TOP 10 THINGS I GOT WRONG! (REFUTING MYSELF) DYER Vs DYER (& Open Calls!)

Wagner is erecting a thumistic scholastic online cult that has nothing really to do with Rome, the actual Roman Catholic Church, because Rome long ago quit caring about Tomism. You think Pope Leo cares about what Thomas aquina Is says in the Middle Ages now, And so Wagner might have good motivations. Maybe he really thinks that medieval scholasticism is the answer, But much like Redeemed Zumer, it's not really realistic. It's not the real world. It's not where we are, it's

not where his church hierarchy and leadership is. And so it's just kind of funny and I guarantee you in ten years he'll look back at a lot of this and think how silly it was thinking that you could restore the Middle Ages or bring back medieval scholasticism when

it's already coming gone. Think about I mean, so, you see there's different versions of this, Right, there's the left wing socialist idea, Oh, we're going to institute everybody getting a universal basic income and it'll all be fair and equal. Now it's not realistic, and it also does even it doesn't take into account not just the practical failures of communism and socialism, but it doesn't even take into account how socialism has been a tool of wealthy elites. So

it's a very naive, unstudied, and unlived experience. And you'll notice that typically with a lot of the ideological figures, the face lords, they attract very young guys who are very idealistic. Now it's not bad to be young and idealistic. It's just that you need time to mature. And there's no bypassing that you can't make that happen with some kind of special argument or the right book or the

right you know, algorithm, or the right disputation. It just takes lived experience, and it also takes lived experience of you making mistakes. So if you're twenty twenty five, you've not had enough time even to make mistake shit, and you will make mistakes, You will make moral failures, you will have huge mistakes in your life that you're going

to regret. I don't care who you are. There's nobody that gets out of life without some kind of big mistake or failure or something, and that will teach you the lesson that you're not better than everybody else. But twenty year old guys think they've got it all figured out.

They're better than anybody else. Everything's black and white. And by the time they're thirty and they cheat on their girlfriend, or they've been cheated on, or they fall into some error, they'll learn the lessons the hard ways, the hard way. That this is why God allows us, as the Saints say, to fall into these sins, is to teach us humility, and humility is more important than having the right scholastic disputation.

Doesn't make scholastic disputations necessarily wrong. Many of the Orthodox Saints were very scholastic, like Saint Photios, but it's more important to be humble than it is to simply be right, but also understand that humility is not the same thing as being confident or she me. Humility is not the same thing as pretending to be soft spoken and have a skittle's affectation and talking like an NPR person, or or appearing very pious and praying on the internet praying on stream.

you will know them by their fruits. So the first mistake, big error that I made when I was young was thinking in an overly idealistic way and not realizing that life isn't actually I mean, in some areas it's black and white, but in a lot of things, and in a lot of areas, it's not that easy in black and white, and you only learn that with age and mature. The next thing that awoke me from my dogmatic slumbers

was a couple books. And when I talk about Spengler, I'm not promoting him as like infallible or that he got everything right. In fact, I think he made some pretty significant, kind of basic philosophical blunders. But when I read a good bit of Decline of the West, I was impressed with the way that Spangler categorized history kind of similar to the way that the prophet Daniel categorizes history right in these kind of life cycles or organic forms that have a lifespan, a birth, a growth, a nadir,

and a death. And when I read this, I realized, oh, actually, you don't ever bring back or reinstate a come and gone historical form. And this really crushed the overly idealistic attitude that I had that you could recreate, you know, a medieval Latin templar night kingdom or a Byzantine imperial you know, superstructure. It doesn't mean there can't be a return to traditional forms, to monarchy, to you know, out

of homo economicists. All those things are possible. It just means that you're not going to recreate a come and gone form. So I also read another text around the same time from somebody in a similar sort of school, and he's a controversial figure, and that is Francis Parker Yaki's Imperium. And both Spangler and Yaki's books were influential, but they both taught me and showed me that again, historical forms come and go, and politics and empires come

and go. So if empires come and go, then we need something beyond an empire that is actually the power in even an empire, and that of course is Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity was the actual power behind Byzantium. And when Orthodoxy faded, Byzantium became uniate and faded, when other ancient civilizations in their ideology faded, they didn't come back. There

will be no new revived Chaldean magas society. Like Spangler talks about Magian society, societies focus around the magis right, the magician, there will be no new future of Faustian society. In fact, Spangler predicted that the third world would utilize the technology that Faustian Western Man created to then subjugate

Western Man. And he seems to have been accurate in that prediction because, as we know, Wellington House, the predecessor to Tavistock, studied Spangler's decline to the West to weaponize it.

Spangler was not against the West, he was talking about where he saw these forms going, these civilizations going, So studying civilizations and getting into civilizational studies, not just reading these men, but also reading you know, Carol Quigley, Tragy and Hope, reading Julius Evela, reading the Perennialists, Reading a lot of these people over the years throughout my twenties and thirties showed me that a broader, wiser perspective, I think,

understands that we can only go forward in the future building on the shoulders of giants, but never reinstating a coming gone historical form. And if you understand that, it's not absolute sizing historical process, it's just recognizing the limitations of historical forms. And so I think Spangler would say something like you could build on the shoulders of the

giants that came before. You could build on the shoulders of the previous civilizations, but you will never resurrect Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire or whatever your pet Dungeons and dragons, you know, dungeon lore is, and this is why it is accurate to understand trad Catism and third way reich Ism kind of as dungeons and dragons lore.

It's LARPing for sure. Now. And the next thing that happened as I've talked about my next big mistake that I was wrong about when I was younger, And we'll get into some of the theology here in a minute. I'm not going to spend too much time on steel Manning Protestantism, because I think everybody kind of knows why a person would be Protestant or even Roman Catholic. I will touch on those, but it's not going to be the focus of what we talk about today. But my

next big mistake was conspiracies. Yes, you heard me right, conspiracies. What how can conspiracies be a mistake when haven't we been vindicated and seen that over the last twenty plus years of let me see how I've been a conspiracy there since nineteen ninety eight, so twenty seven years of conspiracy theorists. How could that be quote wrong? How could

that be deboomed? And I think for everybody who gets into that kind of stuff, going down the rabbit hole and all that, you know, there's a kind of a process. You go through a phase of oh, maybe aliens are real, Maybe there was ancient Atlantis civilizations with high technology. Maybe there is moon bases with you know, you know, galiens running around touching who knows, right. You got to go

through the phases. But after a while you start to realize, actually a lot of this is just complete bull crap, and the people that push the nonsense are pretty much kind of con men and goofballs, and you start to realize after a while, these people are just making up nonsense. Remember the face on Mars. Remember Richard Hogland. And I'm just using this as one example of I remember when I when I first started reading a lot of this kind of conspiratorial stuff, and I read Hogland's book, Uh,

Dark Dark Mission was that the name of it? And then it's like, wait a minute, So there's all these bases on Mars and NASA was some sort of alien It's just a bunch of nonsense, right, Yeah, that's it, dark mission and you know, like coast to coast level stuff. Right, and then you start to realize, Okay, wait a minute, this is all just distraction science. I find gibberish nonsense, right,

because that stuff is almost a massive distraction from real conspiracies. Now, I'm not saying that there's no weird phenomena that going. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm just saying that a lot of these people you start to realize are cooks, spooks, and crooks and all of the above. Right, you could be all three. So one of the things that shook me out of my dogmatic slumber slumbers in this regard was a documentary I saw when it came out.

Oh what's the name? I just went blank. What's the documentary that shows the alien Stuff's a bunch of syops. It's a really good documentary mirage. Now, I'm not saying that everything in this documentary is true. I'm saying that this combined with other critiques that the Collins brothers had written about the alien phenomena. They had written articles like alien smoke screen twenty years ago, fifteen twenty years ago, way before they had collected it together in their excellent

book Invoking the Beyond. I started to think, well, wait a minute, A lot of this alien stuff doesn't even make sense. And you start to notice that the alien narrative also pushes technocracy, it pushes panspermia, Darwinian evolution. A bunch of the stuff that we think is obvious gibberish is pushed by the alien loons. So if you've never seen this, I highly recommend it now. I'm just using alien stuff as one example. I was never actually really

into aliens. I remember entertaining the possibility of this, maybe maybe in the year two thousand and three or four, but for me, aliens always just seem retarded, faking gay. And then probably well, you say, you know, doctor Joseph Farrell. I think that doctor Josepharrell is a perfect example of somebody who had a lot of good theology and then started pushing a lot of ridiculous nonsense that planets are weapons, giz a death star. It's just it doesn't make any sense,

it's silly. So no, I don't believe any of that stuff. That's just silly. Now, there could be catastrophism, there could be weird stuff, but I just am not convinced by what comes out of these kinds of gnostic presentations, gnostic press books, et cetera. Well, way, if you want to support the stream, you can do so through super chats. So what was the thing that really turned my attention

away from the wu wu stuff and into the reality realm. Well, at the same time as I was studying a lot of those in grad school, I was learning about the CIA espionage and how geopolitics is really about that kind of stuff. The real conspiracy world isn't so much aliens and which is all like perfect vehicles for disinformation. The real conspiracy world is stuff like Russiagate, the concocting of stories and narratives and disinformation nonsense in the real political,

geopolitical realm for verifiable purposes. And I started realizing, well, the alien stuff does the same thing. It furthers a technocratic agenda. You realize that clause world economic form, all of those people push the alien stuff, and then the same thing is going on the realm of conspiracies, much of which is disinformation. So yeah, I watched abled enemies, and I watched Loose Change and Alex's documentaries, and those are all great, but you start to realize, well, well,

who is this deep state? What is this deep state?

What is really going on with this entrenched national security state domain that seems to be behind a lot of things like international banking scams, organized crime operation Gladio, paper Clip, all that stuff seems to keep pointing back to this kind of stuff, not men in black and all this gay, retarded alien stuff, but actual operations that you can read about in the history of the CIA, the history of the OSS, the history of World War two, espionage, the

Cold War, All of that stuff kept pointing in the direction of the real conspiracies are bankers and spies, not aliens, ancient alien technologies and all this bullshit, Not reptilians from the Zeta Reticulan dimension or whatever, but British Intelligence, the CIA, the Masade. Those are the books that are the real conspiracy books, the history of those things. This was a big turning point in what I found to be real conspiracies and not all of this sci fi star trek crap.

And I learned that I've started figuring out in my twenties, right, And again, I think part of the reason I came to that conclusion was in studying and writing about Hollywood and studying underneath professors who had researched the history of CIA operations in Latin South America. That same professor who was a super lib by the way, that same professor did a class on Oliver Stone and history. It was

one of my favorite college classes. And what we were doing in that class was saying, Okay, here's Oliver Stone's presentation, what is the closest that we could come to in terms of historical accuracy? And compare that to what Oliver Stone was putting in his films. And although I don't agree with everything that Oliver Stone believes, a lot of what he was putting in the films was more accurate, for example, than what was the main line news narrative

of that time. And that doesn't mean I support, you know, Bishop whatever that the James Wood movie, even though it's a pretty good film. I'm not pro liberation theology or anything like that. But I think when Oliver Stone was intending to present these sorts of stories, nobody knew the degree to which there was Israeli involvement in the GfK event, etc. I don't think that he was intentionally putting out disinformation. I think he was working with what he had at

the time. And so if you look at the tendency in American politics to criticize, for example, Israeli foreign policy and involvement in America throughout the seventies, eighties, and nineties, that was largely the left. It didn't start to become a right wing criticism until the last say ten years now. Prior to the sixties or the seventies, eighties, and nineties,

criticism of that kind of stuff was. There were right wing thinkers, father Coughlin, you know, other people who criticized Israeli or Jewish involvement in American politics back in What to Use fifties, et cetera. But that got shut down very quickly by a lot of the World War Two era propaganda and the films that were coming out from Hollywood in the nineteen forties, which we've been talking about recently.

A lot of the Humphrey Bogart films, a lot of the John Ford stuff, a lot of the Joan Crawford films. They were all kind of targeted pretty obvious Allied propaganda films. That doesn't mean that I'm saying tiny mustache man is good. I'm just giving you the real history, which is again not black and white, it's nuanced. Yeah. I mean, for example, Oliver Stones Wall Street, right, essentially, Gordon Gecko operates like

a CIA handler, right. In fact, he even tells Bud Fox that I want you to get dirt on people and get inside information. That's how you actually, you know, game the stock market. It's not who has the best trading practices and who's the smartest. And so Gordon Gecko is basically a kind of a Wall Street CIA operative. So I could understand that critique and understand the flaws of Wall Street and what Oliver Stone is saying, without at the same time saying, oh, I guess communism and

socialism is good. You see, everybody functions, especially boomers, on this very narrow either or framework, and all of us, I think, especially when you're young, you're much more susceptible

to these very simplistic either or dialectics. Right. So thinking that geopolitics, figuring out that geopolitics and espionage is the real conspiracy was a big part of waking up out of my overly conspiratorial slumbers, if that makes sense, because then you start to realize like, well, actually all of the world's embassies, everybody has embassies, and everybody knows that spies are at embassies and this is just acceptable nation

state practice, that people are engaging in espionage. So I think when you first, you know, learn about this stuff, you kind of have a schizo paranoia phase where you're like, oh, there's spies are where, everybody's a spy, everybody's an operative, everybody in the media works with the CI. It's not like that there is an understood expectation of nation to nation power block the power block espionage. Not saying it's good, I'm saying that that's the real world. That's how the

world works. So understanding more of history, understanding the big picture, understanding civilizational studies was a level and a step beyond the very simplistic disinformation that is everywhere in the conspiracy realm. Does that make sense? So I'm not saying that there's

no conspiracies. I'm saying that the world of conspiracy literature online, which you could go back to, you know, the JFK era kind of kicks it off people questioning it, the CIA demonizing people that question the event, calling them conspiracy theorists. This eventually, in the eighties and nineties gives birth to pat con or the Patriot conspiracy, where the Feds are kind of infiltrating, you know, right wing militia groups and these kind of simplistic Bible Belt sort of prepper groups.

And then what happens is we got this Ron Paul phase, right, So I would say from say two thousand and three, four, five, six, seven and eight, as Alex Jones and Ron Paul begin to have some popularity, begin to have some nationwide notoriety, calling attention to things that were very real, like the Federal Reserve being a giant scam. So Ron Paul did did a good job in calling attention on a large

scale to real conspiracies like the Federal Reserve. Now, Ron Paul I think had a lot of not so good ideas and ideologies, and I don't think that libertarianism is a real answer, but at least in calling attention to the Federal Reserve, he did a lot of positive in

the history of American politics. Unfortunately, though, it was still kind of wrapped up in that very limited very negative liberty scope that libertarianism has, whereas it's not a real solution, even though it has some good critiques, just telling everybody privatize everything and let me have my liberties grow, it's not good enough. It doesn't do anything. There's no.

not enough. They're not good enough. Just mud gdp and let me have my business and let me have my stash of gold like you know, I would need to audit the FED and strive stack some gold like Ron Paul says. I mean, it's just not enough. People actually want world views, and they want a religious perspective that makes sense of why we should be libertarian or why we should have rights or duties. You see, So just

more enlightenment liberalism is not enough. And that's when I ultimately, doctor Jordan Peterson never got out of maybe he will never got out of the controlled classical liberal dialectic. This has been my same critique of him for almost ten years. You're not going to stop the onslaught of trans and Antifa and all this insanity. BLM with liberalism, more liberalism, more civic nationalism. It doesn't work. It's emasculated and ineffectual. And so I had to grow out of that libertarianist

phase that I had in my twenties. I think many of us have had this phase. And a couple of things that I read that really shook me out of this. One of them was actually a trad cap book that

I would still recommend. Obviously, Yaqui's Imperium is a massive critique of liberalism, of course, But before I read this gigan antic, seven hundred page book, I read a very obscure Roman Catholic and her name is Solange Hurts, and she wrote a book that I read when I was in the SSPX, And this is actually a really good book. It's called The Stars Spangled Heresy of Americanism. Now again, everybody knows here I am not a papist, probably the

number the Internet's number one anti papist. But Solange Hurts wrote a great book critiquing the idea of classical liberalism in the American experiment, the dialectic of Enlightenment experiment, that is Americanism. And again, while she was a traditional Roman Catholic, I don't think there's anything in this book except for, like you know, she cites paper and cyclicals and that kind of stuff. Like she had a really great critique here.

So it was actually amongst the tridcat that I really started reading and questioning my classical liberal libertarian ideas that I think most of us, as Americanists, we just kind of we swim in this voice. I mean, we swim in this water, whether this is the air we breathe, so we just sort of default to thinking that, well, yeah, classical liberalism is like they answered all of this, we

just need more America, more freedoms. But people are now becoming i think, either really really dumb or more sophisticated out in the public discourse, and they're starting to figure out that there's no such thing as just the freedoms.

He sent me his books and stuff. But it's just, you know, if you go back to that debate, he just never got the point in that debate, which is that classical liberalism is dead. It's a old it's a come and gone philosophy, and the classical liberals are kind of in the same mindset as me in my twenties. It's this idealistic thing of like, well, if we just bring back more America, right, and this will be my main critique, even of Alex Jones. I mean, I love

Alex Jones. He's a great guy, always been very positive. But the one critique that I would have of Alex, I mean, obviously I would like to see him to become orthodox, but politically, you know, this classical liberal stuff is just not going to do anything. It's not the answer more. I mean seventeen seventy six is kind of the earlier version of nineteen eighty four because it's still in the sonic revolutionary ethos and I didn't really get

any of that until I read this. And then there was another book that I read as a trad cat. I think it's a book put out by the SSPX. What was it called. I want to say there was an SSPX book that came out I'm talking about in like two thousand and five, right, So I'm reading SSPX literature in two thousand and four or five, and I want to say there was some book that came out about monarchy, but I can't remember the name of it,

and I don't even remember who wrote it. I still have all these old SSPX books, but they're at the

other place, and they're like on an old shelf. I haven't thought about these books in like fifteen years, so, but they they did make an impact on me, because, you know, there were quite a few Roman Catholic traditionalist writers, you know, throughout the seventeen hundreds eighteen hundreds that were writing critiques of revolutionary philosophy that are still pretty good, and we would probably agree with a lot of that stuff.

So I never really went back to classical liberalism after understanding my critiques of the Enlightenment not just from a trad cap perspective, but also an orthodoxy. And even when I wasn't Orthodox and I wasn't convinced of Catholicism anymore, I mean I didn't become like a classical liberal. I mean I might have still thought, well, there's some good points in classical liberalism, like we want to have, you know,

economic exchange and freedom to some degree. We want to have you know, some degree of liberty, but what the parameters of that are and how society should be structured is just not going to be sold by the Enlightenment. Ideas of of like negative liberty and negative liberty is not a Christian position. Historically, negative liberty is the idea of the atheistic writers of the French Revolution and of the Enlightenment that the state has no role other than

to be a minimal tool for economic exchange. That's it. But in the traditional Christian belief, the Christian monarch has a role to promote to a degree of the virtues and to punish the vices. Now, that doesn't mean a big brother state where the king stares into your bedroom to see if you're jerking off or having dirty thoughts.

We're not talking about big Brother. We're not talking about the state having a role to promote all virtues and to punish all vices, because amongst vices, there's a difference between vices that are crimes and vices that are not rhymes. Okay, so there would be a distinction between what's criminal versus just something that's merely advice. For example, the state couldn't

have penalties for dirty thoughts. Okay, that would be impossible, it would be insane, it would be some kind of weird nineteen eighty four scenario, right, But the state could conceivably have obviously penalties for public displays of nudity. I mean, I think that's still on the books in most places. You could have the banning of PDF, the banning of you know, sodomy publicly, that kind of stuff. Granted, there's no way to prove what everybody's doing in their bedrooms.

So having a Christian state or a Christian monarchy does not equate to nineteen eighty four. So don't misunderstand what I'm saying, because I already know when I say this kind of stuff. Wait a minute, if the state has a duty to punish the vices to promote virtue, that's you're going to be in our bedrooms. No, do you think that monarchies in the history of the West were spying in people's bedroom I mean, it's just kind of crazy. It's not even remotely close to history. In fact, many

of these Western monarchs permitted whorehouses. And we saw both Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued for the legitimacy of the state allowing houses of ill repute. I'm not even sure I'm convinced of that, So, I mean, I guess and libertarians, well, by the way, we'll point to that stuff to point out the libertarian ethos of the West or whatever. Anyway, so I think this is a great

point too. And by the way, that was another thing that I realized it was a problem in tradcatism, was you have this hyper rigidity about sexuality and sexual morals and everything's immortal sin and everything should be punished with these crazy trad cats, and then the top trad cats argue that the state should allow whorehouses. I was like, this is just insane. I mean, to me, that's just crazy, like these people, there's something off in this world of

trad cats. By the way, a lot of the trad cats that I knew back then have since come out as skittles. Shocker. That's why that when that guy put that thing up that he was at the SSPX mass and he was, he looked on grinder and like three of the dudes were sitting in the pew next to him on grinder. So yes, trad cat is full of

gay shocker. Now moving on, I was, as you guys know, Protestant and Roman Catholic, so I was a Calvinist and I was a Catholic, and I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on that, but those were huge mistakes because I had zeal without knowledge, and even though I read like crazy and I read all the time because I didn't want to be wrong about my theology, I had absolute perfect spurgitude when it came to trying

to perfect my theology. And I learned as I got older that actually reading all the right books and figuring all the stuff out is a futile quest. That might sound paradoxical, because of course I do like theology, and

I do enjoy intellectual pursuits. But I kind of realized at the end of my twenties that I'll never read all the books, I will never find all the information, I will never get all of the archives, I will never learn all the languages to go study in the catacombs in the Vatican Library to figure it all out, Like, it's not possible. Your life and your time is limited.

So I realized that although providentially I guess it worked out that I had many, many, many years of reading hundreds and hundreds of books, it kind of showed me the futility of many, many many books. That's why Solomon says to the making and writing of books, there is no end. It's a futile thing. So what's the point of all that That books don't matter? No, No, I just had them in the wrong priority. And that brings me to the next one, which is that obsessing over books

was wrong. Having the right Amazon list, the wish list of reading list is not going to get you in heaven.

in neoplatonism and perennialism or traditionalism to a degree. But I wasn't like into some school of like, oh, I'm gonna go study under Freidolf Schuan's cult. I mean, it wasn't like that, just buying books and trying to figure it out. So the next point is that everything was lopsided in what I should have been doing. So the books aren't the problem, the information isn't the problem. In fact, throughout my twenties and thirties, I didn't most of the time.

I didn't spend any time on the Internet. I avoided the Internet because I thought the Internet was a big problem. I was pretty much right, and I always focused on reading books. I didn't start doing internet stuff until about twenty eleven, I mean consistently doing a lot of Internet stuff. Prior to twenty eleven, I would only read books and avoided the internet. And so I had wrong priorities because

I was still obsessed with figuring everything out. So I wanted to read all the right geopolitical books, all the right CIA history books, all the right espionage books, all the right philosophy books, all the right whatevers, all the right church fathers books. And I spent so much time doing that, and it just ended up with kind of nothing. And I was broke, still working a wage cuck job. I had a massive library, even I was like in my thirties still I think, working at a paint store.

I was a manager of a paint store. But it was like I wasn't getting anywhere. I mean, I was going to college, getting a undergrad and all that. I thought, well, I'll just try to teach. My point being is like I realized the futility of putting all of my time, effort and energy into books. And it's not the books that were the problem. It was the imbalance in me that was the I should have been focused on furthering my own situation in terms of getting established, getting a career,

et cetera or whatever. I mean, not that you have to go into careerism, but I'll give you an example. So in two thousand and seven or eight, when I was going to be married to a girl prior to Jamie, and I was going through the Catechumenate right, and I was very interested in Orthodoxy, going to convert to Orthodoxy. But I had a couple vices that were a serious

problem for where I was going. For one, I put the theology and the ideas first, even though I was dating for four years a girl that I intended to marry. But I was not fair to her by putting my ideas and my theology above everything else. And I really struggle with this. I wasn't I don't think, maliciously trying to be unfair, but I remember at one point she's said to me something like, if you're going to marry me, then marriage and a family should come before the theology

and the ideas. And she kind of had a point, right, because we had been dating for four years and we had the intention of getting married. And I was still iffy about it because I was like, well, I need to go to grad school and I need to you know, get the PhD. And then maybe then I can you know, provide for family or whatever. And she was like, well, I'm ready to have kids now, and we should get married now and now. Providentially, it all worked out to

where it was not the right thing to do. If I had married her, I would have been a bad husband. I would not have been able to provide and to do the things that she actually had a really good critique about. So she was actually correct. But in God's providence, thank god we didn't get married, because it would have

been a disaster. It was a good thing, and for her it was a better situation because she ended up marrying a guy who was a priest, and I'm sure she's much happier and she's got, you know, a full quiver. She's got kids, and she's doing fine. And it worked out way better for me to give me time to actually mature and figure out I'm not actually made for the mainline academia route. So you see how that would

have been a disaster. So it was actually better for me to not have gone into that, to not convert to Orthodoxy at that time, to wait, to take some time and providentially come back around to it when I was ready for that. I wasn't ready for that in my twenties, twenty age twenty, I forget this is like

I was like twenty eight or something like that. So one thing I would say too to my younger self that was a mistake is that when I was younger, obsessed with the theology and figuring it out and making it all perfect, I also felt like I had like it had to be done right now, like it's got to be solved right now, and I had no concept of patience and thinking, maybe it's going to take years to get in the right place. Maybe God providentially knows I'm not ready to do this stuff yet, and I

need time to mature. And that's exactly what it was. And there's no solution to maturation that you can just conjure up. I mean, a lot of the things that we're talking about tonight actually has to do with time frames. We're talking five, ten, fifteen, twenty year timeframes for some of us. And that's okay. It's okay if you're not immediately convinced of orthodoxy. It's okay if you say, hey, wait, I'm not sure I'm ready for this. That's why we

always encourage people to take their time. And when I was in my twenties, and it was two thousand and seven and I was like, I need to figure this out right now. I was not ready. I needed time. So don't beat yourself up and freak out and act spurgey in your twenties because you haven't figured everything out yet. It's not a big deal. It's okay, Like take your time. And everybody is so like attacked by this toxic culture that now it's even worse. Right, So it took me

to age mid thirties to grow up. It's going to probably take the next generation like into their forties to grow up. So so getting a longer time frame and learning patience was something that I really needed to learn in my twenties and to not be so obsessed over the things happening in the Middle East. I mean again, I told you guys, like I got into the Middle Eastern stuff in two thousand and seven. Around that same time, right I started reading critiques of neo CON's American foreign policy.

I read all the anti Zionist, anti Talmudic, anti Jewish stuff in the two thousands, and what I figured out was, I'm not going to be able to solve this question. I don't even have enough I live check to check what am I doing? Worried about what's happening two thousand miles away in the middle of four thousand miles away in the Middle East, And I haven't like I'm struggling check to check. My priorities are out of whack. That's

what I'm trying to say. And a lot of people on the internet, a lot of activists, it's the same irrational, immature, silly mistake. It's like, you're sounding out on the internet, you're doing activism. Okay, that's great, but like, did you pay your rent? Do you have a savings? And obviously I don't believe in FII, but I mean, do you have some bitcoin? Like what are you doing that shows and demonstrates that you're actually a mature, capable man versus

bitching all day on the internet. And even though I limited my time on the internet, I still bitched and wind a lot on the Internet. For example, in the two thousands, when everybody was on Facebook, I remember many many, many nights drunk debating on Facebook. I mean, I don't mean like sloppy, falling down drunk. I just mean so much wasted time drinking beer and arguing on Facebook in my twenties, And I'm like, what was I what the heck was I doing?

the better you will be off, I trust you. So looking for perfect theology when it came to Calvinism and the systems of Aquinas, John Calvin and the papacy, right, I was sort of looking for these perfect systems and I went from one to the other, from Calvinism to Tomism, thinking I found it. This is all This is the

perfect No, this is the perfect system. And again it's not that systems aren't how things work, but I had a overly high expectation, as a twenty eight year old guy or whatever for thinking that the systems are the answer. And is it Calvin, is it Thomas Aquinas? Oh wait, maybe it's this other thing, right, And then you realize, okay, none of these systems are going to be perfect. And the systems were actually kind of an idol, and if you told me that in my twenties, I would I would.

There's no way I was gonna say, oh, you don't know what you're talking about. But then it dawned to me, Actually, termism is an idol. Calvinism is an idol. The systems are not Christianity. They have elements of it, and they're trying to systematize it. And I still think in terms of worldviews, paradigms, and systems, but I don't have the same unrealistic, immature expectation for systems like I did in

my twenties. So when I see people like Wagner and I see redeem Zoomer like I see myself in my twenties, and hopefully as they get older, I think they will also come to some of the same realizations that I did when they get into their thirties and their forties. Doesn't mean that you can't do systems analysis and systems thinking.

In fact, we still criticize the Roman Catholics for not understanding and getting the point that if Roman Catholicism is defeated at a systemic level, then it's a system defeater. The system isn't true and there's no amount of catch work that you can do if the system itself at a systemic level is flawed. Last couple of points, so that one is more so about the practical that I didn't put establishing myself for a family and that kind of stuff. And I was so obsessed with all the ideas.

And I've told you guys like my dad would say stuff back then, like I try to argue with my dad about geopolitics because it's like, oh, he was in the Navy and he knows about Operation Mantis. He was in Operation Mantis in the Gulf War and all this, and we've talked about this, and I'd be like, well, yeah, but you don't understand the neocons are all wrong because

blah blah, blah blah. And even though I was right in what I was saying to my dad about why the neocons were wrong, my dad would just say stuff like do you have any assets? Have you got anything in your savings? Do you have any property? Are you sure that you're going to pay your rent next week? And that would make me really mad, but my dad was right. And as you get older, you realize, oh, my dad wasn't just being mean. And I used to say, what all the people say to me, d me, I

said the same stuff about my dad. Oh, my dad's just mean. I can't believe you. So, even though I was geopolitically correct, the neocons are a bunch of fraud losers. My dad's point was rather way more practical. You're yapping about all of this stuff in the Middle East thirty fifty hundred years ago. Are you going to be able to pay your rent next week? And that's stung. But my dad was right and I was wrong. But I was too immature and childish and out of whack to

realize that. And a lot of you guys that are in your twenties that hate me, Now as you get older in your thirties, you're gonna realize that I'm right what I'm saying to you. And it's not because I'm mean or I hate you or somebody. It's none of that. My dad doesn't hate me. My dad is a gruff military guy. But I look back and I realized he was right. I was wrong. I was the one that was immature.

some of it. Right, If you've never run a business, how are you going to tell the world how money should work? Just think about that. I remember when I was in grad classes and we were talking about economics one day, and I remember leaving one of my grad classes and going and listening to Peter Schiff on a podcast,

and he made a really good point. And I totally disagree with his gold boomer nonsense, right, but petersha have made a really good point, which was, when you go to college, you hear all these economics professors that have all these high fulutant ideas about stats and how the economy should work. And he's like, but these professors have

never run a business. Why would you think that a person who's never run a business knows how the economy should work, and I remember thinking, man, that's actually I never thought about that. Real world practical insight and wisdom is way more accurate than idealistic leftist, idiot college professor socialists who tell you all the along about how it should work and how it ought to be totally divorced

from the real world. And so again Peter shiff was actually right, and that massively changed my paradigm when it came to wait a minute, these professors don't know anything. I mean, they know it's in some of the books. But and I remember talking to Sammy the Bull, right, and he said something like this, like, as a mafia guy, I have a better insight into how the world actually works than the professors. I was like, actually, that's pretty much true. There's a funny scene in the Rodney Dangerfield

movie too, where this comes up back to school. So there's this know it all college professor who's like talking about all these economic theories, and Rodney Dangerfield goes back to college, right, it's kind of a it's still kind of a funny eighties movie. And he's just sitting in the audio in the in the noting of the the class, like in the back row and He's like, he's listened to the professor tell all these theories, and then he's like,

who's going to grease the goods? Right, He's like coming up with all this basic practical stuff about how you actually run a business. So that's actually a pretty funny scene that exemplifies what I'm saying. If you never watched Back to School, watch it's pretty funny, but for eighties movies. So I'm not gonna theologically go into the papacy or Calvinism or whatever. We've done that a million times. You

guys can go watch all those all those critiques. But I think personally part of the motivation for why I looked at and believe those systems for certain years in my life was because I thought, well, there is this perfect system somewhere that actually categorizes and explains everything. And when those systems would have very fundamental problem in them, Calvinism and Tonism, then I would kind of be put

into a quandary in my worldview would collapse. So then I didn't know what to do and I would have to you know, kind of it's kind of the way Jordan Peterson describes it, where you kind of have like a death of your of yourself for a time period, right your your worldview collapses, and it's a difficult experience, but it's also a good experience because it allows you

to grow and become a better person. And it is kind of like a little death, so to speak, when you go through these paradigm level collapses in your in your paradigm. So lastly, again to this point of like, yeah, I was looking into different ideas and I will maybe the neo Platonists and this and that, and maybe this system and that system, and then I realized, Okay, there's not a perfect idealized system, and maybe the system building

is itself the problem. And maybe books and deal politics and political movements aren't ultimately going to say this and that's not the ultimate answer. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy those things. But in all of these things that we've listed and talked about, I realized my priorities are out of whack. That was the main problem here was I was putting all these other dumb things first as if I was going to solve the world's problems. And then my own life has pretty significant flaws and problems and

I still have many problems. Sure, but when it comes to writing my own books, running a business, etc. Like those problems I have solved, right, becoming economically stable, paying my bills. Those problems are solved. But I should have focused on figuring out how to solve those problems way earlier than trying to figure out all the world's problems. Does that make sense? So now I want to head on over here to X and we'll open it up to see if somewhat related to these topics, if any

people want to call in. And I just said top ten because it was loosely ten that I jotted down on a piece of paper. It's not exactly ten, but you get the idea. Good enough. Right, I will be taking your calls, So we'll go ahead and start now and see if we get some good calls. Maybe it's time to now that we've kind of got a little more breathing room on YouTube with what we can talk about, maybe it's time to go through some of these classic

texts that we could used to talk about. Right, I mean, we would have been doing lectures on Imperium, we would have been doing lectures on Spangler, we would have been doing lectures on all this stuff years ago. If we hadn't had such a lockdown on what we could talk about. And people say, oh, you're a coward because you didn't just keep talking about Well, what was the point of talking about the thing that would destroy the channel?

for episcopal presbytery authority. So that's for people to have the authority to do the Eucharist and to exegy and to forgive sins and so forth. That's different from the presence of the Holy Spirit in terms of omnipresence, which is everywhere. And yeah, there are movements and graces of the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Orthodox Church,

or else none of us would have converted. But we wouldn't say that becase because the Holy Spirit is everywhere, that he's everywhere in the same way or in the same power, in the same mode. So he's for example, present at the Eucharist to make it the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in a way that he's not present everywhere in the world. So there's a unique sacramental presence that's not everywhere, and so that's why we make

these kinds of theological distinctions. So, yeah, the Holy Spirit still can move and influence Protestants and Evangelicals, but not in the same way mode, degree, force, and power as in the Orthodox Church.

what Jesus did by putting stuff in the way. So like and I kind of had like a question of that's like if someone is like believes on Jesus and stuff, and they're in the process of like maybe say katechisis or maybe they're just going to an Orthodox church for like three weeks or something, and like say that person was like God forbid passed away or something like how is something like that work where they're in the process, because I think that's where a lot of Protestants get

tripped up and understanding the idea of salvation. They feel kind of like the church is like kind of forsaking what Jesus did, because that kind of is.

is saying. When James says that it is not faith alone, that's says, okay, So James and Paul teach the same thing. It's just a Protestants take the passages where Paul is talking about not by the works of the mosaic or ceremonial law. Does this grace or this this theosis occur. It is through a faith that works in love. Okay, so it's not even oh, I in my heart do an action of you know, in accord with the ten

Commandments and that causes God's grace to come to me. Now, there's always a synergy, and even the works that we do don't force God or cause God to save us. God is the one who initiates, but the fact that he initiates doesn't remove our energy of will and synergy at every step in the process. There's never a part or a place where God overwhelms us or does everything, and we don't still have human will and energy proper to our nature because we've never lost our human nature.

And that's why Calvinists and all these monarchists, they actually become crystological heretics when they adopt the monarchists position. Anyway, but Paul is clearly saying that the only faith that saves is the one that works through love. But great questions, Daniel, what's up?

Jude was once we're all delivered to the saints. So if it's once we're all delivered by a Jude three, there's not new ongoing public revelations. And once Montanus, who was the early Church charismatics, started to preach that he was the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit and he had new divine revelations and he's got two women prophetesces with him, the Church said no, no, sorry, that's that's heretical. So that's

the origin of it in the early Church. But the modern Pentecostal charismatic movement comes out of Roman Catholicism and the histrionic women saints of the last five hundred years of the Roman Catholic Church that then become normalized in the Protestant world through the Azuza Street Revival and all that stuff. And I have multiple long live streams on my channel. If you just type in jade ire Comma charismatic or Pentecostal, you'll get a bunch of critiques and reputations.

Logan Ramsey, who is I think a pastor preacher? What's up? Logan?

don't know if there's anybody who disagrees until Jerome. Almost all the entire church accepts the Judo canon. So they all got it wrong.

stories and tax many times in their epistles. So that's absolutely false.

even familiar with the basics. That's why it's just a waste of time for these people who have no idea about any of this stuff, but they want to come and debate what they think some Protestant scholar told them about. Well, it was laid up in the temple, so it's the canon tomo. What's up?

true first and foremost. And that's the main problem with a lot of people. They would rather stay in their heresy or their stupid pet theory that they've come up with than believe what is true. Now, why don't I say the Canons of Nicea, Because any person who's a Baptist, there is no way you could read the Canons of Nicea and come away thinking that you have anything in common with the faith of the people that wrote the Nicene Creed or the Canons of Nicea. Every Protestant should

read go to New Advent. And I'm not just talking about the Nicene Creed the canons of the Council of Nicea, because you will notice that they talk about the Eucharist as i sacrifice. They talk about monastics, they talk about excommunication, they talk about bishops and episcopate, they talk about jurisdictions between Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Baptists don't have jurisdictions. You don't have bishops, you don't have the Eucharist, you don't have any of this stuff. And they all lie and

pretend that they have the same faith as Athenaious. No you don't. It is not true. We believe the same thing as Athnacius. For example, synodol church government, and Catechumans Eucharist at the point of death. Deacons can't touch the Eucharist before the priest touches it. Stop acting like you have the faith of Athanasius when you don't. It's just not true. And that's why he relies on the schism of this or that Jewish idea of what the canon is.

So Protestants are unwitting and willing Judaizers from the get go. Steve, what's up?

fourth century. So let's look at this point because I think this is a really strong point, and it refutes West to two. By the way, so we look at the Apsalt canons. This is church law throughout the East in the fourth century. We notice that the duduo canon is part of divine revelation, is part of the Texas Scripture. The word duro canon itself means that it's not equal to the Gospels. It's not as important as everything else in the New Testament, but it is part of the

canonical list. And that's why Athanasius says it's perfect for categ humans. Well, I didn't recommend it for catechumans if he thought it wasn't part of divine revelation. It is called deutero secondary canon because it is not as important as the Gospels. In the Orthodox Church, the Gospels are given a primary place before the Gospels are lifted up, and they're in a gold book because they're important. You have the reading of Paul's epistles. Paul's epistles are not

as important as the Gospels. So just because there's a degree of importance, it doesn't follow from that that, oh, well, Paul's epistles aren't authoritative or inspired because they're not lifted up like the Gospels are. It's all Protestant either or thinking. And they're taking Athenasius out of context. He didn't even know that Athanasius was the pope of Alexandria. Because they're not looking at the fact that distinctions in authority and

importance doesn't mean that it's not inspired. That's their first mistake. So fourth century Canon eighty five, we notice it lists the Maccabees. See that now, Yes, it also mentions a couple books that later on are not necessarily part of the canon. So pay attention to what I'm saying and stop being low tier and reacting on emotions. I am not saying that the canon was closed in the fourth century.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that the Church throughout the fourth century East and West, because when we look over here in the West at the Council of Rome under Damasis. Oh, it turns out they also believe in the Dudo canon. So the entire universal Church in the fourth century, this is prior to Jerome. Okay, this is right before Jerome. Right around the time of Jerome, the church agrees to the duo canon. Jerome disagrees, but he's one guy against the rest of the mind of the Church.

In subsequent centuries, the church does not agree ultimately with Jerome, because by the sixth and seventh centuries the church basically says, yes, Canons of the Apostles, Canons of Carthage, Council of Rome. We affirm it is not the Protestant what would be the Protestant canon. So if the Protestant position is right, then essentially, in the fourth century, universally east and West, the church was completely wrong. They had completely aired on

the canon. Now, let's think about this for a second. If the Church in the entire fourth century prior to Jerome could be totally wrong about the canon, Jerome comes along and he's correct, supposedly in refuting them. There's no reason why Jerome can't in the future be wrong. And multiple Protestants that I asked today, I said, wait a minute, so is the canon still open? And to be consistent with their position, they were like, I guess, oh, because

there is no post apostolic, infallible normative decision. Okay, well, then perhaps the higher critics are correct and we can remove books from the canon. Do you not see how silly this position is. If there's no normative authority after the Apostles, then there's no reason why Jerome can't be wrong. Booh, Thomas, what's up? I'm mute?

we had a convert. He was a former Muslim, and one of the things he told me is when he was a Muslim, he would hear the the Quran, and he said it had like a narcotic like effect on him when he would hear.

and these worldviews. And we all do this right, This is why, you know, the Roman Catholic guy says on the tweet the other day, says, even if it's wrong, I'm not going to leave it because the identity is the person's subjective identity is erected with this system. And it would mean essentially that he would have to start over. There would be a death process that Jordan Peterson talks about.

Whenever there's something that shatters our paradigm. He says, it's the same psychological process that a person goes through when there's a death of a family member. It's the same thing that happens in us emotively and even psychosomatically. And that's why the defense mechanisms come up. So I try to not be frustrated. It's still frustrating because even though I recognize that like, it still is frustrating. It's still hard to deal with the same old sort of you know, responses.

And I usually assume that if a person comes to debate, they're going to be familiar with some of the of the of the basics, and so many of the time they're not.

Abraham doing good works that Hebrews lauds and praises. Hebrews even says that Paul's actions of faith in Genesis twelve, thirteen, and fourteen are action of exemplary faith. Uh oh, but it turns out that if Romans four is teaching salvation by faith alone, then Abraham's transition from wrath to grace was in Genesis fifteen. And by the way, when James White addressed this argument, he actually bit the bullet and said, yes, Abraham was not saved in Genesis twelve, thirteen fourteen. He's

not saved until fifteen. Oh well, then guess what Hebrews is wrong because it's saying a person with dead faith who's lost was an example of faith because it laws and praises Abraham's actions prior to fifteen. This is so stupid. What's up? I'm mute? What's up, Matthew. Matthew, unmute?

So if at a period in time it's determined that bishops should be drawn from monastics circles rather than from the laity, that was done as a necessity for that time. If you try to make the canon law into some sort of eternal law, then it doesn't work. And that's why no Orthodox person or no Orthodox church does that. We don't make the canon's eternal laws. That's why they're flexible.

priests were. So there's little tea traditions or disciplines that the Church enacts for specific situations. That's why nobody believes that church law is equivalent to divine revelation or that it's equivalent to eternal commandments for all the time. That's why, for example, Paul says, I don't think women should braid their hair and wear you know, jewelry or whatever. He says, Okay, well that's not an eternal law. As if women can't braid their hair and walk into the church. Right, there's

specific situations for specific times. But you guys, are you act like Muslims? You think that the Bible is an eternal Kuran. That's a statement for every single situation in life. It's not.

They're taken out of context that Christ commanded Jesus also established a church and you're not part of it.

you are called to do that. That's why no one takes this authority on to himself. That's why Jesus established bishops authority. And outside of that it is chaos. Even inside the church there's problems, but outside it's total insanity. Laptop five dollars. What's good? First? Super chat is information

physical or on physical? I mean information itself in terms of the concept that is conveyed obviously is non physical, but the texts or the symbols that represent the concepts are physical, so it's a both end fuck it button five dollars. I'm by curious emotional democrat. Jay is not something that was on my bingo card. Turns out we all make mistakes. Murat Akbulut gifted fifty memberships. Wow, thank

you so much. Welcome all the new members. That's a hefty, nice super chat there, I mean gifting fuck it button five dollars. It is not Aliens. It is a clever country that has a sketchy history. We were lied about. We were lied to about that. There's a documentary called or he's joking about the movie.

From the mega planet exactly. There's a black dude that can create megaplanets with his mind and also predict Whosammi's broke twenty dollars Esoteric Bollywood, Yes, that's a I think I actually made that joke like ten years ago. But if you guys want to repeat the jokes from ten years ago, you can and you can get esoter Collywood in the shop at Jason Elysis Jade. Did you see Bogonia?

criticisms to be made. I'm just saying like they at least had a message in symbolism, and and uh it was a little bit of the feminist nonsense in Bogonia, but it was still pretty funny. And uh, I knew exactly what was gonna happen, we called it, but gobbagool Tony gets some prosciudo and mozzarella. Jonathan Kelly five dollars. I want your opinion. If America balkanizes, where do we

form the Orthodox Empire? I mean, I think we're a long time away from I think you're joking, but yeah, I mean, we're not going to build some political entity. But the church does thrive under persecution. So we only build the political stuff when the majority of the of the population has become Orthodox. Okay, we don't. This is the wrong headed idolatry of people that think that we'll fix the politics of the country. Uh, and then we'll do the religious stuff. I mean, the Roman Empire didn't

become Christian until a few centuries of martyrs. Violator, that what's so funny? I mean, violator, you're going crazy with your emojis. What's up?

being disingenuous. So it's like not even a coherent person. Kevin, what's up? Kevin? What's up?

think that's true? Probably? Probably, I mean that seems to vibe with some of the stuff that I've read. I don't know how far I think social Darwinism is absolutely tied to Laise Fair, you know, Adam Smith, survival of the fittest and the market type stuff, So probably I would agree with that. JB. Five dollars. Oh no, we did that. Alula, Yo, my boy, thank you for what you do.

young guy way to approach the world. And I was wrong in that. What's up, Gabriel, Yeah, it's funny.

it all. It's over. Pack it up, orthos, it's over, straight white male five dollars. What's with hispanic ripers? Are they aware that Nick is white identitarian? I don't think that guy was very coherent about anything, so what does that tell you? He just wanted to call in and yell and cuss at me. Devin five dollars, Thank you so much, Jonathan. No, we did that. Bye, No, we did that. Excuse me, Anonymous, one hundred dollars. Thank you

for all this free content. Well, thank you, Anonymous. I meant to get to the part too of changing images of man, and we had way too many Protestants today just going crazy on Twitter, so I thought, actually we would get more Protestants calling in. We only got two, but of course they were They were definitely gems. So if you missed tonight's protestants, go back and rewind and

listen to them. Because we had a Baptist who was ready to debate all about the canon and Athanasious, but didn't know anything about Athenacious or the Church of Alexandria or what the canons of Nicea were. So that was comedic. And then we had a self appointed street preacher prophet man who also kind of had a meltdown. So we had some excitement tonight. And if you're interested in perfect exemplars of where the Protestant ethos ends up, you can

check those out. Jonathan, what's up? We do have church tomorrow, as everybody knows, so I can't stay here all night. Got to go to bed early because it's hard to get up. Man, what's up, Jonathan, that's on your mind?

Emmanuel five dollars. My childish mind wants to say that you were wrong about anime because there are some worth watching.

So I'm not like just the automatic anime hater. I mean, anime was already underground getting popular in the nineties when I was a teenager, so I was like seeing it becoming popular. And my best friend, the one that passed away, that was a comic book artist that died this year, I mean, he liked he wasn't super obsession that so many people have with weird parts of anime. That's the weird part. But uh, there's nothing about the artistic style itself that I don't like.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, why is everybody you know, twenty five and under, thirty and under like super into anime? And I don't mind it in the sense like yeaheple can have diverse tastes and appreciation in terms of art and all that, but it's sort of like the hip hopification of everything, Like why is everybody only like super obsessed with hip hop for the last thirty years and then rap is you know, all that's kind of dying out, but like it is black culture,

and I don't mind it. But it's like, are all the white people supposed to be into black culture? Why can't we just have people appreciating everybody's culture and having your own native art and culture. MKG says Full Metal Alchemist. Is it the symbol looks like the monarchical Trinity? Yeah, I mean I'm absolutely open to watching some of these things, decoding them and appreciating them. Like I said, I've always

liked Ghosts on the Shell. Remember when I first got a CD ROM on a computer, like back in the two thousands, my buddy who's the comic book artist, one of the first CD ROMs that he burned off was Ghosts in the show, So he burned that off for me to watch on computer. I was like, this is like the most nerdy shit ever. It's like people burning off anime to watch on CD rems. Joshua, what's up, hey, Jay?

of twirled between the the facults. That's why I called it factlets, because it's it doesn't really have an epistemic structure.

And I thank you guys so much. A lot of fun. Thank you FDA for popping in here, guys. Remember heading over to chalk dot com thank you, welcome all the new members. Zach says, I was raised Catholic, I'm now the non denominational. I'm generally inquiring. My wife says that she would never become Orthodox thoughts. I mean, you know, love your wife and invite her to liturgy and once once she find and sees that there's sane women and you can have, you know, an actual relationship with saying people.

That's usually what's going to convert the ladies. So she might have a change of heart. Making sure I didn't miss any super shots Joshua three dollars. Is it easier to convert Protestants or atheists? I don't know there's easier. I mean, I think everybody kind of needs the same grace pretty much, and people convert for different reasons, so it's a good question. I don't know that either one's necessarily easier. Did you see Zoomer historian got his channel nuked?

I don't know what you mean infiltration. I mean, I know what you mean, Like, I mean, what do you mean by standstill? No, I don't. I don't think the church is ultimately going to cave to to infiltration. I think the Roman Catholic system, because the nature of its system is already compromised and at a systemic level, contradicts. But I don't think so, old timer. Can you give me a book recommendation about the monarchy of the Father? I mean doctor bo Branson's lectures. There's a there's a

playlist of doctor Branson. Let's see if I can find it. And also I'm not sure that there is a book on monarchy of the Trinity. I mean usually, you know, if you read Orthodox theology in general, it's going to come up because it's it's just classic, you know, Orthodox theology. But if you look at this playlist right here, the Monarchy of the Father, that's a good good source for that.

All right, guys, Remember to head over to talk dot com use promo co j A Wiper zero get forty percent off, and head on over to The Jay's Analysis Shop and get your signed copies of it