Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The built, the the, the, the, the, the, the, the the,
don't do the do don't do the? Do the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the built, 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, do the the, the, the, the, the built, the, the, the,
the the the dout the the the Oh, don't do
the do the don't do the. Don't do the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the the bum built, the built, the the the,
the the the bult the Britain.
Speaker 3: M h.
Speaker 4: Space wise, Let's create.
Speaker 5: Lison space wise.
Speaker 6: God, that's a body one.
Speaker 4: It's a very tool. He looks good. Good space wise
man space.
Speaker 7: Space space.
Speaker 5: Magic underwear fitting type magic underwear is feeling right? More
man space wise, more man space wise, Lords of the cool,
I would like to have intimacies with you.
Speaker 4: On the planet and of the boo. More manon space.
Speaker 6: Magic.
Speaker 5: Where were right there, my man space Let's create lies
mamonas space wise god the body money. It's a very
tomb honey. He looks good. Good Momon space moons, space w.
Speaker 4: Space space space.
Speaker 5: Magic underwear fitting type magic underwear.
Speaker 4: It's feeling right.
Speaker 5: More men space wise, more space wise, Lords of the cool.
Speaker 4: I would like to have intimacies with you on the
planet of the boom space wise.
Speaker 6: Magical wonder where right there.
Speaker 4: More space space?
Speaker 7: Mm hmm, it's that booger whistle.
Speaker 6: Let's see marks and traits of the cult guru. They
do not typically like you doing well.
Speaker 8: What they secrets. They're doing that out Irish perces. Therefore
they must take dollars.
Speaker 9: But they do not under.
Speaker 7: That's that booger whistle bation.
Speaker 10: Their energy bands.
Speaker 11: That's that booger whistle bation. I got a booger whistle
food their energy band, that's that booger whistle.
Speaker 10: The whistle.
Speaker 6: Oftentimes, the communal living of the guru demands doesn't match
up to the guru who's dropping around and a freaking
rolls Royce. How many swamis gotta dang rolls Royce?
Speaker 8: Hey, I was visuals made, Yes, send it? Most game
don store. They swammy don't get the roads race.
Speaker 7: That's that booger whistle.
Speaker 10: Their energy van birds.
Speaker 7: That's that booger whistle. An I got the booger.
Speaker 10: Whistle, their energy van birds, that's that booger whistle.
Speaker 6: Turn many rolls, roses, you got get over there in
that canune living by the way, get.
Speaker 12: Out of my rolls, or got dang rolls right and
by Monday E would have got fifty.
Speaker 7: That's that booger whistle.
Speaker 10: An yere energy bad birds.
Speaker 7: That's that I got the muger whistle.
Speaker 10: They're energy bad birds.
Speaker 13: Black kangs, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuade,
Lang dang, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuade,
lang kang, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate
persuey lang Kang, black bishops, black players.
Speaker 6: People of the chocolate persuasion. But the dark ages at
a time when black people rule Europe. So when you
go into the real history, you'll see King James with
that's King James, or that's James Lebron, that's King Lebon
right now black he was not a white guy.
Speaker 12: You'll see his whole lineage of kings, black kangs, black.
Speaker 13: Bishops, black player is people of the Chocolate persuade, Black Kangs,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuade, black kangs,
black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persuey black king,
black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion, who
was in almost sexual himself, who was in love with
his sister Lucretia, whould have made the image of Lucretia to.
Speaker 12: Be married, and that became the Renaissance era Luque saw Lucretia.
Speaker 6: That's a black game. Are you going to say that
the people that was framing the black people were also black?
Speaker 10: That don't make no sense.
Speaker 6: Lucretias are black as hell named Lucretia. Raised Church is
allowed it.
Speaker 10: You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 6: The Church allowed for straight pempers that have been suppressed,
that have been suppressed. Listen to my brother from fifteen hundreds,
it was legal to be of pen black kangs, black bishops,
black player is, people of the Chocolate persuasion.
Speaker 13: Black visions, black play is people of the Chocolate persuasions.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, welcome everybody, everybody to the limit. It's another
live stream. It's open for him, it's open calls, it's
wisdom time. Not necessarily from me, But we're gonna go
to the fount of wisdom, Lady Wisdom herself, and we're
gonna get some insight into what no one has today,
which is wisdom. Now, we got a lot we're going
to talk about today. We're going to open it up.
We're gonna let people call in with their challenges, their opposition,
their critiques, their disagreements, all of that. But I've decided
because no one has wisdom today. We got a lot
of facts, a lot of knowledge, a lot of info,
a lot of data dumps, and I'm speaking of data
from Star Trek going number two data dumps. We have
all this information, but we don't have much wisdom. And
one reason for that is that young men are not catechized.
And men are of course meant to be the leaders
in society. And when men fail to lead, or when
they are severely repressed and oppressed by a oligarchical, degenerate
culture in society as we presently are, men retreat and
become feminized in the living fantasy worlds, etcetera, etcetera, and
they get psyoped by the syop of psyops, namely atheism.
And as you know, my thesis seems to be more
and more vindicated that mainline atheism was a top down syop,
and especially all of the info that comes out with
Jeffson mcguffrey. What do you know, As we said, the
so called rationalist atheists are hanging out with and flying
on the planes of jeff Stin McCaffrey, which by the way,
are CIA planes for three decades. As we now know. Now,
keep in mind, the same people that were involved in
high tier finance, toxic culture creation, blackmailing celebrities, politicians, world leaders,
profiting from chaos and corruption, war torn areas, on and
on and on, are the same people promoting global trademark atheism.
The new atheists there you can see, your good buddy,
to see it's all rationalism.
Speaker 4: You see when we eat the children underneath castles, underneath
Windsor Castle, it's just rationalism.
Speaker 6: That's just a joke. For those that don't know, it's
a joke. That's my Dicky Dawkins impression down there underneath
uh Windsor Castle and the catacombs trumping down on Uh
not a baby Ruth, a baby named Ruth. That was
a really preposterous joke. But uh no, as you can
see many, many photos of the New Atheist. And yes,
I'm aware that learned.
Speaker 12: Walwantz coows. I suddenly can't say my aw's walwantz coows
what if I did the whole strain today not being
able to say my aws. My little Bobble when he
was a kid, he had to gotta say his rs.
Speaker 14: What Jeffey Epstein I used to make make my brother
because he had to cust to how to say his
r squad, I do say my all's.
Speaker 6: So today we're going to talk about my wood and
jeffe Epstein because you can't say his as. I'm cracking
up again at my own jokes, Jamie, could you bring
me a walk?
Speaker 4: Could you bring me on wattle?
Speaker 6: I hope my brother's watching this. He's gonna be cracking
up sometime. I get my brother to watch the streams.
That's the first time I made fun of himough Don,
I'm making fun of you right now. Could you say
your aws? Could you say jeffy Epstein, jeff Wee? Jamie,
could you bring.
Speaker 4: You a wattle?
Speaker 15: I need.
Speaker 16: I need a ja.
Speaker 4: You're making fun of me.
Speaker 3: You know what?
Speaker 6: No laughing matter. Shout out to my little brother. I'm
already crying so retarded as stupid. Oh my goodness, here
we go, shout out to the supper chats. I realized
that there was already water here. I was laughing so hard.
Now I have four waters. I got full wattles. Okay,
So the new atheists, as I've been theorizing, I think
this is a top down sigh op. And with the
Justin mcgeffrey and just laying connections, apparently some of the
dorks have done some really good sleuthing and it appears
that they were also just laying. Apparently was a high
tier Reddit mod with like fourteen thousand posts in the
Reddit atheist sphere. Of course, Professor Dave is the literal
incarnation of Reddit. So what's funny is that these atheists, bros,
these arrogant goblins online are actually the creation the children
of jeff'sty mceffreys. And do you think the jeffsty mceffrees
appreciate or enjoy or or are happy with low tier
goblins like Professor Dave. No, No, they laugh at these people,
and they mock these people for actually believing the low
tier scientists and bullshit that they put out. And I've
been saying that overhe my channel for probably ten fifteen years.
We've talked about atheism as a kind of a psiah
or professional skepticism, right, Michael Shermer type trademark skepticism. They're
the most establishment people ever. They repeat and they parrot
every single establishment doctrine, whether it was the koof or whatever.
And let's not forget that your friend professor Dave, who
by the way, isn't actually a professor. And I looked
into what he actually is. He has a BA, not
knocking a BA, but he has a degree now in education.
Apparently he's not actually a tenured professor. He's not actually
a teaching professor at a university. He said, yes, I
did teach a semester at a trade school. Oh at
a trade school. You mean like where they teach HVAC
and VCR repair, a trade school. So he taught chemistry
a semester at a trade school. Bob Vance heating and
heating and air dude was over there lecturing next to
Bob Vance. And he's like a professor. Now people are
saying that he uses a lot of AI and other
professors write his videos for him. So he doesn't even
write the videos. Now, is it any wonder why he
does not want to do a debate. He says, I
will never debate philosophy. I only talk science. Well, we
know who actually created science, and I don't think y'all
are ready to have this conversation. So yeah, well yeah,
kub mcceffrey. So y'all ain't ready for this conversation. Maybe
when you are, we can talk about who really created science.
But to give you an idea of the science that
we're talking about, Professor Dave is a an ally and
an advocate for men becoming women and women becoming men.
So what does that tell you about your science man?
You're science expert. Notice how many of these people, especially
Matt Dillamunkey right, gender roles are obsolete. I want you
all to understand I am an ally. It is time
for everybody to stop me conservative and accept tr, A
and Z, says Professor Dave in his pro trans video.
So here's your great science man who can't even figure
out basic common sense empirical facts, much less could he
actually give an argument defending any of the metaphysical claims
that he makes all the time. Now, Jim Bob had
a great call in here, and I want you to
see the level of the high IQ level that we're
dealing with with these people, these absolute SuDS. They are
absolutely this is the definition of a sued and I'm
going to prove it to you. Let's listen to Professor
Dave respond to just a couple basic questions from Jimbob.
Speaker 17: Okay, so, then would you agree that, from your perspective
that the brain was a process of random mutations produced
by random mutations.
Speaker 18: Brains in general and every other organ in every other
aspect of all life ever.
Speaker 19: Yes, okay, so then, and it wasn't developed for any purpose, right, No, not.
Speaker 18: Any inherent purpose, but it serves it is useful. Right,
Animals with brains have processing ability, and then especially humans,
we have this huge frontal lobe that is capable kinds
of compet I understand.
Speaker 19: But you would say that your your brain has no
real purpose, right.
Speaker 18: It has no inherent purpose. I use it for the
purpose of thinking.
Speaker 19: Okay, but you know it's not made for the purpose
of thinking.
Speaker 20: Uh.
Speaker 18: There is no God that on purpose made things with
the purpose that I didn't say God, No, God, God
doesn't exist in this hypothetical.
Speaker 6: Okay, I just want you to.
Speaker 18: Your view, then you would agree that nothing would have
any kind of inherent purpose from a higher power. If
it's all chance, then there's no inherent purpose to anything
other than what proliferates due to conferring a survival advantage.
Speaker 17: And so why would I why would I listen to
sounds coming from a purposeless brain?
Speaker 18: Because I'm right.
Speaker 6: So that's the level of argumentation. It's literally t dump level.
And all these people have been mind graped, all of
these people that have grown up on four Chan, which,
by the way, turns out Jeffsony mcgeffrey and company met
with the four Chan dude. Was it named moot or
mute or something that was a siop to essentially degrade
the youth? I would say through all of the degeneracy
and the pushing of the underage types of things that
happened is significantly over the many years through four Chan,
all of the fake info dumps, all the conspiracy q
TRD crap. What do you know, It's all out of
four Chan. And Dave is the perfect representative of a
person raised on that. He believes, of course that his
position is rational, it's logical. He's against these silly religious people,
and he's so much smarter than everyone else, but he
can't even formulate in an act will argument. That's what
I've noticed in watching several clips is Yeah, if the
debate was about whether Dave has learned some basic chemistry,
I'm sure Dave would do good. But that was never
the question. The question was you're venturing into the domain
of metaphysics and philosophy without even realizing it. As you
say that you don't really care about philosophy. Philosophy doesn't matter,
people are saying in the past, Dave has actually done
philosophy videos, so he should be willing to debate. Well,
I've offered the challenge, so Derek Mythvision, nastic Informant, and Dave.
I've offered all three separate public formal debates. Derek declined,
no shocker there. Derek seems to be the most butt
hurt out of all this, and he, together with Nasti Informant,
did a victory lap video after Dave made yesterday's video
calling me a bunch of poop joke man, it's it's
a bunch of really low tier reddit like reddit people,
or if you don't know, they're like obsessed with anuses.
They're all about anuses, the error that expels out of anuses,
putting things in anuises, women becoming men so that they
can go into the anuses. That's really all they're into.
And so they are degraded and demoralized, disgusting people. And
it comes out when you actually sort of try to
investigate their worldview, you find out they're actually suits. They're
not actually educated. Now, when I say educated, I don't
mean did you study chemistry at a community college. No,
I'm talking about actually educated in the ability to argue,
to have good discourse, to have good communication skills, and
to make your case rhetoric logic, what we call the
classical arts or the trivium. Can you actually engage in
that kind of argumentation? Do you actually know any classical
logical laws, fallacies, etc. No, they don't. And this all
stems from the Derek mythvision video one year ago where
he's still mad that I hopped on the stream with
him and Andrew and Jimbob to debate, and Derek wanted
basically no pushback. He wanted to be able to constantly
go at Christianity and anybody that's so stupid as to
be a Christian without anybody asking any questions about Derek,
and so he basically had a meltdown and just said,
I don't care it's true because I say so. Interesting,
that's exactly what we just heard Professor Dave argue because
I say so, so these people are actually incapable of arguing.
And the other thing that's funny is that when Derek
prophesied that he was taking over his channel was going
to dominate, he said he would be half a million
in one year, and he's not even anywhere close to that.
So none of that came true. And as people have
noted in the comments, I will critique your worldview. It's
all mythological stories. Well, under your definition, your own worldview
is a mythological story. I didn't come here to debate
my worldview, so don't do an internal critique of me.
Don't ask me any questions about my worldview. I only
want to come at you now. When I talked to
Derek in DMS, asking him for a public debate, he's
essentially affirmed the same thing. I'm not going to debate philosophy.
It's not my field. However, I will assert that Christianity
is not true and I'd be happy to assert Christianity's
not true on a stream with you, and you can
come on my stream. So this is how fragile and
arrogant grown men are as people. Yeah, exactly in the chat.
Grown men can't handle being challenged and they can't have
just a little bit of humility to say, look, hey,
I don't actually know what episodmic justification is. Could you
explain that rather than just asking a few questions to
see if he understood the argument. By the way, a
year later, when he made his video the other day
saying that, by the way, I lost that debate because
I was hungry and I didn't have any snacks around.
That's literally what he said. And it's not fail because
they twicked me. Okay, well, how about set up a
formal debate then if it wasn't fair and you feel
like you can handle it well. And what's funny is
that Jimbob reviewed this from the other day. I've already
tried to debate Sneako. I ended up debating Sneako had
to bring in his buddy Muslim lantern. So we already
did that debate. And no, Sneako's not gonna debate me
come on. So you know what's funny is that really
I think Derek, it would have been better for you
if you had just basically at least understood what we
were arguing. But in Derek's new videos, he made absolutely
no effort to even understand the argument. And this is
the thing, is like people can see this stuff eventually
when you have this facade and you get challenged and
you basically have spurgout meltdowns and you're constantly talking about
how it's not fair and you were hungry and this
and that, like, okay, well, then why not do us
a formal debate? Well, now it turns out he can't
do a formal debate because it's not his topic. He
doesn't do philosophy. Okay, so I think that's enough on
that topic there. So I've issued a formal debate challenged
to all three of them. Somebody sent me a clip
of Professor Dave saying that he's preemptively already said in
an interview or a podcast that he will never debate
tag or philosophy. He only debates science. Okay, well, I'm
not sure what to say to that. I mean, if
he preemptively says he won't debate, and the debate is
a philosophical argument. There's not much I can do about that.
I didn't really expect any of these people to except, however,
I will say, at least Gnostic Informant has the balls
to do a debate. So of these three goobers, the
only one who actually stood up to do the debate
is Gnostic Informant, and that will be next, not this
upcoming Monday, but the following Monday on Crucible, we will
have a formal public debate with Gnostic Informant, who I
know this is so crazy. I assumed by his name
he was Gnostic. Lma bro, I'm not Gnostic, LMAO. Who
would think a Gnostic with the name Gnostic informant? Now,
I know that's crazy of me to assume that a
Gnostic informant would be a Gnostic. Now it turns out
he is a quasi Aristotelian monist. Of course, Aristotle was
a diadist and not a monist, so I don't think
he knows what he's talking about. And that's going to
be a lot of fun. And cross your fingers, because
you know what often happens in these situations. Let's hope
that there's no medical emergency or family problem that comes
up within the next seven days, which means that Gnostic
Informant can't make the debate. But he's already agreed to it,
and Derek Mythvision had to bring in Gnostic Informant as
his big bro to do the debating for him. Well,
how come, Professor Dave. Isn't he the biggest channel in
the biggest brain. He's the big intellect, He's got the
biggest nose, I mean, the biggest brain amongst all of them.
Can he not do the debate as the real big bro?
Is Gnostic Informant a weirdo subjectivist relatives? Last time I
heard him arguing is he the best that they have
to offer? Okay, well, this is going to be a
lot of fun at looking forward to that debate next Monday,
So shout out for all the people joining me and
not watching the super Hole. Of course, we know the
Superhole is faking gay. It is engineered to be faking
gay because our culture is toxic culture that is fake
and gay on purpose. Who has been saying that for
the last twenty years, Who wrote three giant books over
a thousand pages on our culture being toxically engineered. I
did now. Years ago there was an atheist channel that
had me on to do a debate. I don't think
that channel exists anymore. I remember the name of something
like a Atheist Experience or something like that, and I'm
just remembering a debate there. This is probably seven or
eight years ago, and that guy debated me on esoteric Hollywood. Right,
So we took a little bit of a detour from
the standard atheist theist debate, and he wanted to do
a debate on whether or not esoteric Hollywood was the case.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: I don't know if that video is still up, but
I would like to point out that I'm vindicated ten
years later on that video as well, because first of all,
he didn't actually read my book. I know, shocker, he
didn't read the book. He assumed that the book was
arguing that everything in Hollywood is a gigantic coordinated conspiracy
and that everyone is a Satanist and they're all eating babies.
Of course my book doesn't argue that. But let's see
if by chance this is still there. No way, it's
not Atheists Experience, because that's that's Matt Dillon monkey. It
was like dudes trying to compete with with Dila Monkey
to create an atheist channel, and the guy that they
had on the guy had debated, he ended up becoming
a big atheist channel. Let's see if we can find it.
That channel imploded if you guys remember it, because they
had a huge money debacle between the two of them,
the two atheist that ran that channel. I can't remember
the name of that channel though. If anybody remembers it anyway,
it doesn't matter. But point being is that again, you know,
there was a specific debate even on this topic. The
line it might have been the line. Let's see if
it was the line because the two one of the
guys was named. It was the guys that hosted the
Malpass debate. They had a separate debate channel thing, and
that's who it was. And then I debated there dude
who ended up becoming a big atheist YouTuber guy. Anyway,
I don't know if that exists anymore, but I can
try to find it. I think I might have said
it in my archives somewhere. Anyway, Guys, I want to
support the stream, you could do so through superchats. Super
chats are done through stream labs. Is pin in the
chat there. You can also send it a super chat
natively through YouTube if you would like. Welcome everybody who
got twenty two hundred live over on YouTube and we
got people piling into the Twitter space. There's the super
chats there. Today we're going to be reviewing Jeff Sin
McCaffrey in terms of the Atheist Unstoppable. No, it was
a different It was two.
Speaker 4: Guys that had a.
Speaker 6: One guy was a Navy nuclear sub guy. It's the
two guys that did the malpass discussion. So let me
see who those guys were. Non sequitur that was the show,
other types of sistant. Okay, so non sequitor. I don't
know does this still exist? So it looks like they're
still posting stuff. And uh so they even up to
a few months ago they were posting Derek mythvision stuff. Okay,
so let's say if they still have my Hollywood debate
up because I was vindicated, I was correct. All right,
let's just try searching my name. Oh, here it is.
It's still there, mister atheist, that's the guy. So here's
my debate seven eight years ago with mister atheist, and
lo and behold, here we are seven years later, the
Epsteine information has dumped massively, and who was correct? I was,
And again, what do you expect? Of course the guy
didn't read the book, but uh, mister atheists did become
a large YouTube channel. I don't know if he still
is doing stuff, but there is my eight year ago
debate with mister atheists. This, by the way, doesn't it doesn't.
It's very hard to find these Who is Jeff Say McAffrey.
I don't know. I never heard of him. He's he's
a mysterious character. Let's see if mister atheist is still
out here. Yes, he got up to three point fifty.
He's live right now. And they're calling out MAGA. Wow, edgy, dude,
imagine being an atheist calling out MAGA as if that's
like some kind of like was that that wasn't even
edgy in twenty sixteen, dude, It's like everybody could see
that there were some pretty significant problems in MAGA. But
so that's where mister atheist is at. And again, you know,
Internet atheism has really been dying out the last eight
ten years, mainly because, as we said, it was kind
of a propped up thing in the domain of you know,
Reddit YouTube early on, and most of these people that
were sort of the face of it ended up being
i think exposed pretty much as suits, right, I mean,
most of these people were not really intellectual. And you've
got a few hangers on with Professor Dave. Professor Dave
and I guess Derek mythvision is an atheist agnostic. I
don't know, but you know, again, Derek is having a
hard time with losing a debate a year ago. So
it seems to me like the easiest thing to do,
if it was an unfair situation is to say, hey, okay,
come on a formal debate in a neutral setting. And
Derek said, no, we'll not do that. Okay, So there
we go. What does that tell you? By the way,
if tag is so stupid, if tag is such a bad,
low tier argument, wouldn't it just be really easy for
these guys to come on a formal debate and to
refute it. I mean, it should be really easy, right,
But you know what they have to do is they
have to go to professors. They have to bring on
professors in their cope streams after the debates. Even Matt
dillamunkey to this. Remember he had to bring on Professor
Ozzy and somebody else because after our debate, he felt
like you didn't do very well. Now should we shift
gears over into Jeff Siy McCaffrey, because I'll give a
spot if anbody who's an atheist agnostic, if you're on
the Twitter space, raise your hand if you want to
call in. We'll try to hit a couple of these
before we go into Jeff sim McCaffrey. Now, we're gonna
have open calls all day. We're going to be covering
the rest of the bandon eein interview because it's so bombshell.
I know there's gonna be slow parts, some of us
a little boring. We're going to pick back up after
the first twenty minutes or so that we saw the
other night, and that'll help us, help us, I think,
to move forward. We might put it on fast, you know, speed,
so that we get through it. Nicolas, what's up? Nicolas?
Speaker 15: Do you think?
Speaker 6: Yeah? What's up? Yeah?
Speaker 16: Hey?
Speaker 21: Jay?
Speaker 16: I love to work. Yeah, I have a question for you.
Speaker 6: How do you not get as someone new to this stuff,
how do you not get overtaken by Because I'm on
Twitter and I'm new to it, I'm seeing all.
Speaker 15: The slips of all these things, of the Bitanic rituals,
How do I not get like.
Speaker 16: Something of that?
Speaker 3: And then I want to remain bround?
Speaker 22: Did you know what I mean?
Speaker 6: Yeah, you go check out the Orthodox Church, and you
start to go to the Orthodox Church, and you become
an inquirer and then a cat human And that's the
best defense against the reality of this kind of satanic
situation that we're in, because remember, you know, for many years,
I remember being depressed when I first came across this information.
In two thousand and three, I read the first book
I'd ever read on ritual abuse, William Kennedy's book, and
that kind of introduced me to the subject matter. I
found it to be very difficult, very dark, hard to accept,
and since that time I have studied it extensively. And
it's not all real. Obviously, there's a lot of dissentel
and there's fake stuff, and there's, you know, an element
of sensationalism to the Satanic panic, but there's also an
element of absolutely real, hardcore stuff that goes on, and yes,
they throw it in people's faces as part of the
degrading of the population, A degraded demoralized population is much
easier to steer and to control. Thus, atheism and materialism,
as I've said for many, many years, are absolutely essential
the part of tyrannical regimes and deep state operators. They
would love to have atheism and materialism promoted because it
debases the population. The population has no moral compass, they
have no objective standards to try to rein in the passions.
And what happens is you get a population control and
steered by their passions. So when you see the leftists
and the Antifa and all these people out in the street,
this glob of you know, millions of people that have
this borg high mindset that are essentially a giant Gollumn creature.
That's exactly the way the Cabbalistic texts describe the debasing
and the controlling of the population. It's a technique that
can be used at a very sophisticated high level. And
as we see, as we're gonna see, because I saw
several sections of this interview over the last week, Jeffrey
Epstein is not a proponent of scientism. In fact, he's
apparently a proponent of cobbalism and perennialism and that's what
we're going to see, I think as we get through
this interview with Bannon here. But I would say, for example,
we saw last year's Olympic ceremony, which we covered extensively
on many, many large podcasts. We went into quite a
bit of depth about the intentional inversion of blasphemy in
those you know, trans version of the Last Supper all
this stuff. So yes, I would say, with with that
being the case last year with the Olympics, and when
we see inverted pentagrams this year, of course it's intentional. Right,
So how do I know? Well, because there's the last
year's entire ceremony was intentionally about the French Revolution, the
bloodbath of you know, the Committee for Public Safety. That
was all shown in an artistic way explicitly in last
year's Olympic ceremony, and then they concluded with a trans
version of the Last Supper. So of course it was satanic.
Of course it was on purpose, and so of course
this would be as well. Now, we did podcasts ten
to fifteen years ago highlighting the satanic nature of a
lot of the Super Bowl ceremonies and the Super Bowl stuff,
and it turns out you've got even pop star musicians
essentially agring with us now saying yeah, that's true. For example,
if you guys saw the interview of the podcast that
Billy Corgan did recently from Smashing Pumpkins, he says, you
know a lot of these pop stars in their ceremonies
are more satanic, so to speak, than the you know,
so called heavy metal satanic panic stuff. And that's absolutely true.
I mean, you've got Lil nas X literally like but
humping the devil. I mean it's just or the double
humping him. So it's like, I mean, they're degrading the population.
It's this is a known technique in psychological warfare and
non conventional warfare. You can degrade the opponent the opposition
through for example, sexual compromise. You know, when we did
our lectures on espionage, which I reposted the first half
of that the other day, by the way, if you
scroll down, we covered the historians text Sexpionage by Boer
Bower Bower Boer, and we saw that there were many
instances in recent history, in the last several hundred years
where you had very perceptive military operators, agents, spies, on
and on and on who had figured out that hey,
Wait a minute. If we set up a bunch of
for example, the case of Kenji Doihara, if we set
up a bunch of opium dens in China, and if
I set up a network of prostitutes that are trained
in Japan to be in those Chinese brothels, I can
have the degrade of the population advanced intel because the
prostitutes are going to be my informants. And then once
everybody's addicted to opium, it's I'm all good, right. And
kenjud'hara was doing that before even the British Empire was
doing it, So Japan had figured that out as a
technique even before the British had, at least in terms
of the way bowert outlines the history. Bower, excuse me,
where is that one at? Anyway, it's on my wall somewhere.
I'm not going to scroll to all that's trying to
find it. But if you go to my channel and
you type in sexpionage, it'll come up. It's one of
the more recent global elite lecture texts that we did. Now,
guess what turns out in the sphere of Jeff Stin McAffrey,
it's the exact same situation we have as Whitney webs
excellent book outlines from my publisher, all of the same
techniques and tactics that the British Empire was doing, largely
through a lot of the information that Lord Rochald had
figured out. That's exactly why Lord Rochald brought Robert Maxwell
into this operation, recruited him, and then got just laying
to train jeff Stein McCaffrey. So that's one confirmed. There's
no disputing that. That's all. Well, no, none of that
is even disputed. Guys, who want to sport the stream,
you can do so through super chats, super touch down,
through stream labs. Uh, that's not stream labs, but it's
Penn in the chat. I'm just pointing out that like
atheists lose on every front, dude, Like they try to
defend every establishment position, most of these normy atheists, and
by doing that they show that they're actually just NPCs,
Like they don't even they're not even against the establishment.
That's why they have to resort to, well, let's stream
against manga, as if that's some kind of like edgy
thing disciple. Derek, what's up. We're going to read a
little few proverbs for our daily dose of wisdom before
we get into the Jeff stiin McCaffrey text, what's up, man,
I'm you.
Speaker 16: For sure?
Speaker 23: So I do a lot of End Times eschatology, difficult
dissection and Mike, my question is you know you're talking
about the rule of Satan. We clearly see that Donald
Trump was exalted as the Prince of Peace by the
Israel Heritage Foundation. Jerusalem Post refers to him as the
Savior of Israel.
Speaker 6: We're not doing it. No, Donald Trump is not the Antichrist.
It's too stupid. Don't stop it up my string, dude,
Come on, Jamie, would you make another expresso?
Speaker 7: Thank you?
Speaker 6: No stupiding up the stream today. Zero tolerance for retardation,
immediately gonna boot you. You better have a good topic
or a good question. What's up man? Thank you, babe,
appreciate that. I'm going to What up, dog? I'm mute.
I'll fight you naked. I'm mute. Oh hey, hey, what's up?
Speaker 16: I just wanted to say that I'm I was a
part of the new atheist movement.
Speaker 6: Oh you're a new atheist? Okay, yeah, and I.
Speaker 24: Still call myself a non believer. But some of the
things that are now associated with that movement. I mean,
it's just basically the whole thing just went woke.
Speaker 16: It was insane.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 6: Well, that is interesting. I remember back when I first
started debating atheists in twenty fifteen sixteen, ironically, a lot
of the even the YouTube atheist sphere of people were
not woke, and so I think that there was probably
some move or decision high up, probably to try to
turn it into just another mouthpiece for woke.
Speaker 17: Overall.
Speaker 24: I'd just say, like, I don't consider Christians enemies anymore,
even though I don't believe. But where that whole thing
seemed to turn was when Dawkins started getting accusations, or
at least.
Speaker 6: That's what I noticed it first, at least.
Speaker 24: But it was really disturbing to watch everybody who claimed
to be this irrational person who's above it all start
doing that religious woke thing.
Speaker 6: Are you saying that when they came after Dawkins because
he wasn't woke enough, or you saying that Dawkins went woke?
What are you referring to?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 16: They kind of they started doing the me too.
Speaker 6: Didn't they meet to him?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 6: They tried to meet to Dawkins, right, Yeah.
Speaker 24: That was sort of one of the tactics employed by
the woke elements that started kind of taking things over.
Speaker 16: And then it was just a question of.
Speaker 6: Whether or not you got whether or.
Speaker 16: Not you decided joining bushes with those people, or.
Speaker 24: Whether or not you just stopped being a part of
those functions. They sort of took over the the speaking circuit,
which is where the thought leadership was.
Speaker 6: Good point, and uh, we also got the dark Enlightenment
people popping up at the same time. Good point. Yeah.
I remember even a few my ago seeing us in
the atheists sphere, various people talking about how they were
like the left atheists, saying, we've got to make sure
that we don't let anybody who's not a left atheist
into our public atheism sphere. So that's still going on
to make sure that it's all woke, and that's by design,
and I think a lot of this Jeff Stain mcgeffrey
stuff points in that direction. Keep in mind too, that
it's not just the atheism sphere. I think there's a
real parallel with what's happening over the years on four chan,
the connections to Epstein just laying Maxwell at radit the
atheism that's being pushed so hard throughout those outlets, degrading
and debasing the population, particularly that generation of millennial and
younger millennial and Gen Z to be raised in just
absolute degeneracy, to brutalize in the base of public. Now,
if you think that doesn't exist, I would remind you
that there's a great clip of BB and you might
be surprised to hear BB saying this, but not if
you're used to my channel, you would not be surprised
because BB understood twenty four or five years ago and
even in the nineties, how to debase a population and
how to exert soft power through pop culture. The very
thing that I wrote my books about that people for
so many years, so many decades, when the articles before
the books, people call me crazy, timpul hat, oh you're so,
You're just a piece of shit, you're trash or this
or that. Just thousands and thousands of people. Well here's
not Yahoo in two thousand and two talking about the
very thing that I discussed in my books.
Speaker 25: Just see it was even changed at least I would
any just as I would like to see in Iraq.
The question now is a practical question, what is the
best place to proceed. It's not a question of whether
Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it
be taken out. It's not a question of whether you'd
like to see a regime change in Iran, but how
to achieve it. Iran has something that Iraq doesn't have.
Iran has, for example, two hundred and fifty thousand satellite dishes.
It has the internet use. I once said to the
chair the heads of the CIA when I was Prime
Minister that if you want to advance regime change in Iran,
you don't have to go through the CIA cloak and
dagger stuff.
Speaker 6: What you want to do is.
Speaker 25: Is take very large, very strong transponders and just being
Melroe's Place and Beverly Hills two five oh and all
that into Tehran and into Iran. Because that is subversive stuff.
They watch it, The young kids watch it. The young people.
They want to have the same nice clothes at the
same houses, swimming pools and so on. And that is
something that is available in forces internal forces of dissension
that are available in Iran, which is paradoxically probably the
most open society in.
Speaker 6: That part of the world.
Speaker 25: It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is
probably the most close society out earth, and therefore you
have no ability to foment this kind of dynamic inside Iraq.
So the question now is choose you can beam Melrose place.
But it may take a long time. On the other hand,
if you take out Saddam Saddam's regime, I guarantee you
that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.
And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran,
young people and many others will say the time of
such regimes, of such just bots is gone. There is
a new age, something new is happening.
Speaker 6: So he's talking about what's called soft power.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 6: This is a idea pioneered from Kennedy School. This is
Joseph Nye who wrote the famous paper and then book
on soft power. This is Council on Foreign Relations level stuff.
We have done talks on the Joseph Nice's material and
his information for years. Of course, nobody listens to that.
That's too boring. You've got to watch your sports hole today.
But if you want to understand the real levers of power,
you would be listening to what I talk about with
soft power and Joseph Nie, and that's exactly what he's
talking about here. Back in two thousand and two, you
understood that the power of Hollywood and pop culture is
much more effective than tanks and regime change and all that. Now,
that doesn't mean they won't resort to that, But there
you go. There's that from your boy, Bibie. What's up?
Speaker 1: Noah? Uh?
Speaker 16: I tried to call in yesterday but didn't work.
Speaker 6: What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Dog?
Speaker 26: Uh?
Speaker 21: So?
Speaker 16: I found an.
Speaker 2: Interesting thing in the files that I think is something
you've talked about before and in some confirmation.
Speaker 16: I don't think you've seen it yet. Okay, So it's Epstein.
Speaker 2: It's actually this guy named Gino U who's like a
Chinese professor.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the stage three I covered?
Speaker 20: That?
Speaker 1: Was it?
Speaker 2: The thing about constructed realities digital realities?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 6: No, I'm talking about the one where he talks about
he's spotted a girl that he thinks could be useful
for Epstein, who's quote stage three in the process. Is
this a separate one?
Speaker 16: Oh?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 10: So yeah, so it is this guy.
Speaker 2: So this guy talks to him about a bunch of
this kind of quote like wu wu. Yeah, but this
is actually interesting it's more about the idea of like
using digital realities like constructed video.
Speaker 16: Games to analyze people's decisions and.
Speaker 2: Predict their their worldview in order to make predictions about
what they would do in the future. And it's kind
of I think what you've talked about before, like with
social media, when you control the inputs, you can also
predict the outputs.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's feedback loop. Yeah, so that's exactly. Yeah, Minds
of Men. That documentary goes into that from how Norbert
Wiener kind of pioneered that idea of feedback loops and
mastering reality through you know, DARPA style, you know future
actually predicted technology and all that. Yeah, we talked to that.
That's also in foundation. If you're head Asimov, which we've
done streams on Asimov before. Shout out to the live audience.
We've got almost three thousand, some of my first three
thousand live audience, I think without any big dumps from
big channels at least, I don't think anybody did a
big dump. So shout out to Jake or Crucible if
they did, but I didn't see it if they did.
So we're going to hit three thousand on my first
line now, this Greiper over here says there's no emotion
on Dyer's channel, there's no motion. He can't get anything.
Oh really, We hit three thousand live this week, twenty
to twenty five thousand total on each of these live streams,
and the five hour live streams of Getting aywhere from
forty to fifty thousand views, as well as several hundred
thousand clips on X and then my channel just this
week gained five thousand subscribers on YouTube and I think
I gained three to four thousand on X. So I
would say there's a little bit of motion. There's some
motion in this ocean, baby, don't don't hate the player,
hate the game. How's it go? Anyway? All right, let's
get into jeff Simon, Jeffrey Uh if any last calls
here on anything else, Michael, what I'll do? What's up?
Speaker 7: My wigger?
Speaker 16: Hey?
Speaker 10: Jay?
Speaker 16: Hey? I uh?
Speaker 15: I just so, I I kind of helped to break
the story of the Epstein story back in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 7: Or wherever it was.
Speaker 15: But I wrote an article for the uh, the American Conservative,
and I got a call from Tucker Carlson's producer, El
Dad you're on, asking me to come on to talk
about it, and so I say, cool, that was all right.
Speaker 7: So I uh so they you know, I was.
Speaker 15: Driving into the to the station and uh and he
called me again. He said, he said, I just wanted
to make a request. I said, what's that. He said,
don't talk about Trump. Don't talk about the Trump connection.
The audience doesn't want.
Speaker 20: To hear that.
Speaker 16: And uh, I was pretty new to you know, to
the scene.
Speaker 9: So I just, you know, I was Tucker Carlson's an
iam Fox News. So I agreed. I didn't go on.
Speaker 6: I I didn't.
Speaker 9: Uh, I didn't talk about it.
Speaker 15: But then, you know, like it was six months ago,
the Epstein files quote unquote breaks again, right, and everyone's saying, oh,
it's Trump and the Epstein files and say, well, of
course Trump's in the EPs.
Speaker 16: I was blown away.
Speaker 15: I couldn't believe it, because, you know, I think anyone
that's been paying attention to that Trump was all over
the Epsteam files. But you know, mainstream media, rights right
wing media was running interference for Trump. Hart I mean
to the point where most people didn't realize that he
was friends with Jeffrey Epstein because that was all suppressed
so hard.
Speaker 6: But the story started to break. Well, I don't know
about all that that. I'm not faulting you, but like
I interviewed the person who broke the story way before
twenty sixteen, Nick Bryant. Nick Bryant was doing the STUF
back in the two thousands. So what do you mean
you broke it? Yeah, so I misspoked.
Speaker 15: I guess it was when it really kind of like
started to become mainstream, not to just when it was
so I guess, yeah, misspoke.
Speaker 9: We were helping to amplify it, and.
Speaker 15: It was, you know, thank good it is making it
started to make it started to get some traction because
you know, it's it's it's the.
Speaker 6: Big it's But I guess I'm just I'm trying to say, is.
Speaker 9: Like I think, but people aren't really black built enough.
Speaker 15: Even the people that are getting black built now, they're
not black built enough. Because this is like this has
been They've been Trump They've been, you know, actively covering
this up for I mean for for decades.
Speaker 6: This has been well known.
Speaker 15: And then but even the you know, even the the
biggest organs of power like Fox News, like the White
House have been have been have been covering this up.
Speaker 6: Well, I think it was definitely a mistake for Trump
to cover up for the intelligence agencies. I think Lord
Voldemort is correct about that analysis. But you know, there
may have been potential legal threats that they could have
to undergo. I don't know, but I yeah, I mean
I still want to you know, I hope that the
president isn't implicated. I know that he's close. He was
close to in New Epstein. But you do have emails
where Epstein says I couldn't get Trump to get a massage.
He says to Wolf, we got to get rid of Trump,
p at tressure on pressure on Trump. You know, where
is the I'm not saying that there's not, but we
need to see the actual, like hardcore information that does
implicate Trump. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm
just simply saying that we've seen a lot of fake
AI stuff. My main criticism of Trump has been the
the warp speed, the bloomer dum, and the sort of
just doing whatever Israel wants. I think those are major
points of criticism. Uh So, it's not I'm not a
like a Maga cult person who doesn't have a problem.
I'm post politics. I've been I've been post party politics
since Ron Paul Era, dude. But so now we've got
Lucas Gage going crazy talking shit. He's so glad that
they uh have refuted me. And this guy is really unhinged.
He's constantly sort of going off on everybody. Everybody's a grifter,
everybody's bag because he's the greatest champion of anti Israel stuff.
And you know when he's called in, the two or
three times that he's called in over here, I've been
kind and tried to explain philosophical concepts to him, and
he has no idea what they are, what they mean.
And these are people who are way overconfident in their
skill sets and their abilities.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: Think about professor Dave. Okay, we have a mid tier
what does he have, like a TV VCR repair background
with the community college that he taught at. He says
it was a trade university. Yeah, trade universities where you
get like your HVAC tv VCR repair certification. So he
taught there. Okay, Wow, that's that's really profound. Lucas Gage,
then a way, overestimates his capabilities. He thinks he's a philosopher,
and you remember when he called in, he was.
Speaker 4: Like, oh, it was Christianity stuff. Why do you just
talk about like, uh, like now we're all one, like
everything is like buddhas onever.
Speaker 6: It's that level. Okay, So we're dealing with people that
are this level. They think that science is like a religion, right,
so when we talk about scientism, that's what we mean.
And I'll bet your money that guy won't come over
here in debate because you know, most of these people
are just we live in a situation where people have
not been educated. That's a big part of it. But
even with a lot of information, even with an Internet
at your fingertips that has basically you know, the world's
the world's information at your fingertips, people are not being educated.
They're actually getting stupider, they're becoming less educated. I will
bet you anybody in this chat, I'll bet you one
hundred dollars that if we can get Luca's gauge on
here and we can get him to engage, lucas engaged,
I will bet you he doesn't know anything about logical
orgmentation fallacies. He can't tell you the three laws of logic.
I bet you couldn't take you couldn't do any of
that so let's see if we can get him to
come to debate. I've asked multiple times here for him
to come on. Hop on. He's hopped on in the past.
And uh, I think people think that like just shit
talking is going to be some kind of like I
think they think it's like a a replacement for actual engagement.
And that makes sense in a reddit four chan debased
and degraded society. So you've got a whole generation of
people have been degraded and brutalized and what does Charles
Carroll say, mind graped, and so they're not able to
reason through things with an educated understanding. They all, for example,
will cite peer review papers as the peer review papers
are approved. Well, peerview papers might be an evidence, but
we also know that peerview papers oftentimes contain fraudulent research
and fraudulent data and conclusions. Even one of their want
to be new atheist luminaries, James Lindsay, made a name
for himself on Joe Rogan by exposing the fraudulent nature
of those peer viewed networks. So even their own call
this out right. We saw the Lancet, one of the
premier medical journals in the world, right out of the UK.
The Lancet had a famous paper which I've cited countless
times years ago, saying that uppers of fifty percent peer
review papers are actually fraudulent, and they called it a crisis,
a crisis of trying to remember the terminologies, like a
crisis of faith, which is ironic something like that. Okay, cool,
So then it should be easy for these people to
demonstrate at a very basic, you know, rudimentary level, the
flaws in our reasoning, and they ought to have much
more convincing, significant answers as to why we ought to
believe their position. But you know what's wild is that
every time we bring them on and we ask them
very basic questions about justification, why, what are the good
reasons to believe or position? What are the fallacies that
I'm committing, they don't know anything. And you just heard
Professor Dave say, oh, it's it's what I say.
Speaker 21: It is.
Speaker 6: Shut up, Jim Bob, it's what I say. Let's listen
to this again.
Speaker 17: And so why would I Why would I listen to
sounds coming from a purposeless brain because I'm right?
Speaker 6: So this is all you get from these ucations. And
at the end of the day. It's just pure arrogance.
It's t dump level saying reality is reality is true
because I say it's true. No actual argumentation, and they
don't even understand the argument that you're making. Jumbob is
making a devastating disteleology argument. What does that mean? It
means that at a macro level, at a universal level,
if there's no purpose to anything in reality, then there
isn't really purpose at all. Purpose is kind of an illusory,
sort of localized temporal thing that in the big, big scale,
is meaningless. And Dave says, yeah, my brain is meaningless
and purposeless. Well, guess what if your brain is meaningless
and purposeless it's non purposive, then that means that your
statements are non purposive and meaningless. So atheists are literally saying,
my actual worldview means that my life, my arguments, and
my sentences are meaningless and retarded, purposelessness and just bubblings
up of chemical reactions that have no significance. But also,
by the way, I'm my own god and we're evolving
to become transhumanist god beings. So note the absolute insanity
of the presuppositional level contradiction in their world views. Their
world views at a fundamental level are so contradictory that
when they get actually pinned and called out, they have
a melt down and they just go absolutely batshit, insaying,
going after me, they have to call out my wife? Right,
that's how shitty these people are, like they have to
go after Jamie and their videos because they are degraded
and debased goblins. And then when you ask them to
actually do a public debate, they won't do it. Remember,
one of my best arguments is the half nug argument.
I think this is a good one. So remember that
the mutations occur and they progress from generation to generation
when they're advantageous. Interesting, what is the advantage of one
eighth of a PP? The nub? Right? The nub argument. Now,
I know a lot of these people have a micro
penis problem, and that's probably why they identify with it.
They understand what it's like to have a micro pep,
and so I think they want to feel like they
were they had a purpose in the evolutionary chain. My
atheist reddit micropp did have a purpose. My nub had
a purpose, I promise you. Although wait a minute, Da've
just said there's not actually any purpose. Somebody said, Dave
is the final boss of Reddit. We thought it was
just laying, but it's actually Dave because he has a big,
big brain and a big nose. So interesting. Somebody in
the comments said that because after his video he sent
a bunch of his atheist goblins to comment. Somebody said,
fuck around with a brain and find out, and I
was like, it would have been so much better if
you said fucking around with the nose and find out. Rachel,
what's up? Rachel?
Speaker 16: Hey, I just wanted to let you know I sent
you to your inbox.
Speaker 27: Me explaining to Derek on the timeline here why we
have to debate the worldview.
Speaker 16: First, because you can't just interpret anything whether it's a
text or history.
Speaker 27: Or anything else until you because you have to interpret
those things through a worldview. If the worldview is incoherent,
you're going to get the wrong interpretation. And his response
is pretty hilarious.
Speaker 16: So I thought you might be interested in that, and
tell Jamie don't worry about the people.
Speaker 27: That attack her, because this is what these idiots do.
When they can't punch our husbands, they punch uh like
it's It's exactly like if they were standing next to
you and Jamie, and they're too scared to punch you
in the face, so they just turn and punch your
wise in the face. Happens to me like constantly with Andrew,
where people are too scared to like go after him directly, so.
Speaker 16: They just attack me.
Speaker 6: So yeah, well it's interesting. Yeah, I appreciate that, Rachel.
I mean I try to tell Jamie that too, is
like these are not intellectuals, but I don't worry about it,
like these are these are suits and this is what
suits do. But you know, if they were looking for
me to offer a debate, I guess they achieved that,
and but I don't think they're going to do it
except for Gnostic informant. However, we got a whole week
for gnostic Informant to come up with an excuse as
to why he can't do a debate next Monday on
the Crucible. Shout out to the Crucible into Rachel and Andrew.
The debate will be over there at the Crucial Monday night.
I think we said in nine or something, nine or eight,
it'll be up. We'll have a we'll have the all
that posted all week long. What's up, John, what's on
your mind?
Speaker 3: I was gonna read something from Propaganda by Jacques Lull.
Speaker 6: Okay, is it really long or short?
Speaker 16: I'll all stir it up a bit.
Speaker 21: But basically in light of what you were just talking about,
and it says that the state can no longer govern
without the masses, which nowadays are closely involved in politics.
Speaker 3: But these masses of people.
Speaker 16: Are composed of individuals, and from.
Speaker 3: The point of the view, the problem is slightly different.
They're interested in politics and consider themselves concerned with politics,
even if they are not forced to participate actively.
Speaker 16: Because they live in a democracy, and they.
Speaker 3: Embrace politics as soon as somebody wants to take the
democratic regime away from them. But this presents them with
a problem that are way over their heads. They're faced
with choices and decision with which demand maturity, knowledge, and
a range of information which which they do not and
cannot have. And elections are limited to the selection of individuals,
which reduces the problem participation to its simplest form. The
individual wishes to participate in other ways than just elections.
He wants to be conversant with economic questions, in fact.
Speaker 21: His government asks him to be. He wants to form
an opinion on foreign policy, but he can't.
Speaker 3: He is caught between his desire and his inability, which
he refuses to accept, for no citizen will believe that
he is unable to have opinions.
Speaker 21: And then.
Speaker 6: Is that from his propaganda book?
Speaker 21: Yeah, and then it just says the majority prefers expressing
stupidities to not expressing any opinion at all.
Speaker 6: Wow, that's very perceptive. How applicable to the reddit brain
reddit sphere? Is that right there? That's crazy? Yeah, that's
the classic tax from Jocket Lowell on propaganda, which I've
got over there. We need to do that book sometimes,
I'm in the near future. Thank you for that. John.
Now I'm hoping we can get Lucas Gage to come
over here. So if you guys would tweet at him
and tell him to come in here, because he's popped
in over here and tried to, you know, discuss and
in a civil way argue religion and theology. He was
trying to tell me why.
Speaker 5: Got the Buddhisms, like the Buddhism and the God or
whatever is like everything.
Speaker 6: Is the God or whatever. It's really profound stuff from
these people. And I'm thinking from we're going to get
the same thing from a gnostic informant, because gnostic informant
says he's a he's an Aristotelian monist, okay, which Aristota
was a dualist famously. So I don't think he's going
to do too well not knowing these basic ideas. But
this is what you get with. You know, we live
in a situation where people way overestimate their capabilities and
they think that because they've learned one discipline that that
docipline then gives them sort of the key, the master
key to every discipline. Now we saw that for example
with JF. If you remember the first big atheist debate
that we did well, second we did out of co Cache,
and then we did JF. JF thought that his capabilities
in neuroscience qualified and he even says stuff like the
end the debate like qualified him for everything. And then
when I start bringing into sort of basic logical fallacies
and you know, contradictions and flaws, he gets angry, basically
almost rage, quits the debate, almost booted me before I said,
you know, all right, all right, you know fine, let's
let's I'll chill out, as he was about to boot
me from the debate. But my point is that we
get that with these people, right, people that are a
lot of these scientism bros. A lot of people coming
out of like, you know, one discipline. They did their
gridework in one discipline, and they think that they're like literally,
I've seen this so many times. They think that their
experts in every arena. And the same thing happens ironically
with MMA bros.
Speaker 16: Right.
Speaker 6: Uh, We've had several people who come out of the
mm A sphere. Uh, they get really hyped up into
talking shit about everything and everybody else, and then they
think that because they did Brazilian jiu jitsu that they're
like somehow master debaters more like just master rebaters. Yeah,
good one, dude, I've heard that joke a zillion Times's
not a master debater, he's a master vader who wants to.
Lucas is here. He's gonna set it straight because we're
a science denier. Uh, oh, science denier. What's up, Lucas?
You want to I'm mute, Lucas you want to i' mute.
Speaker 22: Sorry, it's that low IQ of mine, mean to myself,
it's that redditier iq.
Speaker 16: Uh, yeah, you summoned me for some reason. What's going on?
Speaker 6: Well, you summoned me because you said that you're glad
that I was exposed as a suit. So how am
I sued?
Speaker 16: No?
Speaker 22: I posted that video because everyone it was Professor Dave,
which is a left wing ship lib as everyone knows.
Speaker 16: And then myth vision, who I don't talk to. I
don't know who he is. And then what's his name?
Speaker 10: Neil?
Speaker 16: So I just liked the I don't like the science denial?
Speaker 6: So I know that you guys, where do I deny science?
What's that? Where did I deny science?
Speaker 16: Well? I mean you do think evolution's faking gay?
Speaker 22: Aren't you also a Young Earth creationist?
Speaker 6: So hold on? So evolutionary theory is the same thing
as science.
Speaker 22: I'm saying that you don't agree with evolutionary biology.
Speaker 6: Right, I don't agree with macro evolution.
Speaker 22: No, But if you understand that what microevolution is over
time is what you call macro revolution, that's what you
guys have to understand.
Speaker 6: The second, No, I do understand that, But how do
you prove that? Where's the that's an assertion. Where's the
proof of that?
Speaker 16: We have speciations.
Speaker 22: I'm not an expert in evolution, so I can't tell
you every single species. I know there's this ring there's
a ring species in California of salamanders.
Speaker 16: There's things like that. There's bacteria that evolves.
Speaker 6: We see it all the you want, we see it
all the time. Have you observed that? Because science is
an imperialive.
Speaker 16: Have you observed your great great great grandmother?
Speaker 6: Exactly? It's an empirical domain. So if you haven't observed it,
then how do we know that that's actually the case?
Speaker 16: Because listen, you could art. Look when you see.
Speaker 22: Here's the thing about science, it makes a prediction, then
we confirm the prediction.
Speaker 16: So if they even when you.
Speaker 22: Go back in time and see fossis if if this,
if this is true, is evolution is true, we should
have transitional fossils.
Speaker 16: There's millions of them. Like what, that's the thing. It
makes a prediction.
Speaker 6: Where is this evidence that you're you're making all these
assertions and I'm asking.
Speaker 16: There fossils you wear the fossil record.
Speaker 6: I'm not seen a fossil that shows the millions of
transitions that you're talking about.
Speaker 16: Where is it You're not going to see millions of transitions.
Speaker 6: You just said we do see that. Now you're saying
we don't have mili we have.
Speaker 16: I don't know exactly how many fossils exist. I know
we have tons of them.
Speaker 6: But how does the fossil tell you that it's the transition?
How does the fossil itself tell you? And not an interpretation,
because here's the thing.
Speaker 22: Every time they have a fossil, you guys want another
fossil in between those two fossils.
Speaker 6: And yeah, but that's begging the question. How do you
know that that specific fossil is part of the transition.
Speaker 16: That's the thing in question, because you could see the
transition go over time.
Speaker 6: You don't see transition. That's an interpretation. That's the thing
I'm asking you about empiricism. You're an empiricist and you're
saying I see transitions. No, you don't you see present
day fossils that you're saying our transitions.
Speaker 16: Here's the thing, here's the problem here.
Speaker 22: So you're you're saying that I'm an empiricist, and that's
all I care about is there's different kinds of beliefs, Jason.
Speaker 16: You know, there's intrinsic and there's extringent beliefs.
Speaker 22: Right, there's mathematics, there's analytics, all on married all unmarried.
Speaker 16: Men or bachelor's.
Speaker 10: What does that have to do with this?
Speaker 6: What does that to do with impis?
Speaker 22: Because the thing is, when it comes to pistemology, are
you under are you operating under the.
Speaker 16: Justified true belief model?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 22: Okay, then that's just garbage. I'll tell you why you
can You can never obtain that. It's unobtainable. We're not
emniscient beings. And I even wrote a paper on it.
Can't do it to GETT your problem? What the getti
your problem is?
Speaker 6: Yeah, that at time T you also have to have
an extra qualification. The thing why you keep interrupting me
when you're just yapping at me, because you're saying that
you know that there's no justified true belief. So if
there's no justice we cannot obtain, how do you know
that we can't obtain that being? Hold on, how do
you know that we cannot? How do you know that?
You just keep asserting it are how do you know
that that's? Those are great assertions?
Speaker 16: Cool?
Speaker 6: What's the proof of that we can't?
Speaker 16: Can you show me a justified true belief that you know? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Sure to deny JTB and the Gettier problem results in
the impossibility of true knowledge. So there you go. That's
a transcendental argument. What what So I'm giving you basic argumentation.
Speaker 16: You're mixing.
Speaker 22: So you look, you're using a logical claim to make
the justified true belief to teach.
Speaker 6: You don't think that, okay, So when you argue against
justified true belief, you don't think you're using logic.
Speaker 22: Yeah, but logic is a system we know the boundaries
of we're not talking about it.
Speaker 6: Well, you just said we don't have justified true beliefs,
So how do we know the boundaries of it?
Speaker 7: You don't know that.
Speaker 6: I want to know what is your what is your
epistemology language?
Speaker 16: We're talking about language here. We know.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but you just keep shifting.
Speaker 16: So what a lot of you guys do.
Speaker 6: You'll say, is that a true thing?
Speaker 16: Well, that's true, isn't it. That's what. No, we're talking
about absolute truths of reality. We don't know the absolute
truth or reality.
Speaker 6: Okay? Is that an absolute statement? Is that an absolute statement?
Speaker 16: That?
Speaker 22: Yeah, but that's a statement that's not about absolute truth.
Speaker 10: Yes, it is.
Speaker 6: It's a universal claim. You just refuted yourself because it's
not the same.
Speaker 16: It's language.
Speaker 6: You're saying it's not the same. It's a universal claim.
You're saying, for all states of affairs, no one has
universal knowledge if we.
Speaker 16: Don't exist, is that still true?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 6: What does that have to do with you just contradicting yourself.
You made a universal claims.
Speaker 22: What does it mean to be universal at all times,
all places and all I don't.
Speaker 6: And you said that that's not possible. That's a universal claim.
Speaker 16: No, listen, we're talking about you're talking. We're talking about language.
Speaker 6: No, you made an existential claim. It's not just language.
You made an existential claim about everybody having no universal
knowledge or absolute certitude in any state of affairs. That's
a metaphysical and an epistemic claim that you just make.
Speaker 22: And as human beings, because we're finite creatures, you will
argue God has that. That's why you're operating them to
justify true belief and only to have that with you.
Speaker 6: But you're operating on that system too. You just deny it.
And that's what I just showed you.
Speaker 16: I'm not what are you saying.
Speaker 6: You're using the same principles and justification and then turning
around and saying, but I don't have to justify it.
Even though it's a universal claim. You said, no one
can have that level of knowledge and certitude. No one
is a universal quantifier. That's a contradiction, and I.
Speaker 16: Could state that in language, So your.
Speaker 6: Language does apply to reality, then it's a purposeful statement.
That's ridiculous.
Speaker 22: No, because the human language isn't eternal and it doesn't
exist without us.
Speaker 16: Are we speaking about the same object?
Speaker 6: Do you not understand that this is a basic critique
of your skeptical position. No, you don't understand that.
Speaker 22: You're using language that we know, we define, and you're
saying that's universal and that's absolute truth, and even if
we don't exist.
Speaker 6: So translated into logic, you can you know, you understand
you can translate those statements into logical statements. Right, Yes,
so no one has this knowledge that's a universal quantifier
in logic. That means that it doesn't exist anywhere. You
just buy your own criteria said, no one.
Speaker 16: Can have I said humans. I said humans.
Speaker 6: Okay, in your worldview, there's not in your worldview. That's
all there is in your worldview.
Speaker 10: That's all there is.
Speaker 16: Belief cannot be obtained by us.
Speaker 6: That's a universal claim about humans. It doesn't matter whether
it's about humans, it's about humans in all states of
affairs universally, it's still a universal claim. No one is
a universal quo to fire. This is basic college philosophy.
Speaker 10: Beings.
Speaker 6: It doesn't matter that you keep saying human beings. It's
a universal claim.
Speaker 16: I'm not saying a god.
Speaker 15: Can't do it.
Speaker 16: So you're you're you're straw manding me. I said human.
I said we can't.
Speaker 6: If God exists, then that would be in my position,
that would be a justification for JTB. You're using these categories.
Speaker 16: This is what I'm saying, So listen to me. This
is my point.
Speaker 22: I said, we as agents, you and I human beings,
we cannot obtain justify true belief.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's why I'm making a transcendental argument. That's what
I've been arguing the whole time. To you, it doesn't listen.
Speaker 16: You're not understanding.
Speaker 6: No, it's you that doesn't understand. You don't even know
what a transcendental argument is. You said it's crazy to.
Speaker 16: Absolutely do what it is.
Speaker 6: Okay, what is it you're saying when.
Speaker 22: You're making these claims that transcend all of.
Speaker 16: The things we're talking about.
Speaker 6: That's not what a transcendental argument is you don't know
what it is. Just admit you don't know what it is,
then what is it? What is a transcendent argument?
Speaker 16: We just we just had one. You literally just made one.
Speaker 6: Okay, can you tell me what it is? Where does
it come from? Historically? Give an example of it in
the form, oh, here we go. So you don't actually know, No,
but you said you did know.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I do.
Speaker 6: But now you're saying, you don't think you're straw my argument. No,
your argument isn't an argument. It's a fundamental contradiction. The
fact that you just you said that we don't have
access to it, including God, nothing, nothing. That's a universal quantifier.
You're saying universally. You just said nothing and no one didn't,
did you not? I said nothing, no one, Nothing and
no one is a universal quantifier.
Speaker 16: Jason, we're talking about humans. Why do you keep going
to God?
Speaker 6: It doesn't matter that you add on this phrase. We're
talking about humans because it would be universally the case
for humans everywhere.
Speaker 16: Jason, Yeah, and we're limited.
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, Then now you've admitted that it is a
universal claim. Do you understand what a universal claim is?
What do you understand what a universal claim is?
Speaker 16: Yes, what all times, all possible worlds? Do we exist
in all those places possible worlds in times?
Speaker 6: That's not what. That's not what. That's not what possible
world even means. It has nothing to do with whether
we exist in all those possible worlds.
Speaker 16: Retard what does universal mean? Go ahead?
Speaker 6: It just simply means at all times, in all places.
It doesn't even have to be beings.
Speaker 16: Exist in all times in all places.
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 6: The question is not about human beings existing. We're talking
about the truth of the Do you not understand what
a truth of a claim is versus the human beings
making the claim?
Speaker 16: That's just what you guys always do.
Speaker 6: No, you're making a fundamental mistake in category era, it's
a category. Do you know what a category R is?
Do you even know what a category are is?
Speaker 20: Yes?
Speaker 22: What it's when you conflate through different things like jim
Bob was doing earlier making proc.
Speaker 6: So now you're going off into jim Bab. What does
Jimbob have to do this? You're saying that it's not
universal because it talks about human beings, and human beings
aren't universal. That's so low tier. Dude, that's ridiculous. The
claim is the universal, not the human being making the claim.
This is silly.
Speaker 16: I am You're literally strong. You're literally strong.
Speaker 6: Now, this is basic epistemology in logic one O one
to make a universal claim is when you have a
universal quantifier, it doesn't mean the person is universal.
Speaker 22: Yes, that's what I'm saying, And I'm saying no human
beings could have.
Speaker 16: Justified true belief. We cannot.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's a problem with saying that it's a non
sequitor because to have any kind of true belief requires JTB.
Namely to be able to say no one can have
this position. That's what you don't understand. Why do you
keep saying my name?
Speaker 4: What does that have to do with this?
Speaker 16: But the Gettier problem proved that we cannot.
Speaker 6: No, it doesn't. All it does. All that says is
that Noah doesn't. That has nothing to do with the paradigm.
Noah doesn't. Now, So here you go off into this
is not so erudite destiny level stuff. You should not
have called in. Man, this is making you look ridiculous.
I should read your pie paper.
Speaker 16: Okay, did you read it?
Speaker 6: Why would I read you? Why would I have read
your pie paper?
Speaker 9: Have you or not?
Speaker 16: I'm just I'm just asking.
Speaker 6: No, I'm asking to have you read my.
Speaker 22: Paper on the epistemic model that I came that actually
sends is great.
Speaker 16: A grip of trilogy.
Speaker 6: How don't follow you? How would I read your paper?
Speaker 16: Okay?
Speaker 22: Well, if you read that, you'll understand that obtaining knowledge
is not propositional.
Speaker 16: It's structural.
Speaker 6: Oh wow, you want me to go through the premises
for you. No, I'm not even going to entertain it
because you've already demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge of
these subjects.
Speaker 16: I don't know every terminology that your claiming.
Speaker 6: No, you don't know the basic terminology. Why would I
listen to your paper? You don't know the basic terminology?
Speaker 16: You said?
Speaker 22: You literally said, are universals every place, every time?
Speaker 16: In every place? And I said, human beings do not
exist in every time and everything.
Speaker 6: That's a category error. You're fundamentally not competent in epistemology.
Speaker 18: I said, we.
Speaker 22: Would have to have omniscient staff justify true belief. That's
why you appeal to God. Yeah, but human beings cannot
have justified And.
Speaker 6: My argument, Okay, do you understand. Could you state what
my argument is? I know you don't believe it. Could
you restate what I'm arguing.
Speaker 16: Your argument about TAG and how God is? Which argument?
Can you talk about it? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Specifically, what I'm saying is your violation and how it
relates to TAG.
Speaker 22: You're arguing in that essentially, in order to ground these
transcendentals like logic and everything else mathematics, you need an
entity a mind to ground them, to keep the consistent.
Speaker 6: Okay, but what was specifically was my critique of your
of your claims.
Speaker 16: You're saying that I am.
Speaker 22: Making a universal claim that no one, including God can.
Speaker 6: Have justified true belief.
Speaker 16: That's not what I said.
Speaker 6: No, no, No, I'm saying that the phrase itself the proposition.
When you say no one can have that, that requires
still access to a universal state of affairs to have
the universal quantifier.
Speaker 16: I'm saying, we as human beings cannot have justified That's
what you know.
Speaker 6: But you stating that doesn't answer the objection because the
objection is at a level of positional critique, and you're
just saying another thing that's not addressing the criteria. So
this is ultimately a criteria question. And you just appeal
to another thing that isn't addressing the criteria question. So yeah,
I understand, and we agree that individual human beings, because
they're finite and they go on the basis of empirical data,
they don't have access immediately to universal categories. That's why
David listen, Jason.
Speaker 16: I'm not an academics.
Speaker 6: Whatit a minute, but I thought I needed to read
your pie paper on how structuralism is they answer to all.
Speaker 16: This because I have this intuition where I could find.
Speaker 6: So now we should go Why should we go to
your intuition?
Speaker 16: That's a ridiculous because I understand when there's a contradiction.
Speaker 6: Well then how come you don't understand the contradiction I'm
pointing out? If you understand contradictions, what is the contradiction?
What is the contradiction specifically that I'm pointing out.
Speaker 22: You're saying because I just said no one, it's a
universal claim.
Speaker 16: You're saying that because I said no one, which I didn't.
I just thought about us people.
Speaker 22: I constrained it that it's impossible for anyone God to
justify true belief?
Speaker 16: Is that not what's you're arguing?
Speaker 6: No, I'm sure that you could say theoretically that God
might have that, but that doesn't matter in regards to
the proposition itself. You're saying propositions themselves have truth values
and that you can extrapolate logical forms.
Speaker 22: The problem with and I say this in my epistemic model,
is that when you have a proposition, it has to
be justified.
Speaker 16: And how you justify?
Speaker 22: Are you foundationalist? Are you an infinitist? What are you epistemically?
Speaker 6: Jay, I'm a revelation theorist. So I believe in divine revelation,
which is none of those which is not stop interrupting me,
which is none of those secular models. So so what
is your model?
Speaker 22: I have my own model, and basically what I discovered
is this how I discrite that.
Speaker 16: Okay, so this is all justify any of their belie.
Speaker 6: This is ridiculous we're doing so it's just his own
made up thing. He doesn't even know the basic terminology.
So basically, again the fact that you say universal claims
and then saying, but it's not universe because it's only
amongst human beings, it's totally irrelevant to whether it's a
universal proposition or claim. So this is just too stupid.
So is there you go. There's your atheist defending He
would rather defend the ship Libs than actually have conversations
that deal with anything beyond what is always ended up being, Oh,
it's my paper, it's the thing that I came up with,
it's the thing he invented. So there you go. There's
your based trad buddy of the ship Libs. There Chase,
what's up?
Speaker 26: Hey man, I just wanted to talk to you. I
know that was rough and that the defeat was bad.
So if you got anything you want to get off
your cast, I'm.
Speaker 1: Here for you.
Speaker 9: I want to talk about it.
Speaker 6: Well, he wrote a paper, so you didn't read his paper.
Speaker 9: He wrote a paper.
Speaker 16: You're finished.
Speaker 9: That's basically game over. No, I just wanted to jump in.
Speaker 26: It's it's really funny when people do that, like with
with saghetti your.
Speaker 16: Problem, which assumes that.
Speaker 26: We have knowledge first off, the Getty Gettier problems, not trying.
Speaker 9: To say knowledge is impossible.
Speaker 26: It's showing hey, sometimes you're gonna need a fourth condition, right,
like non accidental or something like that.
Speaker 9: And then I find it so funny.
Speaker 26: Someone goes, I don't I don't you know I totally
disregard justify true belief. That's not enough, and you go, okay,
can you demonstrate that? And if he offers a demonstration,
he's trying to justify his beliefs and believe he should
have good reasons to believe.
Speaker 6: Well, this is what happens when, yeah, this is what
happens when people get a smattering of introductory level philosophy
and then then they think that they're competent to speak
to the most difficult, challenging matters in the history of philosophy.
And by the way, why haven't you read his paper?
This is the extreme arrogance. And you know, all these
atheist guys is funny because they were saying that I'm
Dunning Krueger. That was Dunning Kruger right there for you
guys on display the assumption that a smattering of introductory
level philosophy knowledge gives you the capabilities to then form
your own model to solve some of the most challenging
dilemmas in the history Western philosophy. And by the way,
just read my paper. So it's hard at certain points.
Speaker 26: If you go, okay, sure, demonstrate now you know that
justified true belief You just totally disregard it. You don't
even need a fourth condition. You reject the whole, the
whole project. The only move that could make, which is
really funny, is well, no, I don't believe I need
to justify anything.
Speaker 9: I just I just know things. So just trust it
literally comes down.
Speaker 6: Just trust me, trust my into I have a good
intuition for this. Just trust me. Trust me.
Speaker 9: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 26: But it's it's gonna be uh, it's gonna be fun
to see uh see you in Gnostic informant.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 26: The I popped into a panel that was on some
channel like midway through last year, and it literally came
down to him saying, well, we know, we just know
what reality is.
Speaker 16: That's it.
Speaker 26: We just know what reality is. And then he tried
arguing with Jimbob that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
And I started going through asking you, okay, what's the
criteria for these things? And I used an analogy of
saying the same name right, like Neil from Nastic Informant.
But this person I'm referring to is a fat Filipino
woman who makes documentaries of how Christianity is true.
Speaker 9: And he goes, well, no, it's that's not me.
Speaker 26: Because you know, you're ascribing different beliefs that I don't have.
Speaker 16: And then I said, so you know, now we don't worship.
Speaker 7: The same god.
Speaker 26: He goes, no, it's not the same because they also
say the God of Abraham.
Speaker 16: So he just reverts right back to the same thing.
Speaker 26: So I think it's gonna be really funny, man, But
I'm gonna I'll pop out and listen.
Speaker 9: But good luck with this, fan, This is this is funny.
Speaker 6: Yeah, we get some more Professor Dave fans. But why
would we be surprised that we had that level of
argumentation when this is Dave's level of argumentage?
Speaker 17: And so why would I Why would I listen to
sounds coming from a purposeless brain?
Speaker 18: Because I'm right.
Speaker 6: There we go because my intuition. Bro oh wait, if
you guys would hit like and share. Also, you can
support stream through the super chats. Now it's interesting too
that I don't know Lucas, but it sounds like he's
been listening to philosophy podcast and talks and because he
picked up on some of the jargon. But and people
think that you're being a douchebag or you're being you know,
engaging in sophistry when you try to ask people these
questions about because I can spot immediately when a person
doesn't know the material, when they haven't actually done the reading,
when they've got a smattering little bit of it. It's
just like if you were a guitar player, you're really
good to guitar. You can spot when somebody has just
simply mimicked a solo, or they just know basic chords,
but they're not actually proficient in the material, and they
haven't done the put the time in and done the research.
And nobody who's advanced in philosophy cites their own first paper.
I mean, that's just so just arrogant, ridiculous. It's it's
a sued attitude and behavior of extreme overconfidence. And that's
why when you start to ask them questions and you
hear what they're saying, I can pick up on a
person who doesn't know basic philosophy or has only hurt
a little bit. So that's a person with a kind
of freshman sophomore level of philosophical information. And you know,
that's great that he's getting into it. But what everybody
has as a kind of a temptation when you get
into philosophy is everybody who's a first or second your
philosophy student thinks that they've solved everything. They think that
they've they've they're going to have the answer to, you know,
the criteria problem, They're gonna have the answer to, you know,
the consciousness problem, and there and then as you get
more and more advanced to get into grad school, you
realize that, oh, actually that was a really arrogant attitude. Right,
I need to have more humility about these topics because
there's a lot of people who spent twenty five years
in this domain and they know this stuff better than me.
So to act like as a nube, you know that
you're gonna have It's the same. It's like when people
go into the MMA stuff and they're like they bust
up in the gym and they think, I'm going to
fight the dude that's been you know, fighting in the
octagon for twenty years because I watched some videos on
YouTube and I'll think I can take that dude, and
then in every case those people end up being just manhandled.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: We saw that with Derek myth vision a year ago,
and that's why he's still angry. And I think in
the mma domain too, Like people will say, look, you
got to learn some humility, right. The only way you're
going to advance in these topics is to be willing
to be wrong, because I guarantee you there is nobody
who study philosophy and went from the introductory level to
you know, advanced who didn't get humbled at sometime. This
is a this is a necessary stage in the process
so that you can advance, to learn and to realize
that you don't know what you think you know. So
when I hear him say this and that, oh you
make this tag argument, and I say, well, I don't.
I don't believe that you actually understand what a transcendental
argument is in terms of the form, and they can't
explain it. They don't know what it is. Now I
give him props for at least understanding what JTB was
and the gettier problem. So that was a that was
a that was a good thing. That means he's studying, okay,
But that you're studying doesn't mean that, for example, you
don't make fundamental mistakes, okay. So for example, to say
that because a universal claim is made by an individual
human being, and because individual human beings aren't universal. It's
not universal misses the point of what a universal claim
is right, So there's claims themselves, the truth value the claims,
and then there's a separate category of which I was
inquiring into, which is what is the ontological status of
those truth claims? Where are they? How can we have
a universal claim? What is universal claim? So he kind
of got a little bit of the basics of what
Tag is arguing. But then when I try to say
that his approach at denying JTB ultimately ends up putting
him in a way worse position. His answer was, well,
I'm just relegating it and limiting it to the human domain.
It doesn't matter because even relegated to the human domain,
it disqualifies the initial statement that, in other words, you
couldn't know that no one in the human domain has
that lack of knowledge. So it's just moving the problem
back a step. So what he ought to look at,
if he actually wants to understand this, is to go
deeper into sellers and into the criteria problem of Chisholm, right,
because Chisholm brings this issue up in multiple different ways,
and it's a problem that you can go in the
direction of metaphysics, or you can go in the direction
of a pistemology. If you go in the direction of
a pistemology, you're in a really bad position to deny JTB.
And then the problem is that you can erect other
types of systems and criteria because a lot of philosopher
try to do this. The problem though, is that usually
it's moving the problem back a step and not actually
addressing what the criteria problem is asking for. So, for example,
oh well, I'm gonna throw out JTB because I'm going
to instead say that we don't even have to have that.
No one can have that. But wait a minute. Every
time you're asserting something, you're bagging the question about. Okay,
but what is the criteria to say? Then if it's
not JTB, then what is the rival criteria? Oh well,
it's we know structuralism that I've come up with, okay,
But you saying that it's the structuralism that you come
up with is an assertion that is not actually dealing
with their criteria problem. Father, Deacon, doctor and Nias. What
would you say, I'm but we have a logic professor
on him. By the way, what's that Goohead from the
University of Science, from the University of Science and Incorporated.
Speaker 20: By the way, he was equivocating on the word universal exactly.
Speaker 6: That's why I'm trying to say, that's why he's making
a category error.
Speaker 20: A universal could mean, I mean, it's typically not used
this way when we're speaking in logic.
Speaker 9: Obviously in crossing he was taking it to be.
Speaker 6: President everywhere. Well, you could do a you could do
a bullion argument right where it's not it's not even
that something like that.
Speaker 10: And that's not what it.
Speaker 20: Means in logic, right, it just means a class. It's
either a set or a set of all things or
no things. So it doesn't mean like if you had
you have to think about stupid.
Speaker 16: This is.
Speaker 9: If you had.
Speaker 20: You made me a copy marbles, right, and then the
only existing marbles. You don't have to be omniscient or
be present everywhere to actually look at.
Speaker 16: The class and be like, yeah.
Speaker 9: That's the class of all marbles or something like that.
That's what a universal is. So he was fundamentally confused
on that issue. And then what was the other thing
I noticed he was, well, he was.
Speaker 6: Getting Yeah, he thought transcendental was transcendent time or something. No,
transcendent is not the same thing as a transcendental. Yeah,
but what what would you let's let's say that, uh,
you know, for the sake of argument, Well, what what
what if I just throw out justified true belief and
I say that it's some other thing, like how do
you how do you deal with that?
Speaker 16: Why?
Speaker 6: I thought you? I thought you did well?
Speaker 9: You bring up Chishom's criterion problem.
Speaker 20: So why is how do we know that's the criterion
to identify what knowledge is? Because I'd have to know
what the criterion is, and I have to presuppose that
I actually have knowledge. And so in other words, if
I have to have the criterion to ident let's call
it number one to identify what knowledge is number two,
I can only identify number one if I already have
number two, and two if number one. So you're just
an officious circle exactly? Does that make sense? That's exactly
and a weird thing to kind of deflect and be
like what language?
Speaker 6: But also, I mean you could you could just you
could argue that like in some situations, the universal doesn't
even have to have a metaphysical import right, And at
the point of the Boolean types, type of argument.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's bullian. Universals have no existential import.
Speaker 6: So even if we argue that they had no existential
import just in terms of the form itself, it's like yourself,
Yeah exactly, that's what I'm it's like saying. It's like
saying it is universally the case. That this very proposition
is not universally the case exactly. And it doesn't matter
whether you're trying to give it an existential import or not.
That the thing is that's a contradiction. And furthermore, I'm.
Speaker 9: Starting to use this tactic. I just tell people I
don't believe that you believe that. There's no way, I mean,
talk about dishonesty.
Speaker 20: You go around all you know, all the time, avoiding
contradictions because you think it's bad.
Speaker 9: But all of a sudden you get in a debate
and now you want.
Speaker 20: To double down and be like, well, I I get
to use it. That's just language, that's just honest. And
I'll just tell people, I'm like, I don't even believe
that you believe it.
Speaker 16: So how about that?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean he kept he kept deflecting and saying, well,
that's just language, that's just language, which I think he
was trying to say that the words don't actually have
any existential or metaphysical import. Okay, but that's a double
edged sword because if they don't, then your argument against
these words also don't. So how do you know that exactly?
That's what I kept That's what I kept asking you.
Speaker 9: I think you already pointed out you're making.
Speaker 20: Some huge claims right of all this stuff that you know,
and and I think you mentioned to coumping into some
of the most difficult philosophy, and you're just going to.
Speaker 6: Claim, well, I know, I'm right. Well, that's what Dave
does too. So it's like that seems to be a
pattern here, right or they think that we're they say, oh,
you guys are so arrogant. Guys are know it alls
well again, And I think you could speak to this
as a professor, and you know, being at one point
a freshman, right and progressing then to say, in your
case the PhD, don't you think it's kind of normal
for everybody who studies philosophy to get humbled in many
situations like you're not going to be a freshman and
have figured it all out by the time you're a PhD.
You're gonna you will have been wrong many times, get
you get humbled.
Speaker 20: And I remember, so I was introduced to philosophy Christian
apologetics like seventeen eighteen, my senior year in high school.
Speaker 9: And you know, you just learned like really easy, like
kind of refutation.
Speaker 20: You're basically mimicking, right, So you haven't read and really
dived deep into these things. But as we all know,
ninety eight percent of people are idiots. Like it doesn't
take much.
Speaker 9: So we would just go around and you know, give
these Let me give you a classic one and it's true,
like we still use this today, but I'm showing you that,
Like this is one of the first things that I learned,
and it gave me a little bit of humorous somebody's like,
you know.
Speaker 3: There is no truth?
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, is that true? Like that was one of
the first things.
Speaker 20: That I actually learned, where you just that's a really
easy tactic and it's it's a good argument to refute somebody.
But it doesn't mean that you're knowledgeable in philosophy. Does
that make sense?
Speaker 16: And so.
Speaker 9: You know, going through and thinking through these issues and
reading the history of.
Speaker 20: Philosophy, and you know, i'd even say like even you know,
coming out with a bachelor, I was still prideful.
Speaker 9: I still thought that I was just talking with all
that we'd just conference. Here was some of the best philosphers.
Speaker 20: We all thought that we thought when we went to
get a degree in philosophy. We finished our bachelors and
I went into grad school, then we we're so smart,
We're going to change.
Speaker 9: The world, you know, like we're really going to make
a difference. And then you realize.
Speaker 20: How difficult this stuff is and you're just happy to
get past and get a PhD.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I remember shows like any of Us Can Spaw
a Suit.
Speaker 6: When I was in my twenties and I was really
into Tomism. I remember being at my university and I remember, well,
one of my my undergrad advisors, doctor Martell. You know,
he had to put up with me constantly trying to
defend and argue Tomism and all the Tomestic principles. And
then one day he I think he got kind of
annoyed with it, and he found a really good critique
of Tonism. And I was probably twenty five twenty seven,
just absolutely insufferable, know it all, I'm sure, and I
had never really read a good challenge or critique to Tonism,
and he gave me that paper and I remember reading
it and I remember, you know, at first I was
very Ah, he's just a you know, unbelieving professor, and
I why do I have to listen to him? And
you know, he doesn't have any you know, he's not running,
he's not track cat, he doesn't know anything. And then
as I grew older and as I matured, and the
more I began to kind of question things within Tomism,
like I realized, no, actually I was the one that
was wrong. I thought I knew it all. And doctor Martel,
even though he may have been an atheist agnostic, like
he didn't know enough about criticizing tumism and knew the
critiques of Tomism well enough to challenge me. But I
was too immature at the time, in my twenties to
be willing to say, you know, actually I'm wrong. I
don't actually know what I'm talking about. There are I.
Speaker 9: Want to tell everybody.
Speaker 20: I'm going to make a public feshion. I told Father
Peter this today and he's like, did you ever tell
Jay this story? And I'm like, I've told Jaya story,
but you guys got to hear this, Okay, it's a
confession about how I was wrong and Jay was right.
So when I first found out about you, it was
through my wife. She's like, oh, this guy on YouTube
and I didn't like you. I thought you were arrogant
and that and the reason why I didn't like you
is because you were arguing against theistic evolution.
Speaker 16: I was.
Speaker 9: I believed in theistic evolution. So you know what I
told my wife.
Speaker 20: I'm like, Jada, I doesn't know what he was talking about,
and I'll debate him and I'll refute him. You've heard
it here on the X.
Speaker 9: So that's what I thought. And guess who was wrong?
I guess who was right?
Speaker 6: Well, I don't remember debating you, so you must have wanted.
Speaker 9: To aid you.
Speaker 6: In my head, Jay, I want no.
Speaker 9: But I told my wife I like that.
Speaker 16: I was like, oh, I'd crushed j and a debate.
Speaker 9: Are you kidding me?
Speaker 16: How arrogant? And here already had my PC.
Speaker 9: So like I still we're all still working on on humility.
Speaker 6: Like you know, I get it.
Speaker 16: I was young and.
Speaker 9: Orthodoxy and stuff like that. I still have these hang ups.
Speaker 16: But you were right.
Speaker 9: You were right about theistic evolution being garbage, and.
Speaker 6: So we we all just gotta be careful about that,
you know what I mean, Like, yeah, well, I think
the same thing with totally just uh totally removed from
the sphere of like academia and this kind of stuff
is is other domains too, like geopolitics and uh that
kind of stuff. Like you know, we have a lot
of people in the in the sphere of the flint
this overlap, right, and so I reached out to try
to say to some of those people, Hey, look, you know,
I've been studying this stuff for a long time and
I'm not an enemy of Nick. I want Nick to
do well and come to you know, orthodoxy ultimately that
would be the goal. But like, we can all learn
from each other if we listen to each other and
not get caught up in the noise or the twenty
thirty second clips all that kind of stuff. Because I
think in the case of the Vatican, you know, I
wasn't arguing that the entire Vatican is subverted by Epstein
everything like that. It was very specific that I think
that the close relationship between Epstein and John Paul was verifiable,
and the close relationship between John Paul and people like
savile are all very well documented, and then people say, oh, look,
Jay thinks that the entire Vatican is Epstein. I didn't
say that. So it's like a lot of things get
mistranslated in the noise. And that's why it would be
good if if people would just listen to kind of
what other people are saying and not assume bad will
from everyone else. Right, all right, so let's get over
here to Jeff Sin mccuffrey.
Speaker 7: I know we've been waiting for this.
Speaker 6: A lot of people are saying, when are you gonna
do this. I wasn't expecting the the attention that the
Professor Dave Crowd was going to give. So I'm glad
that Lucas stepped in. Hopefully he's not mad. We get
pretty heated, so I tried to I tried to step
away