This episode I’m interviewing Adrian Smith again, which we did a couple of years ago almost exactly to the date, in September of 2021. Adrian is a Canadian with a degree in law from the University of London. He has worked variously as a minister of religion, as a businessman and investment analyst, and more recently as an author, blogger, and podcaster. His book is called A Prison for the Mind, Reflections of a Disappointed Fundamentalist, and his book explores the common characteristics of extremist ideologies, with special emphasis on woke philosophy.

Recently, Adrian spoke at the Glastonbury Symposium in England on the topic of the Canadian Freedom Convoy, which he called The Emperor Has No Clothes. So we’re going to touch on that talk he gave in Glastonbury. We’re also going to talk about how he came to Gnosticism and what gnosis means to him.

Cyd

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights, Adrian. It’s great to have you back again.

Adrian

Thanks for inviting me.

Cyd

Thank you. What got you interested in Gnosticism to begin with anyway?

Adrian

From a very young age, I was indoctrinated into a very strict fundamentalist Christian sect with a very domineering leader whom I call in my book, A Prison for the Mind, the wizard. And there was something very… Something that made me feel rather uneasy. And that was that we were always talking about the dreams, the revelations, the insights and miracles of other people. And it could seem rather dry and empty. And there was an implication that if there was to be any important revelations or visions that it would come through the hierarchy of the church. Not with the underlings. So it seemed as though our natural creativity and natural connection was being interrupted or suppressed.

And I read some of the work of Thomas Paine, in particular The Age of Reason, which he wrote towards the end of his life. And the reason that he wrote towards the end of his life is that he was writing on the subject of religion. And what he wrote was very controversial for its time. He wrote about the incestuous relationship between religion and political power and political authority, which I found very interesting, and he made a statement which stuck with me. It was there’s no such thing as a second hand revelation. Revelation can only occur in the first communication. So if you’re reading about or listening to or receive from someone who says that they had a miracle, that they saw vision, all you have is their word for it. And that you can’t really place your faith on that kind of evidence. That refers also to the subject of The New Testament, the book of John.

And in the book of John we read that the Apostles saw the risen Christ. And that they also witnessed him ascend into heaven. They go on to say that, in order to be saved, you are required to believe this. Which didn’t sit very easy with me. I felt uncomfortable with that approach. And in fact, I felt more comfortable with the approach of Thomas. Who said, you know, unless I see some evidence myself, I’m not going to believe it. And we read in The Book of John that Christ appeared to Thomas, and then he believed. And Jesus says to him. Thomas, you have seen and therefore believe, but blessed are those who have not seen, but have believed.

Yeah. So that’s the perspective of the book of John. But Thomas Paine goes on to say that he sides with Thomas. And that you don’t base your faith on second hand revelations or hearsay. And in fact, in the New Testament, what we have is hearsay on top of hearsay because we don’t have them saying it to us directly, but through several intermediaries. So it’s hearsay.

Cyd

What about the born again experience of Christians who have a personal relationship with Jesus that walk and talk with Jesus quite a lot? Is that not a personal revelation?

Adrian

Yes, it’s a revelation made to them. And they may feel entitled to believe in that. But it’s not a revelation made to me. And also, what I’m talking about may not apply equally to all forms of Christian experience or even Christian fundamentalism, but I belonged to something that was more cult like in that it had a very dominant leader. But the authoritarian model is not dissimilar to what we read in the book of John. We saw this. We’re entitled to believe it, but you are required to believe it. You must believe it. But it’s something that came to them and not to you.

Now, that led me into the Gnostic approach and the Gospel of Thomas. So what appears to have been occurring is that in the New Testament times there was a wide diversity of Christian expression. And the Gnostics represented a different way of looking at it, a different way of being a Christian. And they were obviously followers of John and they were followers of Thomas. There were some people who believed that Thomas was right. And this is found in the in the Gospel of Thomas in one particular verse: Bring forth that which is within you. The Gospel of Thomas is saying is that you have all the resources you need within you to save yourself.

Cyd

Yeah, that sounds very upsetting to fundamentalists. I can hear that thou art God, huh?

Adrian

It was very upsetting to the Orthodox Church. And we know a lot about the Gnostics by the criticisms that they received from church fathers, such as Ireneus, the Bishop of Leon, who criticized the Gnostics because each one of them brought forth something of their own. Something new every day. And that they were encouraged to have reference to their own dreams, their own visions, their own revelations. And they would share those dreams, revelations, and visions amongst themselves without a unified set of doctrines.

So, you might compare this to an artist, a painter who would instruct his students, but he would not instruct his students to give an exact duplicate of what the teacher was doing. They would be expected to take what they learned from the teacher and apply it to their own individual work of art. And it was this individuality that the church fathers didn’t like—that the Orthodox Church didn’t like—because they were looking for one church, one doctrine. A bunch of rules that apply for everyone. A bunch of doctrines that were set forth that you must believe as a requirement to be in the church. So it’s kind of a quantitative measure. They were very interested in converts. And there would be a checklist. You know—do you accept the authority of the church? Yes. Check. Do you attend the Sabbath services? Yes. Check, check.

Cyd

Oh yeah, yeah. And there still is. It’s called the Nicene Creed, and most churches recite it at the beginning of service.

Adrian

Right.  And the name of the game was get bums on seats.

Cyd

Right, right.

Adrian

And expand this as though it was a business. And you could tell that it was successful because it was an ever growing thing and that growth in membership was, in fact, proof that God was behind it in their mind. And that was an argument that that the wizard made. Look what a success I’ve made of this. Obviously God is behind it.

Cyd

Right.

Adrian

But Irenaeus, you know, said that they’re not content unless someone each day brings forth some enormous fiction. So to them it looked chaotic.

Cyd

Right. Well, they wanted the control and the power.

Adrian

Or a workable administrative structure. Right. But the ironic thing is that the Gnostics had a unity which allowed for them to accept these truths of other people and these revelations of other people without judgment. And also to have what we would call a qualitative experience of a unity of the spirit. It says in the New Testament, you know, the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness. So their gnosis was a kind of experiential gnosis—knowing by direct apprehension of the truth, irrespective of intermediaries.

Cyd

Pausing for just a second here, the idea of the butts in the seats with the church fathers, or with any church—the big churches, the mega churches—so they’re very popular. Well, you know, I’ve had this Gnostic Insights podcast for a couple of years. I don’t have many butts in the seats. I don’t have many subscribers and it’s kind of the opposite of that philosophy. I think if I were, you know, more cutting edge or sexy or this or that, or employed Chinese drones to give me likes and retweets and so forth, but I’m not going to do any of that. I really detest all of that. I don’t think that is the truth.

Adrian

Well, I don’t think Gnostics are into the numbers game. They’re into the quality of the interactions and the quality of the learning and the knowledge. And they weren’t really big proselytizers. They were more secretive—secretive because they didn’t want to get burned at the stake.

Cyd

Mostly. Well, yeah. Well, I feel very exposed out here, by the way. You know, obviously I get pushback from Christians in my community. I get the evil eye stare, you know?

Adrian

Well, I’m coming back to something I said initially. I’m the last person to market my book because when I first wrote my book, I didn’t want anybody to read it. So that’s what kind of a marketer I am, you know?

And I think that maybe that’s my Gnostic roots, or maybe it’s like your brother counsels people using past life therapy—maybe there was something in my past, you know, some persecution.

Cyd

Ohh well, certainly. I’m sure we’ve both been burned at the stake on more than one occasion.

Adrian

There you go. So you know this. And even Thomas Paine didn’t write down his ideas about religion and what I just told you until he was old. Because if he did, he realized there might be a price to pay for all this.

Cyd

Sure, sure. And we are both older as well. So, the wisdom of age.

Adrian

That’s true, and it wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

Cyd

Let me mention that that the publisher that is publishing A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel tells me there’s a 10,000 unit sales turning point in royalty structure. And I’m like, ohh, that’ll be the day. That is very hard to imagine.

Adrian

Good luck with that. Right. I hear you. But you know, I think we value to a greater degree the personal interactions. I know I’ve had lots of people read my book and I’ve entered into a dialogue with them and it’s been very productive on an individual basis. Maybe that’s what it’s all about, you know, at the end of the day.

Cyd

Relationships, right?

Adrian

Yeah, relationships. And in those relationships, entering into a dialogue. That furthers your gnosis, absolutely, and contributes to it. That’s the name of the game for the Gnostics. I mean, if it was up to the Gnostics, Christianity might have disappeared as an organized identifiable structure in your face. There’s not much difference between these highly structured churches and empires, you know. They’re interested in expanding the scope of their dominance and imposing on people a unified set of doctrines which I would call the believe it or else approach. You would be banished into outer darkness, which I eventually was. I got excommunicated from that church eventually. And as I say, that church was not uncommon, but there are other forms of Christianity that are much more experiential, for sure. I think the Quakers in particular. And you know, the charismatic Christians. Yes, yes. Again, though, you want to get your own connection going on your own.

Cyd

Well, I was having a discussion just yesterday with a young Christian/Gnostic gal and she was complaining about church hierarchies being this authoritative structure, and she doesn’t like to sit in a church and listen to a man telling everybody else that he knows what’s up and here, and you better hear it. She likes the home church setting where you’re sitting in a circle and everyone shares and everyone prays together and, you know, to me that’s very interesting because the church structure is hierarchical. It’s that pyramidal structure with top down authority, whereas the home church is a circle. It’s that torus shape where everyone’s sitting in a circle and they’re focusing on the center together, which is knowledge, or gnosis, or God. See what I mean? It’s a different structure.

Adrian

Yes, it’s like he had very different structure. In fact, in my book I do make reference to the Native American talking circle as being as being analogous to how early Christian Gnostics held their meetings. For example, taking turns being Bishop and things like that. So there would be no one person that stood out as the leader who would act as a conduit.

Cyd

Well, are the Quakers the church where they sit in a circle in their meetings, and no one’s in charge? And they just they sit and pray and talk. What church is that?

Adrian

I think that’s the Quakers. I think so, yeah.

Cyd

Yeah, well, then it’s no accident that that is one you resonate to.

Adrian

Right. We had something going on here. It was a native American thing, which is very analogous. You sit in a circle. The Bishop would be more of a convener. Each person says what’s on their mind. They had a dream. They had a revelation. They had an experience. How did they feel? What happened to them during the week? Talk about anything you want, you know?  And you go around, you pass the feather, and when you hold the feather, the floor is yours. So no one interrupts and says, what a load of crap, you know . Or puts up an argument against it or says anything. Except your job is to listen and that’s it. And it go you go around. I did this and I just found it enormously satisfying. The whole experience was just very fulfilling and it felt right. Yeah. But in the church, I constantly didn’t feel right.

Cyd

Right.

Adrian

Like this was, you know, there’s something bothering you. There’s a cognitive dissonance going on like you’re constantly being told something is true but witnessing contradictions in behavior. And internal contradictions. George Orwell talks about this, you know—double think. You encounter two sets of facts and they don’t match up. In order to continue to believe a lie, you have to put one of these beliefs in a memory hole and you have to forget about it or bury it.

Cyd

Wait, you’re talking about wokesters. Now you’re talking about the current political situation. It’s just amazing how the people cannot see what’s going on.

Adrian

Ohh, I’m totally talking about that. That’s another huge topic that we’re probably not going to have time for, but that was the subject of my talk in Glastonbury. It’s not at all dissimilar from what we’re discussing.

Cyd

Well, let’s talk about that. Let’s move into that a little bit.

Adrian

OK, I’ll try and keep it as brief as possible. It is a lot of information; I don’t know how to boil it all down, but let’s go. Yeah, well, the topic was the Emperor has no clothes. And the subject was the truckers convoy—the Freedom Convoy—which was the protest that took place in Ottawa in January, February last year. It was the largest peaceful process in Canadian history. Brought about by a mandate that the emperor said was based on science. And it resulted in truckers who didn’t want to get the Jabberwocky, which caused them to lose their jobs essentially, and they couldn’t work.

So they descended on Ottawa in huge numbers because they came from not only the un-Jabberwocky but also the Jabberwocky who just wanted freedom of choice, and they descended on Ottawa. And before they even landed in Ottawa, they were characterized as terrorists. They were characterized as misogynists, racists, people who don’t believe in science. Why do we tolerate these people? They take up space. They’re terrorists. They’re destroying the local businesses.

What actually destroyed the local businesses was their characterization as terrorists. So people in Ottawa were boarding up the windows, you know, and Trudeau fled the city and there was snipers on roofs. And it was all a theatrical job. It was all completely false. Protest was more like a giant Family Day. There were bouncy castles for the kids. There was dances, there was music. There were speakers. Amongst the speakers supporting the truckers was the only surviving signatory to Canada’s constitution in 1982. Our Constitution goes to 1982. And Danny Beauford, a resigned RCMP officer charged with Trudeau’s personal protection. There was Trudeau’s brother, who spoke on their behalf.

And, following the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which is a kind of a wartime measures act, which requires use or threats of serious violence and a threat to national security, Trudeau began arresting peaceful protesters. And they have been held as prison political prisoners pending trial. And he froze bank accounts. So the Emergencies Act had never been invoked before, except on this occasion. And then there was a public order Emergency Commission, which arrived as kind of a gift because there was six weeks of continuous testimony and evidence produced, which is now in the public record. And I spent most of the time this summer going over it all. And the end result was that there was no medical advice to that effect, you know, that he claimed. No one was prepared to say that the measure he introduced that sparked the protest was based on science. No one was prepared to say. No one would back it.

Cyd

No one would back it.

Adrian

No one was prepared to say that there was any actual violence. So the question kept coming up a time and time again. Was there any actual violence? The answer was always, oh, no, no, there was no actual violence. No, no, none of that. Yeah, and was there a threat to national security? The head of CSIS, Canadian Security and Intelligence Services, said that there was no threat to national security.

So this is a very brief synopsis, but the essence of it is that the view that the general public that watches the state-run media, or the corporate media, had of this protest was the diametric opposite, the complete opposite of the truth. It was not just not true, it was anti true. Oh, he said, for example, that they were stealing food from the homeless. Well, the other side of that was that no, they were actually feeding the homeless. And because there was so much food being donated to them that it filled all the soup kitchens, and not just in Ottawa, but all the way up to Sudbury. It was bulging with food.

Cyd

Ah, that’s great.

Adrian

And what it was, a lady who led the thing, it was her name is Tamara Lee. She’s a native. American grandmother, who started a Go Fund Me to help them. The whole idea was that they would go to Ottawa and hold up a few signs and enter into a negotiation over this mandate. You know—what’s the reason behind it? Do we really need to do this? Enter into a dialogue over it. It’s the only protest in history that I’m aware of where there was not some form of negotiation allowed and we’re just sticking to this narrative.

And I tend to view it as a very important insight into the mind of the World Economic Forum and those who belong to it. But also into the mind of the Demiurge who is described in the book of John as operation mind control. It’s like he sought to overpower humanity in their psychological and perceptual awareness. So it’s all about managing perceptions. And I see it as a form of black magic. A form of sorcery where it’s a smear campaign. It’s very common. It certainly happened in the church that I belonged to—anybody that opposed it got that kind of treatment.

Cyd

Well, for example, hold on. Let me let me break in just a second. You know Robert F Kennedy is the most hated person running for president right now by the conventional media and whatnot. I received an invitation via e-mail this week to attend an online town hall meeting to ask RFK questions and whatnot. Click here to be added to the list. Well, when I did the click here, Microsoft intervened and said, Stop! This is an unsafe site. You you may not go to this site, it said. And so I did a screen capture on that and I sent it to the RFK people and I said Microsoft’s blocking your meeting. And they didn’t know it. I was the one that let RFK know that Microsoft’s not letting him have his town hall this week. So, very interesting. Yeah. The Demiurge—they don’t want dialogue. They don’t want truth to come out.

Adrian

No, and you have to believe that there is such a thing as truth. Because when they were asked, well, if there was no actual violence, then how do you justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which requires that to be the case? Otherwise, it’s an unlawful invocation, and you guys would be liable for crimes. It would ordinarily be crimes like false imprisonment and false arrest. And they said, well, it was felt violent. Yes. So they’re going into an area where they don’t actually think there’s any such thing as an objective truth, that it’s all your perception. That it’s all your feeling or we thought that it would turn into something, but that particular argument was dealt with in the Act because the act says the violence must have happened on or before the date of invocation. But they kept coming back to we thought it was going to turn into something. So it was felt violence and so a lot of things were violence that you don’t ordinarily think of as violence.

Cyd

Ohh well that’s very typical. People become insulted so easily now and they call it violence.

Adrian

Well, silence is violence. Yeah. Yeah, I’ve heard that one in this context. They kept saying things like it was felt violence. It was anticipatory violence. Like, you know, the “pre crime” in Minority Reports. And honking was violence, and they introduced a couple of really unhinged individuals who claimed that they had been psychologically damaged by the honking. You know—that they’ve never been the same since they’d heard all this honking. Really unhinged. It turns out those people were actually assaulting and throwing eggs at the truckers.

So you know what else with all your economic harm, is violence? Well, any kind of strike or industrial action results in some form of economic harm, but in the case of the Ottawa protest, it did nothing but cause the place to boom. Every hotel was full that was open. Every restaurant was jam packed. The only reason that there was economic harm was because of Trudeau’s ridiculous mandates. And because they bought the idea that these people were terrorists. But a lot of them could see after a bit that no, these people were not terrorists, and so they opened their doors and their businesses flourished. So that whole string of words that were a reinvention of language, you know, like words don’t have objective meaning—they have just whatever meaning.

Cyd

Well, and that’s going on worldwide. That’s going on down here in the States as well. I mean that’s just the way it is nowadays. They’re controlling and changing the meaning of language, which makes it impossible for us to communicate. And, unless we’re able to communicate, we can never resolve conflicts.

Adrian

Of course, yes and so it’s just all your perception. There’s no truth, there’s no grand narrative.

Cyd

And that’s the Demiurge’s position. Remember, the Demiurge is an amnesiac god. He thinks he started everything, and that it starts and ends with him. Nothing objective. And so he doesn’t know that there’s a truth.

Adrian

Yeah. So for him, the truth is whatever I tell you, it is.

Cyd

Exactly, exactly. And that’s the way politics is now.

Adrian

The truth is whatever you want. What we tell you it is. And I included in my presentation a quote from Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. She says, we are your single source of truth. And she  goes on to say, if it comes from us, it’s true. If it comes from anywhere else, it’s not true. Yeah. So that is the very definition of a cult. I couldn’t have described a cult more succinctly than that. Because it depends on being hermetically sealed. It’s like living, and I think this is analogous to my book, it’s like living inside of a darkened room. You don’t see any light. It’s pitch black in there, but if a little crack opens up in the wall, even a small amount of light, a small amount of truth, is enough to dispel the darkness. But they depend on cutting you off from any form of alternative explanation.

Cyd

Right.

Adrian

And no, in our tradition, our ancestors had a different view of things. Like we talk in law, in the philosophy of law, of the tyranny of the majority,and the tyranny of the experts. The tyranny of the majority is dealt with by a Constitution. The tyranny of the experts was dealt with largely by a jury system. And the jury system was, you know, the common folk. The common folk would hear a string of expert witnesses on one side and then they would hear a string of expert witnesses on the other side. The expert witnesses or the experts weren’t determining the conclusion of this thing. It was the jury, the average citizen.

Cyd

And we’re being cut out of the process now. The proletariat has been put down. That’s right.

Hey, guess what? We’re out of time.

Adrian

Cut out of that process. Right. Oh wow, I thought that was gonna happen. Yeah, but you know, I think it all made some kind of sense. I think it’s a nice wrap up. We didn’t get to get to much, but. We got to plenty.