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, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 2: The theople do the.
Speaker 1: The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: Bunt the bunting them do the the.
Speaker 4: The the.
Speaker 2: People don't do.
Speaker 5: Don't do the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The do.
Speaker 4: Do do do.
Speaker 2: The the the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 3: The the the the.
Speaker 1: The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The people don't do. Don't do the.
Speaker 1: The the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
the the the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 1: The the the, the, the.
Speaker 2: The, the, the, the.
Speaker 4: The the.
Speaker 3: The The.
Speaker 2: People don't do the don't do the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 4: The the.
Speaker 2: People do the Don't do the the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 4: The, the.
Speaker 6: The the The.
Speaker 2: People don't do the bud the don't.
Speaker 4: Do the.
Speaker 3: The the the the.
Speaker 2: People don't do the.
Speaker 1: The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the.
Speaker 6: The The.
Speaker 2: People don't do thet don't do the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 2: The the the.
Speaker 3: The the the.
Speaker 1: The the the.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 3: The the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 4: The do.
Speaker 7: All right? What's up? Hopefully everybody had a good time.
Add to church, y'all go to church today anyway. Welcome
to another open forum, another discussion. I've got all kinds
of topics that we could discuss. We've also opened it
up for people to call on any topic except tag.
Not doing tag today, but anything else. You want to
talk about, geopolitics, God, feminism, liberalism, libertarianism, men and women, dating,
riz or Mojo, World War three, geopolitical texts like Tragian Hope,
like Jacquette Lee, like Moses Hess. What do you guys
want to talk about? I'm open to discussing. I want
to hear it's also some of your feedback. I want
you to tell me where I'm wrong. I want you
to correct me, put me in my place. I'm ready
for you to defeat me. Show me how deficient my
arguments are. A pitiful bitcoin crypto. You want to talk
about that, Let's talk about it. Tell me about it.
You a gold boomer, You want to set me straight?
You a leprechaun. Give me me Gord, give me Gord,
give me me Spanish dooms. Are you a pirate? Are
you a pirate, pirateeering, privateering a Spanish galleon? You're gonna
set me straight about where the future is going back
to pirate times? Are you a Muslim? You want to
set me straight on the Islams? Well, guess what today's
your day? Dog? Today is your day? Class warfare, prole drift.
Have you heard of this? That's also on the table.
I got some good videos that I saw on that.
Let's start with Caleb since he was waiting yesterday crazy.
What's up?
Speaker 3: Hey, j first till thank you for having me on
It's Home to finally speak with you. I recently got
into all your content about like.
Speaker 7: Six seven months ago.
Speaker 4: So I've been on my own journey of trying to,
you know, find a church.
Speaker 7: And I recently stumbled on to Orthodox Church challenge.
Speaker 3: Just wondering if you could give me like some questions
and some pointers on what I should be looking for
to see if this church is like connected with the
Deep State and things like that.
Speaker 7: What kind of Orthodox church?
Speaker 3: Uh, it's a antioch and Orthodox church.
Speaker 7: Uh, that's probably the best that you're going to be
able to find if that's what's near you. Yeah, there's
only like three of them, and one of them old Greek.
Speaker 3: So unless I pick up Greek real.
Speaker 1: Soon, I'm going there.
Speaker 7: I know it's probably your best bet. Usually they're they're
better than everybody else for the most part. Ohio, what's up?
Good question, though, Guys, what's up? You want to support
the stream? You can do so in the super chat
section they're through stream lands or natively through YouTube. What's up? Ohio?
I'm you.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Just a quick comment on the state a very sad
state of Catholic apologetics. I suppose you don't follow along
with Michael Laughton and the True So they recently I
just seccidentally saw this. They recently invited Jake the massive
metaphysician and some the Orthodox Masim.
Speaker 7: I don't know if you know him. He's like the
biggest Orthodox Muslim I've seen that channel.
Speaker 8: Libyano also called Lesbiano. Yeah, he's an absolute idiot, but
he's like the biggest Moslim TikTok experience. So I just
want to comment on how retarded reason and theology and
cruiz when they literally invite people that you and doctor
Bradshaw and others destroyed years ago to debate some very
let's say, subpar opponents and give them a very large
platform to spread the radio idiotic interpretations. For example that
with Biano, guy literally uses the Philippins passage and things
that being in the form of God is the equivalent
of being created in the image of God. So he
says this is a proof that he's actually just a human.
Speaker 7: Even though the passage says.
Speaker 3: He says he.
Speaker 8: In this form of God, he interpreted it so it
says that it's just the image of God. So that's
the proof of Islam in his opinion. So, yeah, the
level of re tradition they spread and just wanted to
find it's very funny that instead they hate you so
much and your sphere so much.
Speaker 7: That they, yeah, they'll bring on antirects people that you
and your Yeah, they'll bring on anti Christ, and Islam
is Antichrist. As first John says, if you don't confess
the deity of the Sun, you're of the spirit of
anti Christ. And now that's not surprising that Loughton would
bring on Antichrist because Lofton is Antichrist. I mean Lofton
is over here trying to sue other Roman Catholics from
making fun of him. So, I mean, no, I'm not
surprised that that's the level to which they have sunk, because,
as I said, we're at the point where anyone left
in Roman Catholicism. It's just kind of sad. I mean,
you know, there's no there's really no other indicators or
things that could happen to make it clear unless you
are just utterly obstinate grifting, tripling down, quadrupling down because
of sunken cost fallacy, all that kind of stuff. So
you know, really really at the point when there's just
no point in even interacting, it's time to move on.
So yeah, next he'll have a net and yahoo on
to explain Christianity to us. Boo caster, what's up, Jay?
Speaker 9: Can you hear me?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 3: So I knew that you were Cardinal were right, So
that's interesting.
Speaker 7: How do you observe Lent not doing that question today?
So we're not asking personal questions about my diet. The
way I get around it is that I pay a
jysia to Dugan, who pays that to Putin, and I
get a free pass. Caleb. What's up, hey, Jay?
Speaker 3: I just got a question for absolutely divine simplicity.
Speaker 10: So, if all of God's attributes in reality are not distinct,
then how is it even possible to have a conceptual distinction?
Like if all numbers were in reality like not distinct,
then like, how is it even cohesive to come up
with an idea of like a conceptual distinction?
Speaker 7: They see, They'll just say that metaphysically, it has to
be that way because any other approach makes God composite,
which is itself a metaphysical assumption that's totally incoherent with
the notion of a triad. But that's the very point,
is that their system is inconsistent.
Speaker 3: So okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Yep, But yeah, I think you raise a good point,
which is essentially what Palamus raises in Dialogue with a
Barley Mte. He says, really, you don't know what the
attributes are. If it's all creative effects, then you don't
even know that any of these attributes are matching up
at all. So the result is atheism, correct, Patrick, what's
a good question though, You're on the right track, gilt
uh huh.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 11: I just had a couple quick questions and then a comment.
What's the exact reason that there's no more ecumenical councils
is just because the faith has.
Speaker 4: Fully been delivered or what's the exact reason.
Speaker 7: Well, there's no economia or empire, which is where the
councils came from. But after the ecumenical councils, there are
still councils. So there's pan Orthodox synods that are accepted
throughout the world, and there's the Palamite Synods which make
up the ninth Ecumenical Council. So there have been ecumenical
councils after the seventh, but since that time, since the
erupturing of the imperium and the collapse of Byzantium, really
all you could have is pan Orthodox synods that for
the most part have been received, such as you know,
confession of dyscytheus or patriarchal and cyclical those kinds of
things are essentially the same type of thing. But even
the Roman Calolic Church doesn't have any consistent means or
method or explanation as to which ones are ecumenical councils.
It's really arbitrary.
Speaker 11: Yeah, thanks, And then the other question I had was
I was kind of getting this debate with this Catholic,
and he brought up Tertullian and how he opposed the
Bishop of Rome for like handing out indulgences universally, and
he was claiming that, oh, the Bishop of Rome was
clearly already implementing universal authority during this time.
Speaker 3: But I just wanted to hear what your perspective on
that is.
Speaker 7: I've never heard of anyone arguing that indulgences were happening
this early. I think what you're referring to is the
idea that there was a tradition in Rome that if
you were a tradeatur or a person who had fallen
during times of persecution, the debate the question was could
you be restored? Could you be come back to communion?
That is not an indulgence. So I don't know where
he's getting that idea. That's a quote painful indulgence. The
same discussion occurs in the time of Saint Cyprian, and
this is where we get the Novationists and eventually donates
the different sects of the pure, the people who didn't
fold in persecution. It wasn't just a tradition in Rome,
but it was a tradition in Rome. But the fact
that the Bishops of Rome upheld that tradition and were correct,
does not prove universal jurisdiction or universal papal indulgences, and
indulgence is something very different. That's a temporal remission of
the penalty, a remission of the temporal debt of sins,
whereas in confession you have in the Roman Catholic system
the eternal debt forgiven. So that's totally different from indulgences.
But the fact that Tertullian opposed that, I mean you
could just counter with the fact that Irenaeus opposed Pope
Victor in his attempt at universal claims. So they just
pick and choose.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sounds about right.
Speaker 11: And then a quick comment. I just think it's funny,
like with Vatican too. It just creates this indefensible or
impenetrable position with so much ambiguity. Eventually you're just going
to get something so far from the original product which
we see today with all the skittle stuff, Like I
don't even know what it's going to be like in
fifty years. I mean, it's already so far from what
it quote unquote started as.
Speaker 7: It's just yeah, well wait, Vatican three. Vatican three will
be the next level. Yeah, all right, thank you. Yeah,
great points to the person who is this Dawson person
call in. Yeah, in our chat, people that disagree, we
expect you to come and have the discussion. So it's
not a chat for people to just spam whatever sector
involved in great questions there whole appreciate that, Jr. What's up?
And I would say, you know, Vatican two is not
just ambiguous. There's a lot of places where it is ambiguous.
There's a lot of places where it's very clear what
it means. So, uh, weaponized ambiguity is real, but it's
also something that you know, Tim Gordon and people like
that trot out as an excuse to be like, well,
see you can still interpret it in a conservative way. No, actually,
no stratate is not able to be interpreted in a
conservative way. So weaponized ambiguity is only part of the picture.
It's half the story. The rest of it is where
it's not ambiguous and it's very clear, John, what's up.
Speaker 3: My only question to Hugh is what are you going
to say to your lord when he asks you why
you led men to be mongoloids?
Speaker 7: Yeah, you need to say it in a gayer voice.
And then I'll listen to you, because then I'll know
that you're If you talk like this, I'll know you're pios.
Speaker 3: So one I had two ideas about talking about something,
but one thing, particularly in Tragedy and Hope, because I
realized more and more, just like you're realizing that people
things that mean you old times, we take for granted
that people already knew. And one of the things that
blew my mind in Tragedy and Hope back in the
day was that the JP Morgan banker Thomas Lamont, was
actually the head of the communist parties or in New
York City, right, And that's in Tragedy and Hope. So
his name was Thomas H. Lamont, and he started the
it was either the American Workers Party or the American
Communist Party in New York City at the time. And
so once again, like there's this idea, and it's funny
that we do have to reiterate this from time to time,
is that the communist movements are not movements of the
down trodden, especially in the modern times. There was a
good point in a book I was reading on music
years back, and it made the point because you know,
Woody Guthrie was a communist too, and he was making
music not for you know, he's writing about the dust Bowl,
okis and whatnot, But he wasn't making music for the
dust Bowl, okie. He was making music for the New
York bohemians. And so that's technically where people get lost
is they don't realize that the that there's like a
bohemian kind of like bourgeois aspect to Marxism and communism
where it's kind of you know, it's it's got radical chic.
Speaker 7: Yes, absolutely great point. I'm looking up that there's there's
a significant section on Lamont starting around page chief. Evidence
can be found in the files of the HUACT documents
which show that Tom Lamont and his wife Flora and
their son were sponsors of almost all left organizations and
extreme left organizations and the Communist Party itself. Now, I
don't think he says right here who that is. Let's
see if he goes on to say this was a
large communist front organization. This was also basically all the
unions unions are fake and gay and used other lamonts.
He mentions, let's see the Institute for Pacific Relations also
in other one of these front organizations pushing socialism and communism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a CFR type thing for the correct for
the Asian countries.
Speaker 7: Yes it is. I'm just trying to figure out, he says,
this guy's pedigree. I'm not doubting you. I'm just I
just wanted to find this, that's all.
Speaker 3: Oh, you're talking about that he's a JP Morgan banker. Yes, yeah,
it's it's in there.
Speaker 7: Let's see forty five to forty seven. It might be,
so he's in there quite a few times. Let's see
nine thirty seven, because that's really powerful. In fact, that's
even probably that might be worth putting on Twitter. Yeah,
let's so you have to go back a few pages
here and let's see. Yes, that's essentially what he's saying.
I don't see where he mentions Laman on this space,
but he's basically saying that these wealthy Eastern Seaboard families,
Payne Whitney, people at Harvard Morgan firm, Wall Street elites
are intimately tied up in communism, right, not all of them,
but many of them.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Another little tidbit is that you know the CFR
is at of Pratt House, right, and the Pratt family
is George.
Speaker 7: Schultz the former.
Speaker 3: What was he like, secretary of state in Yeah, so
he was one of the pre he was like a
pratt and so his family, his family's building is where
the CFR is housed. Just yes, that's another little interesting
tidbit when because once again like the what was the
what was the question yesterday where it was like do
politicians actually run stuff? Yeah, it's like, okay, well they am.
So you have a secretary of state whose family literally
donated that the building to where the CFR is and
and that's how politicians are managed exactly.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's it's just for whatever reason, especially when you're
trying to convey this to boomers, you cannot convey to
convey to boomers that Marxism socialism is essentially a controlled dialectic.
They just cannot get this. And then trying to convey
to them that politicians have a very limited ability to
run things and that they're subservient to these NGOs, think
tanks and steering committees, that just seems to be an
insurmountable thing. I've never been able to convey that to
outside of like Jim Jottras and you know, my godfather
Dean Arnold all. You know, they were, and they're both
pretty well read and they understand all this. But I
think Jim. In Jim's case, his dad was the Moscow
you know station at the Moscow Embassy throughout the Cold War,
so he saw a lot of this kind of stuff
up close, and so he understands all this stuff. But
I think for most people this is just an insurmountable things.
Speaker 12: Even a lot of the.
Speaker 3: Even a lot of the boots on the ground people
like the weather underground. They're all from wealthy Jewish.
Speaker 7: Exactly, yes, and then when you bring this up, they're like, well,
why would they before that they're against the rich. Yeah,
Like that's the answer you get. It's like, why would
David Rockefeller like Fabian socialism? He's a capitalist even though
and you show him like the New York Times where
David Rockefeller praises it, you know, socialism and Maoism. It's like,
I don't believe that. I don't believe that.
Speaker 13: There's another thing to.
Speaker 3: Switchy topics real quick. I was going to ask you
one thing, so, like with canvas Owens covering Charlie Kirk, thing,
isn't that a weird development within conspiracy research to have
like real time and analysis of a like big assassinate
not only not only her, but like multiple peoples on
the interwebs doing full skill and now like that didn't
happen in the past.
Speaker 7: You know what I mean, Well we did, Yeah. I
think it's like a further development of the real time
cameras in the heat of you know, Desert Storm, that
was the first live televised twenty four hour war. I know,
there were there were cameras at Vietnam and all that,
but that was like the first time cameras were directly
live in the war. But then Desert Storm, and this
was actually, if I remember in the Rank Corporation book,
like it was intentionally you know, on the news channel
twenty four seven as a first time experiment, and now
that's twenty four to seven internet live coverage of developing.
Speaker 3: I was thinking more along the lines of like a
lot of times when stuff like you know, in the
era that we've grown up in, you kind of would
have to wait for a book on something to come out,
or you'd have to wait for a documentary to kind of.
But now everything's being like developed in real time as
stuff is just coming in and it's almost like a
one way it's almost like a because all you can
really analyze is what's on the interwebs, right, And so
I thought that was an interesting development. I was just
thinking about that as like we used to have to
wait for documentaries on specific subjects or books to be
written about subjects, but now it's all kind of happening
in real time as things happen.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and it's also annoying that. And I don't mind
people questioning the events, but it's also annoying that people
are seemingly coming up with their own creative stories to
get clicks in traction, sort of inventing conspiracies in real time.
I'm not saying that that's necessarily what Candice is doing,
but I'm just saying, like Twitter, come now, it incentivizes
you constructing a hot clickbait narrative, which I see a
lot of profiles doing. Like there's one of these big
q tard profiles that does this where every event is
like they just post like the most ridiculous version of
whatever the event is and it gets like, I mean,
it might be boded too, but it gets you know,
hundreds of thousands millions of views. Don Luker he does that.
He just puts up like the most ridiculous shit. Also
would add to I remember in the f lam Ingdall
interview that I did, he says, I can't remember if
he says that it's only mentioned once or it never
comes up. But looking here at the page that mentions
Thomas Lamont, this is page nine to fifty five, it
actually mentions the Rockefellers in a very significant way here.
So I don't know if Ingdall was saying that quickly
downplays the role of the Rockefellers, or if he says
it's never mentioned, but they are mentioned in a significant
way on page nine fifty five. By the way, Owen,
what's up man, what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a question about.
Speaker 3: Being a being a debater.
Speaker 14: So I'm a second year philosophy student, second year catechum
and hopefully going to be baptized soon enough here too.
And and you've been debating for many, many years, and
I have a desire to eventually get into, you know,
formal debates about philosophy theology, and but my current gripe
about it is not the debate's bad. Of course, debate
I think is very good. But more so, do I
have the personality for it? Do I have the skills
for it?
Speaker 10: You know?
Speaker 14: How do I go into a debate without you know,
getting too heated or frustrated when someone is hard headed
and doesn't understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: So I'm wondering what are some of.
Speaker 14: Your advice, if if you have any as to moving
into being a debater, especially as an orthodox Christian as
some interested in philosophy.
Speaker 3: Uh, how do how would I go about that?
Speaker 4: How would I think about that? Given your experience?
Speaker 7: I don't know how relevant that's going to be in
higher education.
Speaker 4: I know that.
Speaker 7: University has been moving away from the idea of people
being trained in rhetoric and debate because it's not amenable
to socialism and socialization, which is the path that they
chose a long time ago. So, as far as I'm aware,
unless you're at a more elite sort of private school
or something, debate has been frowned upon and is gradually
going away. So I wouldn't think about that, Especially if
you're a heterosexual, white male. You're not going to be
welcomed in academia anyway, so you might as well just
not waste your time with that stuff. If you want
to engage in doing debates on your own. You know,
I would still learn philosophy and learn epistemology and learn
basic fallacies and logic and all that, because you're not
really going to be effective at debating without having those skills.
I would listen to listen to all of Greg Boonnson's
debates many times over. That will help you to get
fluent in it.
Speaker 4: I would.
Speaker 7: Also just do debates because there's really no way to
be effective and get good at it. What'sout doing it
a lot. Also doing it a lot helps you become
a better speaker and communicator. When I look back on
first internet debate I think I ever uploaded was like
twenty twelve, and it was a debate with a guy
from Facebook who was an evolutionary proponent. And although I've
done many debates before that at university on campus, walking
around in coffee shops, doing it in a recorded format,
it sounded terrible. I think it's I don't know, I
don't remember if it's still online or not. I might
have taken it down, but it's going to take you,
as I think, as most people say, with any subject matter,
ten years to get really good at something. So if
you really wants to debate, you would have to be,
you know, pretty much doing it consistently. And however you
want to try to set that up, you know, if
you're new, I would say, you know, start making YouTube
videos or Twitter spaces or discord spaces or discord voice
chats or whatever and recording them. And this is what
all the comedians have told me, by the way, which
is ironically the same thing I would say about what
you're trying to do. If you want to be good
at debate and public speaking and all that, begin to
record what you do and listen back to it. It's
going to get annoying, it's going to be pretty meticulous
and monotonous. But then when you listen and listen back,
try to focus on making your arguments and your points
more and more concise. One thing I've noticed that a
quality speaker and communicator has, and I still struggle with this.
I'm not saying I'm perfect it, but I've gotten a
lot better at it is not rambling, not getting to
the point. Making the argument as clear and concise as
possible is essential to being a good communicator. A lot
of people when they call in and I'm not faulting you, guys,
because it takes many years and countless podcasts before you
get to be I think, pretty effective at talking and
communicating and then it becomes second nature. And the comedians,
the stand ups that I've been talking to, they say
the same thing, right, they say, you know, come up
with a three to five minute set, record yourself doing it,
and then tweak it get better. It's the same for
probably any public speaking form of art. You want to
record it and get to where you tweak it and notice, oh,
you know, I put in a bunch of and I
still do. Everybody does that. It's very, very difficult to
get rid of all your us It's just a significant
challenge for anybody who does public speaking. So work on that.
And those are the best things I could think of.
And if you really like doing it and get into it,
you're just going to keep doing it, and that will
itself be the way that you sort of iron out
the kinks and get effective at it. And when it
comes to people getting on your nerves, that's never going
to stop, so you might as well get used to it.
There's never going to be this place where you reach
this elite status and you only interact with other high minded,
sophisticated philosophers, and the dialogue is very civil, and you're
always going to have idiots and people that are dumb,
and I think what you have to do is get
used to that and try as best you can to
have fun with it, especially if you're planning on becoming
a YouTube debater. But if you're thinking that you're going
to go into academia and become some sort of respected debater, no,
I don't even think that exists anymore, and especially not
if you're a waiga. If you'd like to become a
trans lesbian and become a Muslim and roll around in
a wheelchair and identify as a transabled lesbian Muslim debater,
you probably could be successful in the university racket. Jeff,
what's up. I'm a transabled lesbian Muslim public speaking debater
and I charged fifty thousand dollars per minute to speak
at your university. Yep, Hey, she was just.
Speaker 3: Talking about debating.
Speaker 15: I got into the debate because of you and just
listening to tag arguments. I recently had a debate go
Jimbob like reviewed it. It's called an atheist host loses
his shit and it's really it's a really I mean,
it's super funny, and that's what I was going to say.
It's like a I'm kind of sad, but at the
same time, I get why you don't do TAG because
it becomes so repetitive.
Speaker 7: Well it's not that I don't, I'm just not in
the mood lately to do it. I'd like to talk
about some other things. And when I start spending a
lot of time talking about TAG, you know, hundreds of
people leave and they don't understand the verbiage. It's like
you're it's like you're describing, you know, the inner workings
of the iPhone, you know, right, and people are just
they tune out so well.
Speaker 15: It becomes like a lecture and you're educating the other person.
But I guess what I would say is like, like
maybe if you just start more like having fun with
it and just kind of teasing them, because like this
guy's reaction, I wasn't.
Speaker 3: Expecting at and it was I mean, it was like gold.
Speaker 15: And when I started watching you, some of these atheist
reactions can be some of the funniest, like and just
be like the most entertaining because they really will argue
and then at the end they're like, yeah, well I'm
a chair. I'm an automan basically, and it's it's like,
how are you talking to me?
Speaker 13: You know what I mean.
Speaker 3: That's usually how I'll start it.
Speaker 15: I'm like, cool, so are you an automan?
Speaker 7: Are you a chair?
Speaker 3: They'll say no, of course not, and.
Speaker 15: Then at the end of it they're like, well, I
guess I guess you are.
Speaker 4: You know what I mean.
Speaker 15: So that's going to hang up because it's like when
I don't talk to ottomans.
Speaker 7: That's funny. Yeah, I mean I think also, debate nowadays
is kind of entertainment, which I don't really care. I mean,
you know, I can't really control it. So you know,
classical formal Oxford style debates are not very prominent what
we have, and I don't again, I'm not knocking it right.
The bloodsports stuff is entertaining. It's fun. I'm happy to
do it.
Speaker 16: You know.
Speaker 7: We did that with Tim Gordon on Timcast. We did
that with Not So Erudite on whatever podcast. Those are
blood sport debates and they're entertaining, but they're not real
debates because I mean, anybody in a real debate setting
where hit an actual moderator. I mean not so Erudit
wouldn't even make it in the door like it. It
would be like thrown out like a judge throws out
a court case or something. But yeah, I guess. I
mean again, the thing is, I think for TAG it
needs to kind of be its own topic because it
just ends up dominating and it ends up being thirty
forty minute explanations to people. And you know, we've done
thousands of hours of TAG stuff, probably on the channel,
and so it just gets old. I get tired of
the same debate. It's the same with the papos I mean,
how many times do we have to debate the same
old papacy stuff, the same old quote minds that have
been addressed. I mean, I've been seeing the papacy quote
mind stuff addressed all the way back to when Jerry
Matditis and Greg Bonson debated the papacy in two thousand
or nineteen ninety eight or whenever they have that debate,
and the debate has progressed little to none since then.
It's the same debate. Every one of these papecy debates
is the exact same debate. It's the exact same copy
paste Catholic Answers stuff and the Catholic Answers copy paste shit.
Is it's like the same probably the same web page
since two thousand and three when I first first started
looking into this topic, or two thousand and one, I
should say, So you know, I'm over all that shit,
Like if you find that interesting, then really you're just
a nube to these topics. And you know, I'm not
shitting on you. If you if you want to go
have that twenty plus year old debate, then.
Speaker 3: Go do it.
Speaker 7: Like I'm tired of it. I've been I've been there,
done that, yeah, and I mean play It's just it's
a weird time. Everything is kind of morphing into entertainment.
Speaker 11: You know.
Speaker 7: That's why I was happy to write and work with
Ryan and everybody for sam Hide is like, if you
want to reach the culture, that's sam Hi. Sam Hi
is going to reach a lot more people than I
don't know, some boring debate, bro right, Like debating is
I mean outside of the entertainment aspect of it, Like
nobody cares about that. So you know, if you want,
if you're in serending the tag stuff, I mean there's
a a I mean you could spend the next six
months to a year in my archive listening and going
through tag stuff. So anyway, Jordan, what's up. Imagine if
you were a guitar teacher and you know, people were
wanting to learn, Oh, teach me the solo in the
Cars song, teach me the solo from Metallica's whatever gay
song that Metallica. Like, if you were a guitar teacher,
you would be just sick of teaching this and you
would be like, look, just go watch my video on
how to play the solo from Inner Sandman or whatever.
I don't even know if it has the solo, but
you know what I'm saying, it's just like please, that's
you know, imagine it. Or imagine if your Metallica and
all the fans want to hear the same dumb ass
song and the same solo, and you're like, you know,
I wrote a new riff. They're like, we don't want it,
we want to hear innertandment wouldn't you get tired of
the same thing over and over and over and over?
But I guess that's just you know kind of how.
Speaker 4: It is, like.
Speaker 3: Musicians do get paired of that.
Speaker 6: By the way, I.
Speaker 7: Humans in general will be tired of the same same
thing you're I mean your guitar, man, Like, what what
do you find annoying about? Like I don't know if
you teach anybody guitar or anything, but like, what what
do you what do you find annoying about this? From
your from A?
Speaker 3: I think it's very similar. I think it's very similar
to this realm is that there's like a lot of
people don't take stuff like that seriously. Like music for
most people is kind of like something you hear at
the grocery store or you're in the car. But I think,
I think what what people do get annoyed with? Which
is which? I think the difference here would be like
like with you when you get upset or not upset,
but annoyed with people asking about PSA, it's because they
haven't put any effort into going back into the archives
and finding it. They just say, oh, man, who argued
for PSA on Twitter? I go ask questions instead of
doing any research into the background of Hey, maybe I
can go find the answer out for myself. That's probably
one aspect to it. And it's kind of similar with
the with the music because I think musicians who get popular.
They get annoyed that people don't look at their back catalogs.
Speaker 7: They only like the hit song oh yeah, yeah, okay yeah.
And I think if you were teaching guitar too, you
would you would sort of feel out whether the person
was really that serious about guitar, right, they would, you know,
they would be interested in learning more than I would
play the solo from a kiss, you know, some some
stupid kiss song, like you know, there's more to this
than this solo or or say, in the in the
domain of debating, like there's more to debating than figuring
out a few linguistic tricks or traps, right, Like I
think when people first learn TAG, they think, oh, this
is this cool trick I can use on everybody that
I debates. And then you know you're going to eventually
encounter a really intelligent atheist who's aware of transcendental arguments,
and they're going to know where you're going and that
that trick is not going to work, right, it's not.
There's no tricks that are going to be able to
prepare you for.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 7: You know, an atheist who is very familiar with David
Hume and with Kant and with these other philosophers who
will then bring in other challenges or other positions that
you're not aware of when you say you're a new
to philosophy and you know, probably something similar in guitar,
where maybe you've learned all the you know, major chords
and then you've begun to learn some of the you know,
sophisticated solos or something I don't know, and then you think, oh,
I've got you know, I'm a guitar expert. Then you
meet somebody who blows you away or something.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 7: This is I think the arts in general are this way,
and philosophy is one of the arts. But anyway, Jordan,
what's up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's so man, I just had like a quick,
like quick question on Mary.
Speaker 17: So I was reading through Saint John Damascus and Singer
your Pala Moss. And when I read Singer at Paula
Moss Homilies, it says that none of the gifts can
be just stowed except your and that she's the she
distills O guess well, it's angles with the men, and
when I resent it on the masks as well, that
she generates statement nature of Christ and gives them human attributes.
So could it be proper to say that since Mary
cooperated with the with Christ, say humanity, can we say
in the sense that she's a co redemptrics.
Speaker 7: I just am hesitant to use the terminology that's popular
amongst modern Roman Catholics. So it's not even a question
of it's just a question of whether it's wise and
profitable to use those kinds of terms. So it's the
same with like transubstantiation. If you read the ex fonti
bas translation of John Damascus, it uses the term transubstantiation.
It's a Roman Catholic translation.
Speaker 2: Is it wrong?
Speaker 7: I mean, not necessarily, but it brings a lot of
baggage that people just assume come with that terminology. Oh
say John Damascus sentiations, that's all the medieval discussions packed
into that urn. Well, not necessarily, So it's it's also
a question of propriety beyond like can we use this word?
Sometimes it's not wise to use a word, even if
the word is okay. I'm trying to think of another example.
For example, I could say, in a limited sense, you know,
you're saved by faith, okay, But a Protestant might hear
that and be like, oh see that's faith alone, and
you'll notice Protestants when they quote mind the Church Fathers,
for example, they'll find a phrase where, oh, look, Saint
Clement says you're saved by grace. See that's solo grassia.
That's Reformation teaching. Well, that's not equivalent to a modern
post Enlightenment post Reformation quote development read back into the
ancient world. So it's UNWHI sometimes to use loaded language,
even if the language is technically not not wrong. Then
what's up.
Speaker 3: You there?
Speaker 7: Yeah? Hello, what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Uh? A j S.
Speaker 4: I have a question about evolution and how that's compatible
with the Bible. Okay, So like, what's your view on it?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 7: I've dressed that many times. It's not compatible with the Bible,
and it's not compatible with the Sex Secumentical Council, And
evolution is a stupid worldview.
Speaker 18: M hm.
Speaker 4: And like, do you have any life evidence of the
justification for evolution not being true?
Speaker 7: Sure? Where is the proof of the evidence that one
species transmutes into another species?
Speaker 4: I mean that's microevolution over time?
Speaker 7: No, No, that's the leap. See that's not justified by
the fact that within one species or grouping there is
a minor modification to suddenly the RNA prints an entirely
different code to create a different creature. So that's the
thing that you just leaped to. That's not justified. Have
you observed that, by the way, where was the empirical
observation of Because there's flies in a jar that you
looked at over a period of weeks or months, that suddenly,
now that's going to give you cockroaches if you give
it enough time. That's the illegitimate leap.
Speaker 4: Just just can't clarify. I'm not atheist. I'm just asking
from an atheistic perspective, because I get that a lot.
Speaker 7: All right, So where is the empirical justification for that?
Speaker 3: And I'm very sure I can say that, right, So.
Speaker 7: When an atheist comes and gives me signific justification and
evidence that they observed the very thing that's in question,
the transmutation of species, then I'll listen to an atheist.
Until then, it's literally just magical worldview ancient Hindu paganism,
and it's literally identical to ancient Hinduism. Penguin, what's up?
But thank you very question. I wasn't being rude to you.
I'm just We've addressed this many times Penguin. What's up?
Low energy?
Speaker 3: Can I just had I had a question.
Speaker 11: You've probably got this before me, you know sometimes, but
what are your thoughts on the patriarch of Constantinople?
Speaker 7: And have a whole podcasts on this, So guys go
into the archives. I think that Bartholomew is a subject
to the State Department and it's unfortunate. And Jim Jodtris
wrote articles years ago about how he was probably bought
off by MI some dollars. Could you have me some coffee?
Thank you?
Speaker 19: I'm getting the audience is saying it's low energy, very
low energy, probably not very high energy, probably.
Speaker 1: Not low energy.
Speaker 7: What's up? Man, I'm trying to wake up. I can't
even do my trump correctly. What's up? Theology? Person?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 7: I'm mute? Go you there? All right?
Speaker 3: So first off, got a catechum in question.
Speaker 7: Okay, guys, when you when you call in, ask your question.
Don't tell me that you have a just ask the question.
What's up? Go ahead? Are you there? I think we
lost you. Can you hear me? Come out and come
back in. I want to hear your question. There wasn't
being rude to you, just gut it. So, Look, you
don't have to do the whole I appreciate if you
like the content, that's cool. Just go ahead and ask
the question. And remember, when you're communicating, be concise, be clear,
be direct. You don't have to ramble. Just you know,
make your statement, make your argument. If you want to say, hey,
I want to give me about thirty seconds, give me
a minute, give me five minutes. I'm going to make
an argument. That's fine too, Carl, what's up?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 7: What's that?
Speaker 13: Man?
Speaker 3: Hi?
Speaker 20: So could you please expand on the idea of God
only entering creation through pure objects or beings. For example,
Mary being full of grace, the burning bush of the
arc of the Covenant.
Speaker 7: I don't. I mean, the burning bush isn't a pure object.
It's just a bush.
Speaker 20: So what do you mean pure purifying being that it
was burning but not consumed. This is where I'm kind
of confused about it.
Speaker 7: Why is that?
Speaker 3: So? I guess it comes more into.
Speaker 20: More questions about the trinity, because if God can.
Speaker 3: Only enter creation through pure objects.
Speaker 7: Or beings, I'm not sure what you keep saying pure
objects for beings?
Speaker 13: I don't.
Speaker 7: I don't even think that's necessarily the case. God can
enter creation anywhere at any time. I mean, it's not
like it's not like the dirt in Israel was cleaner
than the dirt in China. So you talking about morally pure,
I mean he entered into the Theotokis in a special
way because he intended to be born from her, and
thus he purified her by his grace. So there's different
senses in which God is present, in which he comes
into creation. But there's nothing about bushes or trees that
makes it somehow magically better than other bushes and trees,
other than the divine presence itself.
Speaker 20: Okay, I have one other question, and that I attend
an ocaight Greek Orthodox parish, and I've noticed on the
OCA website that the person that Joshua meets before the
Battle Jericho is claimed to be Saint Michael, but on
the go Arch website it's the pre and current of Jesus.
So I'm just wondering why there's a discrepancy there.
Speaker 7: Right, Well, not everybody in the Orthodox world is very
proficient in theology. Some people are not, and so they
see the word angel, and like many Protestants or many
other people, they think it just means an angel like Michael,
but the word angel just means a messenger. Also, though,
there's many places in the Old Testament when God is
present and the angels are too, So for example, in
Ezekiel one and Ezekiel ten or at Mount Sinai, there's
passages to talk about angels being present and other passions
to talk about the divine Son or the One like
the Glory of the Father, et cetera, being present. So
it's a both. And anytime Christ is present, the hosts
of the Lord, the Lord of Savio are also president,
so both things are true. We can't hear you your
roboting and what's a right wing go ahead? I'm you, Hey,
I just had a question.
Speaker 21: I was I was talking to somebody about the phrase
Judeo Christian. They're they were a Baptist, and I was
making the claim that the root idea is hypocritical because
of dispensationalism, and uh, they're come back to me, which
they just kept saying that it was more of a
moral argument, talking about, you know, the Ten Commandments, a
cultural thing. And then I when when I asked them
who they thought Israel was. Do they think Israel current Israel.
Speaker 7: Is the Church?
Speaker 21: They didn't agree, so down that line of question, and
how could I bring them back to to understand the
hypocrisy of the actual dispensational argument itself.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean, I have a whole four hour talking
dispensationalism that I recently shared that you can find on
my clips channel or on Jimbob's channel. You can point
out Galatians six sixteen. You can point out Galatians three
and four is very clear that the Church is Israel
Peter and one. Peter two says you are a holy nation,
chosen people, applying all the statements of Israel to the Church.
Jesus says in Matthew twenty one that the Kingdom of
God will be taken from you and given to a
nation producing the frust thereof. So the Kingdom of God,
which is the Church coorne of Matthew sixteen, is not
Israel in a flesh sense. It's the Church again Galatians four. Troy,
what's up, Jay?
Speaker 22: I've got a follow up question after this first question.
Since you're understanding that dispensationalists believe that the non believing
gentiles during the rack or the racker go to Hell,
the believing gentiles go to Heaven and all the Jews
get basically multiple chances to believe and accept Jesus until
they all go to heaven.
Speaker 7: I mean, there's not one set dispensationalism. There's many different
dismensationalist positions. So I'm sure you could find some dispensationals
who thinks that even all the Jews automatically are saved,
but maybe they don't go to heaven they live in
any earthly kingdom. I mean, there's all kinds of retarded positions.
So I don't know how even to answer your question.
Speaker 22: Yes, I'll give you the That's what my uncle, who
is a Pentecostal pastor, that's what he explained to me
how he.
Speaker 7: Believes which one.
Speaker 14: So I went to.
Speaker 22: That all Jews will remain on earth until they accept
Jesus and then go into Heaven.
Speaker 7: So they basically I've heard some of them say that, right, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 22: So I went through this questioning with him, like, so,
how could you be a Christian and ever feel comfortable
converting a jud degree Christanity knowing that you could possibly
be damning them if.
Speaker 7: They become a Christian?
Speaker 3: Ye?
Speaker 22: Yeah, And after all this explaining and everything, they still
I've got this is a huge problem for me because
like I have a big family, and I can count
the number of Pentecostal pastors they believe in this bull crap.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there's more of them than I.
Speaker 22: Have fears and toes, and you just at the end
of every discussion, they still somehow convince themselves and it's
just beyond me.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you know, it's just a lot of these positions
people have emotional attachments to them. They have you know,
they feel like when they came to this position, they
were really making headway and they really figured everything out,
and so there's this attachment that you know, I can't
let that go because you know, that would just shake
the paradigm. And even I think Jordan Peterson had a
good talk about this about paradigms and what happens when
we have a paradigm shakeup, and he says it's like
a death. He says that the actual psychosomatic responses that
people have when their paradigm collapses is like a small death,
and there's a process that you have to go through
because you know, nobody wants to die. And so when
we have that collapse of a worldview, there's certain emotional
and psychological processes that were forced into that are difficult tough.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 7: For example, when my best friend from high school died
a few months ago and we buried him, like the
day that I learned of that, and the next day
I was was empty. I felt deflated, empty, and there
was nothing I could do to control that feeling. You
just automatically get the feeling and there's nothing you can
do too. I mean, you can pray and you can
you can deal with it, but like you can't make
that go like I will this to go away. Right, So,
in the same way, when people's worldviews collapse, there's a
similar death process or death like process. And I think
Peterson was correct when he makes that point. So I
think when when we when we look at ruman caffolicts
that get so upset and they lash out, or the
Pentecostals that we try to talk to, or the dispensationalists
when we try to reason with them.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 7: We've all we're all that way. This is just what
happens to humans. Humans aren't the way that Enlightenment philosophers
think they you know, enlighten the philosophers are like, oh,
we are blank slates, that are you know ultimately purely
rational beings that will just make the rational correct choice
on the basis of stocking up the evidences. And no,
when you read you know C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy,
the whole one of the main points of part three
is that we're not that way. We don't actually follow
the evidence. In fact, we lie about and hide evidences
so that we can confirm our biases. That's the whole
point of the character Mark in the book, which is
a refutation by the way of evidentialism. So I tried
to tell Trent Horne, like, have you not read Space Trilogy?
Do not understand C. S. Lewis's point with the character
of Mark. By the way, I wanted to remind you guys,
as I was reading Hagai the other day, I didn't
even like, I just realized this reading this because I
was listening to these podcasts about inflation and bitcoin and
you know, Fabianism and Keynesianism, and I noticed that when
God says this in verse five and six here, so
it's kind of the the rebuke here is applicable to
a lot of the people who put politics above you
getting right with God or something like that. Right this
chapter is actually about that, because the Israelites are putting
all their political concerns first political alliances and dynasty alliances
and this and that, and God is saying, you've neglected
the actual house of God. Right, So if you look
at verse three, the word of the Lord came by
Hagai saying it is time? Is it time for you
to dwell in paneled houses and this temple to lie
in ruins. They're concerned with their own house building and
all that. Right, consider your ways. You sew a lot,
but you bring in little. So in other words, Israel
is experiencing economic decline. You eat, but you don't have enough.
You drink but you're fulfilled. You clothe yourself, but no
one is warm. He that earns wages earns wages to
put in a bag with holes. That's inflation. So Israel's
experiencing economic collapse and decline, which is tied to their
moral and spiritual decline. And I've never even.
Speaker 19: Noticed that hat guy talks about this. By the way, anyway,
I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So hot guy is saying, by Dicklin, laplace, laplace.
By the way, I'm not here to be preacher today.
I'm not a preacher. Friends hat guys telling us to
buy that going what's up on you and mine? I'm
you doll, Hag I won six and seven? Or excuse me, Hag,
I won six here, Yes, sir, awesome.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 4: I just got a quick question.
Speaker 23: I've been dealing with a family member that's been kind
of like a long time Sabbatarian, so the Adventist, and
I think they come from a good place, like they
read the Bible, and they just don't see anything clear
in the New Testament to them that makes them think
that the way in which we keep the Sabbath has changed.
Speaker 4: You know, they kind of default back to the job
no John and tittle of this will change.
Speaker 3: And I think they just they just are unable to
see any.
Speaker 23: Clear passages that allow them to make the jumps, so
they don't.
Speaker 7: I was curious.
Speaker 10: I know you've touched on this a few times historically,
but was curious.
Speaker 23: If you could just give kind of like an in
depth breakdown of your view.
Speaker 7: All right, So the Book of Hebrews is addressing this specifically.
Hebrews four one through eight is about not just the
way in which we keep the Sabbath, but the entire
meaning of the Sabbath, and all Judaizers end up being
retrograde in their understanding of theology, and that the things
that were typological that have been fulfilled the reality has come.
Oh no, we got to go back to the type now,
even though the reality is here. The whole point of
Hebrews is that the rest has come. And this is
something when I was Protestant I didn't understand until the
other day. I was actually in the Orthodox liturgy, actually
I think it was it was Holy Weak, and I
never noticed that the fulfillment of the Sabbath is Christ
laying in the tomb. That rest is the rest that
fulfills the Jewish seventh day Sabbath. So and by the way,
in the Orthodox Church, if you go to the Saturday
Vesper's service, we do still honor the seventh day Sabbath.
So it's not the case that we don't honor the
seventh day Sabbath. We do, but we give greater honor
to the eternal rest which has come in the resurrection
of Christ. And thus his resting in the tomb fulfilled
that rest. So the rest that he brought is the
rest of eternal rest. And that's why John in the
Book of Revelation when he sees into heaven and he's
doing the liturgy. If you read Revelation five through nine,
he is seeing the heavenly liturgical service happening. That same
service is what he's performing on earth. That's why he says,
I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day. The
Lord's Day is not the seventh day Jewish Sabbath. The
Lord's Day is the first day of the week, the
day of the resurrection, and that's the day that we
do the liturgy via Revelation five through eight, and no
seven day. I've been just understands any of that because
they're a judaizing sect. Layman, what's up?
Speaker 11: Hello?
Speaker 20: Yeah, there, I just wanted to thank you very much
for all the helpful informations.
Speaker 7: And I won't keep you very long, but it's really
loud background. So what's your question.
Speaker 13: Oh sorry, let me know if this is better.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 13: I didn't really have a question.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to get your thoughts on the idea
of forgiveness of the murder of a family member. So yeah,
we addressed that actually the other day in livestream. So
as for the again, and I said there's no discrepancy
between the notion of public divine justice or social justice.
I don't mean social justice warrior stuff. I mean social
justice in the sense that Jesus didn't come to do
away with judges, penal sanctions and the death penalty. In fact,
Romans thirteen teaches the death penalty. The church has the
Church fathers almost unanimously do teach the death penalty. There's
a few outlawers, but the majority opinion in what becomes
the norm in Christian kingdoms and nations in the imperium
is at least banishment and in some cases death penalty.
So there's no discrepancy between a public ordained role of
the state exercising the death penalty, which was given to Noah.
By the way, it didn't It wasn't something that's only
part of mosaic, the Mosaic administration. It's actually given to
Noah to exact the death penalty. So the forgiveness aspect
is as Father Deacon and I's pointed out you as
an individual being freed, that's for your good, so that
you are not imprisoned to resentment and hatred. So the
individual can forgive, and there is an external aspect of
justice meted out by the state, and that is classic
Christian teaching. There's absolutely nothing pacifist or Tolstoyism, none of that.
That's all heresy. And by the way, I don't know
where all these people get the idea. I guess just
out of evangelicalism and whatever that Christianity is like Tolstoy stuff. No,
it's not. In fact, he was a heretic in his
own time. George, what's up?
Speaker 14: Jay?
Speaker 6: What up?
Speaker 7: Man? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Hey? Big Floyd here.
Speaker 16: I just want to say thank you for responding to
that super chat, that twenty dollars super.
Speaker 3: Chat of you blessing the fin Reactor. I feel blessed already.
Speaker 4: Mane and.
Speaker 7: This is our good buddy, George Broyd.
Speaker 3: I can not only have participat in great LYND, I
still be having.
Speaker 7: Great fin absolutely yes. And if you can't make it
too great Lent, you can all participate in great fent.
So shout out to George Droyd. What's up, Nick? I'm mute.
Guys want to support the stream, you can do so
through super chats, through stream lives, or through YouTube natively.
What's up, Nick?
Speaker 13: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What's up?
Speaker 6: Can I make an argument for believing that climate change
is real through like Christian anthropology?
Speaker 7: I guess you can, but I'm already laughing at it.
It sounds proposal. I. You can make fun of me
all you like, but I'm actually to.
Speaker 3: Drop this view if it just seems stupid.
Speaker 6: I know you have like an epistemological like method objection
to believing.
Speaker 3: What the scientific consensus so called?
Speaker 6: But why are you basically because yeah, it's not actually
a real consensus.
Speaker 3: It's fallacious, right, Do.
Speaker 7: You believe that? Or you just saying that?
Speaker 3: No, I do believe that.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's not my basis for believing in climate change.
It's most like, you know, technological domination whatever.
Speaker 7: Moving on, I guess I'm serious. What's up? What's up?
All right? That person? The person can't connect omar, what's up? Omar?
What's up? Appreciate you guys in the chat. You know,
I think the hardest thing for if you're a night out,
that's the hardest part of orthodoxy because I'm tired as hell, dude.
Because I'm a night out, I can't like for me
getting up in the morning is an ascetic endeavor, dude.
So we had the elevation of the Cross today. So
I'm just kind of like out of it and Nick,
what's up?
Speaker 9: Yo?
Speaker 13: Yo?
Speaker 12: So I got a question is with regarding communion. So
for a Protestant, if somebody says, like, no, I've always
looked at the bread and the body as a body,
and then you know, the juice or whatever.
Speaker 7: The wine is the blood.
Speaker 12: And if they say it's the same thing as.
Speaker 3: The Orthodox side of things, how do you compare the difference.
Speaker 7: No, just because you want it to be the real
presence doesn't make it. So you have to have a
person who has the authority to do the liturgy by
an Orthodox bishop. So it's not just a question of
do you, as an individual Protestant consider yourself open to
quote the real presence, even though many Protestants kind of
go through that phase or they want more of a
high Church, you know, setting I went through that when
I was Protestant Calvinists. I moved from Baptist to you know,
Calvin's spiritual presence, and then I moved towards more of
an Anglican mystical presence, and then I moved towards No, Actually,
I think it's the real presence. So I get people's
individual movement, but what's missing is okay, but who has
the authority and the ability to actually consecrate it. It's
not just your vantage point as to how you view it.
There's also well, who has the authority to actually do this?
And not everybody has that authority. Jesus set up a church,
hence the authority. Jonas, what's up? I mean otherwise if
there was no required authority, then any Baptist who believes
in the Real Presidence or anybody who you could be,
I guess anything. Oh, I'm going to do it in
my basement now. And a lot of Protestants actually do this.
Oh yeah, I'm going to consecrate the Eucharist with you know,
crackers and Welch's grape juice in my basement, start a
real Presidence church. And I'm not joking. Actually some Protestants
do this, like they move towards thinking that, Oh, I
believe in the real Presidence. So now we're going to
have the real Presence in my basement at my strip
Mall church. Jonas, what's up?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 7: Just a little thank you Before I asked my question.
I had a very productive conversation with my.
Speaker 24: Brother today just like to thank you for having going
some in depth with the Jung and Junion archetypes and
fight psychology, because I uh, I think all delve into
then try to understand better in hopes of winning my
brother or which are Orthodoxy. So yeah, and uh, so
we all know in the West western world of Europe,
with the declining birth rate, what do you think will happen?
Do you think Europe will sort of wake up before
the clients to a point where we can't sustain the
continent with enough people, or do you think that will
just go extinct with the next two hundred two hundred years,
because I've heard people talk about, oh, in like two
hundred two and fifty years, we won't have enough people.
Speaker 1: Whether they'll be just like too many Muslims or the
think is sort of yeah.
Speaker 7: I mean, I don't know what you think. I don't
know what's going to happen, because that is the plan.
I mean, you can read Count Kutenhov's book right here,
uh practical Idea, and he says multiple times what the
plan is, so it is real. It's a real plan.
I would tend to think that really the only hope
for any of this is going to be solid Orthodox Christianity,
and it is growing in Europe. I'm sure that as
it grows, they will be persecuted as we will in
this country at some point. But yeah, I guess it
just depends on that because Jail Ferrara, what's up, Miguel Ferrara?
What's up? All right? Hey, what's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 17: Yeah?
Speaker 18: So I'm just wondering any contentions you might have with
a position that's derived from the Geechee Manitou and it
loses philosophy. What the guichee Manitou?
Speaker 7: I don't know what that is.
Speaker 18: It's a Native American folklore alonquin Okay. So it's basically
gonna be deriving the belief that the world exists on
it turtles back right, like just metaphorically right, okay, And
we're gonna be deriving this as just sort of rejection
of the imposed structures of you know, religion onto the individual.
Speaker 7: Do you have any contentions with this? Yes? Uh, it's dumb.
He's gonna have fun clipping that like Native American apologetics,
refuge dire Steven, what's up? Hey? Hey, the FBOI man
went on a long journey. Taylor five dollars thank you
so much, Semiot. Five dollars. I know this is the
way of talking. I want to ask your opinion about
Charles Whitman, whether he was a Manchurian candidate. I know
Dave mcgawan has a chapter on which is interesting, and
I've read some other books that discussed the odd aspects,
you know, with his military background and all that, and
I think it's one of the first famous, you know,
serial killer cases. I have no idea what was really
going on, if he was you know, triggered and trained
or you know, I don't know, but nothing would surprise me.
Apeniny five pounds. Kiri Starmer said, let me spell this out.
If you want to work in the United Kingdom, you
will not unless you have a digital idea. Is this technocracy? Yeah,
I mean we've been talking about Fabian socialism and technocracy
for many, many years, so absolutely, Marcos ten dollars. I
literally came on while you explained Sabbath keeping. Is that
a sign? I'm just kidding. Still based, I'm persuaded Orthodox.
I'm gonna go to ro Corps. God bless you. Well
that's good, Marcos. Hope you find a good church. Boreal
thirteen dollars. Can you please make a video on full
of preterism? I think I have multiple clips, channels have
made videos on this. Steven, what's up?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 20: What's going on?
Speaker 23: Jay?
Speaker 25: I wanted to ask a quick geopolitics question, if that's okay.
So I feel like, regardless of how this Ukraine war
is going to end, the power structure in Europe is
going to look very different.
Speaker 3: It seems like the globalist leaders.
Speaker 7: Like McCrone and Starmer are.
Speaker 3: Hopefully going to be removed.
Speaker 25: And I can't especially if if the war goes the
way most people think it is with Russia winning, I
can't imagine NATO is gonna stick around much longer, or
if they do, I'm sure they're going to look different.
So my question is like, what what do you what
are your thoughts on this? Are globalists kind of do
you think that they might lose their grip on power
or is it going to get worse?
Speaker 7: What do you think again? When you say lose their
grip on power, I don't really see that. I do
see people waking up to it, but I don't see
them losing power per se, except maybe in some limited,
mid level minion ways. Right, And I forgot to mention
we do have the indicting of Komy, which is kind
of surprising, not because this doesn't been to KQ because
of course all the q TRD stuff was like next week,
two weeks from now, get ready for the indictments. Of course,
we know, you know this is not going to be
Hillary or Bill, right, So I think some mid level
minion like a Komy. They don't have a problem burning
this person. So I've forgot to play this clip here.
Speaker 26: It has a long history of misleading Congress. Komy falls
into that. But the evidence against Komi tonight comes from
the FBI, and it's new director Cash Ptel, who promised
radical transparency, and he actually provides the key piece of
evidence that leads to this indictment. If you're a member
of Congress and you've been tired of lying being lied
to by the FBI, tonight's the first time the FBI
actually did something about it. They turned in their own
man tonight. I think that's an extraordinary part of this story.
Speaker 13: The Komi indictment will showcase the worst abuses against the
Republic in DOJ history. As the rotting inertia causes the
dominoes to fall in the hallowed halls of the District
of Corruption, even as new bombshell information reveals that a
recent disclosure by the FBI to Congress verified that two
hundred and seventy five FBI agents were in the crowd
on January sixth, far more than the Measley twenty six
informants that Inspector General Horowitz had been notified of.
Speaker 7: So you noticed that this is more of a systemic problem.
And I'm not saying that they shouldn't do this or
that it's not good to see some of the mid
level minions, but I mean a FBI directors come and go,
who cares like I mean, I'm not saying I'm glad
that justice is occurring, but I mean these people are
like saying, burn down the country, take out the president.
I mean, they say crazy stuff. And you know, they
should have all been immediately arrested because all that stuff
is like treason legally, it's all on the books. But
the corruption is so entrenched that even anybody trying to
do something is very very limited I think, and I
think you know you see that with the intentional covering
up of Epstein stuff. We all see that. We all
know that. So I don't really I don't really see
the deep state quote unquote losing power until people figure out.
And the reason people don't figure it out. I still
blame normally conservatives because they're the gatekeepers and the dumb
dums that always, like at Walsh did not too long ago.
I don't understand the conspiracy through USTs talking about Bob
But it's like, dude, you're the problem. You're the one
that makes everybody think it's the Libs. Let's drink the
tears of the Libs and vote out the scoundrels. When
are we gonna understand? As pages ninety five to forty
eight in this book point out that the steering committees,
the n g os, the think tanks, right, that's the
real power. Uh, they have a lot more power than
James Coomy. And James Comy comes and goes. And when
we get our next fake Lib president, uh, they're going
to hell a point some creeper lib again to the FBI,
and we'll have a whole new uh slate of scandals.
And then everybody like, well, we would go put him
both winded indictments is coming. Wind indictments is coming. Then
we'll get indictments one day and then but it will
already be there, already be a new crap, a new
crop up scoundrels, and everybody will forgotten the scoundrel from
ten years ago. So, uh, nothing is gonna change until
we figure out that right wing gatekeepers are retards and
they are either complicit or just ignorant. And when are
we going to figure out all these steering committees, thing tanks, foundations, NGOs?
I mean again, I like that Jdvents said it's time
to uproot the NGOs and the Soros networks. Oh yeah,
but I mean we're like ten, fifteen, twenty years too late, dude,
Like we should have been saying that twenty years ago.
I don't know why you're thumbing down, Like, what's your problem?
I'm you, hey, Jade, Yeah.
Speaker 25: Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: All right? Good?
Speaker 3: Uh So I just graduated from the College of the
Apostles mm hmm, and I'm reading through the Book of
Theology mm hmm. So don't don't try to.
Speaker 7: It was really funny, Daniel, what's up?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 7: I'm well aware that JD. Vance is connected of here too.
Did you not even listen to what I said? I
don't like all you Midwites man that just have to
chime in about.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 7: Actually, JD. Leads is a lot of good person to
let me tell you about being I knew this, dude.
What I said was what I was trying to say
was that, yeah, thank you for mentioning Soros NNGO networks.
Why didn't Trump talk about this in twenty sixteen? Remember
when Trump was like, now, don't talk about so Roachie's
not a bad guy, I know, George. And now Trump's like,
you go to dinner with these people and they're funding
all of these networks.
Speaker 19: You're like, wildish guy, Why is he funding this horrible,
horrible network?
Speaker 7: It's like, come on, dude. My point is that this
is all way too late. We should have been this
should have been happening like fifteen twenty years ago. Well
why isn't it Because people wouldn't listen when you talked
about this fifteen twenty years ago, and they called you
conspiracy theorists and called you all these names. And now
they still call you all the same names even though
you've been right about all of it. What's up, man, Daniel? Mute?
Speaker 3: Hey? Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yep? How you doing?
Speaker 9: Brother?
Speaker 7: Good? Uh?
Speaker 5: So I don't think Santa Andrews Wilson's and he's kind
of got me interested in averting to Orthodoxy. But I
grew up like small rural town in Mississippi, and I've
been to the same.
Speaker 3: Church of Christ my entire life.
Speaker 5: But then everybody it's not a Church of Christ that
I know, says it's a cult. And I don't know
what kind of culture shock I'm going to be in
for with the difference.
Speaker 7: Between those two. Wait, they say, what's a cult Church
of Christ? I mean it can be cult like, yeah,
I mean, I mean.
Speaker 3: It's always been like, you know, we go, we have
like three songs.
Speaker 5: Of prayers, he preaches for like twenty minutes, and some.
Speaker 7: Of the beliefs, not the I mean, I've been, I
grew up with Church Christ people. I'm familiar. I've been
many times. But what I'm saying is like the idea
that all the churches failed and you're the restoration church.
I mean, it's called the Restorationist movement. I think that's
the aspect that's quote cult like. But I don't think
you're going to find I mean, or they're always going
to be very different. But I don't think you're going
to find it anything cult like or I mean, you know, Restorationism, Campbellism,
that's a derivative of older Baptist theology. So it's gonna
be very different. I would say you could watch something
like Fountain of Immortality, which is a brief documentary which
kind of explains the liturgy when you go to the
Orthodox Church. It's gonna be very different than Church or Christ.
But yeah, you just have to go taste and experience yourself. Yeah,
what's up? Man? What atlas? What's up? Your emojiing? Like crazy?
What's your problem? Talk? So you just wanted to do
emojis and not talk? Okay, you don't know how to unmute?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 7: What's going on with people?
Speaker 1: Don't say?
Speaker 7: Are you there?
Speaker 13: All right?
Speaker 4: This is.
Speaker 7: Not a sane person death. What's up?
Speaker 3: Hey?
Speaker 2: Jay? What up?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 16: I got a quick and unique, outlandish question for you,
and that is on the topic of humor in Orthodoxy.
Speaker 7: And I was just curious if you know any sources of.
Speaker 16: How humor should be applied in Orthodoxy, for like, for example, like.
Speaker 7: Like what's too far?
Speaker 16: Like where do you draw the line? Obviously, things of
a sexual nature and blasphemist that's off the table. But
what about going is so far as like George Troy Memes,
et cetera, or stuff.
Speaker 7: Like that, like that guy that called earlier good question.
I'm not sure of anything that actually expelicially deals with this.
I mean, even Ezekiel kind of makes dirty jokes, so
I don't even think that necessarily even every quote dirty
joke is off the table. I think it's more a
question of what proprie right, So the right place, at
the right time, right, so you know, you're walking into
the to the divine temple to do divine liturgy. You're
not going to make dirty jokes or really jokes, right,
I mean every time that you know, Father Vladimir makes
wise cracks after the service. But yes, I think it's
more so a question of propriety than like what's proper
and what's right at the right time, the right place
versus some absolutist, weird you know, puritanical type positions. Your no,
what's up? But that's a great question, your know what's up?
Speaker 3: Hello?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 9: Can you hear me?
Speaker 14: Yeah?
Speaker 16: So I grew up Ruben Catholic, but I am inquiring
orthodoxy after watching your debate with.
Speaker 21: Horn and Gordon and I am leaning to more.
Speaker 3: Towards Orthodoxy for what I consider it to be truth. However,
it's hard for.
Speaker 14: Me to make that switch knowing my whole lineage has
been Catholics and my family and friends are And is
it wrong to appeal to this kind of I don't know.
Speaker 7: Emotion well, I think it's natural, but I don't think
it's a good reason to pick a religion. I mean,
imagine your whole lineage is Buddhist and then Christianity is introduced,
and you know, would you say, well, you know, don't
convert because everybody's a Buddhist in your country, right. I mean,
it's just it's not ultimately a significant enough reason to
not convert to religion. So, and I feel you because
I understand Catholic attitudes on this, So many Roman Catholics will,
ultimately if it end up saying something like I just
can't let go of like my family, family eat tradition,
you know what I mean. But if you read the
New Testament, does does it sound like Jesus is cool
with that or does he say, you know, you have
to choose me over family, tradition, et cetera. So I
feel like we're going to get the climate change guy
again under his alt profiles. What's up, man, I'm mute. Yeah,
oh yeah.
Speaker 27: I was just looking for like any sort of papers
or information on why the essence entergy distinction doesn't lead
to like I can posite God.
Speaker 7: I'm just looking for that does the trinity lead to composition?
Speaker 27: No, I'm just looking for like you posted a paper once.
I'm going to read your channels under.
Speaker 7: It was probably David Bradshaw's papers on essence energy what
kind of distinction which is in his book Essence and Energies.
All right, thank you? Ye John? What's up man? Della?
Speaker 28: Yeah, I heard you earlier talking about paradigm breaking. I
would kind of like it's like a mini death. But
I was curious, but your thoughts were on like the
Candess owens she's like fully taking the Skitzo pill kind of.
Speaker 7: I'm like, I want to know what you think of
that about what do you mean exactly by her taking it?
Speaker 28: She's like posting on Twitter. There's like the shooter is
not really the dude, he's like innocent and stuff. I mean,
is there any credence to this? Do you think she's
like fully going insane?
Speaker 7: Like I don't. I don't keep up with a lot
of her theories and whatnot, so I don't know like
what the latest position is that she has. So I
don't think it's fine to ask. I think it's fine
to ask questions. But also I think that like choosing
certain things like the sexuality of my Crohn's wife and
then just sort of like hammering at that, it's just
odd to me. It's like I don't care to be honest. Yeah,
like maybe that's just a way to get you know,
you know, audience and attention all that. I say, what, Oh, yeah,
I mean I think a lot of times in these
high profile events, which you know, I've been looking at
high profile events since two thousand and three, a lot
of times you you'll you'll never solve all the high
profile event questions. And I think sometimes they even throw
in confusing details and distractions to confuse on purpose. Usually
when there's some sort of high profile operation that's part
of the operation is to throw in confusion to lead
people off the trail. And I'm not saying Candae isn't
necessarily doing it. I'm saying that when you've studied these
these events for many, many years, you you kind of
come to the conclusion as I have, that a lot
of these are never going to be resolved. You're never
going to figure out, oh, exactly what this guy was
doing at nine to eleven that day in the tower,
and when did he come out, and when did he
give the you know in review to the reporters, and
was he an actor formerly in this and name like,
you'll never figure out all the rabbit trails and the
loose ends. I'm not saying you can't question the events
or that I believe the official stories. Far from it.
I'm a skeptic on all these events, but I think
that a lot of the loosens are never going to
be resolved on purpose, And so what I try to
focus on is the big picture and the things that
are demonstrable and noble and where the big picture points. So,
like I was perusing some of the conspiracy websites in
the last few days, some of the old school ones,
and it's just an infinite rabbit hole of even contradictory
theories about No, it was this guy over here with
a palm pistol gun who really didn't know is actually
a person in a tunnel underground shooting up from below. No,
it was Actually, it's like there is infinite theorizing and
it's ultimately it doesn't lead anywhere. So again, I'm a
person twenty plus years into conspiracy theories, and maybe there
is somebody who has the full story. But remember after
the Big nine event, you had infinity debates about nanothermite
and then you had no But did you read the
NIST report and the response of the this report and
the geological research of the tectonic plate movements and the
speed at which the and it's like, who in the
hell knows any of the shit? Nobody? So I mean,
I can't get at PhD in tectonics and geology to
go and remember after the koof do you have a
degree in viral and viruses are fake? And also do
you have it? You know, it's like there's infinity, but no,
you don't understand the principles of nanotechnology and their actual
nano thermiographing bobble. It's like, I don't, I can't. It's
humanly impossible to get a PhD in every one of
these freaking subjects, to master all of them, to figure
out every loose end of all of the conspiracies, and
you never will and you. It's that way on purpose.
So I am not saying there are no conspiracies. There
are all the time. Conspiracies. In fact, espionage is big
nation state corporate skill. Conspiracy, conspiracizing and conspiring conspiracies are
a criminal thing in the code or criminal code, right,
So of course there are conspiracies. But a lot of
people are going wild on Twitter trying to deconstruct every
frame and angle and whatever of the shooter and this
and that clip, and it's just I just don't see
where it's going to go. So we focus on the
big picture, the meta, the zoomed out, because that's really
the best that I could do. But you know, if
people are like ballistics, I mean, I've heard in the
last several weeks like five different interviews with five ballistic
experts telling everyone about what bullets can and can't. How
am I supposed to know? Do I have to go
get a ballistics degree to figure out, Oh it's this
guy of the five ballistics. It's just not possible. So
I don't know what the answer is. I would just
say I focus on the big scale picture of the books,
what they admit in the books, and I can't get
a degree in fricking plate tectonics to tell you whether
nano thermite did what blanco? What's up? Hey, Jay? What's up?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 7: Plate tectonics and nanothermite, and whether or not I can
build an instrument that registers the shake from nano thermitte explosions.
Are you there? What's up?
Speaker 9: Yeah? Yeah, I'm here. So basically, Jay, I wanted to
ask you something about like the coptic arguments against us.
So they said that like Constantinople two overwrote some of
the things that happened in Calcedon.
Speaker 7: Now that's a misunderstanding. It's not overwriting. It's stating that
you have to interpret Calcedon in a querrillion way.
Speaker 9: Yeah, because here's the whole thing. Like they presented the
argument that, like there were three letters in Calcedon I
read to base.
Speaker 4: Basically, they accepted the teachingmself of this, Like.
Speaker 7: Yeah, watch, David Rhuan has a whole video on this,
So I'm not trying to be rude, but like, yeah,
we've addressed that. Just go back into David's archives. Nicky
Niki Farose, what's a Christian Killian? Two dollars? Jay? Have
you ever seen the boys on Amazon.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 7: I had people telling me the first season was interesting,
and then I saw like a bunch of gay stuff,
so I just didn't even look at it. So Jamie
and I started watching Penny Dreadful, which at first was
kind of interesting, and then then there was like this
gay Dorian Gray or Dorian gay scene. This almost almost
checked out. And then I asked Grok if it was
if there was a lot of gay in the show,
and Croc said, not a lot. Actually it gets toned down,
so I might continue because there is this weird esoterica
Colt stuff going on with Ava. Green's character is supposed
to be the incarnation of Raw's wife and she's Roman Catholic,
but she's possessed by a demon if you don't know.
So there's these interesting elements to the show which I
find worthwhile. And then you've got this like in Cell
knockoff version of Frankenstein character with that who's like the
Phantom of the opera guy who lives in the theater
like that. It's like that shit is just dumbed du
and I'm like, what is this? Why am I watching
an intel Frankenstein with in Cell rage. So it's like
some of the storylines that the characters are really interesting,
but then the other ones are like this is dumb, dude,
what's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 7: So I don't know if I'm gonna finish it? Nikki
four Ros, what's up?
Speaker 3: Hey Jay?
Speaker 7: What's up?
Speaker 3: God? Bless you? Thanks for everything you do. I have
like an idea that you know, like you have these
ideas you.
Speaker 11: Latch onto, and it's kind of something I'm interested in,
and I wanted to filter through, like your understanding of
geopolitics and kind of how like knowledge like passes.
Speaker 3: On through to different people.
Speaker 11: Are you familiar with like Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities and
the idea that like the printing press kind of like
shape the nation state, that kind of thing. Okay, Well,
he has this theory that he puts forward in that
book that basically says, like without the printing press, like
modern nation state borders wouldn't have formed because you wouldn't
have had these like shared narratives and a common language
among like regionally kind of.
Speaker 3: Like regionally close groups.
Speaker 11: And so I'm kind of interested in, like how it
is that like the changing information landscape kind of imperceptibly
adjust the way that we kind of engage with ideas
and reality kind of in like the you know, like
Marshall mcluan talking about like you know, roads come about
and it changes the way people travel, or like if
you think about like people growing up today kind of
can't imagine a world without TikTok or like our generation
we couldn't imagine really a world without books and accessing
ideas that way. I was just wondering, like because clearly,
like these types of changes in the information space can
be weaponized and like probably were in World War One
to kind of get massive groups of people to fight.
Like do you how do you just wondering like if
those ideas kind of like bring anything to mind in
terms of like you know, how it is that people
perhaps like engage with religion and religious ideas.
Speaker 3: You know, like at the time of the Apostles, you
learned about the faith through people.
Speaker 11: Now you learn about it online, like any just wondering
if anything comes to mind for you, like.
Speaker 7: Like the medium is the message essentially?
Speaker 3: Yah?
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I mean that's mcglillan. So I mean what
do you mean what comes to mind? What I don't
understand what you're asking.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I don't know if nothing pops up like, no
big deal, it's just something.
Speaker 3: This is just the concept I'm interested in. And like
if you look at if you kind of go with.
Speaker 11: Bennedict Anderson's theory about nation states being formed by the
printing press and like distribution of books within a certain region,
you can kind of say, like, okay, well, the decentralized
information that we access kind of contributed to say like
BLM becoming a massive movement in the US because you
can kind of latch onto these subgroups, identify with the
group that doesn't really respect national boundaries, can transnational or
like international, and like, I don't know, I just I
guess it's kind of not a super well formed question
because I have a lot of ideas.
Speaker 7: Here, but like, well, if you're meaning in a more
like conspiratorial sense, that why I would be familiar with
and I would agree with because you know, if you
read for example, Full Spectrum Dominance by F. William Ingdahl,
he talks about the means and methods of studying swarming
and manipulation of networks, and for example, in the Arab Spring,
we had some of the first experiments with engaging in
social revolution and government toppling through Twitter and social media.
And if you get into more advanced like graduate studies
of intelligence research, they will actually use textbooks like the
Marketing of Rebellion where they talk about specific groups being
targeted and marketed with a kind of rebellion like you're
talking about, and that's done at a very sophisticated, you know,
rank corporation pentagon level that can occur. So that comes
to mind if that's what you mean, Like, did think
tanks and powerful organizations study how to market revolution social media? Absolutely,
and there's a there's a textbook on it called Marketing
of Rebellion.
Speaker 3: I think, okay, great, I'll check those out. If you
don't mine, can I just ask like on the topic,
do I have a moment?
Speaker 11: So I mean, so thank you for that now, like
kind of looking at this through the lens of say,
like evangelism, and like the spreading is kind of orthodox
Christianity or how like Protestantism took off, Like obviously Protestantism
couldn't have taken off without the printing press, right, like
the I feel.
Speaker 7: Like, by the way, the book is, it's Cambridge University
Press and it's called Marketing of Rebellion insurgence, media and
international activism. But it lines up with what Ingdahl talks
about because he talked about believe it or not, the
Pentagon and the Rank Corporation were actually studying this at
the time of the sixties democratic student revolutions. They were
studying the concept of swarming and creating on the spot mobs,
mob attacks, and how to actually organize that in a
in a even before the Internet existed. So this is
actually a pretty sophisticated thing, gotcha.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean you know that kind of I'm sure
they kind of built off the idea and I'll definitely
check that out that like, you know, like World War
One couldn't have kicked off if you didn't have like
seventy percent literacy rate in Europe at the time and
people weren't able to read like mass market or like
you know, mass public pamphlets.
Speaker 7: Like we Are the Revolution, that type of stuff.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 11: But yeah, anyways, the next question is kind of like
on the topic of how this might affect like evangelization
and kind of the spread of religion. I think it's
clear like Protestantism couldn't have taken off. It like there
wasn't a mass printed Bible, right, but like, was that
the way that the church fathers and kind of the
original people.
Speaker 7: In the church, well they could the analogy there is
coin a Greek because Greek was the common language language
of the Empire. You had you know, Alexander the Great
spreading Greek everywhere. That is what made everybody able to convert.
So in other words, that laid the ground where that
was the presupposition for the conversion to Christianity. So absolutely
also I forgot. Yeah, there is this old Guardian article
that's very important. We bring it up all the time,
and it was almost twenty years ago, right. This is
a British Ministry of Defense white paper about what the
future would look like in our days, almost our days
twenty thirty, we're almost there. Revolutions, flash mobs and brain chips,
grim visions of the future. And so when I was
mentioning swarming, this is the same principle as the flash
moms h broad So this is again this has been
intensely studied and as you guys know, you might not
be aware of this, maybe you're a casual listener. One
of the things we've done on my channel over the
years is we've we've analyzed and read through and studied
quite a few white papers. We've done the NATO Psyop document.
We've done uh Silent Weapons Required Wars document. We've done
a bunch of them, right, We've done the Lockstep uh
for four stage white paper from the rock Filler Foundation.
I mean, we've done a lot of these, and so
I'm trying to remember that one Cognitive Warfare that's the
NATO one. Uh, They're they're all kind of similar. Oh,
I forgot it. There's also the British Ministry of Defense
Transhumanist document. I forgot. That's a whole other, a whole
other one. So it's like, like, what's funny is all
of this stuff is in these kinds of boring white papers,
and uh, they're fascinating to read, they're pretty boring, the
problem is that there's not like one. See, whenever you
do these talks on YouTube, you have to like tie