Carl [00:00:00]:

Foreign.

Will Spencer [00:00:20]:

Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast. I have a couple returning guests with me today. Carl Tib and Courtney Turner. So the. This live stream was inspired by some recent discussion by a popular X account, who we probably don't have to name, who was recently talking about the influence that Ken Wilber had on his content. Now, this is a popular masculinity influencer. And when I discovered that he was promoting Ken Wilbur, who we're going to get into, I was a little shocked. And I knew that this was something that we had to discuss in a wider sort of format. So I invited Carl and Courtney to come and join me today to sort of unpack who Ken Wilber is and Ken Wilbur's influence on the world and on globalism and much, much more. So, Carl and Courtney, welcome back to the Will Spencer Podcast.

Carl [00:01:07]:

Thank you. Great to be here.

Courtney [00:01:09]:

To be back.

Will Spencer [00:01:10]:

So. Well, okay, so just a bit of my background with Ken Wilber, which is. Which is very small. So as many of my listeners know, I spent 20 years in the New Age on the ground. I was a. I was a believer in that world. That was where I live. That was my theological world and life view in many ways. I never personally read Ken Wilbur myself, but he was a name that I heard many times. And every time I would hear people speak about him, it was always the people that were more hardcore in the New Age world than I was. Like, whenever someone would talk about Ken Wilber, it was like, oh, that's like reading. Like, you might as well just go read the original texts of the Buddha or something like that. Like, when you're taking it really seriously, then it's time to read Ken Wilber. So I never quite got there to that philosophical level. Perhaps if I hadn't gotten saved, I might have, but he sort of. He has, I guess we'd say, philosophy. His theology existed in this rarefied air kind of kind of world from where I was. And then when I got saved and started looking more into globalism, I discovered that his work was far more influential outside of this sort of esoteric New Age world than I realized. And so I know that you guys are quite familiar with Wilbur and his work and his influence. So I'm looking forward to learning more and sharing more about his work and the influence that it has on our world today.

Carl [00:02:26]:

Awesome.

Courtney [00:02:27]:

Excellent. Well, hey, just for kicks and giggles, then I'm gonna say, Courtney, ladies first. And I will just hold up before I turn it over to Courtney right here.

Carl [00:02:38]:

Ken Wilbur tomorrow.

Will Spencer [00:02:41]:

Oh, wow.

Courtney [00:02:42]:

And that's where we're going, that's we're going. Courtney, you know where this goes.

Carl [00:02:47]:

Yes, indeed. It is very much the religion of tomorrow. That is very much where we're headed. If you're following the UN at all, they're very much promoting their theosophical one world religion, which is a syncretic religion. It is very much in the vein of Ken Wilbur, also in the vein of the theosophist like Madame Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. I just did a whole, a pretty long article on the Centennial Conclave which is occurring now because, you know, it's 2025 and Alice Bailey predicted this was going to be the year for the externalization of the hierarchy. And this is, of course, when all the ascended masters are going to become much more visible and interact with humans here on Earth. Christians might perceive this to be fallen angels, but they will tell you these are the spiritually ascended, they're the spiritually evolved who will guide the humans and help us to evolve into the oneness. Right, as they like to say. And the UN is very much working with these ideas and they're following these ideas. There's actually, and I put a link to this in my article where the UN is having their symposium on the manifesting the One Humanity. And that is really what this is all about, right? The Ken Wilbur. I. I've been familiar with Ken Wilbur for, for quite some, like you. Well, I had more, you know, in my past. I was much more, you know, on the inside of these kinds of ideas. I was never actually a New Ager, but I was definitely on the ancillary, right on the periphery. I had a lot of. I was in the entertainment industry. I was an a yoga teacher. I was a partner acrobatics teacher. I was a cirque performer. My whole world was surrounded by people who were espousing these views. So. But more recently, I was read a lot of him because I've been following this Game B movement and he is very influential on the Game B movement. So I'm not sure. Are either of you familiar with Game B? Okay.

Will Spencer [00:04:53]:

No, no.

Carl [00:04:54]:

Much of the Cliff Notes as possible is quite a ride. I think I've done maybe 15 shows on it. One of them was a three and a half hour presentation, so it's quite involved. But essentially it's this idea of a new operating system for civilization. And, and Clover is not like an official Game B, but his ideas are very influential on Game B and he interacts with most of the Game B thought leaders and they very much predicate this concept on his views. So Game B is this new operating system for civilization. It was a spawn out of something called the Emancipation Party, which was a movement to create a new political party. This was back in 2011, and I wrote another article pretty recently and I called it Technological Aquarius, Third Way Dreams or Digital Dystopia. And this is very. I incorporated a lot of the concepts from Game B because they've got a concept in there that Daniel Schmachtenberger calls the Third Attractor, which is very much in line with the Third Way politics. And there's a Third Way politics movement that is kind of adjacent. It's very much everywhere, especially in the United States right now, but it's really globally doing these Third Way politics. And for those who aren't familiar with Third Way politics, this is out of the Fabian Socialism. Anthony wrote a book and he talks about how we're going to move to the radical center. So for people who think this is like moderate views, it's a radical center. So bear that in mind. And he mentions that radical center always has to be left of center. So this is really not about moderate kind of reasonable views at all. This is about steering, you know, social engineering. And they call it social ethics because of course, course it's, you know, for. For the greater good of humanity. So. And. And they decide what's the greater good, of course. So, yeah, so this, we're seeing these kind of movements and this Emancipation Party was a political movement very much aligned with like a Bernie Sanders type platform. They wanted things like universal healthcare, ubi. So these kinds of platforms, you can still go. And look, I actually have a link to their reforms on my website. But the concept was spawn. They call Eric Weins the granddaddy of Game B. Okay, yes, sorry. No, they call him the Rabbi. Sorry, the Rabbi of. Of Game B. But it. What happened was there was a. It was at the Perimeter Institute. This is the way Jordan hall explains it. At the perimeter Institute, around 2008, 2009, Eric Weinstein was doing a presentation, you know, about the economic crisis and some of the propositions for solutions. You know, he talks about Path A. Path B doesn't say Game A. Game B in that concept in that context. But he starts to talk about Path A, Path B. At that event, Jordan hall meets the Weinstein brothers. But mostly it was just conversations. But Eric kept insisting that Jordan and Brett keep meeting. And around the same time, Jim Wright and Jordan hall were at the Santa Fe Institute. So Jim Rutt was the chairman of The Santa Fe Institute. So, you know, they're studying complexity theory. If you're familiar with Jim Rutt, he's a very interesting character. Both Jordan and Jim have a history in tech startup ventures. Jim Rutt was the CEO of Network Solutions. He was actually on the ground floor of like, raising money for what became T Mobile. He coined the term snail mail. So he's been very involved in all these tech startups, but he was working on something called evolutionary software. He has this concept of, you know, evolution. They bring in Brett Weinstein to this Emancipation Party meeting, which he called the Stanton meeting. They were in Stanton, Virginia, and it didn't go very well. The way that Jim explains it is that essentially he got the boomers all excited, but you can't make a political party with the boomers. And then he said the, the Gen X was kind of like negotiable. He thought he might be able to corral them. But the millennials love the concept. They love the plot platform, you know, the, this socialist style platform. He didn't say the socialist side, but that's what it was. But that they were such anarchists that the idea of a political party was enigma to them. And so Thor Mueller, who was involved in these Stanton meetings, said they have to keep the branding of Game B. So they kept evolving this concept of Game B. And the way Jim explains it is that, you know, some of them, it was. There was a division because half of them were a little more woo. And we'll get to the woo. People. This is like the Daniel Schmachtenbergers, the Zach Stein, the people who are one, you know, two thirds of the David Temple that make the cosmoerotic humanism that Ken Wilbur is the other third. So there. So he. But then the others were the, you know, more hard scientists. These are the complexity theorists. I think we could debate whether or not that's hard science. But the complexity theorist, the system theorist, and they can reconverge around 2013, 2014. And so they're moving forward with this Game B. And the way I describe Game B, see, is that it's a. The left hand dialectical path to the Dark Enlightenment. The Dark Enlightenment a lot of people are much more familiar with today because there, a lot of them are surrounding the Trump administration. And so. And they're very kind of overt. You know, the other analogy I like to make is kind of like Satanism versus Luciferianism. You know, the, the Dark Enlightenment. They're, they're in your face. They call themselves dark. They're the neo reactionary movement. They're autocratic. They, you know, they're. They have concepts like hyper racism and hyperstition. And you know, they're very overt about their, their ideas. And then you've got Game B, which talks, you know, their buzzwords are all decentralized. It's very theosophically inspired, much more spiritual eugenics versus overt eugenics. But they are still talking about technocracy. They're just talking about it through network states. So network states is like Balaji Srinivasan's concept of a dissolution of geographical nation states in favor of these ideological cyber network states. And this is actually predicated on Peter. Peter Thiel is kind of the. He's like the bridge between those two and possibly the synthesis, if you will, if you see it in dialectical term. But they talk about, in this network state concept how there's a whole chapter predicated on Peter Thiel's seasteading concept. Seasteading didn't go over that well. Peter Thiel put $1.7 million into seasteading, which is very reminiscent of Ghislaine Maxwell's Terramar, if you recall that concept, right, where we're going to have these city states on international waters, where you're not beholden to the laws of nation state. But it didn't go over that well. So now he's supporting these network states which are, you know, very similar to like Prospera, which is the Bitcoin cities that Peter Thiel is doing in Honduras. And the subsidiary of. Subsidiary of that was Vitalia, but they rename everything, right? So Vitalia is no longer. It is now Infinita. But Vitalia, their tagline and the website, used to be a city where death is optional. So this is all couched around the longevity quote unquote, which is, you know, usually a code for transhumanism or transhuman adjacent. So this Game B concept is that we're in Game A currently, and game A is too rivalrous and too extractive and competitive. So I call it the technological. I call Game B the technological Age of Aquarius, because essentially they're saying we have to move into the collaborative, the collective. They use the term collective intelligence, which kind of sounds like the noosphere to me. And I think if they can get us all into a noosphere, they can usher in the technological singularity, which I do think is where they're headed. So that, that's kind of this Game B concept. They somehow they don't think it's extractive. Or exploitative. To take the technology from Game A to use it for Game B, that's totally fine. But you see the concepts of. From the technology that they're designing and advocating, and you'll see Ken Wilber, like, they talk about Holland Hollands all the time. Polar is a big word, right. They always talk about. And they talk about hollow chains and one of the holochain technology. I, I did a whole show on this was called Map, and they actually say it's about inhabiting the noosphere. They changed the name to 7s7 foundation, of course. But anyway, I rambled for a long time. That was a lot.

Will Spencer [00:13:38]:

So I was gonna say we need to. We need. I need to. There's so much in there that we. That we need to unpack, probably because some of that even I. I haven't even. I haven't heard of. So, so, so, okay, so we've got. So we've got the historical perspective of going back to Game B and a couple different. Couple different. The names. So Ken. So what you're saying is that Ken Wilber forms the foundation. So maybe Carl, maybe you can unpack.

Carl [00:13:59]:

Some of Ken Wilbur's theory and his religion are very. Yeah, they set the foundation for what Game B is. But. Yeah.

Courtney [00:14:05]:

Yeah. Okay, so. So to be. To be fair, Courtney, I had not heard of Game B the way you describe it. But as you were. As you were unpacking it, I was going to. Yeah, it's everywhere and evident. So as you were describing this, I was going, golly, I've literally walked the design or the mix of the spiritual and the secular, this integrated, networked experience in the dust of Burning Man. Because as I go to Burning Man, I see these exact processes, systems, the thought, sensory or the sensory overload that comes with it that kind of shakes and breaks down your worldview and now all of a sudden gives you a whole new one, a whole new operating system to work with. I've sat through working sessions where they have unpacked the concepts of creating kind of a parallel digital nation. You know, it's fascinating how these, These ideas of, we will network the world, we'll all become one. You can't get away from it. And Wilbur's philosophy, Wilbur's thinking, of course, for those who are unfamiliar, he was a kind of a contemporary Buddhist mystic philosopher whose teachings on. Especially his teachings on. On the idea of the integral network, that there is this overlap of ideas, this overlap of thought and theory that constantly kind of builds on each other. And so you have this evolution of religion, this evolution of philosophy. So maybe a way to describe is this Christianity doesn't have to de. Christianize itself. What it has to do is take the harder edges off and then integrate within it, philosophy, maybe some esoteric spirituality. Because we're constantly growing, we're constantly evolving, we're constantly gaining knowledge. And so we can just keep adding layer and layer and layer into it, and we will have a holistic Christian experience. Let's call it maybe progressive Christian, because that's what it boils down to. That's what it becomes. It becomes a form of. Of this sense of oneness, mysticism that has both a philosophical and a political component to it. It has a mystical, experiential, and a kind of a philosophical way of breaking it all down. So it also reminds me of the work of Irvin Laszlo, who is, I mean, almost identical in many respects to Wilbur. I look at Wilbur and Laszlo and I see them kind of operating in the same mindset, the same thinking, the same methods, the same kind of influence. Laszlo, of course, just being more like the older gentleman now. I don't even know if he's still alive. He's gotta be like 200 years old already. I'm looking at Wilbur and I'm like, wow. You know, he went from. He went from being like this kind of bald, buff guy to now, you know, recent videos. I'm like, oh, man, we've all aged. You've aged, I'm aging. We're all aging. So, you know, this hope not aging.

Carl [00:17:39]:

Yeah.

Courtney [00:17:44]:

And then you take it from that, Courtney, you brought in the transhumanist side because this is part and parcel of it. All of a sudden, it forms itself into the philosophy behind this emerging kind of techno physio reality where we're saying, look, our technology becomes the tree of life.

Carl [00:18:06]:

Yep. Yeah.

Courtney [00:18:08]:

And just eat the fruit. Just eat the fruit of that and you can live forever. And I, you know, I've spent a lot of time in the past with transhumanists. I remember having one particular transhumanist tell me how he'd been working on the idea of longevity for 30 some years already, and this is back in 2013. And then saying something to the point of. And he's saying this in a. In a. In a very almost distraught way. I'm still not one day closer to actually achieving my. My goal of immortality. And I'm like, that sucks. That just sucks, you know? So Christianity will have to embrace elements of Buddhism, elements of psychology, Hinduism, the oneness concepts, theosophy, all of Those things need to come together into Christianity to form a new holistic Christian, emerging Christian experience. And this is where it gets really interesting within Christianity, how Wilbur's influence pokes into it. So do you remember the emerging church movement?

Carl [00:19:24]:

Yep.

Courtney [00:19:25]:

Okay. Yes. The emerging church movement was, of course, a big, big deal back in, what, 22,005, 2002, up until roughly 2015. And then it kind of. By 2010, it was really starting to switch gears, becoming really, truly a progressive movement. But Ken Wilbur, his writings influence Brian McLaren specifically.

Will Spencer [00:19:51]:

Okay, that makes sense.

Courtney [00:19:53]:

It influenced Rob Bell. Brian McLaren goes so far in some of his earlier writings to attribute Wilbur's integral theory to being parallel to Brian McLaren's emergent Christianity.

Will Spencer [00:20:10]:

Okay.

Courtney [00:20:10]:

That there was fundamentally no difference between the two. Yeah, of course there will be a difference. But. But that. That's. That's where McLaren was going.

Will Spencer [00:20:19]:

So. So real quick. So, Carl, we're getting good video, but we're also getting kind of some crackling on your audio. I don't know if anyone else can hear that, but I'm picking it up. So. So maybe. Maybe you can duck out and then duck back in and I'll. I'll just. I'll just chat for a minute while you. While you do that. We'll just go with whatever. Whatever. Whatever comes back. But I think what's interesting about this, as you're. As you're pointing out, is that this isn't just a. This isn't just a holistic. This isn't just a holistic view of society. It's a holistic view that is attempting to syncretize Christianity into it. And a lot of holistic systems will attempt to just exclude Christianity or make it go away or will ignore it. But it sounds like Wilbur, his whole overarching view is an attempt to reform Christianity, make it a more progressive Christianity, and make the faith be able to be syncretized into this one world system that previously it hasn't been able to do. That, of course, in order to make Christianity, in order to syncretize Christianity, you have to saw off a bunch of scripture verses. But if you can. If you can do that successfully and if you can push it hard enough and you can make it appealing enough, certainly you can get people like Brian McLaren to say, like, oh, yeah, no, this is. This is the way forward for the faith so that we can all be one, instead of having these crazy fundamentalists that are committed to scriptural truth. And so that's. That's an interesting part of Wilbur, his perspective. It sounds like that he was actually attempting to syncretize Christianity into this as opposed to just ignoring it or hoping that it goes away.

Carl [00:21:57]:

Yeah, and I find most of these people do. I mean, Barbara Marx Hubbard took it upon herself to rewrite the New Testament. She, she felt needed rewriting, you know, and of course she was the person to do it. And she told her dear friend Bucky that she was so excited that she rewrote the New Testament. And he said, I had the same vision and he was so proud of her. But of course in it she, she writes how, in her, what was it? Escape to Armageddon. She writes how Christ is like the first transhuman. So she's got some strange ideas about Christianity. I was just talking about Barbara Marx Hubbard because he was saying it's very interesting that Ken Wilbert. Yeah, another crazy character. But he was saying he's interesting that Wilbur is trying to syncretize Christianity instead of reject it outright. But I said that I think a lot of these people do that, right? I mean even theosophists, they said they welcome kabbalistic Christianity and all sorts of mystical variations. Christian scientism, you know, Christian Science. Like they welcome these mystical variations of Christianity and Judaism often, but they reject the traditional forms because the reason is because those are monotheistic and what they believe in is pantheistic or pan atheistic. If you take the new thought variants, it's very much pan atheistic. And I, I think, yeah, they're, they absolutely want to include corporate as much of the Christianity and they use what I call Christian ease. So it's very deceptive. Right. How many Christians have been led thinking that Christ consciousness or the Christ is about Jesus Christ when you know that's not what they're saying at all. This is not a Christian doctrine. It is a mystical variant.

Will Spencer [00:23:41]:

So I think what's, what's also, what's also striking about it is, you know, this masculinity influencer will be talking about Ken Wilbur and all of these all is one religions, as I have a whole presentation that I can do about it, are ultimately goddess worshiping religions. They don't conceive of God the Father as being separate. It ultimately becomes all as one. Or like all is one is a very matern matriarchal kind of view. Cosmology and panentheism is as demonstrably as if we're in God's womb. Again, there's all kinds of symbolism out there that I could show you guys in this presentation. And so that this masculinity influencer is, is appealing to this essentially very feminist theology is like, have you. It's, it's quite odd to me.

Carl [00:24:27]:

Yeah. So this is exactly why I say like Game B is kind of the, you know, left hand path. They operate through more of the left leaning, exoteric face. I, I don't think it subscribes to political ideology per se, but that's the, the path they operate through. And then a Dark Enlightenment operates more through the right path. And I, I say that because the Dark Enlightenment is very patriarchal in the sense of, you know, disciplinarian kind of patriarchal in terms of the archetype. And Game B is all about this kind of like the Gaia religion, you know, Gaia worship and it is the divine mother. So I make the joke that, you know, it doesn't matter if you have a mommy issues or daddy issues, they're going to give you a pink or blue comfort blankie to pacify you either way. And they're still going to usher you into the technological singularity, but they'll make you comfortable as they do it. So.

Will Spencer [00:25:24]:

Right, Carl?

Courtney [00:25:27]:

Yeah, you know, obviously I missed part of the conversation and my apologies. Speaking about tech, my tech on this end isn't exactly the greatest where I'm at, that's for sure. One of the other components of this that I think is important to bring up is that especially as we're considering the religious side, and that is the role of the interfaith movement as a dedicated movement. So interfaithism says that all religions essentially share the same truth claims or have a kernel of truth within them. It is premised off of the perennial philosophy that there is this mystical thread running through all faiths. And over the years I've attended a lot of interfaith events because it forms in essence a type of spiritual politics where there is this oneness of religions. You can keep the diversity of your faiths and keep your Christianity, keep your Hinduism, keep your Islam and all the different sects within those compartments, but all religions will integrate into a holistic worldview, a sense of oneness, a service to the earth. That's very important service to Gaia. This is something you see repeatedly and that man becomes the vehicle by which we save the world. In fact, I remember the 2018 Parliament of World Religions, Larry Greenfield, the executive I believe this is executive director for the Parliament at the time, in his closing remarks, thanking all of us for participating in the salvation of the earth and heard that kind of language repeatedly, that it's our job, it's us Coming together as one. Regardless of what your doctrine is, your dogma is, regardless of what the core beliefs are, there is an overarching belief, and that belief is the oneness of man, the oneness of the planet. And our allegiance towards this system that brings this oneness into fruition. Because we're not one, honestly, we break it down. I mean, there are distinctions in literally everything, including elements of faith and politics. Every one of us has distinctions. Distinctions are ubiquitous. They're all around us. And yet in this mindset, it is about, well, maybe not necessarily ignoring the distinctions, but giving it a new label, calling it diversity, but then saying underneath that umbrella of diversity, we all have to work for this larger overarching theme, this new narrative, this new kind of operating system. In my book, I call it reemergence. You know, the idea of re enchantment, that's what it is. In the emergent church movement, they called it emergence. Ken Wilber has his own language for it. Everybody kind of has their own flavor. I called it re enchantment. The sense of we are now, you know, having an ancient future worldview. We're going to literally integrate. We are literally integrating that. That mystical pagan element of the ancient past with modern technology to form a new holism. And when the two, when the two come together, all of a sudden we have incredible, incredible systems of control over mankind.

Will Spencer [00:28:56]:

And if, if you reject those systems of control, you're just not evolved enough. And that's. Right, that's, that's the crux of. Yeah, you're, you're, you're, you're. This is where, like, Darwinian evolution plays such a central role. You have to believe that not just there's a. There's a physical, material evolution going on, but there's also a spiritual evolution going on. And so if you don't consent to these systems of control in the name of overcoming diversity for unity, then you're just spiritually unevolved. And that's that. As I recall from my time in the new Age, that was the worst insult that you could say to somebody. It's like, oh, he's just, he's just so unevolved. And, and there's a. There's a shaming component. There's a shaming. There's an accusing component of someone's essential spiritual worth and value. If you don't buy into this because you don't want to be the unevolved one, you don't want to be the one holding back the entire class. And, and that's the part where it can be very poisonous.

Carl [00:29:50]:

Yeah.

Courtney [00:29:51]:

And. Oh, sorry, Courtney, go ahead.

Carl [00:29:53]:

No, go on. I'll jump in after.

Courtney [00:29:55]:

No, no, I was just gonna say. I was just gonna say it's basically, we are. We're living out or attempting to play act, the Stoned Ape Theory, where. And you know, Terence McKinnon, with the belief that at one point in our distant path and past. And this is just, you know, it's the mythos of Re Enchantment. It's the mythos of the psychedelic spiritual kind of blossoming that's taking place. And by the way, next week is the Psychedelic Science Conference in Denver, the largest psychedelic conference in the world. And I believe there's, I think, three working sessions on Judaism and Christianity and the integration of psychedelic spirituality. So there is a. There's a lot of stuff happening, nevertheless. So you have this concept of. In the Stone ape or stone monkey theory, of course, of at some point the monkey comes along and he finds some mushrooms and he ingests these mushrooms and gives him a conscious awakening. And then that conscious awakening is the forerunner to the evolution of mankind. And we're all stoned monkeys, in essence. A theory. Another parallel to that, though, and this is brought to my attention not that long ago, and I had missed it, but it was Space Odyssey 2001, if you remember the movie, which is a bland movie. Like, I mean, my word, there's a scene where there's a spaceship traveling across the screen for, what, 10 minutes? It's like you can run outside, go get, you know, a Slurpee and come back and not miss anything. I mean, but, you know, it was 19, what, 68, 69. It was a big deal. But if you remember the movie, if you watch the movie, in the very beginning, you have a monkey with a shank bone. And beside him is this black obelisk, this black stone. And the monkey all of a sudden realizes. Has an enlightenment because of the technology that is radiating some new consciousness towards him. And he takes that bone, and then that bone in the movie morphs. And all of a sudden the bone is replaced by the starship. And it's the evolution of man through the use of our tools, our technology. And, of course, the ending of the movie is. Is the birth of the. Of the cosmos, of the cosmic being. As now we see this embryonic. This embryonic astronaut now looking upon the Earth and seeing the oneness, the wholeness of the planet. It's the same themes over and over and over and over again. You just can't get away from it. Here, of course, as Christians, this is what I find fascinating. There is an integral theory. There is a holistic theory. And is this God is separate from creation. That's what makes him God. He is utterly unique. There is no one like Yahweh. There's no one like God, period. Because he is a creator. He is in a category completely on his own. He is the one who puts life in motion. It is. It rests on him. In fact, it rests on Jesus Christ. We read that in Colossians. It rests in Christ. And then we break are. How do I say this? We break away. We break away from the goodness of Christ, and we say no to him. We say no to God. We say no. We're going to find our own way. We're going to follow our own path, and it becomes the path of death, which, of course, is Genesis, chapter three. And now the operating system we're all living in doesn't matter if it's me, you, or who it is, is this system of sin and death and rejection of the fact that there is a God who is transcendent, different, and completely categorically unique. The operating system that we're being told by Ken Wilbur and all the rest of this is no. You can evolve yourself to become as God.

Carl [00:34:09]:

Yep.

Courtney [00:34:10]:

And all of mankind can be refashioned into a new techno pagan babble.

Carl [00:34:15]:

Yep. So.

Will Spencer [00:34:17]:

So in. In his. In Wilbur's system, is this something that people have to consent to? Or is this something that people can be coerced, Must be coerced into? Or is it something that people can be societally coerced into by culture? So, like, in one option, it's all of it. Okay. So. So Wilbur would say, go ahead.

Carl [00:34:41]:

Enough. Right. Like, you have to go through. Through his. His tiers of the levels.

Courtney [00:34:46]:

Yeah, his levels.

Carl [00:34:47]:

You have to get to second tier of consciousness before you can even be a candidate to be evolved enough. And then, you know.

Courtney [00:34:55]:

Right.

Carl [00:34:56]:

And this is. You brought up, you know, like the. The site, the psychological movement. Right. The positive psychology is so influential in all this. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was very influential on Kenneth Wilbur. And a lot of people, you know, they think about the hierarchy of needs, and it actually was never drawn as a pyramid. You know, that was kind of a thing they did with the textbooks. It was an easy way to sell it and package it. It was more of a market. He never actually said that. But that was actually not of prime importance to him or interest to him. That was kind of like, you know, basic research that he did. But what he was really focused on was called being values. And he called them B values for short. And it was this concept around the Eupsychian network and you psychean was this notion of the spiritually evolved who had their basic needs met and they could start to focus on B values. So, you know, things that were really important like religion and politics. And those were of course, the people who were in the priest class who could, you know, rule over everyone else because they were spiritually evolved. And he had posthumously published his wife Bertha had brought it to actually Willis Harmon, Robert Cantor. And it was right around the same time that they're doing the Changing Images of Man. Stanford Research Institute.

Courtney [00:36:16]:

Huge. Huge.

Carl [00:36:18]:

Yeah, right. Change the consciousness of man and steer man towards the oneness. That's really what it was all about. And they have these, all these charts and they're always romanticizing these indigenous populations, right, that the pagan era. And they somehow think that that's not rivalrous or competitive. I, I don't know like what imagination they use in order to, to erase any of the barbarism that occurred during that time. But, you know, that's how they see it. And it was right around the same time. And of course, Willis Harmon was, you know, head of Institute of Noetic Sciences for over two decades. And he was also writing this Aquarian conspiracy book which he used his, his secretary Marilyn Ferguson's, you know, as the pseudonym to popularize the New age ideas because that was what they were developing through this Changing Images of Man. But all this to say that Maslow was working on something called Politics 3. And in this Politics 3 document he talks about holistic politics. And this is very similar to the kind of language that you hear out of Robert Mueller, who was Secretary General for, you know, the UN for four decades, who predicated the entire World War. Sorry, world. World Core Curriculum based off of Alice Bailey's Education in the New Age. Right. This is where we get the Common Core, or Charlotte is a Beat, I think more aptly calls it communist core, but. Right. And in his 2000 ideas, I think it went on to be 4000 ideas, you know, because he fancy concede himself such a visionary, but he keeps talking about planetary politics. And this is this holistic politics from Maslow. And Maslow is very influential on Ken Wilbur. And this is where he gets this whole hierarchy for his altitudes of development. It was also based on Claire Graves, the spiral dynamics. Of course they, they love their spirals because we can't have it. Nothing can be anchored in truth or, you know, no plumb lines here all the way through. And Ken Wilbur was also this one third of David Temple, who's this mythical character that they use as a pseudonym. And I've read a little about it. They talk about how they didn't want any egos and it had to be a collective, you know, it had to be syncretic and, you know, synergy and whatever. But when they're coming up with this. But this was the first values, first principles of evolving perennialism. It was 42 propositions on cosmoerotic humanism. And they're all the disciples of Barbara Marks Hubbard. And so this, the, the three, the trio that make up David Temple were Zach Stein, Mark Gaffney and Kenneth Wilbur. And this is the concept of how we have to rewrite the story of the universe, because of course, the story of the universe be rewritten and we need to rewrite our place in it, of course, as well. And it's very interesting. I was at cern, I think it was two years ago now. And they do the same thing, the same thing that's in this Cosmo. Maybe it was one year ago, but Cosmo erotic humanism. They. This was in 2024. They. It's at the office of the Office for the Future Dot Com. You know, they, they always think of themselves as futurists. I, I like to say it's pretty. The future when you plan it, you know, but. Oh, but at the office for the teacher.com you can, you can get it yourself and pull it down. But they have these concepts like anthrontology, which is essentially that the, this is this pure Gnosticism, right? It's this idea that the personal subjective experience from within creates the, the cosmos of the universe that creates the truth and the reality of the universe. It's also hermeticism, essentially. But these are the ideas. And when I. Or Homo amore, this is another one of their concepts. But these ideas were very reminiscent because they talk about how, you know, people are catching on. Maybe the Big Bang wasn't quite accurate. And so. But we have these metac crises. And the metac. You know, Barbara, Mark Hubard says our crisis is our birth. And these are the ideas that they're carrying through. They're espousing in their cosmoerotic humanism. And when I went to cern, they said the same thing. They said, we've had four big bangs, we have to double down. You know, the Big Bang is not accurate. So we've had four of them. And then they say we have to Rewrite the story of the universe so we can understand our place in the world. So essentially what they're saying, you were talking about the Stone Monkey. And this is the theme you see through all of these ancient mystery religions, right? They have to have some sort of a traumatic experience experience to create the expansion so that they can transcend and of course discover the gnosis. And what is the gnosis? That this, the secret knowledge is of course that they are God, that that's the big lesson they always seem to learn and that everything is one, it's all source. And that's why you see this theme over and over again with the psychedelics, because that gives them that transcendent experience. You see it with trauma. Trauma is another way they do trauma based mindset. And it was really interesting. I watched this documentary with these journalists, went down to Prospera and you know, I, I wrote, recently wrote an article on the ma. The path to mass surveillance. I lay out like all of these different types of smart cities. And could they, they have to package it. The analogy I give you is like you have a buffet of ice cream and it all looks really yummy, but it's all got like poisonous chemicals in it. But they give you different flavors. So if you like chocolate, strawberry, or maybe you don't you want van, they've got a shiny wrapper. But either way they're all poisonous. And that's kind of what they're doing with these smart cities, right? We've heard Trump talk about Freedom City. It's all the same in game B, Jordan hall talks about Civium. So I outline all of these. But Prospera, I watched this, you know, video on it. And in Prospera they're doing all these transhuman type of experiments because they don't have any laws, right? It's only the laws of the, the, the company, the corporation of Prospera, these Bitcoin cities. And there's, they're doing these like, like one of them was this guy wears some sort of a virtual reality headset and it gives him the experience of having taken a psychedelic and he's having a trip. So of course he can have this experience that he is going to transcend. And yeah, so these are the common themes we see so we can help someone.

Will Spencer [00:42:57]:

Go ahead, Carl.

Courtney [00:42:59]:

I'm just going to pitch in. I'm glad, Courtney, that you brought up Robert Mueller and the World Core curriculum because the concept of global citizenship has been embedded in public education since the mid-1990s in a serious way. Especially in my country, First Canada, we really embrace this idea of global citizenship education. The first international or international styled event I was at was The Global Citizenship 2000 Youth Congress, which was held 1,000 days before the year 2000 with Robert Mueller as our patron and the grandfather figure who led most of the representative schools in the Vancouver Lower mainland region of British Columbia to participate in this three day working session with school children educators. I believe the mayor of Vancouver came for a little while and we were, we worked through and I sat there watching it all. We worked through what a new philosophy of education would look like based on Muller's world core curriculum. And he was there in person. I've got my book signed by him. And it was fascinating to see how the children who were there absolutely gravitated to these ideas. And this is 1997. Yeah, April of 1997. And so those children today are now, you know, the adults who have families and businesses and are involved in politics. But already at that point, this sense of global citizenship education representing this pinnacle of man's evolutionary development, spiritual, political, potentially technological, and how that would now frame how we have to start thinking of ourselves versus Canadians. We're no longer citizens of Canada, he told us. We're no longer children of Canada. We're now world citizens. Our allegiance is to the planet. Our allegiance is to the great mother and boy. Yeah, the stuff that came out of there was just wild. I talk about it in my book Game of Gods. And it's fascinating to see how this has become the thinking of literally now I'm seeing this not just simply in the sense of going to UN events, but I'm seeing this on the street when you're talking to people. Oh, yeah, of course, we're world citizens. Of course. We've already had 30 years of indoctrination, plus along the lines of global citizenship. It's. I mean, we have been soaking in it. So earlier on, Will, you're asking, you know, are we coerced into it? Are we. Did we just kind of accidentally stumble into it? How does this play out for those who are into that second stage thinking that Courtney was describing, which was Wilbur's ideas of, okay, now you're finally at that stage where you can begin to become an enlightened world change agent. Before you can get into any of that, though, you have to, as a general population, feel that you need to participate somehow a great experiment in how this played out. And I don't know if it was opening myself up to saying, I don't know, though I know I've got my feelings about. It was Covid, Covid. All of a sudden, Covid was that movement that showed, oh, we can, we have to use coercion for some people. There's already a vast amount of the population who will just believe what we say. For those who don't believe what we say, we have to convert, you know, coerce them. Then there's a whole other class of people who will not be coerced. And you've whole different layers of pressure that we witnessed in those three years to conform us to the image of the World Health Organization, to the image of the cdc, to the image of Health Canada.

Will Spencer [00:47:16]:

So I, oh, please, go ahead.

Courtney [00:47:19]:

No, I was just gonna say all of that was part and parcel of this greater whole that was happening. It was really, it fit right hand in glove with the United Nations Summit of the Future, which took place just what was it last year, the year before? The Summer of the Future didn't go as far as what they wished it would go. I was wanting what the World Federalist movement was saying and hoping to achieve with some of the future. But during COVID there was a sense of, okay, this is going to take us not just simply from a perspective of one world health, this is going to take us down the trajectory of one world politics, a one world ideology, a one world concern for our planetary health. And we would eventually move those lessons into climate change or move them into biodiversity, you know, protecting biodiversity, whatever the list might be. It's going to be war because that's where it always has to go.

Will Spencer [00:48:21]:

Yeah, I appreciate you saying that specifically because I'm sorry, I've been a little distracted. Israel has just started bombing Iran, I discovered. So I, so, so someone, someone posted it in the stream that that was the case and I had to check that out. So they're, they're actually, there are actually videos coming out of Tehran right now with towers of smoke. And I guess Israeli officials have confirmed that they're striking Israel. Iranian nuclear sites.

Carl [00:48:50]:

So might happen. Wow.

Will Spencer [00:48:53]:

Yeah, so, so as I, as I.

Courtney [00:48:55]:

As I said it would take war, you jump in and say Israel's blowing stuff up. That's pretty wild, Will.

Will Spencer [00:49:02]:

That's right, that's right.

Carl [00:49:04]:

Going to just say, which is really kind of interesting because it's ironic, but what I was going to say is I was going to talk about Robert Mueller and how, you know, the exoteric message of the UN is world peace. Right. That's is all of this is done under the guise of creating, of course, we have to have war to achieve peace. That's, you know, just obviously, but, but it was really interesting listening to Robert Mueller talk about world peace. And I realized that this, this idea of creating peace is exactly why we have to have a monolith of thought. I'm not saying that I advocate this, but this is why, because. And I try to make this really concrete for people. If you just. If each of us envisioned our utopia, I know utopia means nowhere, but you know, our, our perfect dream world, if each of us envision that, because we all have unique, independent, you know, thought processes, our own makeup, genetically, psychologically, experientially, all the things that make us unique, our vision of the perfection for the world might look radically different and they might be in diametric opposition to each other. And that's why they can't have distinctions. So in order to have peace, quote, unquote peace, they have to eradicate the distinction, they have to eradicate the opposition. And only the one, only one monolith of thought. You know, they say diversity, but that's only in appearance. Not in ideology, not in spirituality, not in creativity. It all has to be one. And anything that is outside that has to like, like you were saying, you have to be evolved. They evolve or die. And this is really, it's a eugenics and Malthusian. Malthusian is the more like literal, physical, physiological, like physical plane variation of it. But the spiritual eugenics is also eugenics. And it's this idea that there's only so much for, for all of us. And so those who are the most evolved are the ones who can, can move on and who will of course rule over the. The lesser who do survive. But that's it. So the irony is they have to have war because they have to eradicate the, the rest who don't comply and don't go along with the oneness.

Courtney [00:51:19]:

So, so to your point, real. Sorry, Sorry, Will.

Will Spencer [00:51:23]:

Sorry, go ahead, please.

Courtney [00:51:25]:

I just. Just going to add this one little coup de grace to what Courtney was saying. It could be summed up this way. Peace is a destruction of all opposition.

Will Spencer [00:51:36]:

Yeah, okay. Okay. And that, that actually, that actually fits with what I was going to ask because it seemed like for a while the. These ideas, Ken Wilber was just a unique expression of them. Like he was just iterating on a well established theme, maybe adding a little bit of innovation, but really like he's just the inheritor of a long syncretic tradition, it seemed like.

Carl [00:52:02]:

Yeah, exactly.

Will Spencer [00:52:04]:

Yes. Yeah, he's just, he's just, he's Just the new, the new, the new buff bald guy, you know, who, who took these ideas on. So, so it seemed like those ideas were prepared to move forward for many years by subtle cultural control. So indoctrination within schools, sort of positive shiny always one messaging, sort of, sort of that methodology that in it seems to me in a very short period of time, like meaning a matter of months, almost, perhaps, perhaps no longer than a year has been abandoned in favor of a more authoritarian approach. Right. So, so it seems like this kind of, some of the conversations are looking this way, left wing wokeness, which I think this is an expression of really was abandoned. And now you have a more authoritarian right wing kind of thing that's sort of taking over in this sort of the left foot steps forward, left foot and then right foot and the left foot and then right foot. And so now here we are talking about this as, you know, pray to God that war does not break out across the Middle east, you know, you know, for sure, like I guess some of the Israeli military said retaliation is expected. So hey, smoke them if you got them. But, but you know, how do we, how do we adapt? How do we bring these same ideas forward? Because I think the temptation would be to think that because we're not doing everything in this shiny happy all is one feel good manner anymore, that the ideas have been abandoned in favor of something else. When in fact that isn't actually the case. It's just a different expression of the same ideas like Luciferianism and Satanism are essentially the same idea, but two sides of the same coin. So now as we're seeing a shift to more right wing, authoritarian, dark enlightenment kind of ideas, how is the same framework that of Wilbur's and, and that he inherited, how is this now being adapted to fit into more a more right wing kind of rising era?

Carl [00:53:57]:

Do you want me to. I have thoughts on that. I, I don't think that it's necessarily adapting to fit it. It's somewhat so I think when I was talking about like Game B and the decentralization, that's a big buzzword in the Game B community. And I really encourage people to remember if you've read H.G. wells World Brain, he said that the conduit to the world World Brain would be the decentralization of the academic information institutions. And what is the information institutions today? That would be technology, that would be the Internet. And you know, similarly Balaji Srinivasan talks about network states. Yes, they're decentralized, but he says they will later be Re centralized and a lot of these technologies that we're seeing on that, you know, more left hand path of these, more spiritualists if you will. I, I would liken them to the Luciferian versus the, the Satan. Satanic that is. But you know, we could call it the, the Divine mother versus the patriarchal. But I think that they are, you know, they're, they're really presenting it in because they recognize that this authoritarian type of movement is being rejected. So they're now coming in the saying that we have then they're doing under the guise of a libertarian banner. So if you see people like Peter Teal with his Prospera and the Bitcoin cities or you see a lot of movements for cryptocurrency. And yes, Trump did ban the CBDC in the United States. He did his executive order and a lot of people are cheering that and I absolutely am not in favor of cbdc, so great on that. But now he's talking about stablecoin coins and he's talking about making bitcoin the reserve currency, you know, so we can see how some of these things are being shifted. He's talking about, oh, we don't want 15 minutes cities, we're going to have Freedom Cities. So they rebrand. It's like, you know, I was trying to sound the whistle, the alarm on something called nax, the natural asset companies that they, they were trying to make a movement. The Intrinsic Exchange Group. Right. Mostly funded by Rockefeller but also by people, people like the World Wildlife Organization. You know, Julian Huxley's brainchild. Only the, you know, he wrote the mission statement for UNESCO that was all about eugenics. Yeah, that, that Huxley, although the both of them were. But so the World Wildlife Organization and some of these others, but they were trying to get a proposal through the SEC up on the New York Stock Exchange for these natural asset companies. And so you know, I was trying to sound the alarm on this and I totally just lost my train of thought. Sorry, where was I going with all of that?

Will Spencer [00:56:43]:

Julian Huxley natural asset companies authoritarianism.

Carl [00:56:48]:

Right. Okay. So the authoritarian.

Courtney [00:56:49]:

Oh, right, versus left.

Carl [00:56:51]:

So they, Right. So they had a, they, they did rescind the proposal. There was so much pushback. Right. We got enough people to submit comments. I, I thought it was going to go through. I was just hoping people would submit comments so that there would be a class action lawsuit. Everybody who submitted comments would have ground to be in the suit. But what did they do? People are all cheering but they just renamed it. It's now the Sustains act, and they're still moving forward. They think they're going to make like $500,000,000,000 off of these carbon sequestering and carbon offsets and whatever. You know, essentially the same concept from Technocracy Inc. Back in the 1930s with these energy credits. This is the same thing. They just rebrand. And so to answer your question, I just think they're coming in now with this libertarian veneer of, you know, it's all decentralized, but what it really is is communitarianism. And communitarianism, actually the UN back in the 80s called it third way. It was third way politics. Right. Is communitarianism. So. But people think that because it's in the private sector and because it's communities, that somehow it's not going to be tyrannical, but they just give you different flavors to opt into your own tyranny. So I think that's really what it is. And I think they think those ideas are more palatable to the west because authoritarianism is going to be less palatable for people in the West. So they're, I think they're pushing it now, actually quite intentionally because they know there will be a pendulum swing and they'll be like, hey, we've got your solution for you. You're so. It's kind of a honey pot in a way, Carl.

Courtney [00:58:26]:

Yeah, I like that, Courtney, how you ended it with a honey pot. Wow. Because it is kind of an ideological honey pot, isn't it? Yeah. We don't want to be, we don't want to be ensnared with, with totalitarian, authoritarian, you know, systems, but we're going to ensnare ourselves with the, the, the control mechanisms that we're going to adopt for our own convenience or for the war on terror. If I remember back to the days when Homeland Security first started up, all of a sudden I was like, oh, this is for your safety. This is for your convenience. Digital IDs, digital passports, so that everybody can be tracked. As if that's somehow going to make me, somehow it's going to make me secure. No, no, no. Actually, no, thank you. Don't want that. I take a look at the left, right paradigm. I have a slightly different perspective on it. Stuart Chase was the intellectual powerhouse behind FDR's New Deal back in the 1930s. And Stuart Chase was a very powerful man who kind of built the concepts of technocracy and government management systems is a pretty big, he was a pretty big dog back in the 1930s. In his book A New Deal, which was the intellectual kind of springboard for fdr. He talks about the left representing control and how the left, whether it's in his words, black left representing the rise of fascism, or red left representing the Soviet Union, the left is first and foremost about control. Now you can also say, hey, I'm a conservative or a libertarian, but I want to have all of these systems in place so that we can control society in the direction I want to see society controlled. Well, at that point, you're actually, in terms of this left right paradigm, you're actually on the left, regardless of what your labeling might be.

Carl [01:00:41]:

I would agree with that.

Courtney [01:00:43]:

Stuart Chase can put it this way, and I kind of work with it this way too. If you are about controlling other people, you want centralized collective control, regardless of the label you land on the left. The left then represents maximum government control, minimum personal responsibility, whereas the right, without the labels of libertarian and all the rest, the right would then represent maximum individual responsibility, minimum government centralized control. And so Stuart Chase kind of, that's how he kind of broke it down. And I've kind of extrapolated from that. It's simple, maybe simplistic, but it's a good way of measuring things.

Carl [01:01:25]:

I, I would agree with that. When I talk about it. I think that these labels have essentially become marketing for target audiences as people start to wear them identify. And I think the, the people who are steering and trying to control the masses are aware of that. So they're just offering that shiny label to fit, you know, the identity you think you have. And so there, it's really about marketing for the target audience. So I would agree with how described spectrum. I definitely agree with that. But in terms of what's going on right now, they're oper. That's why I say they operate through left and right because they're trying to target. It's very much a great example is a few years ago, you know, you had these people who traditionally were on the left that didn't want, you know, not, not just in the, you know, birth conversation, were my body, my choice. But also when it came to, you know, taking certain experimental drugs, they were very much historically that was on the left. And then suddenly you had the medical freedom movement come in and they said, now this is right. You know, you're Republican, you're conservative or what, libertarian, whatever label. And a lot of these people are actually confused. They said, I've been on the left my whole life. I voted, you know, Democrat. And they said, okay, I guess now I'm A Republican, I guess, you know, but this shift window, because it comes about marketing. We saw the same thing really recently where you had people a year ago who would never consider buying an electric vehicle. Right. That. That's like a left wing, you know, it's all climate nonsense. I would never you that. And then Elon comes into office and working with Trump, suddenly you had all these people running out to buy a Tesla. I'm like, okay, here we go. Overton window. Just go right to the left.

Will Spencer [01:03:19]:

So I like that. I like that distinction that you. That centralized control is always on the left, no matter what expression that it takes on, whether it takes on a communist or a fascist expression. I really like the black and the red left versus, you know, individual, I think, because I think those are really handy. People will describe that in terms of horseshoe theory, that when you bend the left and the right far enough around, they end up in the center, you know, being essentially the same thing. But what that does is that actually eliminates the notion of individual, personal, responsible responsibility, which doesn't show up anywhere on the spectrum. So. So I really like that, that we're looking at. We're looking at different flavors of, of leftism that are fighting with each other versus the individual spirit of humanity, which is trying to. Trying to liberate itself from that whole. That whole dialectic.

Courtney [01:04:07]:

Yes, right, right. What's interesting with Stuart Chase is at the end of his book, published, I believe it was 30 or 31, he literally closes with his book on the New Deal by stating to the effect of why is it that the Russians have all the fun of remaking the world? World. Yeah, I know. It's like, yeah, no, thank you. No, thank you. All of these utopian designs are playing, you know, God against each other. Can't actually create anything out of nothing. But we can sure obliterate things that, that are, you know, that we have made, even when it comes. Courtney, you're talking about the smart cities. The aspect of the control grid of our urban zones are just. It's wild to think about. And then to take it from that biblical perspective, what was the first city in the Bible? Well, the first city in the Bible. And I asked my classes, I teach a class, a modular course on secular and pagan trends. And I asked my class, what is the first city in the Bible? And of course, inevitably, everybody's going up. Babel. No, it's found in Genesis, chapter four. And it's the city of Enoch, which Cain built after being told specifically, the consequence for your sin is to wander you're supposed to be a vagrant, you're supposed to be moving. You're not supposed to have a homeland. You have been removed from your community. And what does he do? He settles and he builds himself a city. He calls it after his firstborn, Enoch. And then the city at that point in Jacquesul does a fantastic job of unpacking, let's call it, the spiritual milieu of the city from that point on, which is that now the city becomes our artificial Eden. It's a place where we stand and make a name for ourselves. And you see that in the Bible story. It's the place where our power is centralized. It's where our economy is centralized. It becomes the collective hub for how your culture is supposed to operate. And of course, there's a massive disconnect. I live in Canada. As you folks figure that out, you folks in the States, you're kind of in the same boat where we are now, an urbanized culture. Canada is the second largest landmass on the planet. All right? We got so much wide open space. I mean, yeah, I've heard people joke that, hey, you can watch your dog run away from you for three days. And it's kind of true. If you go fly across, let's say, the US Breadbasket states, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, it's the same thing. Vast, vast open areas. But our politics, our power, our ideological centers are located in our urban zones. And so my country, we are Roughly, I think, 84% urbanized, wrapped up in eight to 10 major cities. And because our political system is a parliamentary system, it is, you know, whoever has the largest mob rules. And so when you have that city, that urban collective, liberal, leftist mindset, all of a sudden, you know that you can't, you can't divorce the politics of it anymore. So there's a clash, a clash that you're seeing, and that's a full on ideological cultural clash between urban and rural, between the left and the right, between control versus freedom. All of these things are kind of manifesting in that, you know, kind of, they all center around each other. If there's an integral theory, a theory of everything, it is, I firmly believe it is a biblical theory of everything. Our sinful nature is collectivized and we wage war with each other.

Will Spencer [01:08:09]:

I was actually thinking this past weekend that one of the things that's so interesting about the Bible is that everything is written from a patriarchal, agricultural viewpoint. All the metaphors are all agricultural. Bearing fruit, shepherds and wolves, fishermen, right? Over and over, wine, bread, like it's Everything is a harvest, everything, a thousand percent agriculture. And there's nothing industrial in it at all because industry didn't really exist. And so, so it was written at this time where these were the prevailing metaphors, the available metaphors. And that could be one of the reasons why it's so difficult for us to understand today. In many ways it's not as intuitive as it would have been hundreds of years ago because we live in an egalitarian industrialized age. Right. And the egalitarian industrialized age is getting so far away from the natural order of things and recognizing that you have an increasing amount of chaos as a result of that. And that chaos then has to be managed with the products of men's minds, right, or infernal minds, as opposed to something, something more biblical in nature, something more traditional in nature, something more agricultural, grounded, organic in nature even.

Courtney [01:09:21]:

Yes. And so what we have is risk mitigation, which creates more risk. And around and around it goes until the system basically finds itself slowed or, or self destruct, you know, self destructs. There's a, an older book called Haga's Law that brings us into play. And Haggis Law is basically what it just stated, that in the hope or the aspiration to mitigate risk, we will put more impositions in place, we put more policies, more regulations, the bureaucratic state comes into play. But as we put more regulations and more systems in place, the more risk we discover and then it just goes around and around until it's like it just, it becomes a quagmire. I was just a couple of weeks ago, three, I guess almost three weeks ago now, I was in Dayton, Ohio for the NATO Dialogue Forum. One of the panelists made the point that from the perspective of the European Union, he was a, I can't remember, he was an ambassador or foreign minister, but saying, hey, as Europeans we're really good at producing rules, but we're not really good at producing things anymore because we have so enmeshed ourselves in these systems of imposition.

Will Spencer [01:10:52]:

Yes, absolutely right. When you, when you have, when you have an increasing amount of chaos with no central organizing principle that is rooted in any, anything transcendent, you need to impose external systems of man made control. And when you find the unruly kids don't want to get on board the bus, you know, you have to find either, it's either the carrot or the stick, right? It's like, oh, you know, and, and, and so I think this is just to bring it back to Ken Wilber for A moment. I think what's interesting is that again, his, his integral theory isn't. Is not trying to say we're going to manage the Christians, these unruly kids. It's instead, we're going to. We're going to bring them into the fold. We're going to seduce them into the fold. Because the theosophical view, I think, was Blavatsky said that the chiefs of the society regard Christianity as most pernicious to their aims or something. That's like a direct quote. And so that's a very different posture from saying like, well, okay, maybe instead. Please go ahead.

Carl [01:11:54]:

Well, I. I would argue they held a very similar view because they were trying to create a syncretic religion, right? So they wanted to. She kept saying, we welcome everyone. They rejected traditional Christianity, traditional Judaism. And again, it was because it was separate and because it was monotheistic, but they were very welcoming of mystical variations of Christianity. And they spoke in what I call Christianese. So, Right. They spoke. Spoke in this language that I think was very deceptive and very enticing to Christians who might not have known scripture very well. Maybe they were just, you know, kind of. They like the idea of being Christian, but they didn't really know the principles and the values and the scripture of being Christian. But they hear this language. So things like the. They're talking about the Christ. It sounds like they're talking about Jesus Christ. They're not. And they make that very clear. If you actually read them, you know, they're very explicit about it, you know, but they talk about Christ consciousness. They talk about, you know, there's a lot of their language that is very much put into that Christian veneer. So I think they were trying. I think even Blavatsky and Bailey and all of these theosophists were trying to lure the Christians in that the Kabbalists of all variety, you know, the Christian Kabbalists, the Jewish Kabbalah, tribalism, they just didn't want the traditional variation of it. So I think it's the same thing. And we're seeing this all over the place, right? You're seeing all these recent comforts to Christianity. And I always want to give the benefit of the doubt. You know, I wish the best for anybody's spiritual journey. But when they start speaking, they talk about things that sound like Christ consciousness. And what you. What you start to think is, wait, they might be using the veneer of Christianity to lure people into these ideas. So we've got Jordan hall, who a year ago, he's one of the co founders of Game B, right. A year ago converted to Christianity. But then you hear him talking about how he actually did a speech he did one four years ago at the, what was it, the Society's a Startup Societies foundation in Prospera and Peter Thiel's press there Prosper. And that was called Game B. Startup Cities, Startup Society. Sorry. And then recently he did another one that was much shorter on Network States, but at the end of it he talks about liturgy and he says how we, we're going to use this concept of liturgy, but essentially for communitarianism, not community communitarianism. He doesn't say the word communitarianism. That's what he's describing and that's not what liturgy is about at all. So that, that's what one example, but he uses a lot, he does a lot of that. And we see this from, you know, like Jordan Peterson, we see Russell Brand, recent Converse, right. Talking about Christ consciousness. I'm just waiting for him and Joe Rogan to do seminars on Christ consciousness, by the way, just waiting. But you see these fronts and I think what it's about is luring, seducing, enticing the Christians, you know, and using that veneer. Peter Heel considers himself a Christian. I don't know how he, his ideas are commensurate with Christianity, but that's what he says.

Will Spencer [01:15:07]:

So I appreciate you saying all that because that's something that I've noticed as well is you have a lot of public figures that are making professions of faith or at least toying with Christianity. I believe yesterday or the day before, the political commentator Carl Benjamin said he was going to church. And you know, Carl, Ben Benjamin's like a post liberal guy, you know, an ex liberal now. He's conservative and great. You know, I, I, I fully support people going to church. And he's not the only one. Even you have Richard Dawkins saying, I'm a cultural Christian. He's not exactly the same thing. But it's always, it's always a matter of like, okay, cool, go to church. That's great. Well, let me ask you some questions about what you actually believe. Like are you actually, are you actually becoming a Christian or are you, I think in the case of, I don't know, Russell Brand perhaps, almost certainly Peter Thiel and others, where it's like, no, we're going to call ourselves Christians and we're going to, you know, make a big fanfare and bang the drums. And then, you know, a year or two in we're going to say, hey, I'm a Christian. And I think X. And everyone's like, yeah. He said he's been a Christian for a couple years and, you know, what he's saying is perhaps even heretical. Christ consciousness being a great example. When are we going to start seeing that language? And so I, I've observed this Christianity. That's how I see it, that they're. Yeah, well, they're co opting. They're co opting it, right? You have a weekend church and you. And so you have these new high priest influencers who call themselves Christians and set themselves up as authorities in people's minds. They are not authorities in any meaningful sense, but they set themselves up in our mediated age as authorities. And so when they start saying things, Christians are like, yeah, okay, okay. Because my pastor did, you know, I don't like what he says. He's mean. I like, I like Mr. Shiny Celebrity Guy. And that's, that's been apparent to me since the beginning. And I try to point that out to people and they're like, you just got to give these believers time. I'm like, they're gonna steal the flock right from under you, I hate to tell you.

Carl [01:17:02]:

I think it's also a way to. They know that it appeals to. Especially when you have these political factions. Right. So it's a way to appeal especially to the, the conservative movement. Movement, Right. So you've got a lot of this infiltration, and they're wearing the banner of being Christian because they think that it's going to be more popular. And I think it is a way of infiltrating, seducing, and it ends up shifting. Right. It ends up syncretizing and shifting the. The core of what Christianity is. So it subverts it.

Will Spencer [01:17:38]:

Yep.

Carl [01:17:39]:

Way of doing that, Carl.

Courtney [01:17:42]:

Right? It does, yeah. So it's interesting how the language of Christianity will be adopted within this esoteric oneness perspective. Ken Wilbur used the terms or use the language of I am Ness. When you read his book the Religion of Tomorrow, he's referring quite often to your I am Ness. Yeah. And I'm like, oh, yeah. And then I'm like, I'm hearing the same thing from, oh, what's his smiley face out of Houston? Big grin, good grin, great teeth.

Will Spencer [01:18:20]:

Joel Osteen.

Courtney [01:18:21]:

Not good. Thank you. Not good theology, but great teeth. That should be like a T shirt saying or something. I don't know. Yeah, but he's there with OPRAH Winfrey doing IMs, and it's like, come on, people. Christians Hello. Do you not see, do you not see the, the branding that's taking place that you have just, you've just stepped over the line?

Carl [01:18:47]:

It is completely the language because it's like the language is all the same. So I, I recently wrote this article, the Conclave of the Hierarchy. And this is Bailey talking about like it's the same exact thing that Ken Wilber, Barbara Marks Hubbard, Oprah, Deepak Chopra, all the evolutionary leaders. Right. Bruce Lifton and you know, it's the same language. They talk about co creation. I mean this is as gnostic as it gets. We're going to co. Create the creator. Like really? How, how, how does, how is that Christian? You know?

Courtney [01:19:19]:

Yeah. Phyllis Tickle. Phyllis Tickle from the emergent church was saying the same thing. Exactly the same thing as what you're just describing, Courtney. And golly. Yeah. What happened to the emergent church? Oh, well, either some people walked away from the emergent church and re entered a biblical believing church just because they realized that it was messed up theologically, completely messed up. Or they went the opposite direction, they left church altogether, or they went down the road of progressivism. And, and I take a look at the progressive Christian church and the progressive Christian church is just what you described, Courtney. It's Barbara Marx Hubbard. It's the same as all, you know, it's. My goodness. It is nothing different. It is the Christian expression of this new evolutionary paradigm and see how we've evolved.

Carl [01:20:16]:

Yeah. I don't know if you were, I think you might have stepped off when I was talking about how Barbara Mark Hubbard took it upon herself to rewrite the New Testament. And then she told.

Courtney [01:20:25]:

Oh no. Yeah, yeah.

Carl [01:20:26]:

She told her dear friend Bucky. And Bucky said, I had the same vision. He was so proud of her. Mr. Fuller.

Will Spencer [01:20:35]:

Got it. One of the things that I wanted to make sure that we touch on is, is some of the, some of the nuts and bolts of, of of Wilbur's work. So all a q al qualities, all lines, all levels or something like that. I wanted to talk a little bit about that, maybe spiral dynamics as well, because we've talked about integral theory as a, as a unifying system of knowledge to facilitate sort of spiritual and social evolution. And so I think that makes sense and that's the nature of integral theory and how that would be so appealing to globalist forces like the United Nations. This idea that we can manage and control all information and all. And all systems of understanding in order to facilitate this sort of one world vision. But it also, it also roots Itself, not just in this sort of collectivist kind of level. It also roots itself in the, in work in terms of the individual, like how we can do our own individual spiritual evolution. And that's where I think the hook point is. There's the hook point for the elites and the hook points for the elites would be this, this, this totalizing, syncretizing vision that they can, that they can use, you know, from the thirty thousand, sixty thousand, a hundred thousand foot level. But the promise for the individual like oh, you can spiritually evolve as well if you do these techniques that I think hooks an entire different class of people and ushers them into a totalizing worldview through their own, through their own desires for their own spiritual evolution. We talked about trauma earlier. Maybe we can discuss how that fits in because you can, you can move people forward on a collective level through mass induced trauma or you can, you can do MK Ultra sort of trauma based mind control programming. But there's also a psychological aspect which came up where trauma is something is, is a, it's a, it's a theology essentially about how you can use your own trauma to evolve spiritually. And so again, it does all ult. It does root itself in the individual's want to be connected to something higher to overcome their own hurts and their own pain. It does, it does offer a promise to individuals. And so let's, maybe we can take, we can attack it from that angle as well.

Carl [01:22:42]:

Sure. I mean, I think the whole self help movement is centered around this. We touched on the positive psychology. Maslow is certainly at the, you know, in the, the thrust of all that. And he very much inspired Kenneth Wilbur if you think about his aq, you know, L. Yeah, Aqal. I think it's like all qual is how they pronounce it, but it's quadrants. Right. And I always think that's interesting. All the futurists use quadrants. And didn't Jung talk about the quaternity where the fourth head was the, the Satan was the fourth godhead? Yeah. So I always think it's interesting that they do all these things in quadrants and a lot of these like war game exercises, even that operation lockstep document that came out of the scenarios for technological future. That was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the Rockefellers, John Hopkins. This was back in 2010. But a lot of people are familiar with Operation Lock Step, which was page 26 to 16 to 26. Sorry, but there were actually four war game scenarios. But people say that Operation Locks have been very similar to what we saw a few years ago. But in any case, you see that very often. It's the four, you know, quadrants and the upper quadrants are referring to the individual and the bottom quadrants are referring to the collective. And I think this very much mirrors how the UN operates too. We've got the SDG goals, right? This is 17 sustainable development goal, and then they have the Inner Development Goal goal. This is where you can work inward so that you can, you know, evolve and you can play your role and then you can feel like you're a really good person. And I think this is very similar, kind of mirrors that. Right. We're, we're going to work on. He's got the upper left quadrant is the individual interior, and then he's got the upper right quadrant, which is the individual, but the exterior. And then on the bottom it's the collective interior. So the we and then the lower right quadrant is the collective, but it's the exterior collective. So I think this is very similar to definitely the UN is one example, but I think we see a lot of examples of this. It's like the, the inter. And again, this is Gnosticism, right? This, the divine spark within. We're going to liberate it so that we can become God. That the great gnosis, that's the great mystery that's always revealed in all of these. So I'll let Carl chime in if you have anything.

Courtney [01:25:14]:

Yeah, good overview. The one word that comes to my mind, it's the title of a place. It comes to my mind over and over and over again during this conversation. It's where the army catchphrase, the branding logo be all you can be came from. And that, of course, is Esalon.

Carl [01:25:38]:

Yep.

Courtney [01:25:40]:

And. And this is all Echelon, what you've just been describing with, I mean, the, the cross currents of human, human potential movement, Maslow psychology. The work, the work of Herriman, Ken Wilber was running to Esalon. Everybody was going to soak in the hot springs and hang out naked with maverick theologians and nuclear physicists and futurists. And they're all there. And in many respects they're the ones who kind of gave us this synthesis. I look at Eslon as kind of the externalization of what Wilbur is teaching. And of course, Wilbur and I think Michael Murphy were. I think it was Michael Murphy. They were best buds, or not necessarily best buds, but good, good, good friends. And so off he would run off. Wilbur would run to Eslon to go and spend time in that environment because Eslon was living out the integral theory.

Carl [01:26:46]:

With the Soviet Union.

Courtney [01:26:48]:

Oh, big time, big time. In fact, I have a sec, I have a section in my book on that. It's fascinating because really Esalon's teachings and his thought process was already playing into the worldview of Mikhail Gorbachev. And concepts of perestroika and glasnost were emerging as kind of parallels to what was being discussed at ES Salon. And I documented on my book about how at one point Gorbachev is more or less confronted or asked the question, was the big house at Esalen bugged and Gorbachev just gave the universal signal?

Will Spencer [01:27:32]:

Yep.

Courtney [01:27:32]:

Yes it was. Yes it was. We're listening because they would, ESLON would have seminars, you know, you'd bring in all these speakers and have these working sessions and all of a sudden two weeks later the same language is coming out of, out of Moscow. And of course Esalon being. And you're absolutely right, Courtney, it was that bridge between east and West. It was a diplomatic even, I would suggest maybe espionage back channel between Moscow and Washington D.C. so when Yeltsin came and had his North American or, pardon me, his American tour, I think Brookings and Rockefeller and a few other of the major foreign policy institutes wanted to have the, the rights to chauffeur him around and to host Yeltsin. But it was Esalon that got it. And primarily through the work of Jim Garrison who I met Jim, I met Jim Garrison's sisters, by the way. Jim Garrison grew up in a Baptist missionary household and then toss, toss his faith for this integral spirituality, this re enchanted sense of spirituality. So when you think about, when I think about Wilbur and what we've all been describing is it's a synthesis. Wilbur is a bringing all this into a synthesis. He's synthesizing Eastern mysticism, He synthesizes Western development thought. Human development. Yeah, exactly. Systems theory comes into the synthesis union in psychology in a big way, you know, comes into the synthesis. You have this synthesis and then I see the synthesis now, now that we've entered the digital age, we are layering that in completely, I think, I think.

Will Spencer [01:29:27]:

The picture starts to emerge where it does become totalizing. And I think that's, that's the part, that's the part that I think really needs to sink in is that this isn't just a top down vision, it's also a bottom up vision. And it has, it has promises for elites, not just in terms of their, their incentives, in terms of the power structure. But you know, Esalen was like an orgy factory, essentially. Right. Like, that was a. It was. It was like a. It was a more accessible version of. Of Epstein Island. Perhaps not quite as degenerate in the same criminal ways, but that's. That was. That was in the new age world. That's how I knew it. Like, Al Silly was synonymous with hot tub. That's those two words.

Carl [01:30:08]:

Questioning hot tub diplomacy. It is on CIA.gov you can pull off the document and read it for yourself. This isn't just like, you know, interpretation or theory.

Courtney [01:30:18]:

Right. 100. Right. Courtney. This is not conspiracy. This is what happened. This is literally what happened. Hot Dove. Diplomacy was a real thing, which is where we get the sense of track two diplomacy. Yeah. Eslon gave us track two. Totally gave us track to diplomacy. In fact, Crazy. When I was at the NATO forum just in Dayton a couple of weeks ago, one of the working sessions was on the cultural side to diplomacy, which was track to diplomacy.

Carl [01:30:54]:

Sure.

Courtney [01:30:57]:

Yeah. Yeah. So track two diplomacy is. So track one diplomacy is. Let's call it hard politics. Ambassador to ambassador, foreign minister talking to prime minister, talking to President. It is your government institutions working with counter government institutions back and forth. Track one is the hard game of diplomacy. Track two diplomacy is the cultural, religious, artistic expression of looking to find new relationships, new diplomatic relationships, new expressions of policy and how that might look by blending and breaking down barriers, cultural barriers. So art plays a really important role developing networks of artists across borders. So if all of a sudden, let's say we've got a war in Ukraine, well, the people behind the line, so to speak, well, there may be some now interactions, artist to artist, performer to performer, cultural person to cultural person. And so it was recognized that Track 2 Diplomacy is a game changer. Because it is. It's not about the rules, it's about building the relationships. And it's in the relationship that you can begin to now affect change at a far deeper level and even far faster because you have a constituency that is outside the norm of government. I'll give you a good example. When I was at the G20, G8, G20 World Religion Summit in 2010, the World Religion Summit paralleled the G8 meetings. And now we have the G8 Interfaith Forum. And the G7 Interfaith Forum does the same thing. So you had world religious leaders all coming together. While the G8 was meeting that year in 2010 in Toronto, the G8 religious summit was happening in Winnipeg, my capital city. And here you had in Winnipeg, all of these religious leaders. You had Muslims, you had Christians, Christians from Like a pile of different denominations. The Christians made up the bulk of it. You had Sikhs, you had pagans. Tony Blair Faith foundation was there. They're all there. Jim Wallace from Sojourners was there. World Vision is there. They're all there. And they're all now talking one to another about policy and giving suggestions, policy suggestions and that they have worked through collectively over the week. And then that was all delivered into the hands of the political leaders at the G8 meeting in Toronto. At one point in the event, it was obvious that they realized the importance of what they were doing because they were saying to the effect of prime ministers and presidents come and go. We as faith leaders, we stay sometimes for decades. And whereas governments operate within the realm of their boundaries, our faith traditions and our faith communities sometimes expand far beyond a single nation encompassing entire continents or entire globe regions or the globe in terms of, let's say the Anglican Communion or the Roman Catholic Church. And all of a sudden it was like a light bulb went off for some of them. And there was a point in time when it was just, it was all of a sudden evident that they have more long term political power and the power to change and transform civilization than the heads of state because they can do it relationally through a bottoms up network work. And they are not going to disappear when the next round of federal elections happen.

Will Spencer [01:34:57]:

I think as I, as I listen to all this, I hope that the audience is hearing just how widespread this is. I think sometimes it would be. It's easy for people to think that these ideas are fringe, that these ideas, you know, are, and in some sense they are, but meaning they don't. People don't have everyday experience with these ideas. It's very rare. You'll, maybe you'll go to a yoga class or maybe you'll listen to Oprah and she'll have Eckhart Tolle on or something like that. Right. Or maybe you'll have someone who does their horoscope. You know, that's, that's about the, the most that people encounter, you know, the, the, the shores of these ideas. But you know, we started out the conversation talking about the dark Enlightenment game, B, Peter Thiel, the Weinstein brothers, right? You're talking about some of the most influences, influential people. You're talking about faith leaders. You're talking about. We talked about Gorbachev, right? We're talking about like these are some of the most influential people on the entire planet. Like there's no, at least that the public knows of. Like these are publicly recognizable Names, I'm sure there are more influential people who, that no one really knows about. But in terms of the, the names that show up in the headlines, this, this ideology, this worldview, this political view, this, this seductive set of practices, you know, this tempting set of treats, all of this defines many of the halls of power, certainly not all of them, but many of them in a, in a way that is very much emerging. And so because Courtney, you started out talking about game B, right? And this is a new thing that's coming along. You have this evolution of political engagement used to be, you know, between diplomats and formal settings and now you have a more person to person, intimate setting. You have a much more networked kind of view. And so we're living through this shift of the way that the business used to be done to the way that business is coming to be done by a set of elites that are going to impose a set of values on everybody based on their interpersonal relationships. That's designed to evolve us through technological coercion. And that seems like that's how real this is. This is not a made up thing. It's maybe it's conspiracy theory in the sense that like yeah, this is, it is a grand conspiracy, but it's not conspiracy theory in the, in the sense that it's a lie or it's a myth. All these things are very real and people believe this stuff. This is, they're not just making it up, it's very serious. And just to land it back where we started, there are major high level influencers on X that, that have massive platforms built on propagating these ideas undercover. They're not necessarily, they will stay in the open, but they're not necessarily always doing so. And, and so I guess as people. How can people recognize these ideas if they're not being stated in the open for what they are? What sort of actions can can Christians, and perhaps even non Christians take to push back on these ideas either in their, in their lives and their homes and their communities, even politically? Like, because we're looking at something that has many heads that hides under the surface, that pops up a little bit over here, a little bit over there, but continues moving forward with a persistent momentum. What can we do as individuals to push back on that, to identify it, push back on it and call it what it is.

Courtney [01:38:17]:

I love that. I love the question. So one of the things we can do is first of all we have to take responsibility to engage ourselves within this worldview battle. We can't sit back and wait for somebody else to take the reins. We have a tendency, and I've seen this even within the realm of the conservative push against globalization, saying, hey, if we could just bring all of our, our little organizations, our little groups together, we can create this great big powerful block. And we're like, hold on, you're now going to have, you are now going to be part of the same problem. You can do this exact same thing. How about we, if you, and it's, you know, not, not everything that the left, if we want you to say the, you know, use the term, the global left, not everything that they're doing is intrinsically wrong. Networking isn't wrong.

Will Spencer [01:39:15]:

Right.

Courtney [01:39:16]:

You know, it's not. What they're doing is, they're just, they're just upping the game at a level that the, that the average person doesn't engage in. So one of the things we can do, network, we can build our own networks. And this, this show is part of building that network. We build our own network. We take our own, we take responsibility in our own households and in our own lives to know what is true. True. To know what is false. To be able to recognize those distinctions, we have to be able to have those kinds of conversations with our pastors, with our family and the. Probably in terms of the politics, if you're called to engage in politics at the local level, that's where the rubber hits the road is at the local level. Always it hits the local level. You probably can't change your state government's direction. I can't change the direction of my provincial politics, but I can, I can certainly influence people around.

Will Spencer [01:40:20]:

Yeah, Courtney.

Carl [01:40:22]:

Yeah, I love all of that. So I will start with the, the politics. You know, I think a huge part of recognizing it does have to do with the language. You'll recognize it across the board. You know, these, I brought up some of the terms. The co creation, the, the collective intelligence, the, the UN loves to talk about resilience. There's this decentralization. But what, what do they really mean by that? For the greater good, for the well being. I, I mean, I'm just rattling off some of them, but I really need to come up with the, the glossary, like what we think they mean, that means, and then what they mean by those words. But you start to see this language and I think when you start to recognize it, you see it right away like, oh, because, you know, it doesn't seem to matter whether I'm looking at Ken Wilbur, Zack Stein, Barbara Marx, Hubard, Madame Blavatsky, the Neoplatonist right? Ken Wilbur draws from Platinus. We're coming back thousands. Yeah, it does. So you see this language and obviously we're translating from the Greek and it's not exactly the same, but it's got the same essence. I think that's a huge part of it. We can start to recognize the language and even when it may be couched in Christianese or in conservative ease, whatever that is. But you know, they do that, they wear these, they put on these shiny wrappers trying to target variants of various audiences. And if we can start to scratch beneath the surface a little bit like, oh, I, I see what this is. I think that's a huge step. And some of that just comes with reading this stuff, which gets tedious. You know, it's like the more I read all of it, it sounds so complex. And I just keep hearing like the Nietzsche quote, you know, Nietzsche would say that they muddy the waters to make it seem deep. And I mean you listen to Ken Wilber and his acolytes. They, you know, they bloviate. They see these very, very long winded, you know, paragraphs. It's the one sentence that's your paragraphs long and really said it in five words, you know. But it's not actually all that complex. All these themes are, you see the same thing over and over again. I read through this and I'm like, they're basically just saying the one, the source that we all need to, you know, we need to obliterate any decision distinction that we are God, we need to liberate the God within that. We need to have some sort of transcendent experience to get us there. You know, I mean these are these recurring themes over and over again. So it's not all that complex, no matter how many words they used to say it. In terms of politics, I do caution people because I am seeing this third way political movement. We now have Elon Musk championing this center political parties, talking about an American party. And it sounds great, right? But how many times have we tried this? But it's the radical center is what they're talking about. And of course now Andrew Yang from the Forward Party, which is another one of these movements, is supporting this Elon movement. And what it's really driving is this tech technocracy that that is Elon talks about building a technocracy on Mars. I think that that's kind of code for what he wants to do here. Josh Haddelman was the head of technocracy Inc. From 1936 to 1943. He's very familiar with those concepts and very much wants to, you know, create them here. And I think he thinks he's going to be at the helm of it. So I, I think local, Local action is a really, really great idea. And take action wherever, you know, your strength lie and your interests lie. We saw a few. Few years ago of a lot, a lot of the Mama bears started going to all the school board meetings and why? Because suddenly they were seeing. All their kids were at home. They're seeing what their kids were being taught on Zoom. And they were horrified and great. They stood up and they got involved. And, you know, it didn't take that for them to get involved, but that's a way they can get involved. You know, maybe the technology stuff is really something you're passionate about and you get involved, you know, locally to every single state in the United States. I. I shouldn't say every single, but so far, you know, I've seen most states I haven't checked. All 50 are having digital summits. So they're. It's digital governance. These are in states. So this is something you can get involved in. Hey, I. I don't really want AI supplanting my state government. Maybe we should get together with some other people who don't love this idea. You can get involved in, you know, the. What's going on with the farming. I call what's happening the technological immunization of the eschaton. Technological immunization of the eschaton. And I think. Sorry, it's hard to say, but I think that's really what we're seeing. Right. And it is because of this worldview. People often ask me, like, you talk about the technocracy and then you talk about the spiritual stuff. And how do they converge? I think they absolutely converge because. Oh, yeah, right. And if you. Yeah. Look at it, if you think about people who don't, if they are Luciferians, let's just say they don't respect that there is a creator that's separate from us and they can't create. I always say that they have a trinity that they worship and it's the triple Ds. And that is the first D is deception. Right. So they deceive, they distort, they manipulate things in order to sell you their lies and convince you of their lies. And the second one is division, dividing, conquer. We see this everywhere. This is the Hegelian dialectic. They polarize everyone so that they're fighting each other. And then they come in with their Magical solution, which is some sort of synthesis that is synthetic. It's a managed synthesis. And then the last D is a destruction because they can't create, so they destroy. And then this. And that's why the, the. The Doctor. Sorry. That's why the. The death cult, by the way. And this leads us to the technological, practical imitation of the eschaton, because they can't create and they're not going to heaven, so they want to create heaven on earth. And so the way they do that is by terraforming and they create a synthetic world. And I think that's what the transhuman agenda is about, unfortunately. I think it would result in dystopia, not utopia, but it is their vision of utopia because that they have to destroy everything and make it a fake reality. And you're seeing this. The reason I thought of it even was because you could. People can get involved in what's going on with the, you know, the agriculture, the food supply they're doing. They're trying to make all of that synthetic too. So all this to say people should get involved wherever they're passionate, wherever their interests and their strengths lie and, you know, find community that's surrounding those things. It might just be within your family. Maybe it's you homeschool and you try to teach your kids the values that you want to see in the world. And, you know, that may sound small, but that goes a long way. Way. Because I think a huge part of the problems we're seeing in the world stem from value. And they know that. That's why Cosmoerotic humanism, its first values, first principles of evolving perennialism. 42 propositions on cosmoerotic Humanism. This is what Ken Wilbur is one third of. And they start. They start the whole thing with talking about a universal grammar. They're redefining what values should be for all of humanity. And if we can take some of that back and say, I don't like your values, and these are not the values I want to see. So I'm going to start with really examining what are my values and live my life according to those values, principles and priorities. And that's what I'm going to inculcate in my family, my children, my loved ones and I. I think we could see a lot of benefit from that.

Will Spencer [01:47:59]:

I like how you started out. Go ahead, Carl, please.

Courtney [01:48:03]:

Just one more thing that I'll quickly add and I'll be quiet. Sorry. Well, one more thing, though, and it's important, it's a very foundational thing Once we see what we have just described over this last, whatever hour and 50 minutes as nothing more than an alternative salvation plan.

Carl [01:48:26]:

Yeah.

Courtney [01:48:28]:

And we see it for what it is in its raw form, then we're able to speak truth to those around us who may be subtly or very openly pulled into it, because that's all it is. All that we have described as most basic element is man saying, this is our salvation plan. This is us building heaven on earth. We are the ones who will be gods. That's all it is. And when that's what you recognize it as, you're like, oh, okay, well, you know, it becomes a simplified thing. Not simplistic, but simplified. And now you can speak truth to the heart of what this is. So wherever you go, that's where. That's where your mission field is. Speak truth into this because the light will dispense the darkness.

Will Spencer [01:49:14]:

And I appreciate that, that the, the speaking element that both of you have highlighted, which is this primarily travels via language and redefining terms in very subtle ways. Familiar terms you may have heard many times, but they're being used in a subtly different context that can be difficult to pick up on. For example, Christ becomes the Christ. Sounds like, you know, that's. That's a sign that you're dealing with someone who. You might not pick up on that the first time, but, like, the Christ is very different, a very different thing from Christ. And so you have to be very sensitive to not only the language that's being used at you, but the language that you are also using and very mindful in a way that. In a way that people aren't necessarily used to being. And in many ways, it begins there. Of course, there's all kinds of ways to reject big NGOs and global organizations and talking heads and all that who are promoting ideas in the clear. But it's that subtle infiltration of language that. That gets inside our minds and gets us to. To take a step off of ideas or at least consent to their framing of ideas without recognizing it. And that's. That's the thing that I really want to. That I want to draw on, because I. I think again, what. What inspired all this was seeing a major influencer who took these ideas as the basis of his own, of his own view, and has amassed something like a million followers across multiple platforms. Right. And so what. What is inspiring the things that he is promoting at that level, the teach teachings, videos that millions of men have looked at and listened to, what language ideas are being propagated through his content and it's, but the thing is, it's not just him. You know, we talked. How many different names have we talked about without running over them again, that are all promoting these same ideas in very subtle and insidious ways. And it, and it begins there with an understanding of, of our own worldview and being able to express it in the correct terms, in the correct way so that we assert a counter worldview and drive away the darkness.

Carl [01:51:17]:

Yeah, I agree. And you know, you had asked about, like you talked about the, the self help movement and how, and the individual. And how do they use these ideas to lure the individual which then ushers them into this close globalist type of one world religion and then therefore one world governance and then technological singularity, the noosphere that becomes the technological singularity. And I, I think a lot of it is through creating this victim mentality. And you know, when you talk about this influencer, that was kind of something that really struck me. You know, in that case is this idea, this victim mentality that we're trapped. And it is again a very gnostic worldview. We see the existentialist rebranding that same notion, right? We're trapped by our circumstances. And you know, therefore like we, we're helpless. And the, the solution, this, the salvific solution is that we become our own gods. Right? They give you this, this false hope that you have the answer and you, you're going to recreate the world. You're recreating the circumstances. And that's not to say that we can, you know, improve ourselves, improve our condition, improve our circumstance. I absolutely believe we can. And you know, I hope that people would work towards that. But there's a, I think there is this lie on both sides, you know, this extreme victimization. I don't think we're victims. That doesn't mean that there is a reality and that we don't have circumstances that we may not always love, you know. You know, I can certainly say that from my own life. You know, I was born with a certain hand. We're all dealt with the, you know, the hand that we are, we're dealt with and it's not always what we might prefer. But that doesn't mean we're inherently victims. And that doesn't mean that we can't do anything in order to improve our circumstances but to sell the lie that, you know, they're essentially, they're the, the God, right? That, that's, that's the big lie. And it gives them this, it ties into this kind of like inferiority complex that you often see where really plays into the narcissism. And a lot of these cluster V personalities, I think they've done a lot to exacerbate those cluster B personalities. And it becomes a cybernetic feedback loop. When you have the, you know, social media platforms and the algorithm, there's a feedback loop to begin with in, in the culture, but now that we have a socio technical culture, it becomes cybernetic. And I, I just wanted to also add that, you know, Game B, Stewart Brand, like if you go to their Wiki Bambi Wiki page, Stuart Brand had opened his Whole Earth magazine back in 1968, I think it was, and he had said that we are gods, we better get good at it. And then in 2015, right under that on the website, it says we're gods, we might as well get good at it. So I mean, they're, they're telling you it's right in your face that that's, this is what the world view is.

Courtney [01:54:04]:

So yeah, I mean, Marie Strong said something very similar. Marie Strong in his book said something to the effect of we're all gods now and gods can't be capricious or something like that. You know, it's like we just can't get away from this ultimate hubris, this, the high hubris. And. But to the point, Courtney, of the issue of language, thank you for bringing that up. Bang on. Language is know the language, understand the language. That is essential so that you not, it's not just so that you're not deceived, but also when you're hearing the language around you, you already understand the worldview behind what the person is saying. You can now speak intelligently to them, you can bring, you can bring your voice forward and they will listen because all of a sudden you are speaking their language. We realize that at Burning man and at other places when you know the language of the culture and these are all subcultures, even politically, ideologically, philosophically, these are all running within a subculture that has tremendous influence. So when you understand that language, yeah, you have a leverage, you have a special leverage. And I would encourage people to, to learn that.

Will Spencer [01:55:24]:

Can you recommend some resources for people to pick up the language? I mean, obviously there's been a ton, a plethora of resources that have been discussed throughout this entire conversation, but maybe if you can just recommend one or two, whether it be videos or podcasts or books, you know, we'll talk about your book, Carl. But you know, sort of in addition, in addition to those Sort of resources for someone, like, if they want to learn, to push back, where can they start?

Courtney [01:55:51]:

Okay, so there's one resource. It's really an underrated resource. It's very interesting. It's called A New Narrative. Published by Lighthouse Trails Publishing. Lighthouse Trails is a smaller press Christian publishing house, and they do some great work. And a couple years ago, a couple of years ago, they said, hey, we need to have a glossary. Literally a glossary of terms from the new age, from the side of technocracy, from the environmental angle. A glossary for Christians so that we have a handle of what the world is saying. And so definitely pick up a new narrative. It's. What's.

Will Spencer [01:56:31]:

What was that again?

Courtney [01:56:32]:

Well worth it. Yeah. A new narrative.

Will Spencer [01:56:36]:

What's.

Courtney [01:56:37]:

Trails.

Will Spencer [01:56:38]:

Lighthouse Trails.

Courtney [01:56:40]:

Yes. And one of the contributors is myself. So look up my name, Tiger. T E I C H, R, I B. And then a New narrative and it should pop up somewhere.

Will Spencer [01:56:50]:

Okay, got it. Oh, okay, Great. Released on 1 23. Okay, great. Where can I order a copy? Can I get it from Amazon?

Courtney [01:56:58]:

Yep, you probably can. Yeah. Or for Lighthouse Trails directly. Yeah. And it's literally just a glossary. It's literally meant to be. You know, here's, here's a list of words and what they mean.

Carl [01:57:12]:

I, I keep saying I need to do this. They've already done it. That's awesome.

Will Spencer [01:57:17]:

You're behind.

Carl [01:57:18]:

That'll save me.

Will Spencer [01:57:19]:

Lighthouse Trails. Okay, so now that you don't get the glossary, I guess it's not showing up on Amazon. Lighthouse Trails.

Carl [01:57:27]:

A New Narrative for a New World. A compendium.

Courtney [01:57:30]:

Yes.

Carl [01:57:32]:

To discern today's dialect.

Will Spencer [01:57:34]:

Oh, got it. Okay. Got it.

Carl [01:57:36]:

Yeah.

Will Spencer [01:57:37]:

Excellent. Okay, cool. Okay. 256 pages. This should be fun.

Carl [01:57:41]:

Yeah, that's awesome. It is really interesting because I feel like that's actually something a lot of people have reached out to me saying they're like, you clearly know their lingo. And I, I can't tell you that. It was like one book. I just, I read so much of this garbage, honestly.

Will Spencer [01:57:56]:

Right.

Carl [01:57:57]:

I, I, I, I apologize for being pejorative, but it's just because they're all saying the same thing and they think they're so profound. It's like, listen to these podcasts. And it really, I'm just. You could have said that in three words, and you just took 20 minutes of my time to say, like, nothing. And that, that's what they do. So I, I become very immersed in this language listening to these podcasts. I've done a lot of Research recently on this game B stuff. And they all speak in that lingo. They talk about metam. Modernism. Right. The metacognition crisis. My.

Courtney [01:58:30]:

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Carl [01:58:31]:

Crisis. Right. My husband and I have this joke that we should do like a. A drinking game. I mean, we really wouldn't, but it's just funny that a drinking game. Take a shot for every time Jordan hall says meta systemic. He's a mess thinker. We'd be very drunk by the end of 10 minutes if we did use these words. And it's over and over and over again again. You know, they. Now we've got Aubrey Marcus, who is promoting Mark Gaffney's Eros Mystery School. And Aubrey Marcus is talking about how, you know, he. He subscribes to radical monogamy. And Mark Gaffney is his guru who's guiding him through radical monogamy. And he says it's expanded monogamy and it's the most sacred form of intimacy. And so, yes, it's not polyamory, but expanded monogamy.

Will Spencer [01:59:27]:

Really?

Carl [01:59:28]:

Yeah, expanded monogamy. So I think I posted like a few years ago, I was like, I'm gonna be vindicated that Aubrey Marcus is an off. And I think we are like, well, but yeah, him and Mark Gaffney. So Mark Gaffney has his Eros Mystery School. And this is again, the language, right? What have we had? We had. Freud talked about Eros and Thanodos, and then we had Herbert Mark usage as his Eros and civilization, right? And now we've got Mark Gaffney, the Arrows Mystery School. And he says we have to revive the Ancient Mysteries. And he says Eros isn't sexual, although it's. He doesn't say gaffe love. He says Arrow. He says it's just a radical love affair with the universe.

Will Spencer [02:00:11]:

Yeah.

Carl [02:00:12]:

You hear these people, like, okay, I see what they're talking about, but they're now, like, normalized. And it was funny because I. I had read this blog from Ben Life, who's, you know, involved with Christopher Life, who's part of the United Independence Party. This is another third wave political movement. Christopher Life started this United Independence with Brock Pierce. And Ben Life was saying. Very upset with Aubrey, her talk for talking about radical monogamy. And when you read this book, this blog that he wrote, it's like, yeah, it's. It's basically what you support. I don't know. He just. He likes pure polyamory. He doesn't want the exclusive monogamy, you know, where it's basically like an exclusive relationship with multiple people. It has to be polyamorous. So you're all one and fluid and. Yeah, but Mark Gaffney is their guru who guides them through all of this. So, yeah, it's cosmoerotic humanism.

Will Spencer [02:01:11]:

That's a. That's a new thing that I have to look into. I. I don't know that I knew that ever had a name. I was aware that that was a huge part of the new age world, was. That was that sort of set of beliefs and. But to see it actually being promoted in the open, you know, by Aubrey Marcus has been. Has been shocking. Like that was. That's how that world works. But now that. Now they're talking about it at some of the highest levels of influence and culture is baffling.

Carl [02:01:34]:

And it is. And when you listen to his episode that he talks about it with his wife and his other wife, what it. It's really heartbreaking to see the wife because they're really preying on her trauma. So evident that that's what this is. This is a trauma bonding circle. And of course, he's funding all of it, right? They claim. Oh, yeah. No, I mean, even if he weren't funding it, they. They just love this anyway and. But no, obviously he's funding this whole operation. And I. I use that word intentionally because it is an operation, because he's doing it very publicly and there is a very specific message they're trying to inculcate and there. There's a value shift in the culture. And. You know, it's funny, when you talk about these polyamorous circles, I. I will never forget, I had an experience personally. I. I was in LA and I used to do film and I was producing a project and I had. I won't mention the name, but a pretty famous actor who told me that he has a primary, but he'd really like me to be a secondary and that this is a huge honor. And I was so confused. I'm like, I don't know. Primary, second. What are you talking about? And he's like, oh, I have a primary girlfriend. But, you know, this is a huge honor. I'd love to ask you to be my secondary. I'm like, so you're literally asking me to be second fiddle, and I'm supposed to be honored. Like, wait, how does this work? I don't get it. I'm confused. But that was my first experience with, like, that orals. But, yeah, this is a whole culture and it's tied to this beat. Right. Because again, we're Blurring all the distinction. There's no intimacy, one, one. There's no male, female. It's just all a big blob orgy. Sorry to be graphic, but I mean, that's what they're doing, so.

Will Spencer [02:03:15]:

And it's, it's dissolving this. And this would be, this would be a live stream all of its own. In fact, maybe Cosmo Erotic Humanism would, would in fact be a good live stream to do, considering it's, it's now being elevated. For a minute, it was ayahuasca, and I think we're going to see more of that. In fact, I was, I was, I was in an Uber coming back from the airport and an Uber driver, the last guy you'd expect, you know, sports jersey on bigger guy, this black guy. I think I can just say that. Like he was like, oh yeah, I think the next big thing is going to be something psilocybin. And he just said, yeah. And I was like, I was surprised because I, I, I was like, I was telling him, look, these are usually, this is usually something that's popular in hippie communities. You know, are, are people in your community enjoying it? He's like, yeah, I just think it's going to be the next big thing. And so, you know, something like that, something that has, has now being mainstreamed in that way. You know, I think, I think people are not prepared for the, the level of, of subversion, infiltration that we're looking at from, from all different corners. And it's all tied to this. You know, I think it's all tied to this. And psychedelics and trauma bonding and dissolving the family and polyamory. Like all of this stuff is, it's all, it's all very real and, and you know, I guess. So Carl, you suggested the, the glossary. The, the, the name escapes me and I, I just have in my Amazon cart now. So what's a, what's a resource that you would recommend, Courtney?

Carl [02:04:36]:

Oh, boy. Yeah, I'm thinking it's where people go that would be. I, I don't know. I mean, you could just listen to like Rebel Wisdom podcast and you're gonna get all of this, like really pretty much. Yeah. I mean, Rogan has close platformed most of these people. Oprah's platform most these people. There's so many books. I mean, the secret is all this language, right? It's new thought the Aquarian conspiracy that was all the way back in the 80s. But you know, that's this idea you could read any of Ken Wilber's books, the Religion of Tomorrow. It's all in there. Yeah. I don't know if I have like the one book as I've just read too many, so I don't have like a. Yeah, okay. And.

Will Spencer [02:05:33]:

But it sounds like maybe a lot of the stuff is documented in the Religion of the Future. And. And because I know about Wilbur's like Sex and Ecology book, that. A big thick thing, by the way, you've mentioned earlier that, that. That Wilbur writes paragraphs, something that could be said in a sentence. And that was always my impression of people that would talk about him. It was like the reason why Wilbur was for the most hard, hardcore people in the New age world was not because his ideas were all that difficult. It was that he just expressed them in so many words that it really took a hardcore person to want to read his book. It wasn't like he was doing anything like that was mind blowing. You have to read it. It was just like. Yeah, no, it's like just like 600 pages and it should probably be 200 pages. But if you want to commit yourself to it, it's worth it. I was like, no, I don't have time.

Carl [02:06:16]:

I know these ideas, they're all like that. Ian McGilchris, Mark Gaffney, Zach Stein, you know, I go on and on. Vervecki, you know, all. They're all like this. This whole. The whole intellectual dark web movement, all of those people who were the seeding ground for this game B concept, Andrew Cohen pretty much explicitly say. I say it's an influence operation. He doesn't use those words. That's my being a little bit heavy handed. But he basically says the intellectual dark web was the seeding ground in order to create the acquiescence from the public to be immersed in these ideas. And, you know, yeah, Manifest Nirvana. Now you can read Andrew Cohen. It's all in there. Manifest Nirvana, man.

Will Spencer [02:07:03]:

Manifest Nirvana. Well, I mean, I think one of the things that's so difficult about these conversations is it branches out in so many different directions. And. But I think we've done. What I wanted to do in this conversation is draw a circle around Ken Wilbur and identify who he is, the streams of influence that fed into him, and the streams of influence that flow out of him, you know, particularly so people understand that what they're seeing, if they see it in the. In the public, is not harmless, particularly to Christians. That it does. That does embody and promote a worldview that precedes him. And then it informs a political, social, economic, Globalist world world that, that the elites are definitely using to bring about in, in many ways in plain sight. So I appreciate that. Over a couple hours we've been able to, to really do that and I think, you know, put, put a pin in it and say this is it. And now we know how to spot it and, and how to, and how to push back on it within our own lives. So I really appreciate you guys for, for joining me on, on this and, and, and diving in so deeply.

Carl [02:08:04]:

Thank you. Yeah, I was just thinking, I mean, I guess if you read any Barber Marks Hubbard too like that, that would probably give you all their language. Yeah. So.

Will Spencer [02:08:13]:

Okay. Yeah, fantastic. Well, where would you guys like to send people to find out more about, about you and what you do?

Courtney [02:08:22]:

Courtney, Ladies first.

Carl [02:08:23]:

Okay, well, I'm Courtney Turner, so you can find me@courtneyturner.com I do spell my name a little bit differently. It's spelled like Courtenay. It's pronounced Courtney, but it's spelled C-O-U-R T-E-N-A-T-R-N-R.com and that's probably the best place to find all my podcasts and you know, all the various ways that you can support the work I'm doing. I do spend quite a bit of time on substack, so again, that's Courtney Turner substack, and that's a great way you can support my work. I put all of my podcasts there early access, so you get them first. If you're a paid subscriber, you also get them ad free. I know people don't love sitting through ads, so I give them that option. That's the way that you can get it ad free and support me. And it's also where all of my articles and I have a preview of my upcoming book that is on my sub stack. So if anybody wants to get like an early sneak peek and you know, into that, then you can check that out. It's a, it's a art. It's the one, a subject that's called Hegel's Dialectic, Agnostic, Jacob's Ladder and a Machinery of Control. So yeah, wonderful.

Will Spencer [02:09:31]:

And Carl?

Courtney [02:09:32]:

Well, if you're interested in diving into some of these topics, especially on the level of global governance, transhumanism, transformational culture, we've got a great big book called Game of Gods, the Temple of Man and the Age of Re Enchantment. Will I know has read it, Courtney, I know you have it as well. And it is documented with 1800 footnotes doing a deep dive into especially the topics of global transformation. You can also follow me on substack. I just started doing a substack not that long ago. You can find me my name on Substack or look up convergence, power and belief and you can read articles and reports. In fact, this evening, right before we got going on our session, I just uploaded for my members, my paid members, part two of my report on the NATO Dialogue Forum that happened a couple of weeks ago. So it's a. It's going to be. It is. It is a place where there's both public accessible material and then there's special goodies for those who want to go a little bit down the rabbit hole. You can also find my. My work@forcingchange.org for a while. Not just a while, my goodness. I did it for nine years. Nine years. I published an online almost intelligence style newsletter and I quit in 2015 so I could write this great big guy. And so you can go to forcingchange.org and there's a repository of all the back issues and they are free. Just sign in and rip them off the webpage and make them your own. And then do a deep dive in my material data. Mine it. Make it your own.

Will Spencer [02:11:12]:

Wonderful. And for those who have enjoyed the conversation, I've just had two recent podcasts with Courtney and Carl and you can find those both linked in the show notes. Carl's. Carl's interview blew up, was a massive, massive hit. And it's. I'm still, I still get comments about it all the time. So that would be a good one to check out for a deep. Oh yeah, for a deep dive about all this. So, Courtney, Carl, thank you both so much for your time today. Thank you for your wisdom. And we should definitely do this again and start unpacking Cosmo Erotic Humanism. Because I think that that would be the sort of thing that I think people need to know more about.

Carl [02:11:44]:

I'm down.

Will Spencer [02:11:44]:

Awesome.

Courtney [02:11:46]:

And thank you, Will. Thank you, Will, for doing this this evening.

Will Spencer [02:11:48]:

Yeah, my pleasure. Always, always a joy to talk with you both.

Carl [02:11:53]:

Likewise. Thank you.

Will Spencer [02:11:55]:

Thank you. Let's see.