Is Libertarianism Compatible with Orthodox Christianity?

All right, welcome to another open chat. Hopefully it will work.

As I'm on the road, it's always a toss up, you never know, but we'll go to shot.

Hey, how's it going.

Or I was supposed to speak earlier on my personal account and then I don't know what happened. It's like I got banned or something, but that it was really weird and I wasn't able to actually.

You multiple times.

My bad about that. My headphones must have been glitchen.

But so I want to first of all say that I'm a huge fan of the stuff you've done exposing like Hollywood occultism, and you've been an influence on me as far as like orthodoxy goes. My girlfriend and i've been attending Orthodox churches when we can for the last several months. So definitely a big fan of you in that regard. But I've never been I don't fully I've been like an advocate for libertarianism for quite a long

Maybe you can.

Oh, I have a question, are you are you? Are you orthodox? First of all, I'm just was curious.

I have not converted yet, I'm planning on doing so. There's a lot going on in my personal life right at the moment, So I'm in. I talked to my priests on a weekly basis and he's, uh, I had to move to a town.

It's a long story, but I'm I'm getting there.

Well, so you're are you inquiring or are you a catechumen?

I am not a catechumen yet. I guess I guess you would say I'm inquiring, but I was gotcha, gotcha? Very recently my priest has very recently been urging me to become a catechumen, and it's definitely like something I really wanted to.

Well, I just I'll add.

This because I think it's just generally a correct Christian principle and cleaveyord member that this came up when we were talking last for Father Stephen Deyong about obedience, and so clearly an Orthodoxy there's a stress on and it's not blind obedience, right, but the notion of kind of a hierarchy, and that you make yourself obedient to somebody, not when you I'm only obedient when I agree. And I was thinking about that, I'm like, well, that's really

That's wrong.

So libertarianism is libertarianism is fine with hierarchy if the hierarchy is not coercive.

Well, well, yeah, that he's not talking about. He's not talking about physical coercion. He's talking about within the church.

For example, Orthodox somehow, Yeah, Orthodox you would maintain that.

You're bound legally by secular even legal authorities, whether you agree to it or not.

So that's interesting and that's not something that I've delved into deep into too deeply myself. I have asked my priest the question of like, well, how does what does what does Orthodox you have to say about this, like the role of the state or whatever. And he didn't really He gave me an answer that was more like, oh, well, like we don't endorse politicians at this church.

I think he kind of misunderstood my question.

But so the role of church and state is a classical Christian teaching that the state has a duty to obey God into enact Christian principles.

That's the tradition of the church.

Okay, So, and there's a good document I'd recommend it was a two thousand and it's from the Russian Church a two thousand.

It was the Year of Jubilee.

On Relations of Church and State, where it kind of defines these things and it admits that we live in a fallen world. There's no kind of perfect in practice form of government. But it does say that the only in theory sanctioned form of government is monarchy. And in principle absolutely the state has the right, is a God given right to course force you against your will. And so I was just thinking about it, like it's just totally incompatible with libertarianism.

So what was that document called? You said it was on Relations of Church and State? Who is that by the Russian Church?

Yeah, Russian Church Statement on Christian Government and nationalism. It's just for stating kind of the classical view. But the Church has always had a coronation service, which is a quasi sacramental service for the anointing of a king. So there's thousands of saints that are monarchists, thousands of saints that have been under monarchies. They talk about Christian monarchy, none of them talk about democracy, none of them talk

Okay, So you're saying, you're basically saying that the Church advocates for monarchism. That's just not something that I'm that aware of and the something I certainly need to do more research than my own into sok.

Entire, entire history of the Church is the imperium, the Byzantine imperium, So from Constantine all the way up to you know, fourteen ninety three, nineteen niney three with the fall of Constantinople, and then even after that the Russian state has you know, there's a Christian state. So the idea of a Christian state is Christianity. That's antithetical to

Even if he doesn't act right, he is still the authority.

Are you saying that libertarianism doesn't advocate for property rights, private property rights.

No, we're saying, oh, how.

Could you get anything like that from what I said.

I thought maybe I misarged you. I thought you said you were like.

That's not the defining simply the defining feature.

Uh yeah, So that's not orthodox especially property, private property rights.

It's based in the Ten Commandments, is what Jay was saying. So you can't simply define libertarianism is in terms of private property. And that's why I said libertarians is committed to voluntarism, and voluntarism is rejected by orthodoxy. Now in the Church there's voluntarism right, like, but that's what we call is the way the church and ecclesiology works is different than state because they're two different spheres. But the Church ordains ideally.

You know, the king or the emperor, and that the politicians are informed in terms of virtue in their.

Spiritual life by the Church.

But the way that the state can actually coerse it's like, so voluntarism doesn't exist in an Orthodox state because the state has the right to course you to do anything by virtue of the law.

In the church practice, priests wouldn't do.

That, right, they have a prescriptive much like a doctor. It's like, we prescribe that you do this, but you're free to be wrong, and you're free to hurt yourself, like we just recommend that you don't. So there's a type of kind of voluntarism in the way of kind of practice in the church. But in terms of state relations, absolutely, the Orthodox Church believes the state and statesmen have the right to course you by by law and power.

This off it comes up if you look at the first debate I did ten years ago.

It was with Adam Kokash, the libertarian dude.

Anyway, okay, well we we've go and check out our debate from ten years One thing that one thing I think is a good example of this is like, you don't have the right in a Christian state to erect giant billboards of bastiality on your property because it's your property.

So even your property.

Has limitations on what you can do. And the state has the right to tell you. No state has the right to enact the death penalty. All these things are rights that the state has. Now, the state can go out of its bound and become you know, rebellious and become attempt to be godlike, but that's when the Christian has the duty to be a martyr. Uh, And the state has a duty to a higher authority who's to God.

So well, I'm glady, because my next question was going to be like, how do you maintain a state that is acting godly?

Like?

It seems to me that the state is very prone to outgrowing the bounds that it was set for, and it'll always.

That's always the temptation for the state.

But there's also countless Christian kings and saints in the history of the Church who have had and maintained Christian kingdom, so it has happened. But also you're right that there's signs where the state goes outside the bounds of its own authority and for example, tries to control the church, right the American's deep state right now try to control the Orthodox the Catholic Church during the Cold War.

So they stopped this all the time. So this is absolutely true, right right?

Okay, Well this has been very eye opening for me, this short interaction. I don't want to take up too much time. And sorry, that's a great question at acting.

If you look up, I've got a lot of videos critiquing you know, sort of the basic the Pratrian dug ideas of perspective going back about ten years.

But great questions.

Appreciate that, father, you get you didn't say much on the preemptive strikes topic. Did you did you not want to opine on that or is it too is that too harry of a topic for clergy or what do you think about that?

I just don't think Marco Rubio, is this never.

And it's kind of similar to it's kind of similar to the libertarian kind of arguments about like well what constitutes uh, you know, aggression and stuff like that. So look, we can start with the clearcases and then move it's going to get into you know, as you move farther away from the clearcases, it gets muddied, and there are obviously positions where I'm like, I don't know, but the clearcas is obviously a pre exemptive strike is if there's an imminent threatned physical danger.

Well but but the but if if but if you see he said that before, he said that should have happened fifty years ago, preempt to strikes. But I'm thinking, well, wait a minute. If that's the basis for why you would do a preemptive strike is their capabilities to attack the West, then you would essentially have to do a preemptive strike on any country that's not aligned with the West because they have the ability to attack the West.

Yeah, and that's I've made that argument too, where you know, there are some boomers like Iran's the greatest threat to America.

They're probably killing babies with.

Gas, right, like all this kind of stuff. I'm like, well, first of all, make the argument without lyne. Right, I'm not saying they're a great nation. But I brought up that point too. Then why not the other nation? Like like there's something not being truthful, right, if like if that justifies and I'm not even against in principle, then.

We would have to do preemptive strikes on Russia, we would have to do on North Korea, China, every country would have to have premptive strikes.

Yeah, and that's like, well, no, no, you can't do that. So it just there's ways to show.

Like somebody's kind of inconsistency with But I.

Mean, first and foremost, if it really is an immin danger, but also you know, there's probably you know, threats ideologically, I think maybe in certain situations that might even address even if somebody is not capable of having a physical threat but could get to that point.

Maybe yeah, like maybe that would be justified.

But you see what I mean, It gets it gets more fuzzy the further you go out, and I feel less confident in being like, well that's what I mean.

At the CAD, the Roman Calvic Church be a greater immediate threat because it's behind all the millions of undocumented illegals coming in, even more so than Israel. So that I guess we're supposed to like premptively strike the Vatican or whatever.

Yeah, see what the problem is?

Yeah, yeah, like really.

Look to your level stuff and how do you determine like you're saying, like what the most dangerous imminent threat is, because I mean, yeah, perhaps in ICBM if if it hit the right target. But at the same time, it's like, well, that's thirty forty fifty million illegals coming into the country. I mean, how do you It's hard to determine, you see, which of those is quote worse right, Miles, what's up?

Hello? Yeah? What's up? Hey?

How's it going.

I'm baptized Eastern Orthodox and I'm trying to learn more about it. So just a disclaimer, I might be asking some very very basic and elementary questions.

Firs.

Yeah, if it's too basic, just let me know and I can maybe go to somewhere that you can.

Everybody in here is a basic bitch, all right.

I wanted to ask, like, when when a priest blesses let's say the anaphora or I take you know, holy water, or I bless the house, what is it? What is happening? What does a blessing mean? If I get blessed by a bishop? What is blessing?

I think it's just supposed to signify, sanctifying, setting apart for God's service and also hopefully a participation in the divine energies, because we think that all of these sacramental reality, whether they're icons or holy water or you know, being annointed with oil, you know, we are looking towards and praying to be participating in some measure of divine grace, which is the unfitted energies.

Okay, so divine grace is the uncreated energies.

Correct?

What's a I only.

Understand the uncreated energies at a very introductory level.

What does it mean if I.

Have, like is, are the uncreated energies now in the holy water?

Is that what that means?

Yeah?

Actually, in the baptism, right, the priest prays and puts the cross in the water and asks that God's uncreated energies come down into the font. So, just like in Christ himself, you have, for example, the incarnation, a joining of the human nature and the divine nature.

There's a synergy there.

So likewise, the same idea with the sacraments is that there's a joining of the uncreated power of God to the created elements of bread, wine, water, et cetera. The idea is that there's a synergy a both and in this in these sacraments.

Okay, and in that way, when I annoy myself with oil or drink holy water, I'm directly experiencing God's and created energies.

Well that's what we're praying for.

Whether or not we experience that is actually up to ourselves on our own disposition. So God's energies are actually everywhere present, and were we to be in the right disposition and state of repentance, we would experience them. So really that's up to us on our side of you know, human action and repentance as to what we what we get out of these rituals and liturgies.

Okay, so the same the same holy water could be I don't know, edifying for me. Let's say if I'm in a state of repentance and belief, but does absolutely nothing to an atheist for example.

Yeah, or it could actually drive them crazy if they're demonically possessed, they could actually hate it.

So yeah, oh wow.

Okay, And so let's say I am in a state of repent and belief and I have this holy water.

What happens to me? What actually changes?

Will?

The Church Fathers described the process of grace as a never ending upward spiral into God. So basically, the Bible speaks in a kind of a mysterious way that we partake of God in greater and greater measures, even though God cannot be apportioned by measure. So this is kind of what's called it antonomical statement.

It's a statement that appears to be a contradiction, but.

It's not, because we're speaking about something that's above the laws of logic. So even though God can't be contained, he still willed to become contained in the womb of the Virgin. Even though God can't be apportioned out by measure, he willed to be divided by measure amongst his saints. So Paul talks about in the Escaton greater and greater degrees of deification. So there's a mystery involved in this, and the mystery.

Is that you can never get full of God's grace. You will always be infinitely moving into God's grace.

Uh okay, that makes sense. So okay.

The definition that I understand of uncreated energies is like the word energy is God's actions.

Is that correct?

It's God's actions, It's God's mind.

It's excuse me, this God's divine ideas that are called the logi. It's God's attributes, it's God's operations. All of those things are at times called energies or works or operations. So the word is welf means work and are gay at work. But in the New Testament multiple things are ascribed as works. Sometimes they're called God's powers plural.

Uh.

And then when the Western Church sometimes they say, you know, the attributes of God for us, that's the same thing as the divine energies. So when Jesus says, for example John seventeen, that he came to give us a share in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world, uncreated glory is uncreated, grace is uncreated, light is uncreated, love, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay, And so sorry, how do we define attrib You see like God's attributes?

Is it like glory, light, love? Are those attributes?

Sure?

I'm just saying the Western Church tends to talk about the divine attributes. God has the attribute of omniscience, omnipresidence, love, justice, et cetera. And all I'm saying is that when the Orthodox Church says energies, they're referring to the same thing that they mean. But our theology is a little more precise because it's also God's creative actions and powers that are energies as well.

Okay, okay, because my confusion was I originally thought energies men actions. And when you say that divine, his uncreated energies are in like the holy water of the oil, I think, how are someone's actions in a thing?

Well, it is that.

If you look at letter two thirty four, Basil says God's essence is unknown, but the divine energies or operations come down to us.

And so what comes down to us.

Is his love, his foreign alogy is providence, his power, his mercy, et cetera. So it's referring to the same stuff. So, for example, God is omnipresident omnipresence is a divine energy for us.

Oh wow, okay, that's new to me. Okay, I think I had just one more question and it just slipped my mind. Oh okay, So the oil is blessed by the priest when we annoyed ourselves water, you know, the house, but when we I don't know if this is an Orthodox thing.

At least I've been doing it.

You know, you kind of pray before a meal, ask the Lord to bless the food and drink for a servant. So can anybody bless because from what I understand, it's always the priests that are blessing things. But I'm now blessing.

You're the priest of your household, right, so yes, you can pray and bless the food. However, if a priest is president, you defer to the higher authority, and the priest blesses the food, just like the priest would defers to the bishop of the bishops around.

Oh wow, okay, wow, all right, now, okay, I'm the priest of the household.

Do you mean like as virtue of being a man or like a man of the household?

Oh okay, okay, okay, So if I'm in like the presence of my wife, I should be the one asking.

Says that the house hold is a little church.

So yes, great, wow, okay a j thank you so much. I really appreciate I appreciate the thank you. Yeah, okay, care, I appreciate it, aid he can you hear me, Jake Aiden? And then Jay, Yeah, what's up?

I had a little bit of a question about the like Iran more in a little bit to do with the elites. If that's all right, sure, So, like I know, if I'm correct, both are of course the right wing you had, like the heavy Zionist fund by Israel and the Rothschild's Like is the left the same way?

Would you say, what do you mean, like, uh.

Is it like the same elites? You would say behind the left ultimately.

I mean, for example, left socialism that supports Palestinians. I mean, they might have a difference on the issue of Israel self, but in the big picture they're all still pretty much under the aegis and the banner of globalization. So there's a little bit of disagreement, but in the long term, no, it's just a disagreement over whether you know, there'll be an Israeli priority to the new world order or will there be some sort of just international socialists United Nations style technocracy.

So just like two different sides of the puzzle.

I would say, two factions of internationalism or two factions of how they would like to see.

The future cut. There's also overlap.

There's also over lot because all the early Zionists were all socialists. So yeah, I think socialism, you know, is always kind of bound up with a lot of Jewish worldview. Ideology and in terms of its origins and ethos, I mean, it's not totally bound up with that, because you can

So those things overlap.

But you might have some internationalists who don't even think there should be a nation's date. They don't care if there's a nation state of Israel, whereas others think that Israel itself could be the center of the future world government. Many of the Zionist writers wrote that way Joe Ziowa's up, dog.

Do you hear me?

What's up? Man? Hey man?

I was just asking, so my wife and I she went to her first divine energy this past Sunday. Okay, I've been this probably my fourth time this week. So she is you know, we're used to a Pentecostal type environment, charismatic and what is the easiest way to I mean, I've heard not to even really even try to debate her, you know, but just the Mary stuff and the saints.

Yeah.

Sorry if I sound that out of us, I'm at the gym.

So yeah, go ahead and repeat your question. I'm sorry.

So yeah, just what would your advice be on guiding her into the what seems to be very weird environment of liturgy and saints and all that.

I guess that's the question.

Oh, I mean, I guess that really just depends on how interested in the theology she is, or is she just kind of looking for community. A lot of times women and wives and girlfriends aren't that interested in the theology. They're more interested in meeting nice people. So, or is she interested in theology and she wants to know why we do what we do? It depends on who she is and how she operates.

Yeah, I would say I'm the one that's more interested in the theology. But at the same time, I feel like that door is popping open here here and there when he.

Could explain that.

You know, like when I went on that podcast with that evangelical dude a couple of days ago that he just posted yesterday. I mean, he was asking very similar questions, kind of coming from a evangelical, you know, do it yourself background, and it's like, well, do we ever think about how did Jesus himself worship the Father. Well, he went to the temple, into the synagogue, and he worshiped

But also, you know, when.

It comes to speaking in tongues, I mean, in the New Testament, that's always languages.

It's never gibberish.

It's never a so called angel language.

Sorry.

She asked me about that specifically, and when I told her with an as church believe the way you were talking about that, she was like, thank God because she always thought, you know.

Yeah, well, it sounds like she's on the right path.

I mean, I remember at one time I thought that Paul was saying there's a secret prayer language that you say, that's gibberish. But then I realized, right when he says that, he's actually just using rhetoric. He's saying, even if I speak with the tongue of ben and angels, then if I don't have love, it's worthless. He's not saying there's actually a secret angel language that you can learn by yapping, and then some other Pentecostal pastor stands next to you

Also, I don't know if you guys saw the stream. I just did. Tell your wife to watch Testament of ann Lee.

I've been telling people, all of you with Pentecostal cares. My friends tell your tell them to watch that movie, and then after they watch the movie, say so, don't you think this is kind of crazy?

It's like, oh, yeah, well that's what you guys.

I was gonna add that I think was the Those questions were the start of me, you know, twenty years ago, even twenty five thirty years ago, moving into Orthodoxy because having grown up in Calviy chapels that have kind of depending on what Calvi Chapel does has kind.

Of more charismatic flares and different places. But it rubbed me the wrong way. And I remember asking questions, liturgical questions, even at eighteen years old. Can you just worship however you want? Is there a standard?

And that eventually, you know, many many many years later, led me to Orthodoxy.

Absolutely questions and answers. What's up?

Go ahead, Hey, Jay, thanks for taking me. I just have a question. I grew up Protestant, and I've heard you talk about classical Protestantism, specifically you know, Luther and other major figures of the Reformation, and the difference of what they think or thought about certain topics versus what many Protestants today hold to or are against that are Orthodox or Catholic doctrines. I was wondering if you could just give me a couple of those that you feel are the most significant or impactful.

I guess say it really quick again. What was the first?

What's the difference between modern reform or modern evangelicals and classical Reformation guys.

Yes, yeah, that's pretty good summary.

Well, I did the last stream that I did for members on this very topic, which was that, basically my thesis is that the radical Reformation is what ended up winning out most of the magisterial reformers.

And what we know of as the classical Reformation.

Guys, their churches and their theology has pretty much died out.

And what you see in a lot.

Of these evangelical churches, non denominational megachurches is really no different than the overall ethos of the Radical Reformation people, because again go watch Testamon van Lee. She believes that there's an inner guiding light. It's telling her what to do. The scriptures don't or that much. All that matters is their personal relationship with Jesus. She's gonna he's going to be a pacifist, She's going to try to set up

Right.

Uh, that's the proto Pentecostals and Charismatics and Evangelicals today. If you look at the mainline Reformers in their churches, like they're all dying and dead and all.

They're all gay churches. Right.

So you have the pc USA, uh, mainline Presbyterians.

You have the Lutheran Church, Anglicans.

The mainline Anglicans, mainline Lutherans, those are all dying out and they're all ordaining you know, trans bishops and all nonsense.

So yeah, the archbishop of Canterbury is like a woman.

Now, yeah, that just happened two days ago, but you know what, everybody's laughing about that.

But actually they already had a woman head of the church. For the last hundred years.

The queen was the head of the church, so they already had a female head of the church.

Anyway, it's true. That's that's true. Okay, well, thank you very much.

I think the big difference is that even the product the mainline evangelicals, which are the majority now I guess nowadays of Protestants, I'm guessing they don't care about really the so called classical Reformation doctrines except for something like, you know, some water down idea of faith alone, or some water down idea of I just followed my Bible, which is some version of soul Scripture, right, so I think, right, I think that's where evangelicalism is today.

Okay, thank you very much.

Yeah, which is interesting because it's pretty far removed from Lutheran Calvin, right, I mean Lutheran Calvin. You could perhaps make the argument that they may be Lutheran more so than Calvin, Like they're more close to Orthodox and Catholicism than they are to the radical reformers in certain respects, right, father, you can do everything on reformation teaching and today's evangelicals.

Well, I mean, Luther wasn't an iconoclast.

He had at least two seconds believed in the real presence, the old Lutheran liturgies are much higher liturgically. It's you know, modern Lutherans today unless you go to Germany or something like that.

But they're all gay.

The higher liturgical kind of Lutherans are all woke and stuff. But yeah, they're a lot closer than to too orthodoxy than you know, the Lutherans than modern Humangelicals for sure.

By the way, we were driving out here the other day.

I don't know if you heard me say this on the stream FDA, but I was actually Jamie was like, hey, this is a Zuza Street who were literally on his Zusa Street where the whole Pentecostal movement.

Yeah, yeah, how crazy is that? Well it wasn't far from actually where we ain't exactly.

Yeah, I realize that of course, right wing. What's up you want on you? Hey, thanks for having me up.

You're killing it with all the collapse by the way, great stuff, Well, well guess what.

Only about like one tenth of it has actually dropped yet, so nice. If you're liking the collapse, there's about ten more.

So I was just wondering your opinion on the new Anglican archbishop and how the ceremony was on the twenty fifth, which is their feasting and annunciation. There's there's got to be some compounded underlying heresy or symbolism to why they chose that day, right, I.

Didn't even know that, and I haven't. All I saw was people making fun of it on Twitter. But my guess would be, well, this is the idea that the feminine is now replacing the masculine. Right, and again, go watch Testamon of van Lee, because she says the future of Christianity is that women will replace what the men did.

Because she says.

God is man and God is woman, and if he came the first time as a man, he must return as a woman. And so she taught that she was the second advent of Christ, but as the Holy Spirit. So she's like the incarnation of the Spirit, which she thought was feminine, which is odd because.

She couldn't read.

But it's almost like she's repeating these Talmudic doctrines that God is bisexual and that God has a you know, female body parts, all this kind of crazy nonsense. My guess would be that it's the same demonic spirit that's influencing the heretics of today.

Bird are you there? Go ahead?

My question is about the residue of sin. So, like I've heard people say that sin doesn't have a positive ontology, but it seems like committing sins leaves some sort of like it's called like a spore or like something unclean that needs to be washed away.

And now that's all that's that's gnostic, Maybe that's Manichian.

So I mean, you could have an addiction or a passion that you are tempted with, but there's no such thing as an ontological thing that has to be watched life.

So when like when Noah gets off the arc and he makes atonement for the land, like it's kind of portrayed in a sense that like this the sins of the or like if you have an Orthodox priest come to your house and bless it is that not to deal with like some sort of effect of the sin that's been committed in that house, or.

Well, I mean you could you could say that there's the presence of evil spirits. That's what's being cleansed. But there's not residue of evil or something like that. That evil doesn't have to even even the demons in their nature are still good, but they use their will and their their powers constantly for things against God. So it's the actions that are the bad. Part is not some thing or some I don't know what you would call it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm asking. Is there like an ick ontology.

That would be not it would be menichi and you could do incorrect actions.

I mean even if you think like biologically, like with a plant or something that do you put it in bad soil, or like you do something that harms a plant or something so that it's leaves shrivel up and something like that, Obviously you're not creating a substance. You're doing something that's not good for the plant. So you can damage things. Demons can damage stuff. We can damage stuff by not you know, doing the right sorts of things.

I'm just wondering from a perspective of like the wages of sin, like what you earn through sin is death, Like where's the transition between the sinful action and or am I just taking are we talking about spiritual death?

Like I sometimes.

Death is death is the severance of the soul from the body, and it's you know, the person willing against God and it gets the good. That's the first is physical death, second spiritual death. So that's all death is. All right, Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Yeah, that those great questions.

Substance, it's the lack of life. So you can do actions two things that kill something kill yourself both physically, you know, or biologically and spiritually too. But like, yeah, it doesn't mean death is an actually thing that you can trap in a jar and you know, take it to show and tell and class and stuff like that.

Or like you could give somebody death cooties and then they have the death on them that gets cooties.

Uh. It's funny you.

Say the FDA because one of the one of the parts of the discussion with Jesse Lee Peterson was where he started because what he I don't know if you've ever seen what he does, but he basically asked you all these really bizarre kind of questions that are really ambiguous leading questions because he wants to get you to understand and accept his kind of weird process of what he thinks counseling is spiritual counseling.

So ask all these.

Questions like do you have your your mama sins nature?

And I'm like, my, what do you have? You have your ma sin nature?

She put that in you and I'm like, well, there's not a sin nature, Yes there is.

For your mama.

It's like, there was no way I was going to ever be able to explain to him that, Like well, I said, well sin doesn't have any being.

He's like, what do you mean being?

Oh no, that's well.

It's interesting because Protestantism is influenced by that kind of man a ken where they you know, you get it from Calvin to you and like a sin nature. It's like that entails that they're a positive being to see when it's actually a privation.

Right. But the funny thing about Jesse Peter Lee.

Peterson's view of it was that, you know, most people who are are Protestants or whatever, they think the sin nature has passed from Adam right.

He thinks that it's a thing that the mom.

Yeah, oh, interests, it's really bizarre, Scott, what's up?

Just I'm you, guys when you I'm you when you come up. Yeah.

Sure, I think these strikes were justified. I assume you sort of disagree.

Okay, how would we know what? What? What justifies them?

Well?

I just mean from like geopolitical facts. I don't mean from an epostomach.

Basic what well, No, I mean morally speaking, it's it is preempted.

But I think you can justify preemptive strikes in many cases.

Okay, And what why would Israel be in the US be justified INTI strikes?

I don't I'm not like defending associations with Israel or any of that. I just mean from here from American interests.

But okay, well, what would the American interesting? So I ran had.

Well, apparently they launched at Diego Garcias. It means they had ICBMs that were up to four thousand kilometers I believe, I don't know the exact Heart, but that that would reach Western Europe as well if they reached Diego, Garcia. And they claimed at least to have two hundred kilograms or thereabouts of sixty percent uranium, which I'm not a nuclear scientist, but they say that's something like ten or eleven warheads.

Yeah, but they don't have the ability to launch those even if they did. According to Kerioka, they have.

At least one with four thousand, like they launched at least one ICBM at four thousand kilometers. I didn't actually watch the Kariaka.

One, so I guess I'm a little uninformed there.

How are you Ortho bro Oca supremacist? That doesn't make any sense? Sorry, how are you? I don't believe you're who you say you are, Ortho Broo Eastern mystic o.

So those are just pejoratives I've been called.

This is a little joke.

And is there any precedent for preemptive strikes in the history of like Christian warfare?

I I don't think there is, but I think that like logically you can extend you know, like proportionality to preemptive strikes in some ways, I mean, but but no there to answer your question, No, I don't think there's an exact like uh one to one with like.

Do you think that that Israel would provoke this at all?

I go back and I think there's obviously there's some influence with Israel, but I think that in this case it's overlapping interest with the range of the ICBMs, a potential range if.

It you know, if indeed that those could carry their ward.

Okay, butt this was that the Well, then why wasn't this done twenty years ago?

If that was the case, I think it should have probably been done prior, but probably when the shot was deposed, so like it should have been done with a better causus belly, but it wasn't, and I think the problems went bestering for I think it's almost fifty years, forty seven years, that's so. I think it's kind of we had we had to make a decision at a point in time now where they would gain according to market immunity from future strikes.

Do you think Marco Rubio is a reliable source?

I think you'd have to Okay, why is why is Marco Rubio reliable source?

Well, I mean, obviously everyone in any given administration has been trying to BELI to.

You, why is Marco Rubio a reliable source?

Because I think that there would be more leaks if you was like objectly lying about just neutrality or the blocking.

I'm moving on, Maddie, what's up?

I'm going to listen to some dude who says he's an OCA sparentcys Madie, what's up? That's that feels like fed energy because he's got a giant Confederate flag with Biden and she says he's an OI.

Maddie, what's up? FDA? Do you have any comments on that? That was odd? No?

No comment?

Yeah, was popping my dog. Congratulations on the on the podcast too. I've been fairly enjoying it over here in the UK. It's been amazing to watch. There's more questions, father, I heard last week or the week beforehand. Maybe you spoke upon Agent's video about the whole possible hoax with the Holy Separaka and Holy fire issues associated the Jerusalem Patriarch.

Is that correct?

As I think it was.

Jane and I had one of these things, these spaces, and it was brought up.

Somebody was doubt I didn't know who was doubting it.

I didn't know it was agents, and I made a comment about why I think it's legitimate.

Yeah, I watched the video just out of curiosity, and I mean, from what I can say, I don't see it doesn't seem to me that he's kind of imposed any sort of his personal opinion on the story. But I just wanted to know whether or not it's true or not. I spoke to my spiritual father at church a Sunday to try and get his view.

Up on things.

Not because it caused any particularly down inside of me, but I want to understand if there would be any sort of issues or repercussions with people faith wise. It's not necessarily the case that even if, for instance, hypothetically this was proven that maybe this has been a hoax for maybe all of time, but maybe a certain period of time, that this would jeopardize individuals in the church.

I don't think.

I don't think it's like you said, it's necessary that it's not a dogma or something like that. Is there's no good reasons I do not believe it. I've never heard all of them have been kind of debunked or just to just kind of ad hoc, and only the best sort of reasons to believe that it's actually legitimate.

But I mean, again, it's not binding on It's not like you have to believe it to be orthodox.

Yeah, it's just I mean, given the content annuity, how

Skeptical arguments.

Yeah, yeah, honess what you're saying. Yeah, I guess it's one of those things where I guess, like you said, even if for instance, it was the case, and I'm certain that will Agent said is true or the arguments he brings up are true, But if I was to hyperfectly agree this wasn't, this wouldn't necessarily put all one's faith in jeopardy because it's not contingent upon that, nor is a dogma. I think this is good for me

Jay.

When are you coming? When is all the whole streaming like podcast thing coming to an end, or when you're gonna be back at the gaff? Okay, cool, all right, I would like to see more cringe. Course, been a bit minute since we heard the last one.

Bro, I've been hopefully get back. What's up? Appreciate philth what's up? Object? Go ahead? Hey?

MYA was going down the rabbit hole of p S A and a sacrificial system, and I had asked father Stephen de Young. I think it was on Alex Alex's stream or maybe cleavestream about the implied sacrifice and Jennifer Genesis three with the animal skins and how he clothed them, and he answered, and I'd never heard it before, and I was wondering if you ever heard it that the the skins that God clothed Adam and Eve with were him actually changing their body from the pre fall state into.

The biological it's the biological skin suit that we presently have. As many church fathers say that, oh, guy, I just didn't heard before tonight. I recalled it because I remember you in a debate arguing with that one like weird Christian vegan guy, and you use that as a I get the point for as a rebuttal to his that saying that you know, we can't even meet you use that or that applyed sacrifice is the reason that we you know, it's fine.

I'm not sure. Yeah, But whether or not God is clothing us with animal.

Skin suits to have biological bodies, or whether he's killing the animal for a meal, covenantal meal, the principle is still the.

Same, that God is not empathetical to the killing of animals. Gotcha, Okay, cool, thank you.

And by the way, that yeah, the church fathers not unanimous either on that interpretation. And if you'll notice, if you read through their commentaries, some of them think that it's a metaphysical change in their being to have kind.

Of a biological component.

That's like an animal has with these bodies versus the type of body that they might have had in the Garden of Eden, which was some sort of a higher sort of spiritual body.

Aiden, Yeah, go ahead.

Time One is about like Orthodox patristic series, which would you recommend first, Dmitri Stineiloi's Experience of God or yourself Pelicans a Church and tradition. I believe, I know you've made a video on the well.

I mean, Father Saint Eloy's is not Patristics. It's his own dogmatic theology. So that's more like reading a pretty advanced systematic theology. But Pelicon series is really good for getting an overview of the ideological trek of the debates of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth century. So

Okay.

Second was on like Orthodox philosophical, like philosophical readings of the Orthodox influence behind it, if you know what I mean.

I mean Orthodoxy is not super interested in philosophy, but I mean there are Orthodox philosophers like Tristan Inglehart or David doctor David Bradshaw or doctor Bo Branson. I mean, those are all modern philosophy professors who are influenced by Orthodox teaching.

So I guess I'm not what do you mean exactly by Orthodox philosophy.

I mean like kind of a less Western views, like there's no.

Orthodox Nietsche, you know, that's walking. There's not like an Orthodox you know, Emmanuel Kant or something like that.

Where would you recommend, Like, I'm a I'm a current cate Cuman. Your content has helped me out a lot of but where would you recommend the individual to start?

Well, if you were interested in philosophy, I would read the Yarslaw Pelicon book Metamorphosis of Natural Theology and the Cappadocians.

Yeah I saw that. Yeah, that's really good. Yeah, I saw that.

When your video is uh yeah, I've kind of analyzed like all your videos in but before you.

Do that, I would actually, uh, now that you kind of asked these questions, I think you would probably do best to start with the Pelicon volume one, because it's really good, and volume two is really good too.

I would do one and two. Three is about the Reformation, so it's not that necessarily. Yeah, yeah, one and one and two are really good.

What what all do you cover in your big red book, like the theology book.

It's just kind of a.

Random collection of apologetic essays over ten years. So there's a lot of Roman Catholic critiques, papal critiques, created great critiques, arguments for essence, energy, philio quick critiques, and then it gets into more, you know, kind of all over the place, philosophical essays and critiques of the New World Order. So it's kind of a broad spectrum. Yeah, it's like seven hundred pages, right, Yeah, it's it's all that.

Yeah, it's basically ten years of blog post in one book.

All right, I appreciate Jay. I also want to say, I really appreciate your content. Man, it's uh help. It's helped me in convert to Orthodoxy. Like I said, I'm a catech human.

Well that's greatat appreciate that, man, appreciate you great question.

Yeah.

Those are always great places to start, you know, if you want to start in the Church Fathers, I always say, read on the Incarnation by Athenatious, you know, read on the Holy Spirit by Basil, read uh five theological rations record outs as great place to start to get the idea what the.

Patricial teaching is.

And also, of course the post opseell for others as well, ignacious and clements in Aeronaeus, it's open for them. I have the renowned and esteemed father, doctor Deacon Anonius, the creator of the Ortho Braro political movement that is seeking to create a earthly kingdom, much like Ann Lee did amongst the Quakers Thomas or something.

Hey, so I come from a Protestant background. I'm curious since Prosimism has a big emphasis on proselytizing, I'm curious what the Orthodox viewpoint on proselytizing is, maybe in compared to prosimism or just.

Well, I mean, we we have been here making thousands of converts for the last eight years on the Orthodox to Orthodoxy on the online, so we definitely believe in proselytizing just means making converts. Prosepolytes is a convert in the New Testament. So but we probably have different ideas obviously from what evangelicals think. That is, for the Orthodox, it means you become an inquirer, you become a cateicuman

And Jesus becomes your boyfriends. So we have we have very different ideas. Okay, all right, thank you, that's all I wanted to know. No, that's actually a good question.

Josh, hey man, thanks for having me as always, dude. I saw that recent debate with Temple that was hilarious. But I got a question for you. Quite welcome. So me and my kids were reading Chronicles of Narnia and I ended up watching a C. S. Lewis documentary which is pretty interesting, but there was an aside in there. I was curious if you had insight on this. Give we lost it, Josh, I want to come back, try again.

Go ahead. C. S Lewis, go ahead. Anyway.

Supposedly, there was a debate he had towards the end of his career and apologetics and maybe the end of his life where he couldn't refute the materialist question or their argument that if truth can't be explained by materialism alone, how could await scale you know, be accurate that type of an argument. I'm just curious what you do about that debate, about that line of the argumentation, and you know how you would refute.

I've never heard this, but we might ask father Deacon.

He's got really good arguments against the logical arguments against materialism, but I'm not familiar with this since yes, so this is his wife, father Dion, are you there?

Yeah, you want to know the the logical problems.

I think you would be good at this. Yeah.

So this comes out of philosophy of mind and what's known as the irreducible consciousness arguments. So in philosophy of mind you had, like.

You have competing schools.

Obviously you have substance dualists and primary The substance duelists and materialists both.

Are like the opposite spectrums.

Philosophically, and there's a whole variety of theories under materialism. And so philosophers and philosopher and philosophy of mind came up with a series of kind of modal arguments in which like possible worlds or conceivability arguments that refute materialism, and which because the materialist thesis is not simply it just happens to be just true in this world that everything's physical and empirical, and that there are no immaterial properties or entities.

But it has a modal strength in every possible world.

So the way that you, for somebody is saying it's impossible, it's logically impossible that there are any immaterial entities or properties. All you have to do is think of a a conceivability argument. Well, I'm conceiving of, for example, zombies, and which are physically identical to us in every way, but they lack consciousness. There's other arguments too, like Frank Jackson's what Mary Didn't Know? That all served to basically refute materialism.

That's basically the gist of it. I mean it's more complicated that, but that's the general kind of structure of those arguments.

Can you explain why a conceivability argument would work in this case? Because I think most people are going to immediately think, well, just because you can, Okay.

So let me just do the logical possibility of zombies. If materialism is true, then the things that we think of, like consciousness mental states can be epistemologically and ontologically.

Reduced to simply material states, whether that's functionalism or identity theories and things like that.

So the fact that I can think about that structurally something identical to me but lacks consciousness means that they're leaving something out, and therefore it can't be reduced. Now though of course say, well, that just wouldn't happen, you would get consciousness. The problem is I'm not speaking about whether it happened in this world. I didn't contradict myself in thinking that. Therefore it's not logically true that materialism because I've thought a counter example in a possible world.

She's brought up in a black and white room and she's.

Specialized in optics and color vision and stuff like that, so she knows what it is to be read, and so she shouldn't learn any.

New facts of she.

Let's suppose she learns everything about what red is, and then she's released from the room, the black and white room that she grew up in, and she experiences a red rose, and she gains a new fact, namely what it's like to experience a quality, a qualitative experience of red. Okay, if physical is a materialism is true, she shouldn't learn anything new because she learned all third person objective facts. Then the response the response would be, well, she wouldn't

Yeah, that's great.

By the way, did you see, by chance in the last few days when we did the review of Nick's debate with Jake Muscle Metaphysician.

On the Trinity.

No, I didn't, So you would have liked them, because basically what happened was I thank you for your question. Josh Nick presented out of analytical philosophy just relative identity as a way to logically show that something can be one and also not one in different ways based on different types of classification. So there's like there's pure relative identity in logic, and then there's impure relative identity. So Nick was just arguing and impure relative identity. And the

Right?

All Nick had to do is show that through relative identity logic, the statements.

About the Trinity being.

You know, one God in three persons are not a contradiction because Jake said they're a contradiction. So when Jake admits that in the way that it's formulated, it's not a contradiction that date was over, but you would like it because it's similar to what you're arguing.

When what Jake said was, yeah, but.

The Trinity has all this metaphysics, and the point was that, yeah, but I don't have to get into the metaphysics, because all I have to do is say that something can be three m be one and it's not a logical contradiction.

Yeah, because if somebody's position is it's a contradiction that it holds across every possible Yes, So there's a necessity.

But you don't have to get into the metaphysics which give the metaphysics.

That's that's why people misunder stand You're absolutely right. The irreduced by the consciousness arguments that were like, well that wouldn't happen, and it's like, well, that's the metaphysics. I don't have to actually get into the metaphysics of the universe to actually logically conceive of a situation that negates your position.

That's not a logical contradiction.

If if that's possible, you're saying it's in how do you refute somebody says it's impossible, Well, you either physically show it empirically, or you say it's logically possible. I conceived of it without contradicting myself, and so that that's what's happening in that debate too. Yeah, I definitely think argument with the Odyssey too, with the problem of evil. If somebody says it's impossible that an omniscient, on benevolent, omnipotent God exists and evil exists, all I have to

Exactly, And that's what the whole debate ended I being about, because once Jake conceded that with like within like thirty minutes of the debate, the debate was over. And then Jake shifted into try to argue the energies and all this metaphysics. So it's like, yeah, but the debate, Jake, if that was the case, you should have made the premise is the Trinity true? But he didn't accept the premise as the Trinity true? He said, is the Trinity logical? And that's where he made a fatal flaw. Just how

Yeah? Go ahead.

So another question she had that I couldn't totally answer very simply is she was like, why do why do we need to go through a class to you know, enter into the Orthodox Church? Another you know, her her whole mind frame is coming from a Protestant perspective.

You know.

What would be a simple answer to give.

I guess, well, because the Church has a lot of teachings that are from divine revelation. Divine revelation is you know, partly contained in the scriptures. But you know, the scriptures aren't organized as a book of catechisis.

The Bible is a liturgical book.

So you know, it's difficult to just catechize someone or teach them that theology from merely reading the scriptures.

It's not impossible.

But that's why the Church has typically had a period of time where you learn the theology of the Church from the Creed, which expresses, you know, the essence of the Christian beliefs. And then every catechism usually expounds upon the nice, you know, constant Apolitan Creed because that's the

I don't like this idea.

Well then maybe it's you know, maybe it's not the right thing for you because you're not in a position yet where you have the humility to submit to the teaching of the church. So there's a lot of different reasons why it's not an overnight thing. Although there could be situations out of the norm or that happens for most people, it's the wisdom.

Of the church as the side of that, it's it's better for people to take their time to go ahead.

I've had inquiries. It's a general problem that maybe we all have about oh this is so hard for me, you know, I'm you know, complaining about different struggles, et cetera. And I've told people, well, maybe you shouldn't become Orthodox cause tho struggles will get worse and Orthodoxy is not here to give you comfort, sensual and finite comforts, like it's here to give you a cross, because it's only through the cross that we acquire virtues and the resurrection.

So I kind of am upfront with people.

I'm like, I don't know what you think you're getting into, but like the struggles increase and it gets worse. And the whole project and prescription of Orthodoxy is to deny yourself.

So if you're in it for like I want what I want and you know I don't.

My life's miserable and blah blah blah, Like Orthodoxy is not going to make your life pleasurable.

It's gonna be really difficult.

And so I'm just upfront with people and yeah, it's a different you know, it's going to require humility, and it's not a system of It's not a system at all. It's like, well, here's the correct doctrine. It's a way of life, and it's a cross and.

Not Joel Ovaltine's self help prosperity Gospel.

Yeah, go ahead, Anthony, Am I coming through. Okay?

Yes?

Nice? Uh, it's really quick.

Two questions for Jay and one for other than nice. What is in your opinion, Jade? Is there any reason why, Like the more I talk to other Christians outside of the church, I noticed that like Unitarianism is prevalent in the United States, at least in my circles. Is there any reason for that since it's not it's not really that present outside of the States.

I think there's been a lot of heterodox movements that have been funded that push this. For example, all the Daily Wire funding. Just as an example is from these Texas billionaires who go to a Unitarian church. It's like a weird Unitarian Zionist thing, and so they push that through a lot of their outlets. You know, I just went on Jesse Lee Peterson thing the other day, and he has his own homemade church where he teaches Unitarianism. You know, a few years ago we were debating this

Ideology, and also the Internet, right, I mean, you had Owen Benjamin comes up with his and.

He's a lot of made up Internet people, don't.

Yeah, and then they have a following and presence online and more of that, you know, informations to seminate among public and people were dumb and not educated, and so they fall for for those things, not to mention that they're fanboys of different people. And so I think you get to just piercing and you get it with Owen Benjamin because it's the same thing with.

The Black Heber Israelites.

What's the other groups just the same as the Black HEBW Hebrew is Lights, uh, the Judaising groups, Hebrew Roots.

Yeah, thank you.

I think all of that in part comes from you know, these people pushing and adopting these things online. It just gets spread, same with the paganism, so that the Rabbi Green, Adam Green.

Exact, Yeah, gotcha much better than my guess is I appreciate that I'm proselytizing to uh Arian Hebrew roots friends. Speaking of that, and in the you guys are much more well read mentioned.

Gray is the Aryans?

Oh yeah, yeah, man, I'm so happy you talk with these guys. It's so cathartic, man, It's it's amazing. Is there any mentioned by that Postolic fathers or even the early Church? I mean they're less they're less prone to accept Early Church fathers. But do the Apostolic fathers mention any concepts of like the Jewish Binetarianism that you guys are aware of, or like the.

That's a really good question.

I don't know of a Church father that mentions Jewishitarianism, although some people might argue that that influenced justin Martyr's way that he describes the Father and the logos, because it's kind of like the way Philo.

Describes the two powers of heaven. So that's possibly a reference.

But I don't know about early Jewish Benitarianism or something like that other than what today's scholars talk about.

Gotcha, Okay, I'll make a note of that.

I appreciate its.

Father doing Sir as well.

I don't know if you noticed this, Jay, but I I tweeted something out about this a little while ago about how Evangelicals view other Christians and this kind of relates to every Middle War, every more than the Middle East we've had. But have you ever noticed that evangelicals they view Americans who are Orthodox in particular as less American than them, and they simultaneously view Middle Eastern you know, Arabs who are Orthodox Christians, they view them as like

Yeah, John, Karayoku brought it up to me and to Alex Jones when he was on with Alex because he said that when he taught at Liberty University, because he used to teach intelligence courses as well as being a CIO operative, he said that he could never get them to understand that that the original Christians are out of Syrian Antioch. So the original Christians are actually Arab converts at Syrian Antioch, right, because the people they're first called

Far.

Yeah.

And that's another just to point out something you've touched on before, because I think you spoke about this, is like, how could we ever have Christian nationalism in America when you know, the largest Protestant group that being you know, the broad group of Evangelicalism. Uh, they openly don't view Orthodox Christians as Christians. They kind of give lip service to Roman Catholics. But you know, there's no real coming to get out of these people, especially when they've just

Yeah.

Well, it's like Doug Wilson said the other day, if if his Christian nationalism comes about, you won't have any icons or images of Maria in public. So it's like, yeah, good luck with Christian nationalism with that loser.

All right, I'm gonna be I'm gonna play Devil's advocate right now. By the way, if you don't know that actually comes from Papism. They literally have courts with Devil's advocates to argue against canonization of saints. Yes, okay, suppose suppose I'm going to push back and say, well, maybe the problem is just the Doug Wilson evangelical But what if you if Christian nationalism simply meant that, in terms of immigration policies, you don't let non Christians come into the country.

I mean, I could see that being a possible, like alla branch, we would extend to them. But as soon as you point out to them that, hey, that means dual citizens from Israel, that means all non Christians, not just you know, Muslims, because they obviously Evangelicals don't want any Muslims here. But if you say that extends to all non Christians, that includes Jews, then they would just fight you tooth and nail over that, and that would be the end of that conversation entirely.

Yeh.

I got to the way to shut it down too, because I used to be amongst the Christian reconstructionist camp,

And so this is how idiotic this shit is.

Okay, you see what I'm saying, though, why not just get them to agree to Does that mean all versions of the Christian nationalism wouldn't work, or like, for example,

I mean again, I think that's a solid ALI branch to reach out to them. But then I think the other side of this is that, you know, the crazy prods from Doug Wilson to like your you know, your boomer evangelical the one thing they all agree on to the you know, to the death is Zionism, And like I said, they're just so intellectually captured by that. So you have Doug Wilson on one side, but then in the end you have all these other evangelicals that are

Stuff like that.

So they're on opposite spectrums of like things like immigration. As far as you know, they don't view legalized American citizens quote unquote as being part of the problem as well. But the one thing they agree on at the end of the day is Zionism, and that's like the anchor

We know it's a scam.

Well, look they all signed that that agreement, right James White. I don't I can't remember if Doug Wilson sunder or not. But all those evangelical coopers signed this big giant Zionists agreement.

Do you remember that?

Yeah, Well that's why I don't understand the argument we have that in right now. Like, so I don't understand what the difference would be.

Well again like but the problem is is that with if Zionism is your grounding foundational belief structure within all, within the majority of Protestantism, which it is, Unfortunately, at the end of the day, you're gonna do whatever the Zionists want, and Desigonists do not want a white Christian, you know, right, Erica, I see, Yeah.

That's a great point. There's the missing premise right there.

Yeah.

I mean, look at bebing At in Yahoo.

And people always forget this because every Trump thought, who is a massive, massive Zionists, always overlooks the fact that the largest outspoken person against Trump's Muslim ban. And if you guys remember that it was a Muslim ban, that wasn't Muslim ban, but was the person against it who has allowed us was being that Yahoo beaming nat Yahoo, you can find I think it's in herrets or it's in the Hill.

I can't remember which publication has it.

But he came out and said that he was totally against the Muslim ban, that Israel is an open, you know, diverse, egalitarian society, and we oppose such practices by the American government by that.

But he also said he wanted us to take all of the Muslims from Palestine, exactly.

And that's that's exactly why whether he wants to launch a bunch of wars, bomb a bunch of places and then force all the immigrants into America, at the end of the day, if you're an evangelical and your underlying principle is Zionism, then you're obviously going to be like, Okay, we're going to put immigration border security, trying to make our country, you know, more homogenized, safer, cleaner, and more Christian or and put that on the backburn and do whatever Debe tells us.

Yeah, exactly, And that's why they're stupid ass idiots, and that's.

Why they're the they're the reason why the countries collapse.

And they don't see it.

They're all stuck in this dark, deep pre list. And because they're in pre list, you can even point out to them. There's been a couple of people and write with media will I've said to them, hey, look up the term preless because I think you're in it right now, and you know, just crickets. They don't understand that they're you know, captured intellectually and and honestly, it's a problem with the heart.

They don't get that

Monkey outside sound, that a smile, what you're doing someth