The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
The theople do the.
The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
The the.
Bunt the bunting them do the the.
The the.
People don't do.
Don't do the.
The the.
The do.
Do do do.
The the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
The the the the.
The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the.
The the.
The people don't do. Don't do the.
The the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the the.
The the the.
The the the, the, the.
The, the, the, the.
The the.
The The.
People don't do the don't do the.
The the.
The the.
People do the Don't do the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
The, the.
The the The.
People don't do the bud the don't.
Do the.
The the the the.
People don't do the.
The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
The The.
People don't do thet don't do the the.
The the.
The the the.
The the the.
The the the.
The the.
The the.
The the the the the the.
The the.
The do.
All right? What's up? Hopefully everybody had a good time. Add to church, y'all go to church today anyway. Welcome to another open forum, another discussion. I've got all kinds of topics that we could discuss. We've also opened it up for people to call on any topic except tag. Not doing tag today, but anything else. You want to talk about, geopolitics, God, feminism, liberalism, libertarianism, men and women, dating, riz or Mojo, World War three, geopolitical texts like Tragian Hope,
like Jacquette Lee, like Moses Hess. What do you guys want to talk about? I'm open to discussing. I want to hear it's also some of your feedback. I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. I want you to correct me, put me in my place. I'm ready for you to defeat me. Show me how deficient my arguments are. A pitiful bitcoin crypto. You want to talk about that, Let's talk about it. Tell me about it. You a gold boomer, You want to set me straight? You a leprechaun. Give me me Gord, give me Gord,
give me me Spanish dooms. Are you a pirate? Are you a pirate, pirateeering, privateering a Spanish galleon? You're gonna set me straight about where the future is going back to pirate times? Are you a Muslim? You want to set me straight on the Islams? Well, guess what today's your day? Dog? Today is your day? Class warfare, prole drift. Have you heard of this? That's also on the table. I got some good videos that I saw on that. Let's start with Caleb since he was waiting yesterday crazy.
What's up?
Hey, j first till thank you for having me on It's Home to finally speak with you. I recently got into all your content about like.
Six seven months ago.
So I've been on my own journey of trying to, you know, find a church.
And I recently stumbled on to Orthodox Church challenge.
Just wondering if you could give me like some questions and some pointers on what I should be looking for to see if this church is like connected with the Deep State and things like that.
What kind of Orthodox church?
Uh, it's a antioch and Orthodox church.
Uh, that's probably the best that you're going to be able to find if that's what's near you. Yeah, there's only like three of them, and one of them old Greek.
So unless I pick up Greek real.
Soon, I'm going there.
I know it's probably your best bet. Usually they're they're better than everybody else for the most part. Ohio, what's up? Good question, though, Guys, what's up? You want to support the stream? You can do so in the super chat section they're through stream lands or natively through YouTube. What's up? Ohio? I'm you.
Can you hear me?
Yeah?
Just a quick comment on the state a very sad state of Catholic apologetics. I suppose you don't follow along with Michael Laughton and the True So they recently I just seccidentally saw this. They recently invited Jake the massive metaphysician and some the Orthodox Masim.
I don't know if you know him. He's like the biggest Orthodox Muslim I've seen that channel.
Libyano also called Lesbiano. Yeah, he's an absolute idiot, but he's like the biggest Moslim TikTok experience. So I just want to comment on how retarded reason and theology and cruiz when they literally invite people that you and doctor Bradshaw and others destroyed years ago to debate some very let's say, subpar opponents and give them a very large
platform to spread the radio idiotic interpretations. For example that with Biano, guy literally uses the Philippins passage and things that being in the form of God is the equivalent of being created in the image of God. So he says this is a proof that he's actually just a human.
Even though the passage says.
He says he.
In this form of God, he interpreted it so it says that it's just the image of God. So that's the proof of Islam in his opinion. So, yeah, the level of re tradition they spread and just wanted to find it's very funny that instead they hate you so much and your sphere so much.
That they, yeah, they'll bring on antirects people that you and your Yeah, they'll bring on anti Christ, and Islam is Antichrist. As first John says, if you don't confess the deity of the Sun, you're of the spirit of anti Christ. And now that's not surprising that Loughton would bring on Antichrist because Lofton is Antichrist. I mean Lofton is over here trying to sue other Roman Catholics from
making fun of him. So, I mean, no, I'm not surprised that that's the level to which they have sunk, because, as I said, we're at the point where anyone left in Roman Catholicism. It's just kind of sad. I mean, you know, there's no there's really no other indicators or things that could happen to make it clear unless you are just utterly obstinate grifting, tripling down, quadrupling down because
of sunken cost fallacy, all that kind of stuff. So you know, really really at the point when there's just no point in even interacting, it's time to move on. So yeah, next he'll have a net and yahoo on to explain Christianity to us. Boo caster, what's up, Jay?
Can you hear me?
Yeah?
So I knew that you were Cardinal were right, So that's interesting.
How do you observe Lent not doing that question today? So we're not asking personal questions about my diet. The way I get around it is that I pay a jysia to Dugan, who pays that to Putin, and I get a free pass. Caleb. What's up, hey, Jay?
I just got a question for absolutely divine simplicity.
So, if all of God's attributes in reality are not distinct, then how is it even possible to have a conceptual distinction? Like if all numbers were in reality like not distinct, then like, how is it even cohesive to come up with an idea of like a conceptual distinction?
They see, They'll just say that metaphysically, it has to be that way because any other approach makes God composite, which is itself a metaphysical assumption that's totally incoherent with the notion of a triad. But that's the very point, is that their system is inconsistent.
So okay, thank you very much.
Yep, But yeah, I think you raise a good point, which is essentially what Palamus raises in Dialogue with a Barley Mte. He says, really, you don't know what the attributes are. If it's all creative effects, then you don't even know that any of these attributes are matching up at all. So the result is atheism, correct, Patrick, what's a good question though, You're on the right track, gilt uh huh.
Yeah.
I just had a couple quick questions and then a comment. What's the exact reason that there's no more ecumenical councils is just because the faith has.
Fully been delivered or what's the exact reason.
Well, there's no economia or empire, which is where the councils came from. But after the ecumenical councils, there are still councils. So there's pan Orthodox synods that are accepted throughout the world, and there's the Palamite Synods which make
up the ninth Ecumenical Council. So there have been ecumenical councils after the seventh, but since that time, since the erupturing of the imperium and the collapse of Byzantium, really all you could have is pan Orthodox synods that for the most part have been received, such as you know, confession of dyscytheus or patriarchal and cyclical those kinds of
things are essentially the same type of thing. But even the Roman Calolic Church doesn't have any consistent means or method or explanation as to which ones are ecumenical councils. It's really arbitrary.
Yeah, thanks, And then the other question I had was I was kind of getting this debate with this Catholic, and he brought up Tertullian and how he opposed the Bishop of Rome for like handing out indulgences universally, and he was claiming that, oh, the Bishop of Rome was clearly already implementing universal authority during this time.
But I just wanted to hear what your perspective on that is.
I've never heard of anyone arguing that indulgences were happening this early. I think what you're referring to is the idea that there was a tradition in Rome that if you were a tradeatur or a person who had fallen during times of persecution, the debate the question was could you be restored? Could you be come back to communion? That is not an indulgence. So I don't know where
he's getting that idea. That's a quote painful indulgence. The same discussion occurs in the time of Saint Cyprian, and this is where we get the Novationists and eventually donates the different sects of the pure, the people who didn't fold in persecution. It wasn't just a tradition in Rome, but it was a tradition in Rome. But the fact that the Bishops of Rome upheld that tradition and were correct, does not prove universal jurisdiction or universal papal indulgences, and
indulgence is something very different. That's a temporal remission of the penalty, a remission of the temporal debt of sins, whereas in confession you have in the Roman Catholic system the eternal debt forgiven. So that's totally different from indulgences. But the fact that Tertullian opposed that, I mean you could just counter with the fact that Irenaeus opposed Pope Victor in his attempt at universal claims. So they just pick and choose.
Yeah, sounds about right.
And then a quick comment. I just think it's funny, like with Vatican too. It just creates this indefensible or impenetrable position with so much ambiguity. Eventually you're just going to get something so far from the original product which we see today with all the skittle stuff, Like I don't even know what it's going to be like in fifty years. I mean, it's already so far from what it quote unquote started as.
It's just yeah, well wait, Vatican three. Vatican three will be the next level. Yeah, all right, thank you. Yeah, great points to the person who is this Dawson person call in. Yeah, in our chat, people that disagree, we expect you to come and have the discussion. So it's not a chat for people to just spam whatever sector involved in great questions there whole appreciate that, Jr. What's up? And I would say, you know, Vatican two is not
just ambiguous. There's a lot of places where it is ambiguous. There's a lot of places where it's very clear what it means. So, uh, weaponized ambiguity is real, but it's also something that you know, Tim Gordon and people like that trot out as an excuse to be like, well, see you can still interpret it in a conservative way. No, actually, no stratate is not able to be interpreted in a conservative way. So weaponized ambiguity is only part of the picture.
It's half the story. The rest of it is where it's not ambiguous and it's very clear, John, what's up.
My only question to Hugh is what are you going to say to your lord when he asks you why you led men to be mongoloids?
Yeah, you need to say it in a gayer voice. And then I'll listen to you, because then I'll know that you're If you talk like this, I'll know you're pios.
So one I had two ideas about talking about something, but one thing, particularly in Tragedy and Hope, because I realized more and more, just like you're realizing that people things that mean you old times, we take for granted that people already knew. And one of the things that blew my mind in Tragedy and Hope back in the day was that the JP Morgan banker Thomas Lamont, was actually the head of the communist parties or in New
York City, right, And that's in Tragedy and Hope. So his name was Thomas H. Lamont, and he started the it was either the American Workers Party or the American Communist Party in New York City at the time. And so once again, like there's this idea, and it's funny that we do have to reiterate this from time to time, is that the communist movements are not movements of the
down trodden, especially in the modern times. There was a good point in a book I was reading on music years back, and it made the point because you know, Woody Guthrie was a communist too, and he was making music not for you know, he's writing about the dust Bowl, okis and whatnot, But he wasn't making music for the dust Bowl, okie. He was making music for the New
York bohemians. And so that's technically where people get lost is they don't realize that the that there's like a bohemian kind of like bourgeois aspect to Marxism and communism where it's kind of you know, it's it's got radical chic.
Yes, absolutely great point. I'm looking up that there's there's a significant section on Lamont starting around page chief. Evidence can be found in the files of the HUACT documents which show that Tom Lamont and his wife Flora and their son were sponsors of almost all left organizations and extreme left organizations and the Communist Party itself. Now, I don't think he says right here who that is. Let's see if he goes on to say this was a
large communist front organization. This was also basically all the unions unions are fake and gay and used other lamonts. He mentions, let's see the Institute for Pacific Relations also in other one of these front organizations pushing socialism and communism.
Yeah, that's a CFR type thing for the correct for the Asian countries.
Yes it is. I'm just trying to figure out, he says, this guy's pedigree. I'm not doubting you. I'm just I just wanted to find this, that's all.
Oh, you're talking about that he's a JP Morgan banker. Yes, yeah, it's it's in there.
Let's see forty five to forty seven. It might be, so he's in there quite a few times. Let's see nine thirty seven, because that's really powerful. In fact, that's even probably that might be worth putting on Twitter. Yeah, let's so you have to go back a few pages here and let's see. Yes, that's essentially what he's saying.
I don't see where he mentions Laman on this space, but he's basically saying that these wealthy Eastern Seaboard families, Payne Whitney, people at Harvard Morgan firm, Wall Street elites are intimately tied up in communism, right, not all of them, but many of them.
Yeah. Another little tidbit is that you know the CFR is at of Pratt House, right, and the Pratt family is George.
Schultz the former.
What was he like, secretary of state in Yeah, so he was one of the pre he was like a pratt and so his family, his family's building is where the CFR is housed. Just yes, that's another little interesting tidbit when because once again like the what was the what was the question yesterday where it was like do politicians actually run stuff? Yeah, it's like, okay, well they am.
So you have a secretary of state whose family literally donated that the building to where the CFR is and and that's how politicians are managed exactly.
Yeah, it's it's just for whatever reason, especially when you're trying to convey this to boomers, you cannot convey to convey to boomers that Marxism socialism is essentially a controlled dialectic. They just cannot get this. And then trying to convey to them that politicians have a very limited ability to run things and that they're subservient to these NGOs, think tanks and steering committees, that just seems to be an
insurmountable thing. I've never been able to convey that to outside of like Jim Jottras and you know, my godfather Dean Arnold all. You know, they were, and they're both pretty well read and they understand all this. But I think Jim. In Jim's case, his dad was the Moscow you know station at the Moscow Embassy throughout the Cold War, so he saw a lot of this kind of stuff up close, and so he understands all this stuff. But I think for most people this is just an insurmountable things.
Even a lot of the.
Even a lot of the boots on the ground people like the weather underground. They're all from wealthy Jewish.
Exactly, yes, and then when you bring this up, they're like, well, why would they before that they're against the rich. Yeah, Like that's the answer you get. It's like, why would David Rockefeller like Fabian socialism? He's a capitalist even though and you show him like the New York Times where David Rockefeller praises it, you know, socialism and Maoism. It's like, I don't believe that. I don't believe that.
There's another thing to.
Switchy topics real quick. I was going to ask you one thing, so, like with canvas Owens covering Charlie Kirk, thing, isn't that a weird development within conspiracy research to have like real time and analysis of a like big assassinate not only not only her, but like multiple peoples on the interwebs doing full skill and now like that didn't happen in the past.
You know what I mean, Well we did, Yeah. I think it's like a further development of the real time cameras in the heat of you know, Desert Storm, that was the first live televised twenty four hour war. I know, there were there were cameras at Vietnam and all that, but that was like the first time cameras were directly
live in the war. But then Desert Storm, and this was actually, if I remember in the Rank Corporation book, like it was intentionally you know, on the news channel twenty four seven as a first time experiment, and now that's twenty four to seven internet live coverage of developing.
I was thinking more along the lines of like a lot of times when stuff like you know, in the era that we've grown up in, you kind of would have to wait for a book on something to come out, or you'd have to wait for a documentary to kind of. But now everything's being like developed in real time as stuff is just coming in and it's almost like a one way it's almost like a because all you can really analyze is what's on the interwebs, right, And so
I thought that was an interesting development. I was just thinking about that as like we used to have to wait for documentaries on specific subjects or books to be written about subjects, but now it's all kind of happening in real time as things happen.
Yeah, and it's also annoying that. And I don't mind people questioning the events, but it's also annoying that people are seemingly coming up with their own creative stories to get clicks in traction, sort of inventing conspiracies in real time. I'm not saying that that's necessarily what Candice is doing, but I'm just saying, like Twitter, come now, it incentivizes you constructing a hot clickbait narrative, which I see a
lot of profiles doing. Like there's one of these big q tard profiles that does this where every event is like they just post like the most ridiculous version of whatever the event is and it gets like, I mean, it might be boded too, but it gets you know, hundreds of thousands millions of views. Don Luker he does that.
He just puts up like the most ridiculous shit. Also would add to I remember in the f lam Ingdall interview that I did, he says, I can't remember if he says that it's only mentioned once or it never comes up. But looking here at the page that mentions Thomas Lamont, this is page nine to fifty five, it actually mentions the Rockefellers in a very significant way here.
So I don't know if Ingdall was saying that quickly downplays the role of the Rockefellers, or if he says it's never mentioned, but they are mentioned in a significant way on page nine fifty five. By the way, Owen, what's up man, what's on your mind?
Hello?
Yeah, I have a question about.
Being a being a debater.
So I'm a second year philosophy student, second year catechum and hopefully going to be baptized soon enough here too. And and you've been debating for many, many years, and I have a desire to eventually get into, you know, formal debates about philosophy theology, and but my current gripe about it is not the debate's bad. Of course, debate I think is very good. But more so, do I have the personality for it? Do I have the skills for it?
You know?
How do I go into a debate without you know, getting too heated or frustrated when someone is hard headed and doesn't understand what I'm saying.
So I'm wondering what are some of.
Your advice, if if you have any as to moving into being a debater, especially as an orthodox Christian as some interested in philosophy.
Uh, how do how would I go about that?
How would I think about that? Given your experience?
I don't know how relevant that's going to be in higher education.
I know that.
University has been moving away from the idea of people being trained in rhetoric and debate because it's not amenable to socialism and socialization, which is the path that they chose a long time ago. So, as far as I'm aware, unless you're at a more elite sort of private school or something, debate has been frowned upon and is gradually going away. So I wouldn't think about that, Especially if
you're a heterosexual, white male. You're not going to be welcomed in academia anyway, so you might as well just not waste your time with that stuff. If you want to engage in doing debates on your own. You know, I would still learn philosophy and learn epistemology and learn basic fallacies and logic and all that, because you're not really going to be effective at debating without having those skills. I would listen to listen to all of Greg Boonnson's
debates many times over. That will help you to get fluent in it.
I would.
Also just do debates because there's really no way to be effective and get good at it. What'sout doing it a lot. Also doing it a lot helps you become a better speaker and communicator. When I look back on first internet debate I think I ever uploaded was like twenty twelve, and it was a debate with a guy from Facebook who was an evolutionary proponent. And although I've done many debates before that at university on campus, walking around in coffee shops, doing it in a recorded format,
it sounded terrible. I think it's I don't know, I don't remember if it's still online or not. I might have taken it down, but it's going to take you, as I think, as most people say, with any subject matter, ten years to get really good at something. So if you really wants to debate, you would have to be,
you know, pretty much doing it consistently. And however you want to try to set that up, you know, if you're new, I would say, you know, start making YouTube videos or Twitter spaces or discord spaces or discord voice chats or whatever and recording them. And this is what all the comedians have told me, by the way, which is ironically the same thing I would say about what you're trying to do. If you want to be good at debate and public speaking and all that, begin to
record what you do and listen back to it. It's going to get annoying, it's going to be pretty meticulous and monotonous. But then when you listen and listen back, try to focus on making your arguments and your points more and more concise. One thing I've noticed that a quality speaker and communicator has, and I still struggle with this. I'm not saying I'm perfect it, but I've gotten a lot better at it is not rambling, not getting to the point. Making the argument as clear and concise as
possible is essential to being a good communicator. A lot of people when they call in and I'm not faulting you, guys, because it takes many years and countless podcasts before you get to be I think, pretty effective at talking and communicating and then it becomes second nature. And the comedians, the stand ups that I've been talking to, they say the same thing, right, they say, you know, come up with a three to five minute set, record yourself doing it,
and then tweak it get better. It's the same for probably any public speaking form of art. You want to record it and get to where you tweak it and notice, oh, you know, I put in a bunch of and I still do. Everybody does that. It's very, very difficult to get rid of all your us It's just a significant challenge for anybody who does public speaking. So work on that. And those are the best things I could think of.
And if you really like doing it and get into it, you're just going to keep doing it, and that will itself be the way that you sort of iron out the kinks and get effective at it. And when it comes to people getting on your nerves, that's never going to stop, so you might as well get used to it.
There's never going to be this place where you reach this elite status and you only interact with other high minded, sophisticated philosophers, and the dialogue is very civil, and you're always going to have idiots and people that are dumb, and I think what you have to do is get used to that and try as best you can to have fun with it, especially if you're planning on becoming
a YouTube debater. But if you're thinking that you're going to go into academia and become some sort of respected debater, no, I don't even think that exists anymore, and especially not if you're a waiga. If you'd like to become a trans lesbian and become a Muslim and roll around in a wheelchair and identify as a transabled lesbian Muslim debater, you probably could be successful in the university racket. Jeff,
what's up. I'm a transabled lesbian Muslim public speaking debater and I charged fifty thousand dollars per minute to speak at your university. Yep, Hey, she was just.
Talking about debating.
I got into the debate because of you and just listening to tag arguments. I recently had a debate go Jimbob like reviewed it. It's called an atheist host loses his shit and it's really it's a really I mean, it's super funny, and that's what I was going to say. It's like a I'm kind of sad, but at the same time, I get why you don't do TAG because it becomes so repetitive.
Well it's not that I don't, I'm just not in the mood lately to do it. I'd like to talk about some other things. And when I start spending a lot of time talking about TAG, you know, hundreds of people leave and they don't understand the verbiage. It's like you're it's like you're describing, you know, the inner workings of the iPhone, you know, right, and people are just they tune out so well.
It becomes like a lecture and you're educating the other person. But I guess what I would say is like, like maybe if you just start more like having fun with it and just kind of teasing them, because like this guy's reaction, I wasn't.
Expecting at and it was I mean, it was like gold.
And when I started watching you, some of these atheist reactions can be some of the funniest, like and just be like the most entertaining because they really will argue and then at the end they're like, yeah, well I'm a chair. I'm an automan basically, and it's it's like, how are you talking to me?
You know what I mean.
That's usually how I'll start it.
I'm like, cool, so are you an automan?
Are you a chair?
They'll say no, of course not, and.
Then at the end of it they're like, well, I guess I guess you are.
You know what I mean.
So that's going to hang up because it's like when I don't talk to ottomans.
That's funny. Yeah, I mean I think also, debate nowadays is kind of entertainment, which I don't really care. I mean, you know, I can't really control it. So you know, classical formal Oxford style debates are not very prominent what we have, and I don't again, I'm not knocking it right. The bloodsports stuff is entertaining. It's fun. I'm happy to do it.
You know.
We did that with Tim Gordon on Timcast. We did that with Not So Erudite on whatever podcast. Those are blood sport debates and they're entertaining, but they're not real debates because I mean, anybody in a real debate setting where hit an actual moderator. I mean not so Erudit wouldn't even make it in the door like it. It would be like thrown out like a judge throws out
a court case or something. But yeah, I guess. I mean again, the thing is, I think for TAG it needs to kind of be its own topic because it just ends up dominating and it ends up being thirty forty minute explanations to people. And you know, we've done thousands of hours of TAG stuff, probably on the channel, and so it just gets old. I get tired of
the same debate. It's the same with the papos I mean, how many times do we have to debate the same old papacy stuff, the same old quote minds that have been addressed. I mean, I've been seeing the papacy quote mind stuff addressed all the way back to when Jerry Matditis and Greg Bonson debated the papacy in two thousand or nineteen ninety eight or whenever they have that debate, and the debate has progressed little to none since then. It's the same debate. Every one of these papecy debates
is the exact same debate. It's the exact same copy paste Catholic Answers stuff and the Catholic Answers copy paste shit. Is it's like the same probably the same web page since two thousand and three when I first first started looking into this topic, or two thousand and one, I should say, So you know, I'm over all that shit, Like if you find that interesting, then really you're just a nube to these topics. And you know, I'm not
shitting on you. If you if you want to go have that twenty plus year old debate, then.
Go do it.
Like I'm tired of it. I've been I've been there, done that, yeah, and I mean play It's just it's a weird time. Everything is kind of morphing into entertainment.
You know.
That's why I was happy to write and work with Ryan and everybody for sam Hide is like, if you want to reach the culture, that's sam Hi. Sam Hi is going to reach a lot more people than I don't know, some boring debate, bro right, Like debating is I mean outside of the entertainment aspect of it, Like nobody cares about that. So you know, if you want, if you're in serending the tag stuff, I mean there's a a I mean you could spend the next six months to a year in my archive listening and going
through tag stuff. So anyway, Jordan, what's up. Imagine if you were a guitar teacher and you know, people were wanting to learn, Oh, teach me the solo in the Cars song, teach me the solo from Metallica's whatever gay song that Metallica. Like, if you were a guitar teacher, you would be just sick of teaching this and you would be like, look, just go watch my video on how to play the solo from Inner Sandman or whatever.
I don't even know if it has the solo, but you know what I'm saying, it's just like please, that's you know, imagine it. Or imagine if your Metallica and all the fans want to hear the same dumb ass song and the same solo, and you're like, you know, I wrote a new riff. They're like, we don't want it, we want to hear innertandment wouldn't you get tired of the same thing over and over and over and over? But I guess that's just you know kind of how.
It is, like.
Musicians do get paired of that.
By the way, I.
Humans in general will be tired of the same same thing you're I mean your guitar, man, Like, what what do you find annoying about? Like I don't know if you teach anybody guitar or anything, but like, what what do you what do you find annoying about this? From your from A?
I think it's very similar. I think it's very similar to this realm is that there's like a lot of people don't take stuff like that seriously. Like music for most people is kind of like something you hear at the grocery store or you're in the car. But I think, I think what what people do get annoyed with? Which
is which? I think the difference here would be like like with you when you get upset or not upset, but annoyed with people asking about PSA, it's because they haven't put any effort into going back into the archives and finding it. They just say, oh, man, who argued for PSA on Twitter? I go ask questions instead of doing any research into the background of Hey, maybe I can go find the answer out for myself. That's probably
one aspect to it. And it's kind of similar with the with the music because I think musicians who get popular. They get annoyed that people don't look at their back catalogs.
They only like the hit song oh yeah, yeah, okay yeah.
And I think if you were teaching guitar too, you would you would sort of feel out whether the person was really that serious about guitar, right, they would, you know, they would be interested in learning more than I would play the solo from a kiss, you know, some some stupid kiss song, like you know, there's more to this than this solo or or say, in the in the domain of debating, like there's more to debating than figuring out a few linguistic tricks or traps, right, Like I
think when people first learn TAG, they think, oh, this is this cool trick I can use on everybody that I debates. And then you know you're going to eventually encounter a really intelligent atheist who's aware of transcendental arguments, and they're going to know where you're going and that that trick is not going to work, right, it's not. There's no tricks that are going to be able to prepare you for.
Uh.
You know, an atheist who is very familiar with David Hume and with Kant and with these other philosophers who will then bring in other challenges or other positions that you're not aware of when you say you're a new to philosophy and you know, probably something similar in guitar, where maybe you've learned all the you know, major chords and then you've begun to learn some of the you know, sophisticated solos or something I don't know, and then you think, oh,
I've got you know, I'm a guitar expert. Then you meet somebody who blows you away or something.
You know.
This is I think the arts in general are this way, and philosophy is one of the arts. But anyway, Jordan, what's up?
Yeah, it's so man, I just had like a quick, like quick question on Mary.
So I was reading through Saint John Damascus and Singer your Pala Moss. And when I read Singer at Paula Moss Homilies, it says that none of the gifts can be just stowed except your and that she's the she distills O guess well, it's angles with the men, and when I resent it on the masks as well, that she generates statement nature of Christ and gives them human attributes.
So could it be proper to say that since Mary cooperated with the with Christ, say humanity, can we say in the sense that she's a co redemptrics.
I just am hesitant to use the terminology that's popular amongst modern Roman Catholics. So it's not even a question of it's just a question of whether it's wise and profitable to use those kinds of terms. So it's the same with like transubstantiation. If you read the ex fonti bas translation of John Damascus, it uses the term transubstantiation. It's a Roman Catholic translation.
Is it wrong?
I mean, not necessarily, but it brings a lot of baggage that people just assume come with that terminology. Oh say John Damascus sentiations, that's all the medieval discussions packed into that urn. Well, not necessarily, So it's it's also a question of propriety beyond like can we use this word? Sometimes it's not wise to use a word, even if the word is okay. I'm trying to think of another example.
For example, I could say, in a limited sense, you know, you're saved by faith, okay, But a Protestant might hear that and be like, oh see that's faith alone, and you'll notice Protestants when they quote mind the Church Fathers, for example, they'll find a phrase where, oh, look, Saint Clement says you're saved by grace. See that's solo grassia. That's Reformation teaching. Well, that's not equivalent to a modern post Enlightenment post Reformation quote development read back into the
ancient world. So it's UNWHI sometimes to use loaded language, even if the language is technically not not wrong. Then what's up.
You there?
Yeah? Hello, what's on your mind?
Uh? A j S.
I have a question about evolution and how that's compatible with the Bible. Okay, So like, what's your view on it?
Uh?
I've dressed that many times. It's not compatible with the Bible, and it's not compatible with the Sex Secumentical Council, And evolution is a stupid worldview.
M hm.
And like, do you have any life evidence of the justification for evolution not being true?
Sure? Where is the proof of the evidence that one species transmutes into another species?
I mean that's microevolution over time?
No, No, that's the leap. See that's not justified by the fact that within one species or grouping there is a minor modification to suddenly the RNA prints an entirely different code to create a different creature. So that's the
thing that you just leaped to. That's not justified. Have you observed that, by the way, where was the empirical observation of Because there's flies in a jar that you looked at over a period of weeks or months, that suddenly, now that's going to give you cockroaches if you give it enough time. That's the illegitimate leap.
Just just can't clarify. I'm not atheist. I'm just asking from an atheistic perspective, because I get that a lot.
All right, So where is the empirical justification for that?
And I'm very sure I can say that, right, So.
When an atheist comes and gives me signific justification and evidence that they observed the very thing that's in question, the transmutation of species, then I'll listen to an atheist. Until then, it's literally just magical worldview ancient Hindu paganism, and it's literally identical to ancient Hinduism. Penguin, what's up? But thank you very question. I wasn't being rude to you. I'm just We've addressed this many times Penguin. What's up? Low energy?
Can I just had I had a question.
You've probably got this before me, you know sometimes, but what are your thoughts on the patriarch of Constantinople?
And have a whole podcasts on this, So guys go into the archives. I think that Bartholomew is a subject to the State Department and it's unfortunate. And Jim Jodtris wrote articles years ago about how he was probably bought off by MI some dollars. Could you have me some coffee? Thank you?
I'm getting the audience is saying it's low energy, very low energy, probably not very high energy, probably.
Not low energy.
What's up? Man, I'm trying to wake up. I can't even do my trump correctly. What's up? Theology? Person?
What's up?
I'm mute? Go you there? All right?
So first off, got a catechum in question.
Okay, guys, when you when you call in, ask your question. Don't tell me that you have a just ask the question. What's up? Go ahead? Are you there? I think we lost you. Can you hear me? Come out and come back in. I want to hear your question. There wasn't being rude to you, just gut it. So, Look, you don't have to do the whole I appreciate if you like the content, that's cool. Just go ahead and ask the question. And remember, when you're communicating, be concise, be clear,
be direct. You don't have to ramble. Just you know, make your statement, make your argument. If you want to say, hey, I want to give me about thirty seconds, give me a minute, give me five minutes. I'm going to make an argument. That's fine too, Carl, what's up?
Okay?
What's that?
Man?
Hi?
So could you please expand on the idea of God only entering creation through pure objects or beings. For example, Mary being full of grace, the burning bush of the arc of the Covenant.
I don't. I mean, the burning bush isn't a pure object. It's just a bush.
So what do you mean pure purifying being that it was burning but not consumed. This is where I'm kind of confused about it.
Why is that?
So? I guess it comes more into.
More questions about the trinity, because if God can.
Only enter creation through pure objects.
Or beings, I'm not sure what you keep saying pure objects for beings?
I don't.
I don't even think that's necessarily the case. God can enter creation anywhere at any time. I mean, it's not like it's not like the dirt in Israel was cleaner than the dirt in China. So you talking about morally pure, I mean he entered into the Theotokis in a special way because he intended to be born from her, and thus he purified her by his grace. So there's different senses in which God is present, in which he comes
into creation. But there's nothing about bushes or trees that makes it somehow magically better than other bushes and trees, other than the divine presence itself.
Okay, I have one other question, and that I attend an ocaight Greek Orthodox parish, and I've noticed on the OCA website that the person that Joshua meets before the Battle Jericho is claimed to be Saint Michael, but on the go Arch website it's the pre and current of Jesus. So I'm just wondering why there's a discrepancy there.
Right, Well, not everybody in the Orthodox world is very proficient in theology. Some people are not, and so they see the word angel, and like many Protestants or many other people, they think it just means an angel like Michael,
but the word angel just means a messenger. Also, though, there's many places in the Old Testament when God is present and the angels are too, So for example, in Ezekiel one and Ezekiel ten or at Mount Sinai, there's passages to talk about angels being present and other passions to talk about the divine Son or the One like the Glory of the Father, et cetera, being present. So it's a both. And anytime Christ is present, the hosts of the Lord, the Lord of Savio are also president,
so both things are true. We can't hear you your roboting and what's a right wing go ahead? I'm you, Hey, I just had a question.
I was I was talking to somebody about the phrase Judeo Christian. They're they were a Baptist, and I was making the claim that the root idea is hypocritical because of dispensationalism, and uh, they're come back to me, which they just kept saying that it was more of a moral argument, talking about, you know, the Ten Commandments, a cultural thing. And then I when when I asked them who they thought Israel was. Do they think Israel current Israel.
Is the Church?
They didn't agree, so down that line of question, and how could I bring them back to to understand the hypocrisy of the actual dispensational argument itself.
Well, I mean, I have a whole four hour talking dispensationalism that I recently shared that you can find on my clips channel or on Jimbob's channel. You can point out Galatians six sixteen. You can point out Galatians three and four is very clear that the Church is Israel Peter and one. Peter two says you are a holy nation, chosen people, applying all the statements of Israel to the Church. Jesus says in Matthew twenty one that the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a
nation producing the frust thereof. So the Kingdom of God, which is the Church coorne of Matthew sixteen, is not Israel in a flesh sense. It's the Church again Galatians four. Troy, what's up, Jay?
I've got a follow up question after this first question. Since you're understanding that dispensationalists believe that the non believing gentiles during the rack or the racker go to Hell, the believing gentiles go to Heaven and all the Jews get basically multiple chances to believe and accept Jesus until they all go to heaven.
I mean, there's not one set dispensationalism. There's many different dismensationalist positions. So I'm sure you could find some dispensationals who thinks that even all the Jews automatically are saved, but maybe they don't go to heaven they live in any earthly kingdom. I mean, there's all kinds of retarded positions. So I don't know how even to answer your question.
Yes, I'll give you the That's what my uncle, who is a Pentecostal pastor, that's what he explained to me how he.
Believes which one.
So I went to.
That all Jews will remain on earth until they accept Jesus and then go into Heaven.
So they basically I've heard some of them say that, right, yeah, yeah.
So I went through this questioning with him, like, so, how could you be a Christian and ever feel comfortable converting a jud degree Christanity knowing that you could possibly be damning them if.
They become a Christian?
Ye?
Yeah, And after all this explaining and everything, they still I've got this is a huge problem for me because like I have a big family, and I can count the number of Pentecostal pastors they believe in this bull crap.
Yeah, there's more of them than I.
Have fears and toes, and you just at the end of every discussion, they still somehow convince themselves and it's just beyond me.
Yeah, you know, it's just a lot of these positions people have emotional attachments to them. They have you know, they feel like when they came to this position, they were really making headway and they really figured everything out, and so there's this attachment that you know, I can't let that go because you know, that would just shake
the paradigm. And even I think Jordan Peterson had a good talk about this about paradigms and what happens when we have a paradigm shakeup, and he says it's like a death. He says that the actual psychosomatic responses that people have when their paradigm collapses is like a small death, and there's a process that you have to go through
because you know, nobody wants to die. And so when we have that collapse of a worldview, there's certain emotional and psychological processes that were forced into that are difficult tough.
You know.
For example, when my best friend from high school died a few months ago and we buried him, like the day that I learned of that, and the next day I was was empty. I felt deflated, empty, and there was nothing I could do to control that feeling. You just automatically get the feeling and there's nothing you can do too. I mean, you can pray and you can you can deal with it, but like you can't make
that go like I will this to go away. Right, So, in the same way, when people's worldviews collapse, there's a similar death process or death like process. And I think Peterson was correct when he makes that point. So I think when when we when we look at ruman caffolicts that get so upset and they lash out, or the Pentecostals that we try to talk to, or the dispensationalists when we try to reason with them.
And.
We've all we're all that way. This is just what happens to humans. Humans aren't the way that Enlightenment philosophers think they you know, enlighten the philosophers are like, oh, we are blank slates, that are you know ultimately purely rational beings that will just make the rational correct choice on the basis of stocking up the evidences. And no, when you read you know C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, the whole one of the main points of part three
is that we're not that way. We don't actually follow the evidence. In fact, we lie about and hide evidences so that we can confirm our biases. That's the whole point of the character Mark in the book, which is a refutation by the way of evidentialism. So I tried to tell Trent Horne, like, have you not read Space Trilogy? Do not understand C. S. Lewis's point with the character
of Mark. By the way, I wanted to remind you guys, as I was reading Hagai the other day, I didn't even like, I just realized this reading this because I was listening to these podcasts about inflation and bitcoin and you know, Fabianism and Keynesianism, and I noticed that when God says this in verse five and six here, so it's kind of the the rebuke here is applicable to a lot of the people who put politics above you
getting right with God or something like that. Right this chapter is actually about that, because the Israelites are putting all their political concerns first political alliances and dynasty alliances and this and that, and God is saying, you've neglected the actual house of God. Right, So if you look at verse three, the word of the Lord came by Hagai saying it is time? Is it time for you to dwell in paneled houses and this temple to lie
in ruins. They're concerned with their own house building and all that. Right, consider your ways. You sew a lot, but you bring in little. So in other words, Israel is experiencing economic decline. You eat, but you don't have enough. You drink but you're fulfilled. You clothe yourself, but no one is warm. He that earns wages earns wages to put in a bag with holes. That's inflation. So Israel's experiencing economic collapse and decline, which is tied to their
moral and spiritual decline. And I've never even.
Noticed that hat guy talks about this. By the way, anyway, I thought that was interesting.
Thank you. So hot guy is saying, by Dicklin, laplace, laplace. By the way, I'm not here to be preacher today. I'm not a preacher. Friends hat guys telling us to buy that going what's up on you and mine? I'm you doll, Hag I won six and seven? Or excuse me, Hag, I won six here, Yes, sir, awesome.
Thanks.
I just got a quick question.
I've been dealing with a family member that's been kind of like a long time Sabbatarian, so the Adventist, and I think they come from a good place, like they read the Bible, and they just don't see anything clear in the New Testament to them that makes them think that the way in which we keep the Sabbath has changed.
You know, they kind of default back to the job no John and tittle of this will change.
And I think they just they just are unable to see any.
Clear passages that allow them to make the jumps, so they don't.
I was curious.
I know you've touched on this a few times historically, but was curious.
If you could just give kind of like an in depth breakdown of your view.
All right, So the Book of Hebrews is addressing this specifically. Hebrews four one through eight is about not just the way in which we keep the Sabbath, but the entire meaning of the Sabbath, and all Judaizers end up being retrograde in their understanding of theology, and that the things that were typological that have been fulfilled the reality has come. Oh no, we got to go back to the type now, even though the reality is here. The whole point of
Hebrews is that the rest has come. And this is something when I was Protestant I didn't understand until the other day. I was actually in the Orthodox liturgy, actually I think it was it was Holy Weak, and I never noticed that the fulfillment of the Sabbath is Christ laying in the tomb. That rest is the rest that fulfills the Jewish seventh day Sabbath. So and by the way, in the Orthodox Church, if you go to the Saturday Vesper's service, we do still honor the seventh day Sabbath.
So it's not the case that we don't honor the seventh day Sabbath. We do, but we give greater honor to the eternal rest which has come in the resurrection of Christ. And thus his resting in the tomb fulfilled that rest. So the rest that he brought is the rest of eternal rest. And that's why John in the Book of Revelation when he sees into heaven and he's doing the liturgy. If you read Revelation five through nine, he is seeing the heavenly liturgical service happening. That same
service is what he's performing on earth. That's why he says, I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day. The Lord's Day is not the seventh day Jewish Sabbath. The Lord's Day is the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection, and that's the day that we do the liturgy via Revelation five through eight, and no seven day. I've been just understands any of that because they're a judaizing sect. Layman, what's up?
Hello?
Yeah, there, I just wanted to thank you very much for all the helpful informations.
And I won't keep you very long, but it's really loud background. So what's your question.
Oh sorry, let me know if this is better.
Okay.
I didn't really have a question.
I just wanted to get your thoughts on the idea of forgiveness of the murder of a family member. So yeah, we addressed that actually the other day in livestream. So as for the again, and I said there's no discrepancy between the notion of public divine justice or social justice. I don't mean social justice warrior stuff. I mean social justice in the sense that Jesus didn't come to do away with judges, penal sanctions and the death penalty. In fact,
Romans thirteen teaches the death penalty. The church has the Church fathers almost unanimously do teach the death penalty. There's a few outlawers, but the majority opinion in what becomes the norm in Christian kingdoms and nations in the imperium is at least banishment and in some cases death penalty. So there's no discrepancy between a public ordained role of the state exercising the death penalty, which was given to Noah. By the way, it didn't It wasn't something that's only
part of mosaic, the Mosaic administration. It's actually given to Noah to exact the death penalty. So the forgiveness aspect is as Father Deacon and I's pointed out you as an individual being freed, that's for your good, so that you are not imprisoned to resentment and hatred. So the individual can forgive, and there is an external aspect of justice meted out by the state, and that is classic Christian teaching. There's absolutely nothing pacifist or Tolstoyism, none of that.
That's all heresy. And by the way, I don't know where all these people get the idea. I guess just out of evangelicalism and whatever that Christianity is like Tolstoy stuff. No, it's not. In fact, he was a heretic in his own time. George, what's up?
Jay?
What up?
Man? What's on your mind?
Hey? Big Floyd here.
I just want to say thank you for responding to that super chat, that twenty dollars super.
Chat of you blessing the fin Reactor. I feel blessed already.
Mane and.
This is our good buddy, George Broyd.
I can not only have participat in great LYND, I still be having.
Great fin absolutely yes. And if you can't make it too great Lent, you can all participate in great fent. So shout out to George Droyd. What's up, Nick? I'm mute. Guys want to support the stream, you can do so through super chats, through stream lives, or through YouTube natively. What's up, Nick?
Yeah?
What's up?
Can I make an argument for believing that climate change is real through like Christian anthropology?
I guess you can, but I'm already laughing at it. It sounds proposal. I. You can make fun of me all you like, but I'm actually to.
Drop this view if it just seems stupid.
I know you have like an epistemological like method objection to believing.
What the scientific consensus so called?
But why are you basically because yeah, it's not actually a real consensus.
It's fallacious, right, Do.
You believe that? Or you just saying that?
No, I do believe that.
Okay, that's not my basis for believing in climate change. It's most like, you know, technological domination whatever.
Moving on, I guess I'm serious. What's up? What's up? All right? That person? The person can't connect omar, what's up? Omar? What's up? Appreciate you guys in the chat. You know, I think the hardest thing for if you're a night out, that's the hardest part of orthodoxy because I'm tired as hell, dude. Because I'm a night out, I can't like for me getting up in the morning is an ascetic endeavor, dude.
So we had the elevation of the Cross today. So I'm just kind of like out of it and Nick, what's up?
Yo?
Yo?
So I got a question is with regarding communion. So for a Protestant, if somebody says, like, no, I've always looked at the bread and the body as a body, and then you know, the juice or whatever.
The wine is the blood.
And if they say it's the same thing as.
The Orthodox side of things, how do you compare the difference.
No, just because you want it to be the real presence doesn't make it. So you have to have a person who has the authority to do the liturgy by an Orthodox bishop. So it's not just a question of do you, as an individual Protestant consider yourself open to quote the real presence, even though many Protestants kind of go through that phase or they want more of a high Church, you know, setting I went through that when
I was Protestant Calvinists. I moved from Baptist to you know, Calvin's spiritual presence, and then I moved towards more of an Anglican mystical presence, and then I moved towards No, Actually, I think it's the real presence. So I get people's individual movement, but what's missing is okay, but who has the authority and the ability to actually consecrate it. It's not just your vantage point as to how you view it. There's also well, who has the authority to actually do this?
And not everybody has that authority. Jesus set up a church, hence the authority. Jonas, what's up? I mean otherwise if there was no required authority, then any Baptist who believes in the Real Presidence or anybody who you could be, I guess anything. Oh, I'm going to do it in my basement now. And a lot of Protestants actually do this. Oh yeah, I'm going to consecrate the Eucharist with you know, crackers and Welch's grape juice in my basement, start a
real Presidence church. And I'm not joking. Actually some Protestants do this, like they move towards thinking that, Oh, I believe in the real Presidence. So now we're going to have the real Presence in my basement at my strip Mall church. Jonas, what's up?
Yeah?
Just a little thank you Before I asked my question. I had a very productive conversation with my.
Brother today just like to thank you for having going some in depth with the Jung and Junion archetypes and fight psychology, because I uh, I think all delve into then try to understand better in hopes of winning my brother or which are Orthodoxy. So yeah, and uh, so we all know in the West western world of Europe, with the declining birth rate, what do you think will happen?
Do you think Europe will sort of wake up before the clients to a point where we can't sustain the continent with enough people, or do you think that will just go extinct with the next two hundred two hundred years, because I've heard people talk about, oh, in like two hundred two and fifty years, we won't have enough people.
Whether they'll be just like too many Muslims or the think is sort of yeah.
I mean, I don't know what you think. I don't know what's going to happen, because that is the plan. I mean, you can read Count Kutenhov's book right here, uh practical Idea, and he says multiple times what the plan is, so it is real. It's a real plan. I would tend to think that really the only hope for any of this is going to be solid Orthodox Christianity, and it is growing in Europe. I'm sure that as it grows, they will be persecuted as we will in
this country at some point. But yeah, I guess it just depends on that because Jail Ferrara, what's up, Miguel Ferrara? What's up? All right? Hey, what's up? What's on your mind?
Yeah?
So I'm just wondering any contentions you might have with a position that's derived from the Geechee Manitou and it loses philosophy. What the guichee Manitou?
I don't know what that is.
It's a Native American folklore alonquin Okay. So it's basically gonna be deriving the belief that the world exists on it turtles back right, like just metaphorically right, okay, And we're gonna be deriving this as just sort of rejection of the imposed structures of you know, religion onto the individual.
Do you have any contentions with this? Yes? Uh, it's dumb. He's gonna have fun clipping that like Native American apologetics, refuge dire Steven, what's up? Hey? Hey, the FBOI man went on a long journey. Taylor five dollars thank you so much, Semiot. Five dollars. I know this is the way of talking. I want to ask your opinion about
Charles Whitman, whether he was a Manchurian candidate. I know Dave mcgawan has a chapter on which is interesting, and I've read some other books that discussed the odd aspects, you know, with his military background and all that, and I think it's one of the first famous, you know, serial killer cases. I have no idea what was really going on, if he was you know, triggered and trained or you know, I don't know, but nothing would surprise me.
Apeniny five pounds. Kiri Starmer said, let me spell this out. If you want to work in the United Kingdom, you will not unless you have a digital idea. Is this technocracy? Yeah, I mean we've been talking about Fabian socialism and technocracy for many, many years, so absolutely, Marcos ten dollars. I literally came on while you explained Sabbath keeping. Is that a sign? I'm just kidding. Still based, I'm persuaded Orthodox. I'm gonna go to ro Corps. God bless you. Well
that's good, Marcos. Hope you find a good church. Boreal thirteen dollars. Can you please make a video on full of preterism? I think I have multiple clips, channels have made videos on this. Steven, what's up?
Okay?
What's going on?
Jay?
I wanted to ask a quick geopolitics question, if that's okay. So I feel like, regardless of how this Ukraine war is going to end, the power structure in Europe is going to look very different.
It seems like the globalist leaders.
Like McCrone and Starmer are.
Hopefully going to be removed.
And I can't especially if if the war goes the way most people think it is with Russia winning, I can't imagine NATO is gonna stick around much longer, or if they do, I'm sure they're going to look different. So my question is like, what what do you what are your thoughts on this? Are globalists kind of do you think that they might lose their grip on power or is it going to get worse?
What do you think again? When you say lose their grip on power, I don't really see that. I do see people waking up to it, but I don't see them losing power per se, except maybe in some limited, mid level minion ways. Right, And I forgot to mention we do have the indicting of Komy, which is kind of surprising, not because this doesn't been to KQ because of course all the q TRD stuff was like next week,
two weeks from now, get ready for the indictments. Of course, we know, you know this is not going to be Hillary or Bill, right, So I think some mid level minion like a Komy. They don't have a problem burning this person. So I've forgot to play this clip here.
It has a long history of misleading Congress. Komy falls into that. But the evidence against Komi tonight comes from the FBI, and it's new director Cash Ptel, who promised radical transparency, and he actually provides the key piece of evidence that leads to this indictment. If you're a member of Congress and you've been tired of lying being lied to by the FBI, tonight's the first time the FBI actually did something about it. They turned in their own
man tonight. I think that's an extraordinary part of this story.
The Komi indictment will showcase the worst abuses against the Republic in DOJ history. As the rotting inertia causes the dominoes to fall in the hallowed halls of the District of Corruption, even as new bombshell information reveals that a recent disclosure by the FBI to Congress verified that two hundred and seventy five FBI agents were in the crowd on January sixth, far more than the Measley twenty six informants that Inspector General Horowitz had been notified of.
So you noticed that this is more of a systemic problem. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't do this or that it's not good to see some of the mid level minions, but I mean a FBI directors come and go, who cares like I mean, I'm not saying I'm glad that justice is occurring, but I mean these people are like saying, burn down the country, take out the president. I mean, they say crazy stuff. And you know, they should have all been immediately arrested because all that stuff
is like treason legally, it's all on the books. But the corruption is so entrenched that even anybody trying to do something is very very limited I think, and I think you know you see that with the intentional covering up of Epstein stuff. We all see that. We all know that. So I don't really I don't really see the deep state quote unquote losing power until people figure out.
And the reason people don't figure it out. I still blame normally conservatives because they're the gatekeepers and the dumb dums that always, like at Walsh did not too long ago. I don't understand the conspiracy through USTs talking about Bob But it's like, dude, you're the problem. You're the one that makes everybody think it's the Libs. Let's drink the tears of the Libs and vote out the scoundrels. When
are we gonna understand? As pages ninety five to forty eight in this book point out that the steering committees, the n g os, the think tanks, right, that's the real power. Uh, they have a lot more power than James Coomy. And James Comy comes and goes. And when we get our next fake Lib president, uh, they're going to hell a point some creeper lib again to the FBI, and we'll have a whole new uh slate of scandals. And then everybody like, well, we would go put him
both winded indictments is coming. Wind indictments is coming. Then we'll get indictments one day and then but it will already be there, already be a new crap, a new crop up scoundrels, and everybody will forgotten the scoundrel from ten years ago. So, uh, nothing is gonna change until we figure out that right wing gatekeepers are retards and they are either complicit or just ignorant. And when are we going to figure out all these steering committees, thing tanks, foundations, NGOs?
I mean again, I like that Jdvents said it's time to uproot the NGOs and the Soros networks. Oh yeah, but I mean we're like ten, fifteen, twenty years too late, dude, Like we should have been saying that twenty years ago. I don't know why you're thumbing down, Like, what's your problem? I'm you, hey, Jade, Yeah.
Can you hear me?
All right? Good?
Uh So I just graduated from the College of the Apostles mm hmm, and I'm reading through the Book of Theology mm hmm. So don't don't try to.
It was really funny, Daniel, what's up?
Uh?
I'm well aware that JD. Vance is connected of here too. Did you not even listen to what I said? I don't like all you Midwites man that just have to chime in about.
Uh.
Actually, JD. Leads is a lot of good person to let me tell you about being I knew this, dude. What I said was what I was trying to say was that, yeah, thank you for mentioning Soros NNGO networks. Why didn't Trump talk about this in twenty sixteen? Remember when Trump was like, now, don't talk about so Roachie's not a bad guy, I know, George. And now Trump's like, you go to dinner with these people and they're funding all of these networks.
You're like, wildish guy, Why is he funding this horrible, horrible network?
It's like, come on, dude. My point is that this is all way too late. We should have been this should have been happening like fifteen twenty years ago. Well why isn't it Because people wouldn't listen when you talked about this fifteen twenty years ago, and they called you conspiracy theorists and called you all these names. And now they still call you all the same names even though you've been right about all of it. What's up, man, Daniel? Mute?
Hey? Can you hear me?
Yep? How you doing?
Brother?
Good? Uh?
So I don't think Santa Andrews Wilson's and he's kind of got me interested in averting to Orthodoxy. But I grew up like small rural town in Mississippi, and I've been to the same.
Church of Christ my entire life.
But then everybody it's not a Church of Christ that I know, says it's a cult. And I don't know what kind of culture shock I'm going to be in for with the difference.
Between those two. Wait, they say, what's a cult Church of Christ? I mean it can be cult like, yeah, I mean, I mean.
It's always been like, you know, we go, we have like three songs.
Of prayers, he preaches for like twenty minutes, and some.
Of the beliefs, not the I mean, I've been, I grew up with Church Christ people. I'm familiar. I've been many times. But what I'm saying is like the idea that all the churches failed and you're the restoration church. I mean, it's called the Restorationist movement. I think that's the aspect that's quote cult like. But I don't think you're going to find I mean, or they're always going
to be very different. But I don't think you're going to find it anything cult like or I mean, you know, Restorationism, Campbellism, that's a derivative of older Baptist theology. So it's gonna be very different. I would say you could watch something like Fountain of Immortality, which is a brief documentary which kind of explains the liturgy when you go to the Orthodox Church. It's gonna be very different than Church or Christ. But yeah, you just have to go taste and experience yourself. Yeah,
what's up? Man? What atlas? What's up? Your emojiing? Like crazy? What's your problem? Talk? So you just wanted to do emojis and not talk? Okay, you don't know how to unmute?
Man?
What's going on with people?
Don't say?
Are you there?
All right?
This is.
Not a sane person death. What's up?
Hey?
Jay? What up?
Yeah?
I got a quick and unique, outlandish question for you, and that is on the topic of humor in Orthodoxy.
And I was just curious if you know any sources of.
How humor should be applied in Orthodoxy, for like, for example, like.
Like what's too far?
Like where do you draw the line? Obviously, things of a sexual nature and blasphemist that's off the table. But what about going is so far as like George Troy Memes, et cetera, or stuff.
Like that, like that guy that called earlier good question. I'm not sure of anything that actually expelicially deals with this. I mean, even Ezekiel kind of makes dirty jokes, so I don't even think that necessarily even every quote dirty joke is off the table. I think it's more a question of what proprie right, So the right place, at the right time, right, so you know, you're walking into
the to the divine temple to do divine liturgy. You're not going to make dirty jokes or really jokes, right, I mean every time that you know, Father Vladimir makes wise cracks after the service. But yes, I think it's more so a question of propriety than like what's proper and what's right at the right time, the right place versus some absolutist, weird you know, puritanical type positions. Your no, what's up? But that's a great question, your know what's up?
Hello?
Yeah?
Can you hear me?
Yeah?
So I grew up Ruben Catholic, but I am inquiring orthodoxy after watching your debate with.
Horn and Gordon and I am leaning to more.
Towards Orthodoxy for what I consider it to be truth. However, it's hard for.
Me to make that switch knowing my whole lineage has been Catholics and my family and friends are And is it wrong to appeal to this kind of I don't know.
Emotion well, I think it's natural, but I don't think it's a good reason to pick a religion. I mean, imagine your whole lineage is Buddhist and then Christianity is introduced, and you know, would you say, well, you know, don't convert because everybody's a Buddhist in your country, right. I mean, it's just it's not ultimately a significant enough reason to
not convert to religion. So, and I feel you because I understand Catholic attitudes on this, So many Roman Catholics will, ultimately if it end up saying something like I just can't let go of like my family, family eat tradition, you know what I mean. But if you read the New Testament, does does it sound like Jesus is cool with that or does he say, you know, you have to choose me over family, tradition, et cetera. So I feel like we're going to get the climate change guy
again under his alt profiles. What's up, man, I'm mute. Yeah, oh yeah.
I was just looking for like any sort of papers or information on why the essence entergy distinction doesn't lead to like I can posite God.
I'm just looking for that does the trinity lead to composition?
No, I'm just looking for like you posted a paper once. I'm going to read your channels under.
It was probably David Bradshaw's papers on essence energy what kind of distinction which is in his book Essence and Energies. All right, thank you? Ye John? What's up man? Della?
Yeah, I heard you earlier talking about paradigm breaking. I would kind of like it's like a mini death. But I was curious, but your thoughts were on like the Candess owens she's like fully taking the Skitzo pill kind of.
I'm like, I want to know what you think of that about what do you mean exactly by her taking it?
She's like posting on Twitter. There's like the shooter is not really the dude, he's like innocent and stuff. I mean, is there any credence to this? Do you think she's like fully going insane?
Like I don't. I don't keep up with a lot of her theories and whatnot, so I don't know like what the latest position is that she has. So I don't think it's fine to ask. I think it's fine to ask questions. But also I think that like choosing certain things like the sexuality of my Crohn's wife and then just sort of like hammering at that, it's just odd to me. It's like I don't care to be honest. Yeah, like maybe that's just a way to get you know,
you know, audience and attention all that. I say, what, Oh, yeah, I mean I think a lot of times in these high profile events, which you know, I've been looking at high profile events since two thousand and three, a lot of times you you'll you'll never solve all the high profile event questions. And I think sometimes they even throw
in confusing details and distractions to confuse on purpose. Usually when there's some sort of high profile operation that's part of the operation is to throw in confusion to lead people off the trail. And I'm not saying Candae isn't necessarily doing it. I'm saying that when you've studied these these events for many, many years, you you kind of come to the conclusion as I have, that a lot
of these are never going to be resolved. You're never going to figure out, oh, exactly what this guy was doing at nine to eleven that day in the tower, and when did he come out, and when did he give the you know in review to the reporters, and was he an actor formerly in this and name like, you'll never figure out all the rabbit trails and the loose ends. I'm not saying you can't question the events or that I believe the official stories. Far from it.
I'm a skeptic on all these events, but I think that a lot of the loosens are never going to be resolved on purpose, And so what I try to focus on is the big picture and the things that
are demonstrable and noble and where the big picture points. So, like I was perusing some of the conspiracy websites in the last few days, some of the old school ones, and it's just an infinite rabbit hole of even contradictory theories about No, it was this guy over here with a palm pistol gun who really didn't know is actually a person in a tunnel underground shooting up from below. No, it was Actually, it's like there is infinite theorizing and
it's ultimately it doesn't lead anywhere. So again, I'm a person twenty plus years into conspiracy theories, and maybe there is somebody who has the full story. But remember after the Big nine event, you had infinity debates about nanothermite and then you had no But did you read the NIST report and the response of the this report and the geological research of the tectonic plate movements and the speed at which the and it's like, who in the
hell knows any of the shit? Nobody? So I mean, I can't get at PhD in tectonics and geology to go and remember after the koof do you have a degree in viral and viruses are fake? And also do you have it? You know, it's like there's infinity, but no, you don't understand the principles of nanotechnology and their actual
nano thermiographing bobble. It's like, I don't, I can't. It's humanly impossible to get a PhD in every one of these freaking subjects, to master all of them, to figure out every loose end of all of the conspiracies, and you never will and you. It's that way on purpose. So I am not saying there are no conspiracies. There are all the time. Conspiracies. In fact, espionage is big
nation state corporate skill. Conspiracy, conspiracizing and conspiring conspiracies are a criminal thing in the code or criminal code, right, So of course there are conspiracies. But a lot of people are going wild on Twitter trying to deconstruct every frame and angle and whatever of the shooter and this and that clip, and it's just I just don't see where it's going to go. So we focus on the big picture, the meta, the zoomed out, because that's really
the best that I could do. But you know, if people are like ballistics, I mean, I've heard in the last several weeks like five different interviews with five ballistic experts telling everyone about what bullets can and can't. How am I supposed to know? Do I have to go get a ballistics degree to figure out, Oh it's this guy of the five ballistics. It's just not possible. So
I don't know what the answer is. I would just say I focus on the big scale picture of the books, what they admit in the books, and I can't get a degree in fricking plate tectonics to tell you whether nano thermite did what blanco? What's up? Hey, Jay? What's up?
Uh?
Plate tectonics and nanothermite, and whether or not I can build an instrument that registers the shake from nano thermitte explosions. Are you there? What's up?
Yeah? Yeah, I'm here. So basically, Jay, I wanted to ask you something about like the coptic arguments against us. So they said that like Constantinople two overwrote some of the things that happened in Calcedon.
Now that's a misunderstanding. It's not overwriting. It's stating that you have to interpret Calcedon in a querrillion way.
Yeah, because here's the whole thing. Like they presented the argument that, like there were three letters in Calcedon I read to base.
Basically, they accepted the teachingmself of this, Like.
Yeah, watch, David Rhuan has a whole video on this, So I'm not trying to be rude, but like, yeah, we've addressed that. Just go back into David's archives. Nicky Niki Farose, what's a Christian Killian? Two dollars? Jay? Have you ever seen the boys on Amazon.
Uh.
I had people telling me the first season was interesting, and then I saw like a bunch of gay stuff, so I just didn't even look at it. So Jamie and I started watching Penny Dreadful, which at first was kind of interesting, and then then there was like this gay Dorian Gray or Dorian gay scene. This almost almost checked out. And then I asked Grok if it was if there was a lot of gay in the show,
and Croc said, not a lot. Actually it gets toned down, so I might continue because there is this weird esoterica Colt stuff going on with Ava. Green's character is supposed to be the incarnation of Raw's wife and she's Roman Catholic, but she's possessed by a demon if you don't know. So there's these interesting elements to the show which I
find worthwhile. And then you've got this like in Cell knockoff version of Frankenstein character with that who's like the Phantom of the opera guy who lives in the theater like that. It's like that shit is just dumbed du and I'm like, what is this? Why am I watching an intel Frankenstein with in Cell rage. So it's like some of the storylines that the characters are really interesting, but then the other ones are like this is dumb, dude, what's up?
Man?
So I don't know if I'm gonna finish it? Nikki four Ros, what's up?
Hey Jay?
What's up?
God? Bless you? Thanks for everything you do. I have like an idea that you know, like you have these ideas you.
Latch onto, and it's kind of something I'm interested in, and I wanted to filter through, like your understanding of geopolitics and kind of how like knowledge like passes.
On through to different people.
Are you familiar with like Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities and the idea that like the printing press kind of like shape the nation state, that kind of thing. Okay, Well, he has this theory that he puts forward in that book that basically says, like without the printing press, like modern nation state borders wouldn't have formed because you wouldn't have had these like shared narratives and a common language among like regionally kind of.
Like regionally close groups.
And so I'm kind of interested in, like how it is that like the changing information landscape kind of imperceptibly adjust the way that we kind of engage with ideas and reality kind of in like the you know, like Marshall mcluan talking about like you know, roads come about and it changes the way people travel, or like if you think about like people growing up today kind of can't imagine a world without TikTok or like our generation we couldn't imagine really a world without books and accessing
ideas that way. I was just wondering, like because clearly, like these types of changes in the information space can be weaponized and like probably were in World War One to kind of get massive groups of people to fight. Like do you how do you just wondering like if those ideas kind of like bring anything to mind in terms of like you know, how it is that people perhaps like engage with religion and religious ideas.
You know, like at the time of the Apostles, you learned about the faith through people.
Now you learn about it online, like any just wondering if anything comes to mind for you, like.
Like the medium is the message essentially?
Yah?
Yeah, yeah, I mean that's mcglillan. So I mean what do you mean what comes to mind? What I don't understand what you're asking.
Yeah, I don't know if nothing pops up like, no big deal, it's just something.
This is just the concept I'm interested in. And like if you look at if you kind of go with.
Bennedict Anderson's theory about nation states being formed by the printing press and like distribution of books within a certain region, you can kind of say, like, okay, well, the decentralized information that we access kind of contributed to say like BLM becoming a massive movement in the US because you can kind of latch onto these subgroups, identify with the group that doesn't really respect national boundaries, can transnational or like international, and like, I don't know, I just I
guess it's kind of not a super well formed question because I have a lot of ideas.
Here, but like, well, if you're meaning in a more like conspiratorial sense, that why I would be familiar with and I would agree with because you know, if you read for example, Full Spectrum Dominance by F. William Ingdahl, he talks about the means and methods of studying swarming and manipulation of networks, and for example, in the Arab Spring, we had some of the first experiments with engaging in social revolution and government toppling through Twitter and social media.
And if you get into more advanced like graduate studies of intelligence research, they will actually use textbooks like the Marketing of Rebellion where they talk about specific groups being targeted and marketed with a kind of rebellion like you're talking about, and that's done at a very sophisticated, you know, rank corporation pentagon level that can occur. So that comes to mind if that's what you mean, Like, did think
tanks and powerful organizations study how to market revolution social media? Absolutely, and there's a there's a textbook on it called Marketing of Rebellion.
I think, okay, great, I'll check those out. If you don't mine, can I just ask like on the topic, do I have a moment?
So I mean, so thank you for that now, like kind of looking at this through the lens of say, like evangelism, and like the spreading is kind of orthodox Christianity or how like Protestantism took off, Like obviously Protestantism couldn't have taken off without the printing press, right, like the I feel.
Like, by the way, the book is, it's Cambridge University Press and it's called Marketing of Rebellion insurgence, media and international activism. But it lines up with what Ingdahl talks about because he talked about believe it or not, the Pentagon and the Rank Corporation were actually studying this at the time of the sixties democratic student revolutions. They were studying the concept of swarming and creating on the spot mobs, mob attacks, and how to actually organize that in a
in a even before the Internet existed. So this is actually a pretty sophisticated thing, gotcha.
Yeah, I mean you know that kind of I'm sure they kind of built off the idea and I'll definitely check that out that like, you know, like World War One couldn't have kicked off if you didn't have like seventy percent literacy rate in Europe at the time and people weren't able to read like mass market or like you know, mass public pamphlets.
Like we Are the Revolution, that type of stuff.
Right.
But yeah, anyways, the next question is kind of like on the topic of how this might affect like evangelization and kind of the spread of religion. I think it's clear like Protestantism couldn't have taken off. It like there wasn't a mass printed Bible, right, but like, was that the way that the church fathers and kind of the original people.
In the church, well they could the analogy there is coin a Greek because Greek was the common language language of the Empire. You had you know, Alexander the Great spreading Greek everywhere. That is what made everybody able to convert. So in other words, that laid the ground where that was the presupposition for the conversion to Christianity. So absolutely also I forgot. Yeah, there is this old Guardian article that's very important. We bring it up all the time,
and it was almost twenty years ago, right. This is a British Ministry of Defense white paper about what the future would look like in our days, almost our days twenty thirty, we're almost there. Revolutions, flash mobs and brain chips, grim visions of the future. And so when I was mentioning swarming, this is the same principle as the flash moms h broad So this is again this has been intensely studied and as you guys know, you might not
be aware of this, maybe you're a casual listener. One of the things we've done on my channel over the years is we've we've analyzed and read through and studied quite a few white papers. We've done the NATO Psyop document. We've done uh Silent Weapons Required Wars document. We've done a bunch of them, right, We've done the Lockstep uh for four stage white paper from the rock Filler Foundation. I mean, we've done a lot of these, and so I'm trying to remember that one Cognitive Warfare that's the
NATO one. Uh, They're they're all kind of similar. Oh, I forgot it. There's also the British Ministry of Defense Transhumanist document. I forgot. That's a whole other, a whole other one. So it's like, like, what's funny is all of this stuff is in these kinds of boring white papers, and uh, they're fascinating to read, they're pretty boring, the problem is that there's not like one. See, whenever you do these talks on YouTube, you have to like tie