Meaning found in Christ ultimately exegutes, meaning that it explains our life, It gives our life meaning purpose, all of that it's bound up in that. In that word, that is the expression of the inexpressible. So we will never ultimately have totality knowledge of God. And the Eastern Fathers like san grag Nissa, they even speak of how we will forever be going up into God. We will forever be moving up into God, learning more and more.
And that's great because that means that you'll never be satiated. You'll always want more, so as you're enjoying the experience of God in the process. Right, you're not going through process philosophy. That's never giving you truth. It's just moving from truth to truth to truth to truth more truth. Rational, sane, objective. Ordinary people commit acts of atrocity. You want to be connected to something that has a value and reality independent of your ego. Central
replicate that in an experiment. You're missing the point. That's what meaning is. Hello everyone, welcome back. This is the Kyle Maxwell Podcast. I took a year off. I was doing lectures, I went back to school, and overall just had a break from doing the podcast due to other circumstances, but we are not back. And this is episode sixteen, season three of the Kyle Maxwell Podcast. And to kick off the season, I have on a phenomenal guest today by the name of Jay Dyer. Jay Dyer is
an American author, philosopher with a degree in philosophy. He has a second called Jay's Analysis, where he dives into the various topics geopolitics, religion, philosophy, ideology, and the like. He also hosts the fourth hour on The Alex Jones Show every single Friday, If I Believe Yes, and he has debated likes as Nick Flan says, Matt Delahanty and others in the religious
realm. And today we're going to discuss religion, We're going to discuss difference, cultural topics, ideology, and what Jay's overall hopes are as to as he influences the current cultural topics that were going on today. Jay, I'm really thankful that you're on the show today. Thanks man, glad to be here. Yeah, I appreciate you reaching out and very cool to have this conversation. So I'm always open to talk about philosophy anytime anybody wants to do
it, because most people don't want to talk about philosophy. That they always say, let's talk about this thing over here. So I'm really actually more excited when somebody wants to talk about philosophy, because most people don't care about philosophy and don't want to talk about it. Yeah, So my first question I want to get I have a I have a big question I want to ask you, but I won't I won't start off the podcast in such ways. But my first question is who is Jay Dyer and what is your goal
with their content? What message are you trying to relate to your viewers. That's a tough question. I think there's a lot of different Jay Dyers in the sense that when I started out doing this, it was mainly focused on religious topics, and it was also focused on film and film symbolism and analysis. And then I decided that I was that was a little too narrow. I had a lot of other interests. Yeah, So when I was doing my undergrad I was studying not just philosophy, but I was also taking a
lot of film classes. So I kind of wanted to integrate all of those things together. So I started doing a lot more essays on geopolitical topics, a lot more essays on espionage. I was doing my grad work on after undergrad on grad on the espionage and philosophy and spy literature and how those realms kind of overlap in terms of propaganda studying studying the Cold War pretty in depth for people who don't know what espionage is. You want you want to briefly
explain what that was. Yeah, that's the just spycraft in this and the specifically what I was doing was studying like the time of the Cold War, Ian Fleming. Actually he predates the Cold War. He's he was doing spy work in World War Two, but yeah, he was spying on the Access Powers because he was a British intelligence operative, high level naval intelligence and he was the author of the James Bond franchise series, so he's sort of known
for that, but he was a real world spy figure. So I was really interested in that topic and how it overlapped with film and how film is kind of a perfect medium for propaganda beyond just telling stories. So I did a lot of research on media propaganda and how that all works. And I just started kind of blogging back in twenty eight nine, ten eleven had a small audience back then, and then I kind of took the natural course that a lot of people tay, which is that you start blogging. You take
all of those essays that you've written over the years. I wrote hundreds of essays in my twenties, and then you put those into books, right, and then that kind of led to doing podcasts, and then that led to doing more and more video work, and then that led to, you know, bigger opportunities. We just did the Tucker Carlson Special a couple of months back, so that was kind of like the peak of what I've been up
to for the last few years. But yeah, it's just kind of we did a TV show to a full season production TV show and I think twenty seventeen or eighteen somewhere in there. So so yeah, we've been doing a lot of different stuff. I wear a lot of different hats, and that's just because I think we live at this inflection point where if you do what we do, you can kind of let more and more of yourself come out and you can be you know, you can you can find an audience based
on the things that you're interested in. I guess is what I'm trying to say one, the more things you're interested in, the better for you know, for growing an audience. What is your what do you think you're If you had to summarize your I guess your goal in what sentence, like, what would that be? I have a lot of different goals. I guess yeah, I mean, I guess, well, I'm married, so you
know, I want my wife and I have good a good life. So I try to, you know, on the earthly plane, I try to do things in a wise way in terms of managing money, running, but we have a couple of different businesses, investing all that kind of stuff. On the spiritual plane, you know, I want to be an influence in
a good way in that regard. So that's partly why I do a lot of the debates with the atheists and Muslims and other traditions, is to try to do you know, apologetic work for Orthodox Christianity because I'm I'm I'm an attendee and a member of an Orthodox church, so so I try to promote that. I also try to do, you know, things on a personal level just that I enjoy. So there's a lot of different goals, but I guess overall it's to try to to try to do uh, you know,
good things in a spiritual sense. Okay, that's great. Now I wanted to dive into obviously because you said you're Orthodox Christian. So the topics of Christianity, especially nowadays are kind of odd because we're at we're at a peak in a Western civilization where the underpinnings of Judaeo Christian values are now on there. I would want to say attack. That sounds a little bit exploitive,
but they're just under question. And everything seems to be coming under question, especially the topic especially Christianity as as particular, and America is known to be the melting pot, you know, there's a plethora of religions that and the one of the hallmarks of America is that we can all we can all
share this this land, and we can all express our different beliefs. I mean, that's the hallmark of liberty, of being being a liberal were we are we are free to express whatever we want, well, well not whatever we want, but what our religious whatever our religious preoccupation is. Well, why do you think Christianity at per se is always seems to be the particular
belief that is always under always under question. Besides it being obviously a third of the world's religion, But why do you think it is Christian values per se that are so intimidating to non believers or or whatever ideology or a part of What do you think it is about the Christian faith? Because I've always seen that. You know, you'll never see someone poking fun at Buddha, like that's not funny. Like you'll never see someone making fun of like the
like a dragon from some like eastern country or something. You'll never see someone making a meme about farre Muhammad because it's just not funny. Why do you think it's the Christian faith per se that we're always making memes about Jesus, We're always making jokes about about this faith particular. Yeah, I think there's a lot of reasons why it's not just one. I think that, you know, Christianity makes exclusivest claims, and so it's that's tied to, you
know, objective truth. The idea that truth isn't relative, is not purely subjective. There are objective truths and principles that everybody must match up to. And in Christianity, you know you have in John fourteen six I'm the way the truth in the life. No man comes to Father but by Me. So Jesus is even making that in more restrictive exclusivity when he says that the only way to you know, eschatological salvation is through Christ through his Church.
So that's a heavy claim that I think a lot of people have problems with just because a lot of you know, if you believe the Christian worldview, then you believe that man has fallen, and so man has a proclivity to reject God, to turn against God, just because he's a fallen human being. And so there's that going on. There's also you know, geopolitical powers and forces that would like to undermine Christianity because it has a stabilizing social component
to it. I'm not saying that it's only about social warfare cultural warfare, but Christianity does promote, you know, the idea of the sanctity of the individual, the made in the image of God. So you have rights that are based around divine law. The Tank Commandments is a really good blueprint for how to have a healthy society versus one that falls into tyranny, to have rule by law, these kinds of things, These are all you know,
biblical values, you could say. And so if you're a technocrat, if you're somebody like you know Clouds at the World Economic Forum, or if you're knowing, you've all Harari. I mean they actually express this and the writings that it's time for these older religious notions to go away because we're evolving into a new kind of transhumanist dataism is what Harari calls it, which way he says, will be a new religion of the future. So the new religion
of the future. And this is other thinkers too, like H. G. Wells, he said the same thing, like one hundred years ago. You have to get rid of the roadblocks to that. And Christianity with its classic notions of nations or ethnos or people groups nation states. I don't mean
nation states in the post Enlightenment revolutionary sense of a nation state. I mean the older idea when Jesus says in Matthew twenty eight, go forth and baptize the ethnoid, the nations, the people groups that go back to the chapter Genesis ten called the Table of Nations, where you have the outlining of all
these different people groups. There's this tendency to rebuild Babel, I guess is what you could say from fallen Man and to the attempt to rebuild Babbel, which is all of the world under a single kind of world government model under Nirod from Genesis early on in Genesis, I mean that same idea is a recurring spiritual movement that never really goes away. It's all the world pires are
kind of an attempt to rebuild Babble. And I think that today we're in a more dangerous situation where you have really powerful international steering committees CFR, Builderberg, these kinds of things. They really do want to push and openly have called for the creation of a technocratic world government. And so the things that stand in the way are identified by those writers, by those elite, by those technocrats in their own writings, and one of those is traditional Western religion,
in particular Christianity. So that's one of the that's another reason why on the geopolitical level, underneath the spiritual level of the exclusivist claims of Christ about Christianity. So yeah, I think I think those are the main two reasons you could probably we could probably think of other reasons too. Why. I mean, I think there you could also say that in the realm of so
called Christianity, there are a lot of hypocrites. There are a lot of people that you know, don't really follow the religon but follow a pseudo version of it. So there's a lot of you know, goofy megachurches and kind of ridiculous stuff going on out there, which I think furthers and fosters the
idea that it's a hypocritical religion and undermines the idea of religion itself. Ultimately, it kind of producing a lot more atheists, I think, and really, you know, the idea of Bible and Christianity itself has been under attacked at least since the Enlightenment. I mean in the West. That's really when you get the outbreak of the phases of atheism that would really kind of,
you know, wash over the entire West. And so now we're kind of at that phase of where we've even gone past the classical progressivist notions of Enlightenment atheism with people like Hume and skepticism from people like Dolbach and these characters and the French revolutionaries. Now we're getting into postmodernism where things are just getting kind
of crazy. We're getting like full on breakdown of the older liberal values, because the old progressive liberal values of you know, classical liberalism or twentieth century liberalism, those are now breaking down because they weren't really founded on anything other than in many cases what's called negative liberty and political philosophy, which is just the idea that you don't have a positive worldview or a positive idea of what
your culture represents or what your state represents, but you're basically defining your nation state like America, as a nation that is not big government, that limits big government. Right. So that's negative liberty and the Enlightenment sense, but it doesn't provide a lot of positive values beyond things like pursuing life liberty, property or life liberty, happiness, and so that utilitarian presupposition that's in the
Enlightenment ethos especially in the American idea, the spirit of America. I think America's kind of at a crossroads where it would have to choose between its competing founding ideas. So I don't think America's one idea. I think it was combination of you know, the Roman law, English common law, Biblical Mosaic law, you know, the founding fathers. Looking back to Roman statesmen. Even Machiavelli plays a role in it, and the Enlightenment free Masonic revolutionary philosophy
ideas. I think all of those things were kind of in the melting pot of American ideas, and America would have to choose which route it wanted to go in terms of those ideas, in terms of where what it wanted to be more consistent with. So did it want to go down the route of being more consistent with Enlightenment atheism or does it want to go down the rout
of being more and more of a Christian nation. I think it obviously shows the route of the Enlightenment atheist pathway, and that led it to lead to it becoming this interventionist, internationalist power packs Americana, and that has contributed, I think, more and more so to its demise. And it's kind of I think we're reaching the point where the American import is going to start to crumble. I like that part when you quoted Matthew he was the way the
truth. I think. I also I want to bounce back. I want to bounce this ask you, I want you to tell me what you think about this. The reason why I think like the the Christian faith, like per se, is so under attack, is actually because of its truth. And I actually think a the degree to which you can satirize and to the degree that that you can that you can deconstruct and make fun of something is
the degree that which is true. Because if you, if you pay attention, if you and if you and this is back in deconstruction, this theory, this is back in postmoderness, you'll always you'll read people and then they're always attacking the Judeo Christian belief. And I look at it as a from a psychological perspective. I'm a psycho major, just to throw that out there. Look, I look at it so aside from a philosophical reason why the
Christian faith is is so potent. I'm looking if you look at it at a psychological perspective, it's like it's a if this is true, then this must be true. And I think once you accept the pre's opposition that Jesus was God and he was real, that unravels a infinite cascade of terror. And but also hope that's the thing because I don't know what versus is, but it's the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. So if you don't believe in God, then what you don't have wisdom? You just have
a bunch of conflicting knowledge. You just have a bunch of conflicting things that can be true. You have conflicting presuppositions. And I think when so people radicalists or leftists, are atheist or materialists, the longer they can, the longer they can stave off this idea. As long as we can just get rid of this pesky idea that there is some type of transcendent out there, transcend on to ambiguousflicting presuppositions, then we can. Because the idea of the
scientific, the Enlightenment idea isn't to come to this. I mean people like I mean Dereda and fu Co write this verbatim. The idea isn't to have this sort of objective truth. The idea is to have this this dialectic. I hate using that word because it makes you sound kind of KooKoo, but it's it's it's to have this on going dialectic, is to have this ongoing conversation, this ongoing of versilila twos of this may be true, or I
have this thing, I have this this dualism here. But if you accept this idea that Christ exists and he died and he and he rodes again, then that means that, okay, well, if there is something that's transcendent, and that means what is in front of me, there is more to what is just in front of me. And if there's more to what is just in front of me, that means that these things that I value, my very sense itself, all of this, it completely cascades into this unraveling
wall. I don't have this, and that means that there are things that exist that I can't see. And if there are things that exist that I can't see, then that means there must be something more than this. That means that my career and my three letters after my name are not the most
important thing anymore, and that there's some type of transcendent value. And this line of thinking, this is how depressive just people think they think if this, then that they don't they go from the from the from the occurrence to the to the attractor. This means that my whole world is coming down. That was Nietzsche wrote this word for word in his Will to Power. He
said that I'm gonna I'm gonna get them trying to remember this. It went from God is good to everything is false a Buddhism of action, and I always try that verse has stuck with me forever because it does. It has went from what he was writing a Will to Power about the UH the rising ideologies in Germany at the time God is good to everything is false. And so what he meant by that is you just don't lose faith. And he wrote this and beyond good and Nebo as well, you just don't lose faith
in your ideology. You lose faith in faith itself, and you have to be reborn into something different, something that is more than yourself. So I don't think it's it's not Christ that is offending the more radical types, because that can do nothing but help you. It is the It is the repercussions. If there is such a thing as Christ, then that means I have
to change something, I have to accept something I have to change. So I think that's an important distinction, because it's not that they're denying Christ. Because you can't deny something. I mean, that's just a a that's just a basic law of logic. You can't deny something that doesn't exist. If you don't think that Christ it says there, you can't say that there is no God. That's why I never runner stord to the atheist movie, because
you're claiming you can't claim a negative. You can't say that there is no He can't make a definitive claim that there is no God because you're saying that there is no there is no level of universal claim, there is no level of evidence that would make you believe in such a thing, So you can't claim it's non existence. So I don't think it's the existing sense of God
or the exists of Christ that people are so vehement about. I think it's if that's if such a thing exists, then I'm in trouble, and it's for my best it's for my best interests if I can make as much people as possible believe that that's a bunch of bullshit. The what do you think about that? Yeah, I think I think you're right there. I think,
uh, that's a point we've we've made. I mean, it's kind of the point in John three when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus and he says to Nicodemus that the darkness hates the light and does not come to the light lest its deeds should be exposed, and that means that it would require them to change. And I think you're absolutely right that people sense deep down that wait a minute, if this is true, then all of these other things
would necessarily necessarily follow. I think that's totally right. I think deep down people kind of do that mental you know, inner calculus, and they figure out that and that makes them have that initial uh you know, beheman reaction against it exactly like you're saying, I think, yeah, I mean, trying to cut you off. But in that, in that that logical like deduction is what that that runs counter to the postmodern post structuralist way of thinking
itself. The if this because Hume didn't believe in causality, so it runs just the concept of something existing, then therefore this exists. So then therefore this exists. The I mean the I mean that's what it is. That is that the first the first mover, first move, that's Aquinas is the I'm going to get this wrong, the first mover. Who was the one
that said that, yeah you could. That's kind of his argument from remotion that you would have that it would go back to some first cut, but that everything is contingent, so there must be some non that contingency itself. That runs counter to the post structuralist or post modern way of thinking, because in that world nothing is contingent on anything. I can have my cake and eat it too. I can feel like a man and be a woman.
I can feel the certain way and not act on it, and therefore that isn't who I am, although we know that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. I can just think about little boys and girls doesn't mean I'm actually going to touch them. So therefore I'm a good person because I'm not acting on it. They want to sorry you today, though that mode of thinking runs contrary to the Judeo Christian way of thinking. If
so, then this and that's where science even begin with. It began with a religious exploration that there is some sort of of intelligible universe, that there's
something contingent upon this matter, that something cannot come from nothing. So just the very idea of there being some sort of first mover, there's some sort of objective reality, some sort of like definitive statement that gives birth literally to this thing we call work the earth in life that is crippling, to a world where you can have everything you want and there be no contradiction, because contradiction is a point. Yeah, I think the Enlightenment started with Descartes deifying
the human mind. And so what religion did prior to that, it placed the divine mind in the divine in God. It was outside exterior to man. What Descartes did. Yeah, according to Louis de Pray the I think he's from Yale Historian Religion. He has a really good book called Passage to Modernity, and he talks about how de Kart basically took that divine mind concept
of the ancient medieval world and smashed it into man's mind. So now the individual's mind becomes the paradigm, and it becomes it's attempting to function as the divine mind used to function. But because the human mind is finite, it can't pull this off. So this imminentizing of the divine mind that begins with Descartes, ironically even into human con it's still very rational, it's still basically psychologism. It becomes syllipsism, and so the syllipsis division, you know,
the kantient divide from the newmana and the phenomena. This ends up being the very seed that would destroy the mind itself and the man's idea, identity, man's dignity itself. Because now that we've imminentized everything, and we placed upon man the burden of building a kind of a system building project of creating and giving meaning to totality reality, because man's a finite being, obviously that quest
will fail. It must fail, because they've already banished God. And it's kind of like Sartres said, He said that, you know, you could look at it like the ancient medieval world said, essence precedes existence. No. No, Now, my existence precedes and will determine what essences are or are not. In fact, I'm all through out all the essences and my existence. So it's man's kind of Faustian bargain, his own self will projecting
himself. But here's the thing. It ends up undercutting his own identity because he eventually deconstructs all reality, including himself. Because remember Umberto Echo, the famous Simuititian author of a lot of famous books, Pendulum Name of the Rose. He wrote a famous essay called or Fascism, and he says that the goal of the revolutionary that leftists ultimately is not just against fascist governments or tyrannical governments, it's actually against the idea of truth itself with a capital T.
If you believe that there's any objective truth, you are a fascist. You're a truth fascist, he says, so that all ideas of truth have to be destroyed. That's exactly. But see exactly, and if you point that out, they say, we don't care about contradictions. We embrace them, because all reality is contradiction. These people will say, the more sophisticated versions
of them will say this, right. So when you get into these more higher level Marxist dialecticians and these kinds of people, you know, the higher level I think, you know, darker thinkers that father sarafrom Rose identifies as the fourth stage of the nihilistic revolutionaries. If you read his great book Roots of the Nihilism, Roots of the Modern Revolution, he talks about these four phases of who wrote that, I want to remember that nihilism Roots of the
Modern Revolution by father Sara from Rose. He classifies four stages of revolutionary thought, which kind of begins with the idealistic, you know, utopian, universalist revolutionary figure who wants to bring about an earthly utopia, and then eventually the revolution fades into death for death's sake, pure nihilism, and destruction for destruction sake. So that's like it's kind of his final phase of that revolutionary utopianism
actually gets you to pure destructive nihilism. That's his argument in the book. He actually does a pre subdistional critique in the first chapter of all that. I think it's a really good orthodox, pre subsisitional critique of that whole Enlightenment ethos. But yeah, he ends that chapter by saying that the logical progression
is to completely reject logic as a whole and to embrace contradictions. And that makes perfect sense because, as we've been covering on my channel pretty lately, that after I had a lot of interactions with a bunch of like insane Marxists online. Uh, if you go and you and you read a book like this Fire in the Minds of Men who James Billington was the Library and of
Congress, So he wasn't a conspiracy theorist. He's actually just writing a mainline history of revolutionary thought from the French Revolution or prior to the French Revolution all the webs to now. And you know he talks about highlights the importance of dialectics and direct of materialism. You know that it was taken from Hegel,
and the key to this is to understand that. And I don't even really think Hegel thought this, but I think that the people that have taken this have gone in the direction of saying that there are there's not really anything that's true. Everything is just a bit, a bit, and a piecemeal approach to truth. And so every interaction, right, the argument would go between you and I. You have a bit of the truth. I have a bit of the truth. We have this interaction, and so this interaction is
a thesis antithesis, synthesis. We're both coming to a higher level of truth as a result of this. So truth isn't really a thing that's ever a static, it's always in process. It's always in a dialectical movement that the journey itself is the truth. According to I think a lot of these people. I see this when I read people like Harber Moss and people coming out
of the Frankfurt School. So I think, I think this is really a fundamental dialectical idea that these people believe, and that actually, if you understand that, actually explains a lot as to why they actually affirm contradictions. They actually believe in the necessity of and by contradiction, they don't even necessarily just mean in Marxist practicology, they don't necessarily just mean a logical contradiction. They
mean all opposition, like constant opposition struggle. That is the life and practice the Marxist That is the action that you take, even if it's people in your own camp, you still have to deconstruct the Marxists from the last generation. So it's a never ending just strife and struggle because they think, as I think you mentioned earlier about Heraclitis, I mean, they borrow from Heraclitis
that all reality is flux. So they're they're just furthering the process by going along with reality itself, which is pure flux and atoms and molecules and everything
just bashing together to produce the synthesis out of that. So if you understand that, then I think it helps to understand why when you interact with these people and you call them out on a logical fallacy, they don't care because they have a philosophy that pretends to respect logic and reasoning but actually affirms contradictions. Now, I want to get into Marxism and stuff later in the conversation, but I will save that for later. I want to ask you to
we talked about true. If we talk about God momentarily, what is truth and how does it? How does one come to truth? What is truth? I would say the truth is a divine person. I think it's what John identifies in John One as the logos. The logos is not identical to Hellenic Greek philosophical conceptions of the logos. I think John was using that term to speak to a lot of Greek reading, you know, Greek speakers and
Greek audience, to bring them to Christianity. But a lot of times people mistake this as if it means that, you know, John is saying the exact same thing as what the Priestocratics are meaning when they say logos or Marcus Aurelius when he says logos, I think he's using that term to direct people by saying what you're calling logos or truth or word or explanation or meaning whatever, that's actually what we've got in Christianity with the second person that God and
Jesus is that logos is the truth. So truth ultimately isn't abstract, it's not ultimately propositional. There are abstract truths, there are propositional truths, but those are created truths in our worldview that reflect an uncreated truth which is not abstract or a force or impersonal, but personal. So this is a very unique element to Biblical religion. Ultimately, I think to orthodoxy that the highest level of the absolute is not impersonal. A lot of world religions, Hinduism,
something like that the absolute is ultimately an impersonal, unknowable whatever. And if ultimate reality is impersonal, you kind of get a worldview that is all illusory or it's all disteleological, meaning it lacks purpose. And there's a lot of implications for your philosophy, for their worldview. If you have a presupposition that ultimate reality is impersonal therefore disteliological, it means that they can't can't ultimately
have purpose within that paradigm, within that world view. So Christianity allows for it has purpose precisely because God is personal and because the world is created with that divine personal intentionality, meaning that it's directed and meaning that it has purpose. So telos or purpose is immediately connected to a world that has that is created. It's not just a manifestation that comes and goes. It's not an illusion, it's not a dream. It's a real beginning, middle, and
end thing. So there's time time has, you know, beginning, middle, and end. Humans experience reality with that time determination of beginning, middle, and end. Augustine, for example, makes arguments about this and his famous book Confessions where he talks about how even in this and seeing things in beginning, middle and end, it kind of in a way points us to God. So who is outside of time, and so time itself kind of
has to be grounded in something super temporal outside out of time. And then you know, again God being personal, not just an abstract force or something like that like you might find in Platonism, that actually gives us again telos, intentionality and purpose, and that history doesn't just keep going. It has actually a beginning, a middle, and an end because as an end has a purpose. So things are actually moving towards some climax, and they're not
just moving on infinitely. I mean there will be an escton. But in the sense of history, what we mean by history is beginning milling in that actually gives us purpose insofar as humans are constituted in this life to learn things, to know things, and to have purpose. So what it will be like in the escaton we don't exactly know. We kind of have these inklings
in terms of orthodox eschatology. But for the way that we know and live and move and operate in the here and the now in this world which has fallen, which is temporal, there's certain things that have to be the case, that have to be there in these we typically call categories. You could look at Aristotle's categories. Kant later kind of trust to reformulate these as transcendental categories, and unfortunately he makes them only mental. I wouldn't agree with making
them only mental. That's the Enlightenment move to smush everything eminently into into the human mind. I think if we keep these things exterior to man in the actual world, categories of interpreting and knowing the world, categories of being and so forth, then we actually have a coherent worldview. When we throw out those things we tried to deny, these basic ideas, that's when we get into these problems, which is what happened at the Enlightenment doesn't mean medieval philosophy
is absolutely perfect. I think that there can be developments and things that build on errors or empty spots in medieval philosophy that can be patched up or fixed. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater, which we saw in the Enlightenment, I think was a huge mistake, and it really set the West on the ideological truck that it's on now, which is just complete collapse
in the kay so far from you know, man progressing. In terms of all of these great technological advancements and all the scientific advancements, I actually think that a lot of that is illusory. Not that we haven't had these advancements, but I don't believe that those advancements came from the presuppositions of materialism. And I don't think that scientism or any kind of new religion like materialism is in any way actually going to further anything. Rather, those ideas actually degrade
and devolve us. Now, the concepts of truth have been always been attacked throughout history forever, and one particular critique of truth who and one person who, I mean I admire deeply, one person who has maybe attack truth may be harder than anyone else. Frederick Nietzche. I've read a lot of Nietzche in the past, and his work is known, whether people know it or
not. He's had a huge influence on Western thinking and if you so, if you read Nietzsche, he and his letters, especially Wealth to Power. But when he just used to write on truth, there is this one passage where he was speaking about talking about truth as the mirror, like when we are fluxing, how we were talking about words and sounds, and which then later rolls up to postmodernism. He would think he was. When he was critiquing truth, he said, is is the reality itself contained just by words?
Are we just restrained by words? So that then then I want to take that because if you take knee Te's critique of truth, is truth just the words and the sounds? And he even went deeper into saying, is it just is it just the mere like actual sounds or the letters or the letters true, or the or the spaces in between the letters. Is that where the truth is? Is it just the tone of my voice? Is
it the mere sound? What? What where is it? If you take that and then you take John and when you say when in how he conceptualized truth. The logos is the word. Do you see a connection there between the word the truth being like the word as the word in this case would be God versus Nietzsche's idea of truth being truth just being just merely words, Like what do you think the relationship between that is? Because I've always that's
always struck me. Yea, I think is actually a legitimate question given the status of philosophy at his time and in his day, so where things had gone, it is perfectly legitimate for him to ask, especially when he's critiquing a lot of I mean, he does critique Christians, but he also critiques a lot of the progressives in the atheists of his day, and he says, you have the same idealistic, universalist notions of truth of promoting your atheist
gospel. I mean, even makes fun of the atheist He calls them the pale atheists and makes fun of them as the new evangelist. And I think it's the same work. Maybe aka home, I forget it's been I haven't had a Nietzsche class in like ten years, but we did read those texts that you're talking about. But yeah, I mean, he's basically saying, look, if you want to still act as of language has this ability to give you insights into reality itself, into meaning, and into truth, then
where in any of this is truth? Right you? Coul's kind of a human question, where in my experience is causing or is teleology? I see one event, I see this event, and you're just calling that causation or teleology. But that's an interpretation. So I think Nietzsch's got a great point there that would actually undermine the older Enlightenment narratives. And Nietzsch is actually good
for that. Some of the existentialists are really good for undermining and disproving these older Enlightenment notions of again universalizing abstract truths, principles, concepts, nature, et cetera. You know, care Kerguard has a similar type of critique.
Dostievsky has a similar type of critique. In fact, I wrote an essay that's in my metain Ritis book on how Kirkerguard, Dostievsky, and Nietzsche really critique and destroy the Enlightenment and they That doesn't mean that they all three have exactly the same answers or solutions, but their critiques are good enough to destroy the Enlightenment narratives of the grand narrative of the Enlightenment that they had that we
don't need God. We can have abstract truth through science, through mathematics, through universal laws of logic. You know, Kant wrote this essay about how we'll have a universal system of trade and then we'll have a world government, and then we won't have war anymore, because once everybody sees the prosperity that you can have with the world government, nobody will want to go to war. I mean, just really silly, stupid, naive ideas, right,
not even just just not based in reality of falling human nature. And because if you don't believe in the fall, you're going to adopt the view where you think that man's the solution to man's problems are governmental economic social programs, you know, what you could call Pallagian solutions to man's problems. That's kind of what plagies. If you don't believe in the fall, then you will and habit the pride. The pride will your yeah and your solut you will.
You will misdiagnose man's problems and give him the wrong solutions. Right like today, since we are believed to be just bags of meat. I mean, the dominance of the Rockerfellers put out this this study, uh, the molecular vision of life. And basically, because man is seen as just this, this collection of chemicals, the assumption is that you would only treat man's
problems by throwing chemicals at chemicals. Hence big pharma. Right, So the solutions of the pharmaceutical corporations align with a kind of biology which sees man as just a bag of chemical reactions. So just tweak the chemicals with more chemicals. So that's a specifically a reductionist model out of the enlightenment of man as just a just another, you know, one of the animals in the animal kingdom. So man's loss is dignity. He's the greater himself. Yeah,
yeah, anyway, so yeah, you get the point. And so I think Nietzsche's right to raise that question of well, where is truth? Where is the exagesus and the meaning of something in the words? And I think that when John calls Jesus the logos a few verses later in John One, he also says that that he is the by saying he's the word of the
Father. It says that he exegeats or explains the Father, and so meaning found in Christ ultimately exegetes, meaning that it explains our life, it gives our luck, meaning purpose, all of that it's bound up in that. In that word that is the expression of the inexpressible. So we will never ultimately have totality knowledge of God. And the Eastern Fathers like sing Greg and Nissa, they even speak of how we will forever be going up into God.
We will forever be moving up into God, learning more and more. And that's great because that means that you'll never be satiated, You'll always want more, so as you're enjoying the experience of God in the process, right, you're not going through process philosophy that's never giving you truth. It's just moving from truth to truth, to truth to truth more truth. Whereas in the process philosophy idea that we talked about a minute ago, you never have
truth. Everything is relative, even in the process itself. It's supposed to be oh, well, it's just raw experience. Well, raw experience doesn't have any meaning if there's no truth, Jay, who is God and why should someone believe in God? I think God is the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Ultimately, God is God the Father, and the way that we have access to God the Father is through his only begotten
Son, and the means of that is in the Holy Spirit. So from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, as Saint Basil says, is a liturgical movement that tells us about the movement within God himself, who is triad. So God is not a perfectly static idea like the Greeks thought, like Plato or whoever Pythagoras. God is not a changing being in the sense of being one thing one day and something else another day.
But there is movement within God, which is the communal life of the triad without there being change or without God being passable, and so there's a dynamic stasis, which is the term that the Eastern Fathers use about how God transcends dialectics. So he's neither purely one, nor is he only three that would be polytheism. But he's one in three, three and one, and he's equally three as he is equally one, and so there's an equal ultimacy which
solves the problem of the one of the many. I think in history philosophy, if your ultimate principle is a triad, you don't have the problem of the one of the many anymore. So that's who I think God is in terms of his metaphysical quote definition. Even though we could never really define God,
we can speak about how he's revealed himself. We can't exhaustively define him, and then he's known or had a relationship with through the means of in my view, the Orthodox Church. So that's who God is, and the reason that I would say we believe in God is also many. I think there's a lot of testimonies in terms of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that Christ perfectly fulfills. Those I think are evidences of the inspiration of the scriptures.
There's the history of the witness of the Church throughout the centuries, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the gentile nations converting, which we've seen in the last two thousand years, which I think attests to Christ being the Messiah. Topically, though, I think that the transcendental argument for God is a good argument for why God exists and why he must be a certain type of God
and not just any God. And then my own experience, just in my personal subjective, you know, one to one in terms of my life and the history of the church. All of those are reasons why I believe and why why I think it's true now something that's always troubled me as well. I didn't always. I'll just be up front. I didn't always believe in God, especially when I was a kid, even though I was brought up in a religious household me. My grandfather was a preacher. He has just
he had a doctorate in theology. And I went through a period where I did not believe. Well, I thought there was a God, but I did not fear I didn't fear him. I didn't have the fear of him. He didn't have his Uh. I didn't get it. I didn't get why I should take this seriously. And to people who maybe don't believe in people who are struggling to believe, I always try to put myself in their
head because I tend to look at things from my psychological perspective. I'm always trying to understand why that person thinks the way that they think and when so look at the life of Let's just use Cain for an example. Even though now to kin believe in God or not, that is an odd question, because he was kind of talking to him. But so then you have to ask, what does the word believe mean? Does that mean that you trust that he is who he says he is, or do you think that you
are hearing things? As a conversation for another day, but let's pretend that you're a Caine, or just pretend that you're someone who has had a very rough life like Christ or someone you're doing everything possible to just stay afloat. You're trying, you're making the you think you're making proper sacrifices, you're putting them at the altar of God or what have you. And but you look to your left, you look to your right, and you look up,
and you look down. You look around, and you see other people making it. You see other people receiving blessings. You see other people getting things that you want. You see other people obtaining things that you worked your ass off for, but they just seem to get it just a little easier than you. And that emotion, that that spirit of well, why are they getting all this stuff? Why do they under why do they have it easy? Why did they have both parents growing up? Why did they have clothes
on their back? Food, in their stomach. A family who loves them, grow up in a suburban area, didn't have to look behind them. Could what play outside without street lights? Why did they have that? And you're doing everything possible, and then you put your sacrifice out there, and then God or the world says And this is one of my favorite verses. I think I believe it's Census four three. If thou doest well, shalt
thou not be accepted? And I always think about that every time I catch myself being kan or I catch myself being that the spirit that begins to deny God, if thou doest well shot down not be ex shall that not be accepted? So if someone who like that, who is trying their best, or maybe they're they aren't because their blessings their or their their efforts aren't being met, what what do you? How does that w How does believing in an entity that is refusing to bless you? How does that make you?
Why does that? Why should that encourage you to seek him further? If you're not seeing the benefits of believing in such a god, because I think some people don't believe, or some people are reluctant to it because they're saying, well, what what am what am I getting out of this? And maybe thinking what do I get? What am I getting out of this is the wrong mindset of itself. But what would you say to someone who is experiencing that type of a type of life where it's nothing seems to be going
well no matter what they're doing. So how and I have been worshiping God this whole entire time, so you're telling me I need to get closer to something that is refusing to acknowledge my efforts. What would you say to that person who is experiencing that spirit of Cain, who is beginning to be who is who? That resentment is building up and maybe they're just ready to take
out someone question. I guess my first thought would be that, you know, our religion doesn't promise that first and foremost you will get temporal blessings and prosperity. You may get temporal blessings and prosperity, but there's no promise or guarantee of that. The promise and the guarantee has to do with the next life and the blessings and the prosperity there. But I do think that it's also true that God does bless us and give us prosperity in this life as
well. It's just not a guarantee. But nations that have, you know, adopted Christian principles and have been faithful to them have tended to do very
well. I think that's one of the strong points of Western civilization, and why it did do well was that it had this foundation, It had this ethic, it has had this moral and so while there is no perfect ultimate promise that you know you're going to have, like prosperity preachers tell you, like like on TBN that if you give five dollars, you're going to get the tenfold blessing of five hundred dollars back. You know, if that's the
expectation, then like you said, the mindset's wrong. The mindset needs to be well, I wait a minute. You know, if God is the god of the universe, then he probably knows what's going on better than I do. Right. It's kind of like the exchange that goes on in the Book of Job because Joe has Yeah, Job has similar questions about like, well, why are the wicked prospering? Why if I've been righteous, am
I you know, sick with boils all over? My skin, and my wife wants to leave me, and I'm having all these issues and that's not fair. And then after all of that, Job ends up because he remains faithful, blessed even more than before. And in Job's case, it's not
just spiritful, it's also actual temporal blessings. So you know, God can dole out the blessings as he sees fit, and he does at times put us through trials and tribulations to strengthen us and to weed out those that are just there for you know, a quick box, just there for the here and the now. So yeah, I think I think that's that's the lesson that we're supposed to get from the Caine enable story, which is that Caine's heart and his mindset was wrong. Yeah. And I watched the video you
were you were talking about you were looking at that book. You that you just put up the fire in the minds of it, was firing the minds of sorry for out the name of it. Yeah, fire in the minds of men. You were speaking about him, and but you were also talking about Plato and you and you were talking you said that Flato was a communist and that was very interesting, and I want to ask you about that later
on. But I also think that, and that was quite a while ago, but I think that the at and tell me what you think about this. I think Cain was the first communist ever in history. And I'll explain that. I'll try to explain that because if you look at the story Cain and Abel, and now it doesn't come out and say that one's sacrifices,
one sacrifices was better than the other. And there are some conservatives will who will argue that, well, well, Abel was, he was, it was a blood sacrifice and Caine was doing something that wasn't, and they'll try to argue it or whatever. But I think that the spirit of the that revolutionary Marxist communist spirit first manifested itself in the Book of Genesis with Cain.
Because Abel was putting. Obviously he was doing something right, and we get a hint that he did something right because God said, if thou doest well, shall not not be expected. So we can infer that Abel was doing well and Cain wasn't. Cain was expecting the same outcome. Caine was the spirit that wanted equality of outcome. He wanted the fruits of his brother's labor, and that spirit manifested itself at that point, and that's what we're seeing
play out today. Well, someone who put in the work, who saved their money, who didn't drink every week, drink and party and go out every single weekend, who didn't sleep with women, and whoever they wanted to
sleep with. I put in the work. I studied, why should this other kid get the same level of opportunity as the Asian kid when the black kid or even the white kid in this And it's just because white kids are betting, white kids are getting just their applications are getting tossed at the expense of minorities and the expense of other people because of this whole woke stuff going on right now. But they want He wanted an equality of outcome. And
I think that that story is is important. And you made the connection with Job because it's like when Job was, you know, confessing to God, what are we doing? And the whole thing was literally a test to see his faith in God. And he says to Job, you know, and this is a verse that's always stuck with me. He said, where were you when I lay with the foundations upon the earth? So Job was bitching about his problems, and Cain was complaining about his problems, and people nowadays
are complaining about their problems. I complain about my problems. But then in every instance, when it happened to Job, when happened in Genesis, that paternal spirit then manifests itself and it says, basically says something like, well, who the hell are you anyway? Where did you get this idea that the world the world does not revolve around you? Where did you get this idea that you were promised some sort of you were promised some sort of reward.
Yeah, God said y'all shall be accepted, never said you were going to get a made back. So I think when people can look at that story in that kind of sense, I really do think that he was the He was a manifestation of that of that Marxist ethos because spirit dy and I've always thought Marxism is grounded on envy, right, that it's not fair I deserve what they've got, We all deserve equality, But ironically that's actually greed, Like if you want what other people have, if you're envious, you're
actually engaging in greed. But Marxism pretends to want to get rid of greed. Right, So it's actually based I think you're right that, I mean, kine is the sin of envy, right, because ultimately that dialogue becomes a question of well, do you love your brother? And he says, and my my brother's keeper. In other words, I'm not responsible for him. I don't care about him. It's about me. So that movement towards self worship, that movement towards like you're saying, n V greed, that
is the spirit of communism. I think that's a that's a very insightful point. So speaking of that, we might as well go into that because I really, I really did. You've now you've done a lot of work on Marxist ideology and Marx and Hegel and you know, you've done a ton of analyzes on that, and something that was something that really always bothered me about the whole Marxist thing is that, And I want to know your opinion on
this. Now, if you look at the actual revolution where people were really like going in the streets and they were like really like causing havoc, like during the seventeen that nineteen seventeen right where they were like actually they were really about that life, and I think that that kind of and then rugging Marxism came about with people like I think his name was rams Shee, who then insisted that this sort of like milk toast Marxism that Karl Marx puts forward,
that's not enough. There needs to be we need to take in the action, we need to take in the streets, we need, we need to get into the schools. And then that led to critical theory and critical race theory and what have you. I think a lot of people like to latch themselves on to Marxism as like an identity, as like a I'm in this, I'm in this club, not like but they're not actually like about it. They don't really believe like to each according to with the ability for each
according to his need. They really don't are not really about that life. They just want to be seen in this group of people who are just the adversarial spirits. There's a group of people who are just resentful and they're jealous and they want they want the fruits of other people's labor. Now, now the question is why do you think I and I have an answer to this, but why do you think particularly is with the youth, because you really don't see a lot of and if you do see a lot of adults,
it's more in a more discreete type of way. They're more like kind of classic socialists. They don't really believe that you know what most mind, yours was yours mind. They just probably want the rich people to pay higher taxes and they probably would like to see, you know, more universal basic health care systems in place. They're not really like, they're not they're not really trying to like invade your per They don't they don't not believe in private property.
So why do you think it's the youth particular who are so driven towards these ideologies? And what do you think? What do you think why do you think Marxists in those ideologies, period, gender identity, these ideas ideologies in total? Why do you think it's drawing the youth so much? I think that that's kind of an easy question to answer, because youth are idealistic, and so when you're young, you don't have enough life experience yet to
be able to distance yourself from ideology. You get very wrapped up into ideology because you're still young, your mind is still forming, you're still very susceptible to living in your mind and believing that the thing that's going on in your head that you can map that onto the external world. So you believe a lot of dumb stuff when you're young, and it's not until you get about over age thirty or forty that you really start to I think, in a
lot of ways develop some wisdom beyond just ideology and being idealistic. And you know, you might have a lot of knowledge, but you still don't have wisdom. And you know, you talked about that earlier about we were kind of hint hinting about you know, what's the difference between you know, the fear of the Lord's the beginning of wisdom. So people can have a lot of knowledge and be fools, right, because knowledge is just retaining a lot
of facts, knowing a lot of information. And you could use that to I call that though, that's the well rounded fold. That's kind of like the motif of my whole entire work. But go ahead, oh there you go, right, So, and I think biblically speaking, wisdom, you know, embodied inn't say the person of Solomon or ultimately in the person of Christ as personified wisdom. You have the application of the knowledge in the appropriate way. Usually knowledge the right way is what wisdom is, and so young
people don't have wisdom typically, and we're all that way. So I think very machiavellian and manipulative people who run movement, who fund movements, who are social engineers or technocrats, or people at you know, the Brazinski level, the Kissinger level. These kinds of figures are intelligent enough and cunny enough that they know that these kinds of movements and groups and ideologies can be manipulated.
And so it's absolutely essential then to target and try to capture the mind and the energy, the zeal of the youth, because that's when you have the energy to do all the activism and to be all wrapped up in this stuff. And you know, that's unfortunately the way these kinds of movements work, because as you get older, you realize all that crap I believed about living in a commune is not actually that much fun. Because I'm thirty, I'm
ready to have my own soap and towel and bathroom. I'm tired of sharing it with ten other people. It's getting nasty in here. Maybe I want to start my own business and as you get older and you decide you want to have your own business, your own house, all of that crap you were spouting in your twenties about universal based skincome and everybody living in some socialist paradise. It doesn't. It's not as fun as you thought. And you
wise up, so you get older and you gain wisdom. And I think those are the obvious kind of reasons why real Marxism appeals to the youth. We know this in the Cultural Revolution, the malfocused on the youth because you turned the energy of the youth against the older generation to get rid of all
the Chinese traditions. So it was very useful in that way. That's I think the most most obvious reason why it's a very powerful If you can grab the energy of the youth, you can turn that to a lot of culture destruction and culture warfare. Kids do have, like that a disabundant source of because they're just naturally explored. If they need a call to action, and that call to action can be hijacking. That call to action could be towards
the good or or can go towards the bad. And I also think Marxism. Gary North has a good book on Necessary says that Marxism was successful in giving people something that a lot of the other atheistic ideologies couldn't have and didn't have. It gave people a past, a story, a present, a means of action, and something to believe in, a participate in, and
an eschatology. And so Gary North actually argues that Marx's religion of revolution is an imminentized atheistic version of Christianity, where the millennium, the end time, you know, escaton is just put into this world of a supposed future, you know, workers paradise, libertarian, withering of the state, technocratic, utopia, however you want to formulate it. It was successful because of a
replacement religion. And that's that's an interesting point because one of the hallmarks of postumatic stress disorder is that level of it is the level of ancient anxious, like that anxious feeling of not under not understanding the surroundings. And Paul Tiller wrote a really good book about The Courage to Be how he described it as
pathological anxiety. So that's so he described that as being in an anxious state and not accepting the fact that you're in an ancient state and there's you know psychological arguments I could make about that, but I like his notion of pathological anxiety because that ties to how post traumatic stress disorder begins to manifest itself over
a long period of time. That that that feeling of not knowing where you are and not having a clear road map of what has happened in the past where you are now in the future, describing put aligning your life because it happens. Our life happens in moments, and it happens in days, it happens in months and then years and then decades, and we need that coherent story to tell ourselves so we can have so we can stay at equilibrium.
And when something punctures that story, that triggers the court, that triggers of thor of things, but that triggers an anxious state, it triggers the cortosol levels begin to begin to increase. And I don't understand what has just happened. So something traumatic happening means that I do not understand how to place this. If you look at this as a look there's a PhD in form I don't know how to place this into my schema. Something happened and I don't
understand. And if you look back and where Marxists and where this ideology began to arise, it was after the war. It was when Germany was in ruins, and it was when people didn't understand where to go. So and the leaders in the intellectuals grat and just like how Chairman maldd He grabbed, he took advantage of that, and Hitler and everyone else. It took advantage of that period of time where people did not understand their past because it's literally
was destroyed. They don't understand what's going on now because we don't have any prime ministers. Everyone's dead, we just signed this treaty. Our military is limited to one hundred thousand people. We are literally in billions of dollars in debt. We don't know what to do, and there is no future because we don't know where we're going. They class on to that and they were able to manipulate that. So I like the fact that you said that author
said that people clapse onto Marxism because it gives them. It's literally a it's literally a form of therapy because they are attacking themselves to a story so they can have a past, a present, and then the future and if you notice closely with the radical types, they're they're they're they have a very high verbal acuity. They can they can articulate. They have no problem articulating why Marxism works. They think that Marxism, I can explain how it works,
that means that we ought to do it. If I can explain the benefits of how this system works, if I can just convince you these words, if I can just say these words, if I can prove how you were wrong, that means that we ought to implement the system, and they don't know how to. So that is the result of them having this That's what the ideology is. It's a form of knowledge that has decayed and refuses to update itself to the new world, to what's actually happening. They have a
system, they have a schema that they refuse to update. And Pha would look at that as a developmental like as a developmental problem, like you're like an arrested development yeah, and and Freud would look at that as a level of developmental fixation. You're so you are you are not updating your present schema to the future. They think that they can just explain it. And something I've always realized is always with the if you ever encounter one on Twitter,
they're highly uh, they really like to live on Twitter. Those trolls. They think that if they can just if I can just like convince you, I can just show you how it's right, then they make that jump from this can exist on this piece of paper and then they say so they make that jump, It's like, Okay, well I just proved to you that this is how Marxism could work. It's like, okay, it doesn't.
Nowhere in that does that suggest that these policies are this or this that means that we ought to make that jump, And that's site that just goes back to human just because it is. You can't derive the art from the is, and they make that leap. And that's something that's always puzzled me because I'm like, how are these people, How do they not understand that they're making that leap just because you can prove that something, especially if you're talking
about something like a worldwide economic system that you're trying to implement. If you're saying that this could work if we just give everyone this universal salary here, and if we just subsidize this, if we just take away this. If we just put this, then that would work, because oh that didn't work because Stalin and Lenin didn't do that right. And if they were to do this, they have that idealistic, perfect painting of what Marxism should be.
The doctrine itself is unerring. It's perfect. That is their god. This is perfect. This is the perfect doctrine of Marxism. And anything that deviates from this isn't a result of isn't a result of the failure of this doctrine. It's the result. It's the failure of you. It's the failure of the leaders to do it properly. Have you ever realized that they always make they always disassociate the failings of their ideology. They do that with people,
They do that with de transitioners as well. The doctrine of gender ideology is sound. That that exists. Now, if you happen to Jay, if you happen to you know, cut your wee we off and you didn't like it, now you wanted to go back, Well, that's just because you didn't transition, right, That's just because it happened to you. It's not a Vegans have this thing of like if you were malnourished in trying to be a vegan, and you kept quit being a vegan. It's because you didn't
do it right. It's a religious commitment divorced from reality. Yeah, I've always seen that because it's something very is literally like a religion. It's literally their religion. Wow. Yeah. I wrote an essay about how this manifests within even the Orthodox world, with people who spurg out in the Orthodox world.
But it applies to evangelicals, it applies to people in any kind of situation where like a traditional Catholicism that's very obsessed with medieval scholasticism, where people have personality traits that are unstable, that manifest in these bizarre, sort of overly zealous ways that actually show exactly I mean, I'm not a huge Freudian, but the point that freud you were citing about actually makes perfect sense.
That the fixation actually is a manifestation of a lack of maturity of the person's uh, the person properly developing and being integrated as a person. They're arrested at this point of obsession over you know, some sort of bizarre minutia of you know, philosophy or theology or religion or medieval Scholassicism that doesn't actually affect their day to day life, but they're they're married to this idea that they've created as to what the perfect religion is, and it's in their head and
they're sort of the champions of that perfect religion. So it's a weird form of what Orthodoxy calls prelst, which is where you have this delusion that much prelest p r e l e s T. It's the Orthodox idea of it. It's spiritual delusion that basically, you know, the fanaticism that we see that they can occur in any in any group. It's not just Orthodox or Roman Catholic or Evangelical. I mean, you can have bizarre fanaticisms anywhere.
And it's usually a kind of delusion of the person building themselves up into something that they're not in order to kind of hype themselves up that they are that thing. Right, So if my idea, my ideal is to be you know, a kind of a saint or a holy person or even like Jesus or something like that, then I create and I pump myself up as if I'm that, and then I get more and more lost in this delusion, and I even kind of think that I am this living saint and I'm acting
in a way that is totally divorced from the reality. And so it's a kind of a vicious cycle because then the person basically excludes all evidence to the contrary that would disprove that they're hearing that God's speaking to them, right, or something like that, Like all the evidence that would prove that God is not speaking to them to be a prophet or something like this, Right, that's gluted because they've already fixed the system and their their their mental system,
their schema, such that all that evidence is discounted from the outset. And so basically this is a version of what we call philosophy unfalsifiability, and Marxism has famously been critiqued as an unfalsifiable system because, for example, if someone critiques Marxism, then the Marxists can say, well, all critiques of Marxism come from a place of being a bourgeoisie, so you have bourgeois if you
critique Marxism, that's bourgeois. Therefore it's discounted because we discount everything bois so it's unfalsifiable. But actually unfalsifiable systems are the ones that are the weakest, because for a system to have to erect this fail safe trick mechanism where the system is unfalsifiable is just a manifestation showing that it's actually a really weak system. It's not just systems, it's also individuals who act like this as if
their world views are unfalsifiable. In these little trick ways are manifesting their own individual weak psychees and weak fragile status. Just as much as an idea can be an ideology can be uh, it can show his weakness through unfalsifiability. Yeah. Well, Jay an Hour a great fat man. I really I'd like to have you on my podcast sometimes You've got a good grounding there. Great. I want to ask you one last question before before we go. I have this quote. My ask my last guest, John Ravaki, what
he thought about it. I think I want to turn this into like I want to know because it's a it's a quote, you know, just I kind of live bias. It's a playto quote. He said, wise men speaks because he has something to say, fools, because he has to say something. And I've always tell myself that especially on Twitter. You know, do I have do I have to say something? Do I have to comment on this issue? Or do I just do I just want to participate, And so I want to ask you, you know, what do you think
about that quote? And not to you know, get to sidetracked with what's going on, especially in the world right now. I felt as if I didn't want to comment on, you know, certain things in certain parts of the world because I feel as if I just wanted to. I just had to say something about it. So I wanted to know of what do you think about that quote? And do you want to maybe I should just come out with it. Do you want to see peace with what obviously what's going
on in the Middle East right now? Because I want to. I want to talk about it. I want to. I didn't want to go there on the podcast because I'll just go off in that because I don't know enough
about it. But what's going on in the world right now, just using the Middle easta for an example, how do you think people can benefit from that Plato quote wise man speaks because he has something to say, and in fools because they have to say something because looking be on the outside looking in I feel as if I would argue ninety percent of people, not just about the Middle East, but just topics period, are just speaking because they have
to say something. How important is it to withhold judgment and to be just to look at things objectively? Yeah, I totally agree with that, And it's very applicable to the situation because most people just react and they react in an emotional way based on this or that piece of information or propaganda even and so you know, propaganda's intended to do that. It's intended to get you to just react, shut off your critical thinking skills and react. And it's
also something that again we're more susceptible to when we're young. We're a lot more emotional. We haven't learn, especially if we're dudes. When we're younger, we're a lot easier to rile up, and we're not level headed. We don't we don't learn. We haven't learned yet typically to control our emotions and to think through situations. And that's something that again you learn as you
get older, when you gain wisdom hopefully. So one thing I did was I did an hour long history of the Middle East, trying to get people who were interested. I mean, I don't have any delusions that I'm going
to like bring peace to the Middle East or anything like that. But for people that are interested in you know what, huh, I just try to bring some historical knowledge to the situation so that we can hopefully achieve what you talked about, which is more objectivity and not getting wrapped up in this or that. You know, I think that you get into the history of it.
Both sides were actually promised things by the British Empire, and they were placed there as an outpost, and they had the British ember had a goal for that situation, and it ended up not going the way the British wanted, and so it became this powder keg. And so you know, there's a lot of Orthodox Christians that are in Gaza. Uh So, you know, we support them, we don't want them to be you know, destroyed. But at the same time, the people that are in Israel have been
there for a few generations. Now it's not their fault that they're there. Uh So it's understandable that you know that. Anyway, I don't want to get into all that issue. I did a whole video on this point. If people want the watch to go to go watch my hour long video that I did on this on my YouTube channel. Half of it is for free, the other halfs behind the paywall, but I go into all the history
of it and get my analysis. But yeah, I think absolutely it would be nice if we could study and learn this stuff before we just react, because I guarantee a ninety nine for some of the people out there don't know the history of Palestine and the British I don't. And one thing that I really want to see. I mean, I know it sounds cliche, but
I really I don't want to be that. I asked that because you know, I'm I have a small platform as anywhere as big as yours or anyone else's, but I never want to I have people at my disposal who listen
to me, like, who care about what I'm saying. And I've just seen multiple people, multiple accounts, and gladly you weren't one of those people in the category who've just been using their platforms this past couple of weeks just for I mean, and just in the most irresponsible ways possible, just stirring up, just making matters worse. And I think is important that we understand, like what's at the root of all this is to number one, just
to be peaceful. It doesn't mean to be pacifist or let people walk all over you, but it's just to be to not make matters worse that make things worse. And I think it's important that people like you and I who have an audience, whether it's a one hundred or eight hundred people or eight hundred thousand people, to just be responsible and to go back to that platonic ethic of having something to say, or or or just or wanting to just
say something. I think it's important that we use our platforms and we and participate in the logos like we use our words for I mean, blessed are the peacemakers, they are the they are to be called the children of God. Like That's how I try to put myself in the middle. Maybe people call it fence sitting, whatever you want to call it. I don't care. I just I'm always trying to think about how we can just use our platforms for good instead of just making things worse. But I appreciate your time,
Jay, I really enjoyed this. People are interested. You can get my philosophy book as meta narratives. You get it on my website and the shop. I got two books on movies and so there's a lot of philosophy of symbol semiotics in my too Hollywood books. You can get those at my website jas Analysis and will follow you on YouTube or Twitter under my name everywhere under my name, yeah, and then also on rock Finn r O k F I N. It's a great free speech based platform. So I have
a channel that I push over there quite a bit. Okay, Day, I really appreciate your time. This is a great conversation, man. I hope you keep on spreading knowledge. You are very intelligent man, and I just I really hope the best for you, and just keep on educating people. And you're making a real difference. You're making a real impact. I appreciate your time. Thanks, Kyle. Yeah, let's DM me and let's set up a chat. You can come on my channel. We can talk
about Carl Young and Freud and all that. Oh man, that sound and Nietzsche. All right, letter do all right, man, thank you. They don't have to build a