiguity with no terms defined.

5. Inversion—calls them Satanic but says that they’re out to demonize fundamentalists, using tolerance as a sledgehammer.

6. Appeal to authority.

7. Circular reasoning—I won’t debate whether my teacher is real because my teacher says I shouldn’t argue with pigs.

8. Begging the question—These are all anti-Christ and that’s wrong.

9. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc—Hitler was a theosophist, Hitler was evil, therefore theosophy is evil.

10. Hyperbole—Females promoting tolerance and unity will lead to the extinction of fundamentalists through imprisonment and martyrdom unless we strike back now.

---

post script

Since I published the video, Hrvoje responded to my question on whether Terry spoke for him, and then to a clip that someone sent him of the ending:

Geopolitics & Empire 17 hrs ago Author

Hi Tereza, nobody speaks for me and I speak for nobody, I like to be graceful with everyone and extend kindness and mercy...which is why I've had people of a wide spectrum on my podcast.

I shared a few quotes recently on my Notes that espouse my thinking and position: "They say that a good person can’t help but be angry with bad people. If this is true, then the better a person is, the angrier he must be. In reality, however, it’s the other way around: the better a person is the gentler and kinder he is with all people." Leo Tolstoy …

I have a respect for you and everyone else on here sharing ideas and creating content, writing, podcasting, etc.

I do draw the line when people become severely uncouth, unhinged, and really vile...that's when I say goodbye and block them (I blocked someone for the first time recently on Substack who was behaving truly deplorably). But I try to extend grace for as long as I bearably can! If the other person is respectable, than we have no problems!

I must add that I vehemently disagree with your take on Jesus, God and the Bible and have a completely opposite view, and that I won't ever be shaken from it. But that doesn't mean we can't be friendly!

I answered:

I really appreciate your gracious reply, Hrvoje. It means a lot to me. I did publish my video on Terry last night and I'll be getting it up on Substack later today.

My focus in the video is less on the content of the debate, which never got very far, and more about the rules for systematic thinking, of which Terry seems unaware. I say that I feel like a HS debate teacher where the football jock just keeps hurling insults: "I'm not even going to answer you because I don't throw pearls to pigs!" And then looking to his buddies for high-fives. To be honest, I find it disheartening that that level of intellectual rigor gets a billion views.

I think it's important to own your dogma—that which you won't raise to question. Mine is that I'm no better than anyone else. So superiority is the basis on which I determine whether I can consider a scripture as possibly true or need to reject it because it contradicts my dogma.

Superiority and hierarchy are empire-thinking, the belief that "Some are born to rule and others are born to obey," the Aristotle quote that starts my book How to Dismantle an Empire.

I respect that you claim the Bible as your dogma but it's a rhetorical trick to usurp both God and the awareness of God within the world, the Christ, by using the term Christianity to apply exclusively to the Biblical definition of Jesus. That makes your position the default, with a host of assumptions that can't be raised to question because there are no words for the alternatives.

For those who believe in the OT, I use the term Yahwists, along with Laurent Guyenot. It's an assumption that Yahweh is God, not just that there is a God.

What word should be used for those who believe that one person, Jesus, was the Christ? The name should include his name, not the assumption. Jesus is one subset of the possibilities, that the Christ is one person and this specific person who was God. I use Jesusism to describe the worship of one individual. But it's awkward and I've been looking for alternatives. Any suggestions?

The important question isn't whether Jesus existed but whose side he was on: empire or sovereignty? If Jesus—as divine, historical figure or literary character—is on the side of empire, it creates a state of cognitive dissonance for anyone who is opposing empire as a Jesusite. I think that's a question that you and I could debate from within the framework of the Bible.

Again, I really appreciate your kind response, Hrvoje!

Hrvoje then wrote:

I was sent this clip Tereza in which you completely misrepresent and fabricate my view...I am not OK with Christian empire...I have literally said that I don't believe politics and Christianity should mix and I oppose Christian Nationalism (dominionism, theocracy, etc).

Geopolitics & Empire has been around since 2012 in one form or another and began by looking at the American empire and I've had many guests over the decade-plus examining empire including with eminent scholars of empire (e.g. the late Johan Galtung, cultural historian Morris Berman).

And yes, I believe biblical Christianity is the exclusive truth (and hence every other religion being wrong), just as I assume you believe biblical Christianity to be wrong, you can call my stance "dogma" but I reckon just the same term "dogma" could apply to your views. You are assuming I haven't examined the occult and new age and gnostic and theosophic and other religious views...I have over the past 20 years...I simply do not find them to be true and personally am not interested in debating what I don't believe to be true... I rather prefer to pursue topics on the basis of truth as I believe and see it...

And I ended with:

I'll include your objection in the Substack, Hrvoje. I also quote Johan Galtung in my book but I consider no one an authority but rather shoulders we get to stand on to develop our own view.

Every debate starts with definition. You define empire geographically, involving politics and nations. I think the genius of Judeo-Christianity is that it allowed an empire without borders, a diaspora empire.

The Bible was assembled/ edited/ written under the Emperor Constantine. It established the Holy Roman Empire, greatest landholder in the world. The right to rule over others is established in the Noahide Covenant. The Vatican had the power to appoint and remove emperors. By any measure of wealth and power, Biblical Christianity is the most successful empire the world has ever known.

Frances Leader looks at the three autonomous regions, not under the jurisdiction of any country, through which the same people rule: the Vatican for ideological power, the City of London for economic power, and DC for military power. So looking at American Empire is a limited hangout, because it doesn't ask to whom US politicians answer.

Other than my sole dogma, that I'm no better than anyone else, I don't 'believe' in believing. I test everything against facts, logic and experience. Based on my research, I find Biblical Christianity—not to be wrong—but to be on the side of empire, of the God-given right of some to rule over others. That's in contradiction to my dogma. If you're against the right of some to rule over others, it contradicts that for you too. Holding two contradictory beliefs requires you to not look closely at them. That's cognitive dissonance.

You (if I'm understanding correctly) reject the imperialism of the Church as not part of your Christianity. You, perhaps, reject the imperialism of the OT as not part of your Christianity. Yet even the imperialism of Jesus, within the framework of the NT, is something you aren't willing to examine.

Your Christianity is something I should see as unique and not impose the 2000 year history on it. Yet you see me as representing the occult, new age, gnosticism, and theosophy, where you have 'been there, done that,' and have no interest in debating them. Excellent, me too! Why would I want to represent anyone's views but my own?

The question I proposed is whether Jesus is on the side of sovereignty or empire, the right of self-governance or the right of some to rule over others, looking at facts, logic and research. That's what would determine if your belief in Biblical Christianity is in contradiction to your opposition to empire.

Whew! In the video I mentioned a conversation of ideas with Mary on:

Why RFK, Jr. Makes Me Cry

and with Kathleen Devanney on:

(Not a) Must Read!!

and these show that we can have a tender disagreement, with respect for all sides. As Tonika said on Poppy Wars, “Imperialism vs Sovereignty, the only real battle there is—this rings down to the core.” Thanks for being on my sovereignty debate team.

---

I outline ten steps for improving the quality of your arguments: 1) Frame an open-ended question 2) Like the person you're arguing with 3) Why does it matter? 4) Define all terms in the question 5) Expand the realm of possible answers 6) What evidence could change your mind? 7) How do you determine authority on the subject? 8) Own your dogma 9) Name the rules of engagement and 10) Agree to talk until you agree.

Questions whether Jesus was a rebel against the Roman Empire or in league with Rome against the Judean insurgency. Examines the Greek word translated as robber in the Gospels and rebel in Josephus' War of the Jews. Looks at the 'den of thieves,' 'good thief/ bad thief,' Good Samaritan and shepherd as for or against self-rule. Compares the zealot revolt of Judea to the simultaneous story of Jesus for where it stands on empire vs. sovereignty.