Defense of Metaphysics & Traditional Philosophy - Flashback! Ep 1 - Jay Dyer

philosophy and defending them. But we're not just going to stay I mean, if you want to ask theological questions, that's fine, because anytime I talk about philosophy, everybody comes in they want to talk about theology. Anytime I talk about theology, everybody comes in they want to talk about conspiracy and some other topics. So you know, I understand they're not disconnected, but please let's stay on the topic roughly, and let's talk first about this issue of cucks into

the shadows. What are you talking about, Matt, by the way, Yeah, if somebody wants to come on and debate, Matt, do you want to come on in debate since you're calling me a cuck, I tried to give the debate platform openly today we had open debate day at Jays Analysis. Yeah. I don't really care what ask Yourself did in terms of his video Ask Yourself as a childish guy. He needs to grow up a lot of bit a lot before we have any more interactions. I'm not interested in

any more interactions with that guy. That's low IQ Spurg level stuff. So I'm not gonna waste my time debating twenty year olds. Although if this mac character wants to come on, he's if he calls me a couck, he can come on debate if he wants to. Nobody ever wants to come on debate. Oh he said, I'm a cook, cuts himself into the shadows. No, I just waited for him to hang himself, and when he did, I left the debate, and you can read everybody in the comments

at Primal Edge Health. They got the point. Everybody in the comments center my copy of the debate at my channel got the point, and everybody saw how silly what he was saying was. So he and his cult can do whatever they want, but I'm done with him. Stefan MALINEU will never debate because, as we point that out many times, a big name person has nothing to gain from debating lesser known people. They have everything to lose. Should they lose the debate, it would look really bad

for them. So why would they There's no incentive for a Molineux or a Peterson or anybody of that stature, of that caliber in terms of popularity to debate somebody with you know, ten or one hundred times smaller audience. So no, they're never going to debate. Now, maybe if I got a million followers one day, which probably won't ever happen, but if that ever did happen, maybe then they might debate. But I doubt it because it's a it's a much safer territory to stay in, you know,

acceptable modernist discourse. And you'll notice that none of the people allowed into the big scale discussion ever step outside of the classical liberal framework. Nobody outside of the classical liberal dialectic is even allowed into the debate or the discussion. So I mean even the alt right, who many of whom are basically still within the liberal framework, they're not

even allowed into the into the discussion. I mean JF is still within the liberal framework in terms of his worldview, aside from some sort of you know, race view in IQVUW. Same with stuff on stuff on Molineu. They're still liberals, uh,

and they're not really allowed into the mainstream discourse. Molineux maybe to a degree because of the size of his audience, but he's only he's only allowed to do that because he's still champions the market god, and we're going to see that when you when you abandon philosophy with other things step into to take the place of the god of the system. We're also going to see that people have a system, whether they want it or not, whether they believe in systems or not. They have a system.

They have a worldview, they have a philosophy, they have a paradigm. When I speak of the liberal paradigm, I don't just mean empiricism. We decided a debate yesterday with an atheistic materialist on this very question. When I speak of liberalism, I'm talking about the classical liberal paradigm, and yes, empiricism is part of that tradition. The Enlightenment gives birth

to the classical liberal paradigm. Renaissance humanism gives birth to it, Nominalism gives birth to it, the Protestant Reformation gives birth to it. Then comes right this Enlightenment so called, which is not a turn towards science strictly speaking. People that have actually delved deeply into the history of the Enlightenment know that it comes out of hermeticism. They know that it comes out of hermetic, neoplatonic, esoteric, Rosicrucian secret societies

and orders. You can read Dame Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment, which proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Now I know that I've known that since undergrad because I was studying all the secret societies at the same time as I was taking on my Enlightenment classes. It's not hard to figure that out. But who has read Dame Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Not many people, even though

it's a very famous book. Anyway, So when I talk about the liberal tradition, I don't mean modern American liberalism. I don't just mean empiricism. I mean the entire tradition of the Enlightenment, because it is a move towards liberalism. Now, some of those people would not necessarily be called quote liberal, because maybe, like Hobbes, they believed in a giant Leviathan monolithic state. Right, Hegel is a statist, so uh, you

know Hegel's philosophy of the right. That's not liberal. However, all of these figures after the Enlightenment come out of revolutionary traditions, except for you know, here and there, every now and then, there's a there's a gem in the midst of the the Maelstrom. Here the confusion that critiques it, right, you get you get writings about monarchy, you get writings against liberalism, you know, in the West, even after the revolutions. So again our stance here is not that science is bad,

all right. We believe that science has its place. And in fact, you know, as Happa argues right and his points about democracy, the God that failed, we're always told this mantra of this, which is actually a revolutionary propaganda slogan, that the Middle Ages was the Dark Ages, monarchy represents dark Ages, and only because we have republican democracies do

we have advancement and progress. And in fact Hoppa makes I think, very good consistent arguments that we could actually probably have been far more advanced had we not adopted the entire revolutionary ethos in the West. And of course, as you know, we've covered in countless articles, countless talks, and even in my book, the fact that the entire

world has been infected with revolutionary thought. All of the revolutions are the same, as Aldus Huxley says, they all have the same point, they're all directed by the same people, and they're all taking man towards technocracy. That's why the entire world is under the spell of democracy. That's why Hoppa is correct to call it a god that has failed. But it actually didn't fail, because if you accept Huxley's thesis,

it actually achieved its very purpose. The revolutions were there to bulldoze all of the previous paradigms and to set up the moneyed oligarchy that we have now today that runs the world. If you don't understand this, then you don't know what you're talking about, and don't try to debate me. Go listen to my Tragy and Hope talks. Because we know that the twentieth century represents the rise

of the Fiat banking power to rule the world. Now we're living in the mopping up stages, and the goal was always to bring into technocracy anyway, So when I talk about liberalism, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about rejecting the ideology of the last several hundred years of the West. I'm not talking about rejecting science, not talking about rejecting scientific discoveries. Because as we've talked about

many times, paradigms can be wrong. People can have erroneous, faulty paradigms or belief systems and make correct discoveries that can make correct advancements. And even atheists who don't agree with me have to admit this because they all know that there are theists who make advances in science and technology. Of course they do right, but they think those theists are wrong and have the wrong paradigm. Yet they are still able to make advances. Yeah, and that's because people

aren't always as consistent as they should be. Right, People are better than their belief systems and paradigms most of the time, Thank god, Right, because if everybody was completely consistent, we would have chaos in terms of the atheistic materialistic world views I'm saying. Anyway, so we want to talk about the fact that, again, this is something that has

been missed. I've noticed some patterns in the last few discussions and debates and talks that people are missing and they're missing issues that relate to what they think are semantics, what they think are are games, or like talking around a problem or trying to like doe, what did he do?

What did that one guy say? The kids said, you're being shady, right when you talk about the fact that logic presupposes that you should follow through you know, the to the conclusion through a syllogism, to the conclusion that you should right, that there's some binding imperative force behind logic. That's being shady. You're being shady. No, I mean, this is just retarded. Okay, so, oh god, here we go. Science in terms of the scientific principle is a new development.

It is a creature of the Enlightenment. Previously, there were ways to seek truth, but they weren't science. This is just retarded and in fact, the ancient Greeks practice science, many of the Christian theologians of the Middle Aged practice science. So you really have no idea what you're talking about, Vodka.

You are just repeating, essentially the propaganda of the Enlightenment, right, I mean, look at how many inventions and discoveries come out of the Middle Ages with something that you're not taught, of course, in the modern university. So I actually think I'm go'n just delete this guy, because we're not here to have like basic bitch level debates here. The scientific

method is not new to the Enlightenment period. The scientific method as a means by which this is the only way to have reliable knowledge is new to the to the period of the Enlightenment, that's true, but countless people back to the ancient world utilized the principles of the scientific method. Aristotle, you can go back to the ancient Greeks. Aristotle was a scientist. Aristotle practiced the scientific method right now. So again, my grad work in part was in terms

of science, a philosophy of science. So the questions that philosophy of science asks are different than the questions that normative science involves itself with. And the problem is that most people who study science and hard sciences don't know philosophies, that they don't know what's being said or what's being asked.

When people as bring these kinds of questions to bear, they think that it's semantics, they think that it's word games, and it's not asking basic questions about metaphysics, about ethics and about epistemology. Is just classic philosophy. And because scientism especially has a problem and has actually presuppositions and an agenda behind the rejecting of these branches of philosophy and ultimately philosophy itself. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, philosophy is

essentially worthless. It's no longer needed anymore now that we have science. I mean, this is so laughable and so absurd that and by the way, he was actually law. He was actually made fun of Mike not a few philosophers when he made that statement. It's really just speaks from ignorance, I mean extreme ignorance. Because you can the idea that you can master, say, some branch of hard sciences, and that therefore this gives you some pre eminent insight

into all of reality is itself a fraudulent, stupid assumption. Right, So, for example, a lot of biologists will assume, right, JF does this. He assumes that because he studied biology at a gradual level, that therefore this is some sort of all encompassing paradigm answer to everything. Right, we can approach grand mythological narratives from the questions of the life sciences and biology. But of course that just assumes that biology

is the lens by which everything should be read. And what philosophy does is that it asks the questions about presuppositions. It asks questions about is that really the case? Can we know that? Can we demonstrate that? Now every atheist, rational scientific materialists, blah blah blah, reduction. They claim to be to be logical, they claim to be rational, they claim to be the guardians of reason and science over

against superstition. However, when we begin to start asking questions about what logic is, how logic functions in the world, we are immediately met with nothing but derision and the accusation that those are essentially stupid questions, the relics of an old age. But of course they're not, and that's because modern scientism has no answer to these questions. And that's why we're here today to defend traditional philosophy metaphysics.

So again, so let's talk about Okay, so we got to the questions are coming in quicker than I can, then I can respond if I if I no, this is same simply not true. I mean, you obviously haven't read Aristotle vodka. If you've read Aristol, you know that he proceeds from an empirical scientific method. That's why he's the father of taxonomy. He's the father of all of

these branches of science that involve empirical investigation. So, in fact, all of the Enlightenment thinkers who talked about returning to the scientific method were part of the classicist tradition. They were part of the Renaissance tradition that wants it to go back to the Greeks and specifically the empirical approach to science that Aristotle embodied. So you haven't read Aristotle, oh now, so he's the one guy who did that at a time when everyone disagreed with him. No, that's

simply not true. In fact, many of the Church fathers were influenced by Aristotle, So you don't know what you're talking about. Aristotl had an entire school, right Lysium that he taught. So the idea that this is only Aristotle, I think it's about time to delete this dude. I've had enough of his retardation. So you're out here, So we're not gonna deal with that. He thinks Aristol was the one guy, And here's Aerostol has a tremendous influence

on the history of the Church. Again, how many times have we recommended Saint John Damascus's Fount of Knowledge, which has a lot of good things to say about Aristotle. That does not mean they were Aristilians. Again, mistake. All right, So let's before we get into the stuff is coming in.

So quick. I can't keep up with these questions. But let's get in first to the question of the theological question that was asked earlier about Saint John christystem, which was that how is it that Jesus says to the Serophenician woman in Marks that it's not proper to give to the dogs what is for the children. So now there's two errors that people make that I've seen over the years in my The Gentile Woman that Believes, and

this is Mark seven twenty four through thirty. Now, the two errors that people make on this is that, on the one hand, there's the Christian so called Zionist heresy, which usually is tied of course to dispensationalism. And they think that there's like these plans that went into effect and changed when man failed, right, so like there was a dispensation to Noah, and then when man failed, God

instituted a new plan. And what that does is essentially divides up and destroys the continuity of the scriptures, destroys the fact that there's one church from Able all the way to the New Testament. We are all members of the same at church. Right, Abraham is a saint in our church. Moses is a saint in our church. Okay, this is crucial to understanding the continuity of the Old and New Testament. They are members of the body of Christ.

They're pictured in the Apocalypse as worshiping alongside the saints of the New Testament. So they were not saved in a different way. They were not saved by keeping the law or any of the nonsense that many of these stupid evangelical secx believe. They were saved by their faith in Christ. Paul reiterates this point many times in the New Testament Romans Foor, Galatians three. So they didn't have a different pathway to God. There's never been a different

pathway to God. It's always through faith in either the coming Messiah looking forward to him, or faith in the Messiah who has come us. Now in the Church era, they're not saved in a different way. There was no way to keep the law. But even in the period that we're talking about, when God established the nation of Israel, there were still converts. We read about converts in the Exodus. There were people who in Egypt who had converted to

the worship of the True God. When Ezra went out and established the synagogue system, we read about the converts. There were converts to the worship of the True God of Israel, mentioned even in the Book of Acts. And there was the dispersion, that is, the Jews that were outside of Israel, that had been set up in other cities where they again they had synagogues, and there were many converts in those cities. So the Judaism of this

period accepted converts. In fact, Abraham was a convert, the founder of so called Judaism, well in the sense of the nation of Israel, right, Abraham was himself a convert out of paganism. Now a lot of people get confused with this, and then they think that so what happens is that in the New Testament Jesus came, and because these verses said that he came first to his own to the Jews, then there must have been some sort of new dispensation that was invented. This is what the

Christian Zionist heretics say. There was a new dispensation that came about after the Jews rejected Christ, and then it went to the Gentiles. This is so stupid that it's almost unfathomable that anyone believes it. For one, how many times the New Testament, the latter chapters of Romans right. Many times in the Gospels there are quotations from the Psalms and the major and minor prophets that I've covered

in my talks about the Gentiles converting. So if the prophet's prophesied the Gentiles converting, that was always the plan. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't planned. B according to these idiot evangelicals. No, the Gentile Church was always the plan, because it's the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that in his seed all of the nations would be into the worship of the True God. His seed is Jesus.

Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the covenants of the past, every one of the covenants again from Adam to Noah to Moses, or to Abraham to Moses to David, they all are foreshadowing Jesus, the awaiting prophet, priest and king to come, who fulfills all these predictions and in his death ground resurrection, which is an amazing mystery that God worked. In terms of his providence, God it foreknew

that the Jews would reject him. In fact, it was predicted that the Jews would reject him all throughout their prophets. They rejected him, and so the salvation that they thought they were destroying went to the nations. And this is how the promises are fulfilled. It's a no brainer, really, I mean this is again, nobody ever taught any of this dispensational Judaized nonsense in the history of the Church.

That's why it's promoted by the royals, the Rothchilds and Oxford, who printed the Schofield Study Bible that popularized it prior to the established right, prior to the Balfour Declaration. By the way, no accident there now. So on the one hand, we have the Judaized error, which believes that there's some and some guy was messaging me yesterday saying that I don't accept Orthodoxy because you don't keep all the Jewish feasts and fasts, and I was like, I'm like, well,

have you read Galatians in Hebrews? And he's like, yes, I have, But Paul's wrong, And so I go to the guy's profile and his profile is all a bunch of Masonic stuff. So yeah, exactly, that's why we ended up blocking that guy. But yeah, so on the one hand, there is the error of trying to think that salvation can be had through the keeping of the ceremonies of the law. And again, this was the chief battle of the first century Church. This is the chief battle of

the Book of Acts. Is this question. They have to have a council in Acts fifteen to settle this question. What does the council in Acts fifteen say. Well, basically, it looks back to the noah Hyde laws, to the

laws of Noah. It says, essentially, in reaffirming the covenant with Noah, that the Church, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the apostles, in the direction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, make a decision, that make a determination in a synod, in a snudal decree, that it is not necessary for gentiles to keep the ceremonial laws of Moses and to receive circumcision, because again, there are plenty of righteous men prior to the giving of the ceremonial law,

and therefore ceremonial law cannot be necessary to be saved. All right, This is Paul's argument. Paul says Abraham was accounted righteous prior to ceremonial laws being given, prior to the establishment of national Israel prior to the giving of circumcision. Circumcision it was a sign and seal for in it's into the national Covenant of Israel of that time, and

it was proper and good at that time. But it was a type that looked forward, looked forward to fulfillment in baptism, which is something easily that can easily accessible, water that can be given to everybody, not just young males. Now, part of the reason that there was circumcision too was because of the transmission of ancestral sin. Right, ancestral sin comes from all the children of Adam, because of Adam's fall, So there was also that aspect to it as well.

Circumcision was supposed to signify at tearing away of the old Man, as Paul says, as Jeremiah says. Even in the Old Testament, Jeremiah says that circumcisions signified repentance and rending of the heart. Circumcise your hearts, Jeremiah says, that was the whole point of it, looking forward to baptism. So now that the Messiah has come, now that Christ's instituted as Church, the New Testament essentially settles all of

these disputes. Again, you don't even have to go to church father's you have to go outside of the New Testament to see all of these disputes settled. So let's go to the let's look at the other opposite error, which is kind of being popularized by some blogs sort of selectively takes certain church fathers out of context, and it says, oh, Judaism basically stopped existing at some undefined point and there were no Jews. Jews do not exist in the New Testament. This is an invention. This is

nonsense too, all right. And so this kind of a perspective goes to the opposite extreme and doesn't understand and it borders basically on a kind of Martianism. Doesn't understand the importance of the place of the Old Testament, of the conus to the Old Testament, of the law, and even the ceremonies in preparation for the coming of Christ. And so Jesus when he talks to the woman at the well and John four is very clear, and what

he says to her is base. This is this is interesting, it's it's a it's a great exemplary test case because what happens is the woman at the well and she's a Samaritan.

It says, oh, it's Jacob's well. You know, we worship at Jacob's well or something. Now, what does Jesus say? Does Jesus say nothing in the Old Testament matters. I came to destroy all that. No, no, no, no, he doesn't say that. Does he say there were no Jews, Jews didn't exist. That is an invention of Talmwood Epharises. No, no, no, he doesn't say that. He says woman, He says, you know not what you worship. He says you are a Samaritan. So Jesus doesn't wipe away all the religious distinctions. He

essentially affirms you are a heretic. All right, you are a schismatic. You do think that you're worshiping the true God, but you do only you do not know what you worship. Okay, so she was in error, she was in schism. Jesus then, of course, demonstrates that he has omniscience by talking about her many husbands or lovers because she's not married. And the woman is then of course convicted. She says, oh,

I perceive that you're a prophet, and she right. She had tried to steer the conversation into religious controversy, and Jesus brings it back to the question of moral problem. He's like, no, your issue is moral. It's not an issue of abstract theological questions. You have a moral issue. So then Jesus goes on to say that truly, I say to you that the time is coming, and now is when the worshipers of God will worship God in spirit and in truth, not just on not just in

the temple, but in all places. So, in other words, the worship of God is not going to be restricted to the Temple, which it previously had been, which was by God's design on purpose. It is then to extend into all of the nations in the Church. But the key point to remember here is that Jesus is stressing that salvation is of the Jews. There was no salvation in any other place. You could not find the true

worship of God in some other nation. Now, before the establishment of the Nation of Israel, it's possible plausible that there were in some way priests like Melchizedic or people like Job right who were righteous men outside of the Nation of Israel, who had in some way maintained the

true tradition from able right. So this is mo most likely how and why Job or jeth Row or Melchizedek, who are not levitical priests, still had knowledge of and understanding of Him, belief of in the One True God right, and presumably also belief in a coming Messiah. In fact, Job predicts Christ. There are multiple Messianic prophecies in the Book of Job, and Job was not written by Jew. It's written by gentile. So Job himself, by the way, that shows us that there were true gentile believers even

in the Old Testament. So now let's look at this passage then, when Jesus says to the Seraphenician woman that gentiles are dogs, He is not making this up out of nowhere. He is reaffirming what is in the Old Testament. Right now, a lot of people who take this opposite view, they think that it's somehow wrong to talk about the fact that the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms, right in many places. It's not just a Talmudic invention that the Law and the prophets and the Psalms speak of the

nations in this way. They do because they were that way, they were dogs, because they acted that way. Right, they were into some seriously degenerate stuff. And yes, it eventually infected Israel too, and it Israel fell into the worship of serious degenerate stuff. So it's not like I mean, this is the point is that both of these things

are true. It's not either or right. There were periods when Israel was faithful to God in some instances, and when that was the case, God would subdue their enemies. And David can write Psalms talking about in the nations being heathens, being degenerate and deserving of divine justice. Right, how many times does David say this in the Psalm? How many times the prophets say that multiple times? Yet at the same time It's also true that the same

accusations are turned back on Israel itself. When Israel starts to act like the nations, the prophets say, you are a whore. Israel is Sodom, Israel is Gomorrah. Okay, So these things can all be true at the same time.

and every Orthodox person makes this very apologetic argument. So they even the people who don't understand this already agree with me. When they look at the burning bush and they say, that's Jesus speaking in the burning bush. Jesus says, I am that I am multiple signs in John seven, Jesus says, I am that I am. I am right. So it's Jesus in the Burning Bush, and it's Jesus making the covenant with Moses. Again, it's not that difficult

when you understand basic continuity between the Old and New Testament. Now, when we understand that, we see then that it is in fact true. Just think of Israel as the Church of the Old Covenant, and so just as in the New Covenant, the Church can pray and precatory prayers and pray against her enemies, which she does and has for two thousand years. So likewise, did they do the same thing in the Church of Israel in the Old Testament?

It was no different. Now there are differences in the sense of uh modus operandi, Like you know, we don't principally try to go to war against Canaanites, although at times the Church, well I should say Orthodox nations and kings have gone to war. Everybody knows this basic church history, right. So, even though there's there's a shift in emphasis between the Old Testament period focusing on a more external battle related scenario of the conquest of Cana et cetera, that was

a type, Paul says. The conquest of cana was a type of the Church conquering the world. Paul makes this this analogy very clear in the New Testament. So the typology of Cana's land is a is the is the spiritual is fulfilled in the spiritual approach of the Church going out and conquering the nations to the preaching of the Gospel, essentially pulling down the demons that the nations worship. That's the true battle, the true conquest of Canaan, that is happening now in our very day, in the last

two thousand years. Does that mean that in the Old Testament there were no demons? No, of course not. Demons are mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament. Does that mean the Old Testament wasn't spiritual?

we understand that Jesus's mission it was appropriate. Paula firms us too, by the way that in Realm, as he says that to the Jews were given the Covenant, they were given the Law, they were given the promises fought, they were given the fathers, et cetera, et cetera. So naturally Jesus had to come to the Jews first, who were his people, and salvation was offered first to the jew Right. This is why pulse is to the jew

first and then to the gentile. This is why in the Book of Acts the apostles go and preach the Gospel first to the Jews. Salvation is offered first to the Jews. And what happens, well, many many accept it, many also reject it. Right, and so we think of the section and Acts where Paul says, since you reject it, we now go to the Gentiles. And if you read through the Book of Actual see that you know it's

the Holy Spirit essentially directing this process. Okay, So, for example, at one point, the Spirit forbids the church to spread the Gospel into an area of Asia. We don't know why, we're not told why the Spirit forbade the Gospel going into that region, We don't know. Apparently it would be some other time right, that's the counsels of God. We don't fully understand all the counsels of God, but what we do have in Revelation is a lot of information about,

you know, the kinds of things that I'm saying. We do have information about how to make sense of these texts. Jesus not being inconsistent when he says that this woman is a gentile, and she is, and that was important for in the history of redemption. That was important for

that phase in history. Now that the Church has been established, right, and by the way, Jesus grants the woman's wish, So even though she was a gentile, even though she did have this affiliation with pagan culture, Jesus still grants her her supplication. And in fact, multiple times in the Gospels Jesus preaches to gentiles, he preaches to schismatics, right, And

this is the story of the Good Samaritan, right. And that's because, as many of the church fathers point out, the Gospel examples of like the Roman Centurion and so forth believing in Christ. These are prefigurations of the fact that the gentiles will enlarge accept the message of the Gospel, and many, many of the Jews will not and as a nation, the Jewish nation falls under God's judgment precisely because they reject their Messiah. So, long story short, both

of those positions are incorrect. There's the extreme of thinking that I don't know where they get this, this idea that the word jew was not in the Bible. It was invented by Talmudic persons, like hundreds of years after

the coming of Christ. It's very retarded. If you read Zechariah eight, there's a prediction that thus says the Lord Almighty, in those days, ten men from all the nations around excuse me, ten men from all the tongues of the nations will stop you and ask you, and grab a hold of you, and they will say to a Jewish man, we will go with you, for we have heard God is with you. Well, this is Pentecost. This is what happens on Pentegost. This is what happens when Jesus sends

the Jewish apostles out into the world. Right many, many, many nations cling on to these apostles and they say, we have heard God is with you. Tell us about your God. This is a prediction of Pentecost and the apostles and the New Testament, and they were all Jews. Okay. And by the way, Zachariah Ate is using the word Jew. So jew is not a post New Testament Talmudic invention. It's completely retarded. All Right, we went, I've already gone

fifty minutes on just that one question. So hopefully that is illustrative people can benefit from that. But beyond that, I'm not really seeing what action Jackson or whatever that dude's name was, I don't really see the problem and what he asked. I think he was tripped up by the fact that Jesus affirmed that gentiles were dogs. Well, this is in the Psalms, right, this is in the prophets, and it's not because they weren't humans, because they acted

like dogs. And so, by the way, this is important. For example, this is something a lot of people misunderstand. I had a debate one time on the street with a Hasidic Jew who started a conversation with me. Interestingly, he started talking about the Old Testament. I think he thought I was Jewish. I don't know, but he was like, are you a Jew? And I was like, well in

the true sense, yeah, He's like what. So we got in this debate and he said, he said, his view was that the law didn't apply to Tiles, it was only for Israel. And I was like, well, okay, the law giving him Mount Sinai was for Israel. But God still held nations accountable for their sins. In other words, for example, if you read Joshua, the reason that God sends Joshua into Canaan's land for the conquest is because of the wickedness of those nations. That means they're held

accountable for their wickedness. How many times in the prophets do the prophets talk about the nations being wicked violating God's law? Well, what law were they violating? If they weren't under God's law, they were under the law moral law, what laws were they violating? When Nebec Andeser, you know, was arrogant and prideful and blasphemed the God of the Jews, the true God, Well he gets struck with madness and acts like a damn fool out in the wood for

seven years like an animal. So he offended some kind of moral law. Right, So, and it wasn't by the way, it's not just no hide laws. Okay. So the noea covenant was a covenant and it wasn't an effect. And again, if you understand Acts fifteen, they are referring back to the Noa Noah Hyde laws in Acts fifteen. That's what the first Council of the Church in Acts fifteen in Jerusalem looked back to to determine the normative statues for

receiving gentiles into the predominantly Jewish Church of that time. Right, Jewish converts to Christianity, the entire early Church is Jewish. Okay, the whole thing. It's founded by Jews, predominantly Jews. Right, the first ten chapters of Acts and this if you read Acts ten, right when we get to the story of Cornelius, this is why Peter is so confused. Peter has such a hard time with this question because of his grounding in, you know, the Jewish law and prophets.

So he's very confused. And in fact, Peter's so confused that it actually requires visions directly from God. Right, he sees the vision of the sheet with the unclean animals. And again in the Old Testament, unclean animals represented the unclean nations, the gentiles and demons. If you doubt the favorites that represent demons read at Isaiah thirty four, where Lilith is mentioned and other demons are pictured in Isaiah thirty four under the imagery of unclean birds, storks, owls,

et cetera. It even mentions satyrs there by the way, goat demons. So that was even present in the Old Testament. Anyway, where were we we were talking about Cornelius. So the sheet comes down right in Peter's vision and it's got unclean animals in it, and God says eat. Peter says, no, By the way, that's not a vegan command, is it. The biblical God is not vegan. By the way, Peter says, no,

I can't eat those, those are unclean. So this vision happens three times, and God says, what I've called clean, don't call unclean. So that's what it took for Peter to finally be convinced. And even after that, Peter was still had doubts because Paul had to get in Peter's face over it. Remember this is mentioned in the beginning

of Galatians. Paul and Peter have a big falling out over it because Peter still keeps falling back into the temptations of thinking that Gentiles are not fully inheritors of the promises with Jews, but they are. However, for the period of the Old Covenant, it was true that there was supposed to be a separation. For example, the Temple itself worship itself during the Old Covenant period did not allow gentiles into the Temple. You could come to as a worshiper of the true out of Israel to the

outer portico that was allowed for converts. All right, this is gentiles who had converted to the God of Israel. But you couldn't go into the temple. Now who set that up? God did? Okay, So this wasn't something that Moses made up. It wasn't something that the evil God of the Old Testament made up. It was put into place for a time period until, as Hebrews said, the time of Reformation came. What's the time of Reformation? The New Covenant, the New Covenant is not something that just

happens when Jesus dies. The New Covenant is established from the entire period of the first century, from the incarnation birth of Christ all the way up to the destruction of the Temple in seventy eighty. That is the establishment of the New Covenant. That whole period and all of the events of that period are crucial to fulfilling all of these Old Testament prophecies and ushering in the last days.

This is also important because consistently in the Old Testament, for example, the prophecy of Joel says that the last days are instituted when Pentecost happens. Right, Joel's not talking about the end of the world. It might have a reference to the end of the world, but Joel says that the last days begin when the spirit is poured out on all flesh. Peter says, Joel was talking about Pentecost.

Pentecost happened in Acts two. Okay, can you read? Can you make the connection between the fact that Peter in Acts two is quoting Joel. Joel is not talking about some garbage on TBN what John Hagy says. Joel's talking about Pentecost, which happens in Acts two. By the way, that refutes basically the entirety of dispensationalism. So the spirit being poured out on all flesh equally also shows that there's no longer the distinction in the ritual ceremonial sense

that was necessarily important for the Old Testament period. Now, okay, it's no longer important. Now there's no longer June or Greek slave, nor free male nor female. By the way, Paul's not a transgender advocate. Paul's not saying that that means there's no such thing as Jews and Greeks anymore. No, of course, they still exist, and it's only the idiot retards that quote that verse to try to prove stupid egalitarian presuppositions. That verse has nothing to do with that.

Paul elsewhere says slaves submit to your masters, women submit to your husbands. Right, Jews and Greeks are still Jews and Greeks. They don't erase all their heritage. This is all the liberal presupposition, the modernist presupposition that tries to wrest Christianity from its historical contexts and lie and take verses out of context. Paul is saying that salvation comes

to all people of any status in life. Paul is not saying that Christianity is a revolutionary force to overthrow structures and governments and to set up some trainy egalitarian global homo world system as these idiots try to make it. Nobody could honestly read the rest of the New Testament and actually think that. So it's only lying, deceiving people who take those verses out to try to prove that

they don't know what they're talking about. So anyway, Paul, even in Romans ninth or eleven, seems to also uphold the fact that Jews will continue to even be Jews until the time of their conversion, right. And I do think many of the fathers, by the way, I just found a whole bunch more verses where the Fathers actually back this up. Cereal of Alexandria, by the way, it appears to have been very convinced that many of these texts predict a future conversion of the Jews. The Orthodox

Study Bible in fact mentions this in many places. I think that that's true. I think Romans eleven just very clearly is making again, as I pointed out many times, the claim that eventually Jews will convert. I don't know when that is. We don't know when that is, but I think that that's the obvious meaning of what Paul's saying. Now, do I think that necessarily has anything to do with the founding of the state of Israel. No, I do not. I don't see where that necessarily fits into any of this.

I'm going by what's in revelation. I'm not interested in reading, you know, headlines into scripture. That's what how lindsay and John, Hey, you know all those retards do. We don't do that. We don't read news headlines into the Bible. We don't look at the fact that, you know, the anti Christ is, you know, mentioned in a bunch of movies and then try to read that into the Bible and say we're in the last days the I mean people, somebody with somebody was making that comment on one of my videos.

They were like, you have a mental illness because you think that these Hollywood movies are saying that the Antichrist is coming. No, if you've listened to what I said, you know that I actually make fun of that. I make fun of the the argument like the Croleians had, that that you could invoke the Antichrist by doing a bunch of rituals, and that John's Book of Revelation is a gnostic ritual text. I talk about how stupid that is. And the only reason Crowley thought that was because he was,

guess what, raised in a retarded dispensationalist sect. The Plymouth Brethren is where dispensationalism comes from. Did you know that? Yep, John Nelson Darby all right, Plymouth Brethren. Oh, they also happened to produce Aleister Crowley. So the only only reason Crowley and his stupidity and ignorance, thought that he could turn the Book of Revelation into a magical text for invoking the Antichrist and bringing it into fruition and having

sex with the horror Babylon and all this nonsense. John's not talking about Crowley, dude. So I constantly talk about how stupid this is. Uh So the guy who assumed that I was like reading movies and headlines into the Bible had no idea what I was talking about. So anyway, let's keep in mind too that in Mark seven, before I end on this topic, Jesus says that Jesus rebukes the scribes and the Pharisees. So it's in the context

of this. The story of calling the woman a dog is in the context of of rebuking the scribes and the Pharisees. Now that's important because it shows us that Jesus there's not a there's not like a catchphrase by which we can, you know, lift these verses out of context. Right, Like a lot of times, like a Baptist will try to say something like, you will leave the traditions of men in your Orthodox church. You follow the traditions of men.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, don't follow the traditions of men. Well, he also in other places does say follow the traditions. So right, this is a different question. Right, The question of whether there's an oral tradition is a different question from whether or not there's the traditions of men. Now, the scribes and the Pharisees had invented and put into place a bunch of traditions of men, which, if you

listen to the Jeremiah lectures, Jeremiah talked about. Jeremiah said in his day that the scribes and Pharisees had done this and it was a problem, and that they were circumventing the law itself. Jesus reaffirms Jeremiah, and in fact, there are whole chapters in Jeremiah that mirror the ministry

of Jesus. We've pointed that out in the Jeremiah talk, which shows continuity, by the way, but The reason I bring that up is because Jesus can, at the on the one hand, talk about the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees and the fact that they had invented traditions of men, and at the same time in Matthew twenty three he says, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore do as they say, but not as they do because they're hypocrites. But they were

the established religious authority. Notice he does not mention the Sadducees why, because they were the liberals. They were not the established authority. There was a hierarchical established authority and it was the scribal Pharisaic system that Ezra set up. Ezra set up the synagogue system. Moses talked about the need for a synagogue system. Ezra then set it up later on. There's no such thing in the Old Testament as a seat of Moses, right, There's no moses dolic

succession mentioned. However, Jesus says that this is true. They do sit in the seat of Moses. They are the legitimate authoritative expounders, expositors and judges of the law. Yes, they're hypocrites. However, they still retain a position of authority. Jesus says that they are much more liable to condemnation than the rest of the people that role of authority,

and we see this in the Old Testament as well. Right, God judges David or the rulers, or the kings or the heads of things far more severely than he judges the normal the normies. I mean, he judged at him pretty severely, because Adam was the head of the human race. How severely does God judge David pretty severely?

recognizing that they have a legitimate authority. So it's that simple. Really, I'll read a couple of super chaps before we move back to philosophy, because I kind of went for an hour on that one theology question, and really, really what we were coming to talk about was the philosophy. That's okay, you know, we want to go with whatever anybody's interested in. That's what we'll talk about. I did say we could talk theology today. So we're taking challenges and questions today.

The first question Evan Schultz, thank you for that. You've been killing it.

their problem ultimately is with Jesus. Too bad. I mean, I wouldn't worry if people I mean, in other words, you can't water down these facts to like, you know, appease some some feminists. I wouldn't worry about it, just move on. My tip would be to move on to somebody else. By the way, this is why you have to watch out for feminists, is because people like Angela Dahl Carlson, who hopes and praise for women's ordination to

the priesthood. These people want to change the church, right this mirriam Usuf woman, all right, she's blogging about all this of this microaggressions and social justice warriors. These people want to change the church. Sorry, but you don't have the right to do that. And you're working from a spirit of wickedness. What does what does scriptures say that the spirit of rebellion is like the spirit of rebellion is like witchcraft. The sin of rebellion is as the

sin of witchcraft. So get out of here, witches. Any significance to old baptism being for men only, that is not true. I don't know what you mean old baptism. You mean circumcision. If you mean circumcision, then yes, as I pointed out, circumcisions signified ancestral sin. On the one hand, the sense of the transition, the transmission of ancestral sin through all the descendants of Adam, and that transmission has had through the male member. It's the semen that creates

a new human being. That doesn't mean that women didn't have ancestral sin. All human beings did. But the transmission occurs through the sexual copulation act from one generation to the next, and By the way, that doesn't mean that ancestral sin is a thing, a substance that somehow meant that humans were tainted. Corruption and sin are not things that are They're not things. As the fathers say, evil is only located in the turn of the will away

from the good. However, all of Adam's descendants have these same propensities because they have his fallen nature. When we talk about fallen or corupted nature, we don't mean that the nature itself is inherently evil. This is the error of Manicheans, of Calvinists, Lutherans, and Protestants. Many times they conceive of original sin as somehow being something connected to man's nature itself, which is to then give sin substance or being or ontological existence, which is the Manichean heresy.

Sin does not have ontological being or existence. It's not a thing. It's a move of the will away from the good. So baptism, so the significance of circumcision was only to be a type of baptism. And what it was supposed to teach, as we said, according to Jeremiah, was to throw off the foreskin of your hearts. In other words, you have hard hearts you need to cut away the outer hard heartedness that you have, right, and the reason that you have this is because you are

a son of Adam. That's wine, dan Mann. What do you think are the problems with praxeology? Go listen to the debates with Robert Taylor. We had multiple debates one to three debates with Robert Taylor on theism and capitalism, and the problems are all outlined there. It's a retarded system based in Marxism and anarchism, based on the idea of calculating human actions as if you're some sort of computer.

It's a completely autistic, retarded thing. Yeah, and all three of the debates with Robert Taylor, pre eminent proponent of praxeology, shows how retarded it is. Paul Albert, thank you fifty dollars. Thank you for all you do. Jake up the good work. Well, thank you, Paul. Thank you for supporting my work.

three hours. But if the person's not willing to invest three hours in the documentary, then they're not that interested anyway. And so anybody who is willing to invest three three hours in the Icon documentary, I would say is worth talking to. So that Icon documentary is really good. Jim Strange five dollars, best apologetics on YouTube, Thank you, Jay, Well, thank you Jim. There's not a lot of apologetics going on on YouTube, really, I mean, that's that good, So

thank you. In other words, I don't think it's necessarily that I'm that good, but there's not a lot of apologetics out there anyway. That's any good, right, I mean, all these Protestant presubpositionalists, they're terrible, good grief. They give transcendental arguments a bad name, by the way. So so thank you there, Jim Strange. Randy Churchill twenty dollars, Thank you, Randy. Appreciate that. White Top two dollars, thank you, White top.

All right, excellent, to really appreciate you guys. All right, we do want to get to some philosophy here. I don't want to mind or everyone in the theological minutia, although it was important. Again, people are confused over two extremes.

On the one hand of judaizing heresy of the Evangelicals, and then they go to the other extreme of some sort of weird gnostic thing where Marcianism type thing where like the idea of jew with some later invention, and I don't know, people don't know what they're talking about. That's because they don't know the Bible. That's the problem here is that people are not actually familiar with what's in scripture. So they read these blogs and these websites

and these they come up with these weird views. And trust me, I know, I've spent twenty years wandering through all of these different views, you know. I mean I went from being a Baptist that grew up Baptists into reading the Church Father's Church history, right, Calvinism, and then Catholicism. And this is before I even knew about Orthodoxy. Right, So Orthodoxy is kind of a hidden thing in America.

You really have to seek it out. Uh, and Orthodoxy doesn't have It's not like all there's no more problems, right, I mean, any church, any place you go, there's gonna be problems. But I find the Orthodoxy, historically speaking, traditional Orthodox theology really has the answers to to all of these these difficulties, you know. So okay, we're gonna get to the philosophy now, defense of traditional philosophy and metaphysics.

I'm gonna recommend a bunch of good books and essays here because I think we probably will have a lot of inquirers or challengers or people curious in regard to atheism, in regard to evolution, in regard to scientism, in regard to to anti metaphysical, deontologist, deconstructionist type views. So we want to get to all that. Okay, So he did, and he did mean circumcision as old baptism. Yeah, okay, that's a good way to put it. Uh. You could

look at Israel is old church. Circumcision is old baptism. Yeah, it's a good way to put it. So we're gonna play the song real quick, just because I need to pour more coffee. And after an entire pot of coffee, I gotta have some I gotta have some some pee pee time. I gotta go whizz, gotta drain the lizard.

they are in fact distinct in reality. I don't believe that. I don't think so. I think that if you've read my essay on the fact that epistemology, for example, presupposes ethics and metaphysics, and vice versa, ethics presupposes metaphysics and epistemology, then you know that the school of thought that I come from, the worldview that I promote sees all those things as integrally connected. Now, how do we know that? How do we show that? Well, I wrote a whole

essay on it which everybody can go read. Then want to see the fuller treatment of it. But quite simply, it should be obvious that these things are connected. For example, if I make a claim to know that, for example, I know that it is wrong to kill someone, Okay, that is, or if I believe that it's wrong to kill someone, or I think that it is ethically it's a violation of ethics to kill someone. That assumes that I have some knowledge right that it's wrong to do that.

When we talk about killing someone, we're talking about actions that take place in the external world. That immediately involves metaphysics. So, in other words, generally speaking, unless I believe that everything in my mind is a projection of some phantasm, or if everything is a syllipsistic sort of surrealist world in my mind, then I assume that the people are are other entities, right, they're beings other than me. Unless I believe in Maya or I believe in surrealism, those are

other people who have dignity and rights. Correct, And so, in other words, immediately you begin to see when you ask just a few questions about the assumptions that go into talking about any ethical question or dilemma, you start to realize that they don't operate apart from other branches

of philosophy or other questions of philosophy. When I say I believe it's wrong to kill, that assumes that I'm a subject, that I'm a person, That I'm a being who can choose, who wills this or that, who can commit actions in a world, in an external world that affects other beings. Again, unless I adopt some view that you know, all of reality is just a simulation of my mind, or something right, some bizarre for our Eastern view,

or something thing. You know, we tend to operate on the basis of the assumptions of Western or Christian metaphysics and philosophy. Even having divorced our worldviews from the theology a long time ago, we still act like beings out there in the world are separate beings that have some sort of choice or dignity. Even though we might construct physical metaphysical systems or anti metaphysical systems where those beings have no rights, we still in practice continue to operate

like they are right. I mean, nobody consistently lives out a completely will to power, you know, predatory social Darwinian worldview, unless you're like, you know, the top globalists or something. Most people don't consistently day to day live that way.

truth claims, etcetera, etcetera. Right. So, when we understand that presubsitionalism is not a shady word game, but in fact a host of real philosophical questions that can be asked and should be asked, we start to see how many things we assume. And this is kind of a basic

point in philosophy. So the point I'm getting out with that is that when we look at the modern world, when we look at the anti philosophical stance of much of the modern world, why so many of the purveyors of scientism actually just come out and say philosophy is worthless. It's precisely because of this issue. It's precisely because when we start to nail them on points, they have to resort to the denial of philosophy. But no, wait a minute,

Logic is part of philosophy. It's absolutely part of philosophy. Nobody can deny this right, And so the denial of philosophy just sort of out of hand, like we see with somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson, is so absurd that it denies the very things that he claims to have full control of, like the scientific crowd, the scientistic crowd, they alone are the purveyors of reason and logic, and

yet they turn around and we'll talk about philosophy being worthless. Well, I'm sorry, but nobody can deny logic is a function of philosophy. So it really amounts to endless, countless absurdities when we start to ask very basic questions. And part of this is due to the fact that people don't know philosophy. They have not studied it. They have not read Plato, they have not read They've not read any

of these major figures. They've not read Hume. They don't know the major debates, major discourses, they don't know the course of ideas, in Western thought, how ideas lead to other ideas, And yes they do if you don't know that. They don't know any of this stuff, but they're more than willing to get in your face, lose their shit,

and become unhinged with a little bit of philosophy. Right, there's nothing more dangerous than a twenty two year old who's had a little bit of philosophy let loose on YouTube. This is like the worst thing in the world. And yes,

we can all sympathize with this somewhat. I mean, I'm sure that at age twenty two when I was taking my philosophy classes, I was completely insufferable, I'm sure, but maybe not as bad as some of these guys, because I was already a pretty committed, grounded presuppositionalist and proponent of transcendental augmentation at age twenty two. I think I first came into contact with us about age twenty or twenty one. Was my first exposure to that school of thought.

I read Van Til's Apologetic in Toto. I bought it right away, and I read all eight hundred pages right away at about age twenty or twenty one, and that was my introduction to transcendent augmentation and thought. And I was impressed. I was really taken with the force of the argumentation, the force of the logic, the power of the arguments. The basically, as Bonson once said, nuclear strength apologetics.

You know, I think that's true. And that's because we have to always we have to always make these qualifications because people get get confused. It's not because those Kant was the greatest thinker. Okay. So people who don't know these this realm or this stuff, they hear this, these terms and they mean, oh, you're talking about cont Okay, So Jay is a kantient. No no, no, no, no, I don't know. Now, transcendent arguments have a long, much

longer heritage and pedigree than em manual Kant. As we pointed out, we see transcendent arguments in Ariostole in the Metaphysics against the Sophist. As we pointed out, in terms of Orthodoxy, we see Saint John Damascus and his Fount of Knowledge use a transcendent argument at the very beginning, echoing Ariostol. So transcendent arguments have had an interesting history. They popped up here and there. We see inklings of

it in certain apologetic approaches. I mean, the ontological argument is not a good argument, but it's a little more down the road of an a priori transcendental argument for God than the so called classical arguments. So there's been some interesting inklings of it here and there. But and we might even look at the Descartes ontological argument. It's interesting, but it still is flawed. It's still not a full

fledged transnit argument. Okay. So, but the reason we're talking about this is just a stress that that, in my mind, philosophy has always been about asking questions. That's at least one big part of it, right, And the irony about modern scientism, which is so sort of shocking to me, like an ultimate level double think here, is that science is grounded on the idea of asking questions, and yet they turn around and they will dogmatically tell you the

questions that you cannot ask. Okay, So what they essentially mean is you can only ask questions within the paradigm or presuppositions of what I find and acceptable questions to be. If you ask a question about the status of logic, if you ask a question about the nature of concepts, if you ask a question about how is it that claims can be true over time. These kinds of philosophical questions,

those are illegal questions, Those are retard questions. Those are the questions that are not allowed in so called science. Why is that, Well, because science investigates the natural world, we're told, Well, that just assumes that the questions that I'm asking have nothing to do with the natural world,

and I think that they do. In other words, they do not want any investigation of the scientific method itself in terms of how it functions via logic, and yes, the scientific method follows logical patterns and principles, whether they know it or not. They do not want questions revolving around the ethicality of science. Generally speaking, they do not want questions involving the metaphysics of science and scientific methodology and all of this you will learn when you take

a philosophy of science class. You will be introduced to a host of questions that are assumed in the philosophic method of science or in the natural sciences. Right now. They also are never aware nine a nine point nine percent of the time. They're not aware of powerful influences in the history of science and the natural sciences scientific method. Royal Society. Right, I could count on my hand the number of times I've talked to academics or people from

that world. I know of three off the top of my head who are very familiar with the power that, for example, the Royal Society has had in influencing the methodology of science throughout the world of academia. And this is why, for example, we had the Lancet, or the famous magazine Medical Journal of Oxford. A couple of years ago, the editor of the Lancet put out a startling admission in the journal. It's still public, by the way, that

half of the world's scientific peer review papers are fraudulent. Yes, you heard me right, Half of the world's scientific papers peer reviewed are fraudulent. Well that's pretty devastating to the assumptions of scientistm isn't it. And yes, they will go ape shit when you mentioned this. But now, wait a minute. This comes from the top of the scientific establishment, doesn't it. Let's see if I can pull it up. Half of scientific papers are frauds. Yeah, I think I've got it

right here. Now. The Lancet is, of course, the world's premiere science journal. And guess what you're gonna notice something here in this little beautiful admission here, you're gonna see something to do with the Royal Society, aren't you. You're gonna see something to do with what's called Chatham House Rules. What Chatham House Rules? What would that have to do with science? Well, it has nothing to do with science,

because science is a purely neutral framework, isn't it. And I will I'm gonna go ahead right now and put the link to this because this is very important and not many people know about this. Now I talked about it endlessly. Notice there's your Chatham House Rules picture there. You don't know what Chatham House is. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even need to be trying to debate me. It's very difficult to get this paper, this journal here like to fit on this screen. The

case against science is straightforward. Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Now, by the way, there's countless studies and people have done countless test cases where they get gibberish published in peer review, where they have papers written by AI that are that are nonsense and get published in peer review. This there have been

multiple examples of this. Let me add this while I'm doing so here in the in the show description, I'm gonna have this just right now at the very top. This is from the Lancet uh And again I can't fit the whole thing on the screen because it's like a journal thing. And this is by the editor of the Lanses. So again one of the top medical journals, most prestigious in the world, and the very beginning of it says a lot of what is published is incorrect.

I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we are asked to observe Chatham House rules. What is this doing in a scientific journal?

been telling you about it for years. I've been telling you about the Rural Society and it's scientific scammery and how they have promoted Darwinism for the last several centuries by design, because they have a definite agenda and worldview, which is to dehumanize you and to kill you. They are all committed. That's Chathamhow's rules, right, don't tell the truth to the slaves that are destined to be killed. And again, who else has done tragian hope telling you this?

Who else has done? The same people that run the system in tragian hope, the Anglo American establishment, right, it's the people at the top of the royal society. They're the same people. It's the same groups, the role in supernational affairs, the CFR right, the Rockefellers, they're roth Child's. It's the same people. They write journals, their top journals tell you science is fraudulent, and what do you do? You believe it because you believe in the fallacy of authority.

So much for logic. Now, I'm not saying this means that all science is false, of course, not that would be retarded saying this means that scientists don't make discoveries. I'm saying it's very naive to assume that you know how science works. By the way, I'm published in peer review. I have a peer review published paper, so I know how this work process works. It's not a scientific paper. It's in an economic journal, but it is nevertheless peer review.

So the people who naively act like the way that this happens is just everybody being neutral, and then they just you just whoever's got the best arguments and whoever's got the best data and research. They just put their time in and they've put their paper in, and if if you've got the goods, you're gonna get published. Is utterly retarded. What could be more naive than this? Have you ever actually been in academia? Have you been in the grid world?

is a giant tax and debt racket. So why do you think they're all going to be telling you the truth? They're not. They're liars and The way academia works is that people aren't interested in truth. They are interested in making a name for themselves in academia to get funding. That's number one. And the way that you do that is that you have to come up with interesting, weird theories. You have to come up with Shakespeare was actually a tranny.

Let me give you the most technical analysis, trying to prove something completely retarded, and because it fits in with the overall agenda, you get shot up the ladder. That's how academia works. Right, when you publish your paper proving Shakespeare was a training, that's academia, dum dumbs. It's not this noble pursuit of truth and virtue. Far from it, read kun right. Structures of scientific revolution. Scientific revolutions don't

come because everybody's nobly seeking the truth. Scientific revolutions come because somebody puts out something true and the entire establishment attacks it because they don't want to be wrong.

a mass scale of scientific research being fraudulent? And I can tell you from personal example that my mom was an editor for science journals for the biggest publisher in America at one time. I know how this works. And all these dumb dums that try to talk about it, they don't even know that scientific publishing is private. Do you think that billionaire companies might have a say in what gets published in scientific journals? Of course they do.

It would be naive and stupid to think that they don't. But how many of these naive scientism promoters have ever even talked about this. They don't know who read l Cvier is. They don't know that read el Sevier publishes the biggest science journals in America and that they're a private billion dollar company. They don't know what Harcourt brace Yovanovich was in the eighties. They don't know about Harcourt Publishing.

They don't know about the fact that Harcourt owned Sea World. Now, as you say, why does that matter, Well, because that shows you that the entities that are publishing the biggest science journals in the world are private entities that buy theme parks, so they're for profit. They're not noble pursuers of truth. Dummy, right, So again naivety, idiocy, People don't know what they're talking about, and people don't make connections

across disciplines. This is another problem with education. Right. So one of the reasons that we the philosophy has been discarded is that guess what philosophy teaches you to make connections. Philosophy teaches you to think about the relationship between one thing and another thing and their connections. And the entirety of modern education is built on tearing down actions, excuse me,

tearing down these relationships. So, for example, we all know, hopefully we're familiar with the idea of the Prussian education model and the idea of extreme compartmentalization. It was not accidental that that's the educational model that the West accepted and adopted because the goal was to create socialized individuals, not educated individuals. And all you have to do is read John Dewey, Horace Mann and all the founders of

American education, public education, they talk about that. They talk about creating the socialized idiot individual, not the thinker, not the philosopher, not the person who makes connections, the person who only sticks to some minutia, some stupid detail, worthless thing. Publishing your paper about the length of Shakespeare's strap on that he wore as a trainee, that's all you're supposed to know about in your academic I'm not joking by that.

You think that that's literally what the academic study. They will study their lives into proving Shakespeare was a trainee and how long the dong was?

to the real world. It doesn't happen in biology class or astronomy class. Okay, those are propaganda classes. But people that do engineering, they do real hard science absolutely all the time. And that's who develops things. That's why Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing don't call up Richard Dawkins. They don't call up JF to figure out how to advance their technology. No, they call it people from engineering. Okay, I'm not saying

that Jeff's not smart guy. I'm not dissing Jeff. I'm just making the point that biology, life sciences, et cetera. Cent unless you're working in like biometrics and stuff like that, you're not advancing the cause of so called applied science generally speaking, generally speaking, Okay, and again I'm not saying this is true for every single biologist. I'm just saying that this is the way the system works in terms of academia. Of sure, plenty of biologists, plant of palaeontologists.

They go when they study things and they make discoveries. And again we already talked about this in the beginning. You can make discoveries and be correct about things within your niche and still have the wrong paradigm. Your whole worldview can be wrong and you still make discoveries. The fact that you make correct discoveries does not prove that your whole world view of paradigm is correct. And that's true.

I think would say that's self evident. It's obviously true because even the atheists again will admit that there are plenty of theists in mathematics, plenty of theists and engineering who make discoveries and advances, and they believe that those people are wrong in their paradigms of theism, and yet they still make advances. Likewise, atheists can make advances, Atheists can make discoveries. Sure, absolutely, that does not prove their paradigm.

Now we got a couple of super chats here before I continue going on, Alex Parker or Alex Parror, you make me want to be a better man. Well good, hopefully, that's uh, that's what we're here to promote. Not in the Masonic sense, right, Freemasonry says they make good men better. That's not what we're here to do. We want to make men into gods. Okay, so theosis is what we're talking about here, not some gay free Masonic thing. But thank you Alex Justin Stan ten dollars, thank you for

going through the explanation of salvations of the Jews. Obviously it isn't from the Jews themselves, but what was given to them from God. Now, of course, I mean, I don't think anybody was trying to say that there's some sort of mystical power to Judaism itself or to the biology or DNA. And this is sort of the mysticism of later Talmudism that says that, and the prophets of course rebuked that that idea many times over. David seeing five dollars Fantils Apologetic you mentioned can you link it?

It's called Vantil's Apologetic by Greg Bnson. Not the most successful book though. This is a difficult text. You know, it's not going to be easy reading unless you have a pretty a fairly unless you're fairly fluent in philosophy, you're not going to be able to read the book. And I'm not trying to be mean, but I mean it's a very long, very technical book. There's other easier books that could be could be accessible. Boonnson has a what's his Let me find his other book real quick here.

That's more accessible. Actually, the guy who Jason doctor Lyle, who I do think is pretty good. Actually, he has a really good introduction to this. So if you want an easy introduction, you know, unless you have like a master's degree in philosophy, you're not gonna be able to read Mental's Apologetic. I'm gonna put it right here real quick, underneath the PDF of the Lancets. So there's one Bonson book.

I will add Vntil's Apologetic here, but you're not going to be able to read it unless you are advanced in philosophy. You're going to find it very difficult. I'm not saying you can't do it. If you want to do it, go for it. Let's see what's that. What's that Jason Lyle book?

things wrong. But for an orthodox approach to presubsitionalism, I'm going to add this book as well by Father Shuping which is called Iran Aus and Orthodox apologetic methodology where we can correct the errors of Calvinists via this book. Damn it, here we go.