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