Speaker 1: Joining us tonight is Jake Rattlesnake. I like to go
by Lord Rattlesnake or Lord Jake most based chat of
all the lands. You don't have an argument, present your
people or shut up. Everyone with you is definitely inherently biased.
So this is when debate becomes very interest. I do
hear what you're saying, and I can see that you're
dressed as a cat a dog. You said you'd like
to go to play fetch? Well, yes, so how does
that tie into your relationship?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: What are you looking for if you're a dog? Yeah,
I think it's John Junior will be president one day.
If I think I was a gambling and I put
money on that.
Speaker 2: Found of Rattlesnake TV.
Speaker 3: Jake's yeah, what's up, Jay?
Speaker 1: How are you man?
Speaker 2: I'm doing great, dude, Glad to be back with you.
Speaker 1: So I a pleasure, always a pleasure. Let me just
move these screens around here, because it looks like I'm
looking away from you. You never know what it's going
to like look like in on the stream as opposed
to streamyard.
Speaker 2: I don't blame you look in a way. If I
look director, yea, you you're going to get scared. That's true,
that's true. All right, that looks better.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, We've got the one and only Jay
Dyer with us today. We're going to be talking about
the Candice Oone's looking glass, the ancient Sumerian technology that
the CIA has got in their hands on, and Charlie
Kirk being a time traveler. We're going to talk about
that theory, the origins of that, where it comes from,
and what have you. We're going to go into some geopolitics,
regime change, Iran Venezuela, all these different types of operations
that are happening in the US's current current position in
global politics. Maybe a bit of global reserve currency, where
jac is that going, the bricks nations, these types of things.
We're going to go into a little bit of kabbala
as well, and then I want to pick Jay's brains
about apologetics, apologetics basics and debate skills and tactics and
how we can sort of how we can all get
better at that. So Jay, for those of you who
haven't explored your work before, tell us a bit about
where they can find you.
Speaker 2: You can find me on my website Jason Alsils dot com.
Everything there is kind of the central hub, including my
archive of the last ten years of interviews, lectures, debates,
comedic material. You can find me on the Alice Jone
Show usually on Fridays, but today was didn't work out.
But you can find me on YouTube under my name.
You can find me on Instagram under my name, and
you can find my books at my shop in the
website at the website.
Speaker 1: Very nice, very nice. So, I mean, we're talking about
it off camera. I'm not sure how much you're able
to divulge. But what have you got going on this year?
Speaker 2: What looks like we may, if everything goes well, have
a debate with the stuff on MOLINEU. That's going to
be a round two on atheism. We might have some
more whatever podcast debates in the near future. We might
have some other big names that I can't name right
at the moment. But beyond that, I think we're gonna
have another big conference down in Florida, Orthodox conference with
some big names when that gets all kind of inked.
So it's gonna be I think, a popping off year.
And thanks to you, we've had some clips popping off
and all the clips channels are kind of expanding the
audience so I think twenty twenty six is gonna be
a big one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what did you think about the Tea list? It
looks like there's a bit of a trend going now,
people doing the various TIA lists of apologists and stuff
like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I appreciate you guys giving me the props. Yeah,
there's a couple of places I disagree with you guys.
I disagreed with Trent Horn being kind of high up.
I think I think Trent Horn's a little overrated. But
otherwise I think you guys are pretty much spot on.
And I was kind of surprised to see Jake the
Muslim mata retard giving me such a high position.
Speaker 1: What did he say?
Speaker 2: He ranked me in the top tier as well, because
I don't know why I figured he would have put
me in the bottom. But we'll see.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if you look at it objectively, it's
pretty much undernia blow this stage.
Speaker 2: Though. Well you're too kind, dude.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but was there anyone that we were missing on there?
Anyone that you particularly think is like a really good apologist?
Speaker 2: Who? I mean, you contemporary? There's not that many, So
I think I think you guys had most people that
I could think of, but I mean I would have
put Bonson probably on there, but I mean Bonson's technically
not contemporary because he died in the nineties. But so otherwise,
you guys, right.
Speaker 1: Nice, all right, man. Well, one of the big news
stories of this week has been Candice Owens's new theory. Now,
look at the start, I was thinking, all right, she's
like maybe poking a few holes here, and they're poking
a few holes in FBI narratives. There was the text messages,
there was the meetings at the in the Hamptons, these
sorts of things that it definitely peaked my curiosity, and
I thought that there was some decent investigative journalism going
on there. But it seems like almost it's just it's
gone in to this place now where it's like the
fix has to be has to be fed, and there
has to be a show, so there has to be
a theory, so there has to be all this crazy
stuff happening. And the most recent one is that the
CIA has access to ancient Sumerian technology and a looking glass,
and that Charlie kirk was privy to this, and that
Charlie Kirk is was a time traveler and disturbed the
continualm or something like that. So how did you see that? Like,
am I getting that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I played multiple clips on my life dream last
night where that is where she's taken it, and that's
exactly what I predicted it. So I got into this
maybe a month and a half or so ago because
I didn't really have a whole lot of time to
follow a lot of this, you know, Charlie Kirk speculation stuff.
I kind of assumed that, you know, the government's probably
not telling the truth. But and like you, I thought, well,
this is probably, you know, some good questions to ask. Initially,
and then the Plaine drama was a little weird. There
was some holes in that that I saw Crowder's video
I think did a good job critiquing. And then Alex
did a critique too, back six weeks ago or four
weeks ago, and then it just sort of got a
little bit weirder. So I actually tuned in. I was like,
I'm going to check out what her whole thesis is.
I'm going to follow this. And then I noticed a
pattern that something I've seen, you know, analyzing alt media
and mainstream media for fifteen twenty years, is that people
want to. It's almost like episodes of a drama where
you have next week's episodes got to be up the anne,
you know, even more extreme, more intense. It's like, you know,
to X Files next week for the craziest Monster of
the Week episode. So that's what it was. And I said, actually,
I said, watch, what's going to happen is she's going
to take it to the next level. It's going to
be an even wilder yarn that she spends next month
making all the so called conspiracy theorists look bad, making
us look like a bunch of idiots. And that's unfortunately,
where it's gone. Because I had a lot of high hopes,
know when Canda started covering a lot of the Zioni stuff,
I thought, maybe she's gonna be another voice, But unfortunately
it's just gotten more and more absurd and she just
quadruples down, doesn't walk it back at all. So that's
where we're at. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So what exactly is it? Because I know that
there is a theory out there, or maybe there is
some evidence out there that a part of the Middle
Eastern Wars was I don't I don't know anything about it.
I just know the surface level. I've maybe watched a
video on it a few years ago or something that
there was some sort of like ancient technology or whatever
that was in Iraq. Is there any credence to whatsoever
to this.
Speaker 2: Not that I'm aware of. I mean, you have sometimes
people mentioning this kind of stuff. I think one of
the Hillary emails mentioned.
Speaker 1: Right, that's what I was. That's what I remember there was.
Speaker 2: There was mention of something like you know relics or
you know, ancient relics. But that doesn't mean that it
was some sort of advanced a you know, history channel
ancient aliens technology. I mean, it just gets so absurd
and there's no evidence for any of that. So that's
sort of the yarn that I think she was connecting
it to. And you know, maybe a little bit of
cern thrown in there for good measure. A lot of
the you know, conspiracy classic type stuff, which is pretty
fringe arena material, which you know, if she had sucked
to critiquing Zionism and you know, calling out dB that
kind of stuff, that might have been a little more grounded,
but it's just gotten crazier and crazier in order to
also in gonzo journalism. So I'll put herself into the story.
So you'll notice all these stories also are about her.
They're coming after her. Masad, you know, French intelligence is
sending you know, their operatives, the Foreign Legion, the CIA
was also there, and then there's tunnels, and it just
keeps changing because every week has to be this cliffhanger
that brings you to the next dopamine hit of the craziest,
most wild speculation. And again, if you go and see
her comments, it's all like soccer moms and Karen. We're
not talking about rational you know, patriarchal logos, minded dudes
that are that are working through the evidence. We're not
talking about you know, guys that have been in Black
Ops or veterans. Because most of those guys that comment
on this say that she's full of it. And I
think it's it's pretty obvious when you when you get
into this, particularly with the Mitch Snows story, you know,
his whole narrative crumbled. It was obvious that he was
a grifter pretty quickly. You know, how does a guy
who's a Black Ops green beret that get imprisoned in
the garage by his wife who breaks his thumbs? I
mean the stories are just preposterous. And then of course
turns out that that guy was, you know, a psychopath,
and all of his stories made absolutely no sense. You
don't stumble onto for what Chuka and accidentally wander into
a skiff and hear colonels planning an assassination doesn't work
that way. And you know, anytime I had people defending
this position, I asked them to call in, And anytime
they would call in, I would ask them, I say, well,
can you tell me a couple of books that you
read on assassinations or anybody that you've interviewed. You know,
I've interviewed the biggest hit man in the world multiple times,
so I know a little bit about it. I'm not
an expert on assassinations, and nobody has any knowledge of this.
So it's it's all just like you know, wine mom
gossip or something at the you know, at the at
the soccer match, you know, want moms gossiping. So anyway,
I'm rambling, but you get the idea, and then it
just sort of got to the next level with you know,
she's relying on her dreams, she's relying on Marion feast
days that she had a prayer the day of the
Immaculate Conception and blah blah blah, and that told her intuitively,
and so it's's getting more and more absurd. And really
the only question at this point I think is is
it an actual sort of break in terms of psychosis?
Is this schizophrenia? And I don't mean that in a
mean vindictive way. I don't have any animosity really just
being honest and objective in the analysis. Is it disinformation
you know co Intel pro style stuff. Is she being
handled or you know, is this just gripting? It could
be any of those things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, have you ever seen that meme where it's like
the woman looking in the mirror and then it just says,
now go and make it about you. Kind of seems
that way.
Speaker 2: Then.
Speaker 1: The reason one was that Charlie was you know, monitored
from a young age and he was you know, prepped
and molded to do this. And the Candice also, they
tried to get her into the Smart School, the special
Smart School, but she said no. So she's like really
dodged a bullet with that.
Speaker 2: So it is I was in the gay program. I
could speak to that. I was in California in the
gay program, Gifted Gate Gifted and Talented Education g A
t E. That's what it stands for.
Speaker 1: So I was like, these aid the gay program.
Speaker 2: In fact, we did a Sam Hyde episode about that
and we were calling it. We were calling it the
Gate Program. So yeah, no, I wasn't in the gay program.
I was in the street. I promise.
Speaker 1: The check and I found with that.
Speaker 2: I was in the gay program. We had to write
like this, So yeah.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if these days they had the
gay program.
Speaker 2: You know, that is what education is now, it's the
gay program. So eight education literally is that? I mean yeah,
I mean all it was was just, uh, you know,
the sort of smart kids being kind of given their
own curricula and put into other programs. Whether we did
a lot of artistic stuff and not so much a
lot of like roape memorization type stuff. So uh, there
wasn't any MK ultra. There was no Professor X, you know,
picking out new mutants or any of this nonsense. But
that's the way that she's sort of blown this up
based on again the popularity of this theory on TikTok. Right,
So if you go to TikTok and you look up
the gay program, In the last year, this wild narrative
has been spun through a bunch of idiotic TikTokers that
the Gate Program was the secret you know MK Ultra
Stranger Things type thing where they're picking the smart kids
and trying to turn them into literal X men, all
of which is nonsense. That's not what the Gate program was.
Speaker 1: And you would have looked into this stuff. I mean,
in terms of the Skull and Bones societies and all
these sorts of things, there is some level of grooming
that goes on, like you said that was going If
I was an elite and I was looking for people
to come in and fill the cabinets of the various
different countries that I wanted to to fill the cabinets off,
like a Clauschwalb or something like that, then I would
look at the IVY leagues and I'd be like, who's
going to be the future leaders? Let me influence these guys.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, no, that's legitimate. That does happen, but that's not
what the Gate Program was, and that's not what you know.
There's no evidence that Charlie Kirk was some sort of
chosen groomed person because he would disrupt the time continuum
and you know, we got to have we got to have,
you know, Marty McFly and Doc Brown find a flux
capacitor somehow to take us back can fix the time
to you know what I mean. Yeah, it's somebody said
on Twitter. I thought it was pretty funny. It was
like you could tell what movies she's been watching lately
from her conspiracy theory. So she must have watched The Matrix,
Back to the Future and an Inception because like the
stories kind of match up to that. I was like, yeah,
it sounds like x fols to me too, But.
Speaker 1: Do you know what this whole looking glass thing is
though it is allegedly some sort of ancient Sumerian technology, like,
what's the the law behind that?
Speaker 2: Well, first, I would say some of these projects are real,
and we try to do, you know, on my channel
with the people that we've interviewed, I try to do
as best I can with actually finding real elite documents
and reading the real things and not relying on you know,
secondhand speculation. But I think, you know, at the level
of Candice and people like that, there's there's really no
vetting going on, which is kind of odd to be
that large of a channel and to not vet sources
like Mitch Snow or documents. So I'm not aware of
and I haven't found. I'm not saying it doesn't exist,
but I've not yet seen the the actual document about this.
I'm not saying that it couldn't exist. There is project
the Gateway Process, which doctor David Patrick Carey and I
did a livestream on that because we actually went and
found the document and read it. And this is you know,
if you look at stories like Stark Goats, right, that's
a real project where they were studying things like remote
viewing at Stanford Research. There is the Stargate project, so
these things are real where they study this stuff. But
Stargate got shut down because they really couldn't reproduce the work.
There was limited success with remote viewing, the other projects
with mind powers and all this nonsense. If you if
you've seen ministera Goat, you'll know what I'm talking about
because it's got It's a George Clooney movie based on
a John Ronson book. So it's a real project with
the first Earth Battalion, which was a bunch of military
guys that were trying to sort of experiment with mind powers,
psychic powers, remote viewing, et cetera. But they had limited
success with this. And again Stargate project. That's real, but
there's not any evidence beyond some of the studies of
like meditation, which is in the Gateway Process document. Beyond that,
there's no evidence of time travel or seeing into the future.
All of that's nonsense. People have to understand too. Sometimes
a CIA declassifies things that are just publications that somebody
wrote that were that they had for some reason classified.
It might have been somebody's name that was mentioned, it
could have been anything. Just because some of these declassified
doesn't mean that, oh, this was a real, you know,
government operation. For example, there was some document declassified that
was a large speculative publication some years back that dealt
with poll shifts. Okay, well, that doesn't mean that there's
going to be a poll shift. It just means that
there was a document declassified that in many of the
pages happened to mention this speculative theory. So in the
same way, even if there is some document, I mean,
they can they can declassify fake documents or things that
really weren't even successful or real projects that has nothing
The fact that is declassified has nothing to do with
whether it's actually valid or not, so I would say
there is no I mean, there are other things called
Operation Looking Glass, which have to do with like air
force and military stuff, but there's no I don't think
there is any real technology of seeing in the future.
It's much of nonsense, right.
Speaker 1: Just to let you guys know that we are going
to be we'll read super chats in between every segment,
so we're going to be doing a bunch of different
topics today. In between we'll basically just read anything that's
like yellow and up. So any final thoughts on the whole,
that whole situation, they're like, what your predictions are in
the future where you see that whole situation going with
Candice and you know, Carroll and these sorts of figures
who are quite popular these days.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that she's kind of locked into, uh,
quadrupling down, so I don't expect her anytime soon to
back off. In other words, we've seen this pattern pretty consistently.
She's just going to keep upping the anti. In fact,
she even hinted that the mystical Sumerian Wakanda technology suddenly
stopped working in twenty twelve. I mean, what that's my
in calendar bullshit. I don't think I don't think anybody
believes in the Mayan calendar twenty twelve nonsense. In episodes,
she's really weird to tie to for to tie that
into that, and uh yeah, I mean there's something going
on with you know, she seems to think that, you know,
all of reality is sort of sort of turning around
her and Turlie Kirk, which to me is is it
In an Orthodox church, we would call that delusion or prelst.
Speaker 1: Right, what does prelst mean? Again?
Speaker 2: Prelest is a spiritual delusion. So it's more than just
kind of being deluded or arrogant. It's actually thinking that
God is talking to me and sending me these messages
and I don't have to listen to anyone else sort
of you know checking me or you know, firewall giving
me some feedback because God's talking to me. Right. So
it's this It's a supreme form of kind of spiritual
delusion where you think you're kind of anointed and God's
you know, using you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, get a lot of that with the various like
some of the weird sort of sects of Christianity.
Speaker 2: Out there. Oh, absolutely, Yeah, Well she's influenced by it.
She's influenced by the sort of charismatic vein of Catholicism,
and so unfortunately the Romancalloic Church has for the last
few decades adopted the Pentecostal charismatic you know methodology where
you just sort of had these experiences and that's supposedly
God talking to you, and that's the proof itself. How
do I know? Well, God, that's God, God's my feelings.
God's the one that's you know, gibbering through me through
these you know, speaking in tongues. But of course, in Scripture,
tongues are just languages. There's there's no gibberish. So she's
actually influenced by this sort of Catholicism.
Speaker 1: I had a long chat a few weeks ago with
a random Protestant and I'll I was trying to understand
why they thought what they thought. It was like in
like a personal personal life sort of conversation, and we
were going around in circles because I was sort of saying, look,
like the Bible it's good, Like I think that it's
good to obviously read scripture and to no scripture, and
these sorts of things. But it's not my job to
interpret the scripture. And this is why we've got like
thousands of years of saints and all of these different
theologians who can tell me that, Like, I could spend
my whole life trying to interpret the Bible, and I
would come to so many wrong conclusions that it would
be ridiculous. So this is why I appreciate the idea
of you know, church authority and having that structure as
opposed to everybody just doing their own interpretations. And every
time I feel a feeling that's like God speaking to
me and we're going around circles because they just kept saying, no,
I know what this means, and I can interpret it
because God tells me like and you know, God speaking
to me. And I read the words of God and
I was like, well, how do you differentiate if I
believe this and you believe this and we read the
same scripture? What's the sort of what's the threshold breaker here?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And they just yet like will tell me like it's
it's bizarre in my mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a recipe for disaster and sort of delusion
and hints that term preless. I mean, you know, we
have an Orthodox Church, for example, there's checks and balances.
Nobody has this sort of, uh, you know, lone wolf
anointing kind of thing. We do believe in God moving
you and speaking to you in special ways, but in
our framework there's always spiritual authorities and other people that
you bounced that off of. For example, if I was
to ever have some kind of vision or experience, I
would talk to my spiritual father about that. And he's
a virtuous, you know, honorable husband priest that I've known
for many, many years, and I trust him because I
know that he's not gonna steer me in the wrong direction.
I have other friends like Father Deaconductor and and I
asked people that would give me good counsel. And you know,
the Protestant world, you don't really have that. It's just
sort of you on your own, doing your own thing.
But you actually need that check some balance. We would say,
precisely because we are so susceptible to pride. We're so
susceptible as fallen human beings to trusting in our own hearts.
And if you read the Book of Jeremiah, for example,
there's a section where Jeremiah says that the false prophets
trust in the vision of their own hearts that they
think is God, but they're actually confirming and believing a deception.
Speaker 1: Yeah, i've been. I'm halfway through The Soul after Death
by Sarah and Rose at the moment. It's probably my favorite,
my favorite of the Saints that I've read. I just
like how dense the books are with information. There's not
much waffling that goes on. It's just like interesting topic,
interesting topic, interesting topic, boom boom boom, facts fax facts.
Great book. I actually stole it from the Wilson's I
need to send them a new copy. But he does
talk about this about seeing apparitions and these sorts of things.
You don't want to take it at face value. You
want to actually go and like approach your spiritual father
or somebody about this as opposed to just seeing a
ghost or even like a dead family member or something
like this. And it goes all into out of body
experiences and astral project projection and what the Orthodox view
is on this, and it's super super interesting stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great one. You'd also probably like his
book Orthodoxy in the Religion the Future because that gets
I read that. Yeah, oh, cool.
Speaker 1: That's a great book.
Speaker 2: The other one that's really good from him is Nihilism
Roots of the Revolution, because it's kind of a presuppositional
critique of Marxism, socialism, communism, and most of what we
know as modern leftism. He does a really good critique
of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. All right, Well let's get through some super chats
here and then we'll move on. Jordan says Jake ingrats
on being the first black woman on rad elsonk TV
to be in a positive light.
Speaker 2: Well, we all know who the real queen is, and
it ain't Canvas. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 1: Sniper Mike gifted five. Thank you, Sniper Mike. Anthony says,
great collab. I hope you guys do this more. Hope
you had a great birthday yesterday, Jay, this year is
going to be great for you both. Birthday yesterday. Hey,
have your birthday.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah. I just turned sweet sixteen, got me
a nice little grand Now I'm out there ready to
take it for a spend. Thank you guys so much.
Everybody's really generous and super chat. I appreciate that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Uh, Cam says the CIA has the observatory from Assassin's Creed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember there's some kind of you know, future
vision Tech and Assassin's Creed. So that's that's funny. I'm
surprised that. By the way, what I mean, we're only
like a week or two away from the next episode
of Candace's X Files where she goes full full wakando
or yakub. Right, So when when is yakub gonna appear?
It's got to be soon.
Speaker 1: Moment Killer says, God blessed brothers. Keep up the Lord's work.
Thank you, sir, appreciate that dishwasher safe. Speculum says, thank you,
Jay for traveling back to do this interview.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay, you watch Candace. She'll just got okay, okay.
Speaker 1: Cam says, California is kind of like a gay program anyways, true.
Speaker 2: All of California is the gay program.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Giovanni says, yeah, Jake, is that what you want
to do today? Talk about Venezuela. They're making fun of
my venezuela, venezuela, venezuela, venezuela, venezuela, venezuela. Wila Blaine says,
I came back from twenty forty nine to donate this.
Thank you. I appreciate all the time travel and brothers.
Speaker 2: Hopefully I'm the Pope of the future and not Candae.
I know that, you know, probably by them will have
a black woman pope, but hopefully it's it's me and
not her, all right.
Speaker 1: Next one I wanted to get into. Other big story
of the week is obviously the United States's role in
global politics. So it appears to me, and let me
know what you think about about this, right, it appears
to me as though there is a shifting of the
power of the great power politics happening in the world
right before our eyes. You've got the bricks nations Brazil, Russia, India, China,
South Africa and the adjacent countries as well, and their
express goal seems to be to knock the US off
its purchase the global reserve currency, to trade in juan
to even create their own sort of trading currency so
they don't have to rely on the US dollar anymore,
and they don't have to be or full victim two sanctions,
if you will, and these types of things. And now
it looks to me as though one of the reasons
is though Trump is trying to get Greenland and he's
deposed Maduro is to maybe consolidate a little bit of power,
consolidate the United States' position as the global superpower. Do
you think that that's too simplistic? Is there a lot
more going on at play?
Speaker 2: There? No, Also, what could be happening is because the
US economy is pretty bad, you know, seizing these resources
could also be just another source of resource money. So
you know, Venezuela having all the oil, basically top oil producer,
that could be a lot of revenue. Because the US
economy is pretty much screwed, there's no way out of
the debt given the usery based you know, Fiat printing
model that we've adopted since nineteen thirteen. So there's no
way out of that other than just seizing resources. And unfortunately,
when you have a gigantic or borros of debt as
we have, like it's almost it's almost like it forces
people to engage in these activities to maintain the imperium.
And we have an empire, whether we acknowledge that or not.
Even Preziski said it's a US imperium. So I think
your right to point to those factors. But also, you know,
we seem to be even in you know, foreign Middle
Eastern countries media, it was reported that some of these
actions in Venezuela were actually at the behest of foreign
Middle Eastern countries, if you if you grasp what I'm saying.
So that's a big part of this too, is doing
what our allies tell us to do. And I think
that's a little bit surprising because people wouldn't think of
Venezuela as that. But one of the market you know,
my good friend Tristan, you know, he lives in Ecuador
and he knows Latin South American politics very well, and
he sent me a ton of information on this which
actually confirms that that there was quite a bit of
foreign interference, shall we say, uh, in Venezuela. And that
doesn't mean that I'm saying socialism is good. It's not.
It's really a false dialectic between the neoliberal I m F.
Shock doctrine, you know, death slavery model or do you
want to be in the socialist death slavery trap model.
Both of those are bad. They're both a false dialectic.
So there's really no easy answer for America's you know,
pax imperium packs Americana in Latin South America. But the
same model as you're pointing to. I think with regime
change is the same. It's the color revolution model that's
being used. They're there, it's just straight of regime change.
They're also going to use the same, you know, strategy
with Iran. You know, Israel has been calling for the
installment of the relative of the shaw as the the
next leader of Iran. But you know, the CIA in
British intelligence had an alliance with the the Ayatola's as well.
So it is when when the revolution happened, that the
CIA was right there in the middle of that as well.
So there's a lot going on, but suffice to say that,
you know, the reason these things happen is ultimately for
resource control, uh and for as you said, geopolitical stuff
right right, strategic strategic stuff.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. So there's this argument that you've got.
Speaker 2: The are you there? I lost you?
Speaker 1: I lost you there for a sake you're back.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Maybe the Internet or stream Labs or stream yard
froze or something. But I was trying to say a geo.
Somebody came in and distracted me. Geostrategic purpose is right,
So to make sure that there's a unipolar world, not
a multipolar world. That's what the bricks stuff is about,
you know, Russia, China, India creating a multipolar world. So yeah,
I forgot to mention bricks. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I mean, yeah, there's this argument that you've
got the Clean Break Memo late nineteen nineties, all of
these countries that they wanted to destabilize overthrow so that
basically the Israelis can be the hedgemon in that region
in the Middle East. A lot of these countries got overthrown,
the leader's got deposed, Syria, Iraq, Libya, these different countries,
and then the theory goes that Iran is sort of
like the last one on the chopping block. They get
rid of Iran, and then the Israelis have achieved their
goal of being the hedgemon in that region. Is did
you give credence to that theory?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, it's oded Yunin and it's the Clean Break memorandum.
So yeah, we did some livestreams on that six or
seven months ago when the Iran stuff was really popping off.
I went back and those and then had a kind
of a pseudo debate with David Wood and a postic
profit on all of that. But yeah, those memos those
memorandums are absolutely the game plan, and that really makes
sense of why the US has done everything that's done
in the Middle East for the last you know, twenty
thirty years.
Speaker 1: So I was watching a debate on this exactly with
Dave Smith and Coleman Hughes. You might have seen this
debate where Coleman Hughes was saying, well, why is this
such a significant memorandum? There are thousands of memorandums that
will come across the desk of the intelligence agencies in
the United States. This was just some random piece of paper,
and people are grabbing this and acting like this is
some sort of a really significant thing. Do you think
that it is as significant in terms of their actual
geopolitical strategy or is it just a random piece of
paper memorandum that some guy in the office drafted up.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Natanyahu's memorandum and the strategy being followed
and lining up in many ways with the old ed
your non strategy is not just random and random. So no,
that's just completely not true. That's to ignore the fact
that the US you know, engaged in these actions to
support Israeli policy. There. It's not every single one of
them I mean there's mentions, for example, of trying to
create a Christian government in I think Egypt, like a
Coptic Christian government in Egypt. Well that didn't happen. So
the argument is not that every single thing successfully was achieved,
but it shows you a general layout and strategy, and
it doesn't mention all these countries and they have all
been toppled except for Iran. But that doesn't mean that
Iran is like I don't really view Iran as a
one percent you know, anti Western force. There's a lot
of backdoor deals. I mean, if you read Victor Strowsky's books,
Massade sold a lot of armaments to Iran on the
down low. So there's a lot of backdoor deals that
make even a lot of this just kind of dialectics
and you know, exactly what happened in the long term,
It's hard to say, but I mean we are really
obviously following, you know, the Zionist policy in the Middle East.
I don't it shouldn't even be questionable at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think it is pretty it is
pretty self evident by this stage for sure. So in
terms of this, this Shah's son, this guy from what
I've seen has basically never really had a job or anything.
He comes from a royal family, moved to America after
the revolution, hasn't really engaged in much politics himself. So
the idea for me that he can just come in
and just sort of click his fingers and take over
from the Iatola seems a bit far fetched, especially considering
the changes in the region since nineteen seventy nine. Like,
it's a lot more volatile and dangerous from what I
can see, and there are a lot of very hostile
nonstate actors around. You've got your ISIS and al Qaeda.
Even though, tell me if I'm wrong about this, but
they also hate the Ayatola because they see him as
a Sheite clerical apostate, and they kind of hate him.
Though they're all Muslims that they're Sunnis and she is there,
they don't like each other, and they see the Atola,
the son you see of the Ayatola, as illegitimate. Even
though they don't like the Shah. They also hate the Ayatola.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, yeah. I mean they've been fighting for centuries,
so I mean they you know, if you go back
to I'm going for a memory, here is a Karbala.
You know, the Shia have the whole ceremony where they
celebrate battling the Shia, I mean the Sunni. So yeah, yeah,
that's definitely the case, and that's why you have at times,
you know, the Shia have reached out to kind of
have more of an alliance with the West or with
Christianity because of the opposition of this of the Sunnis.
But ultimately, in the in the long game, if you're
an orthodox Christian, these all they're all really antichrist powers
because Shia Islam is just another form of neoplatonism. So
in many ways it's kind of similar to Sufism, but
there's nothing really that links it with Christianity ultimately, so
there's always going to be the animosity. But in the
Middle East, yeah, there I think that you know, Iran
does obviously have designs because you wouldn't have the assassination
of these generals, you wouldn't have Masad engaging in things
like stutt Net, sucks Net and whatnot if there was,
if they weren't really trying to, you know, have their
version of hegemony in the region. So really, you know,
every time I say this, everybody gets mad and they say, oh,
so you're pro Israel. In your answer, I really don't
think there's any good or bad guys, you know, in
in this this level of geopolitics, and it's just it's
just going to be classic tribalism and fighting for you know,
regional dominance. So I don't really think the US wins
either way. But I also don't necessarily support regime change,
and I do think that. I mean, if you get
into Shia Islam and look at what they believe, it
really it is a crazy cult. Really, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: What makes them more crazy than the Sunnis?
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Shia Islam is a little more mystical
and they're a little more apocalyptic in terms of their
you know, they think it like the end times and
these manifestations are going to you know, happen in their future. SONO.
A lot of times, any kind of like imminent eschatology
and times type stuff can motivate more radical, irrational actions.
I mean, Rabbinic Judaism is not much better, but no,
Shia Islam is an absolutely insane cult.
Speaker 1: So what do you see happening there in the future.
Because it looks as though you had the Trump strikes
on the nuclear facilities in Iran, and then you've got
the revolution that looks like it's happening in the street,
looks like it's gaining momentum. There's a lot of protesters
being killed there at the moment, this could be seen
as the grounds for deposing the leader. Do you think
that that's going to happen in the near future? Do
you think this is going to be a false alarm?
And also why do you think it is that we
are seeing this big sort of revolution happening. Do you
think that there's foreign involvement and interference or do you
like when I look at it, I tend to think
if I was in Tehran right now, if I was
a citizen of Tehran, I'd be looking around me and
be thinking, do we really want to go to war?
We've had a few strikes that have happened. We haven't
really been able to respond. The government isn't as strong
as we thought. All of our different proxies are kind
of just getting taken out one by one. Do I
really want my home to get completely destroyed? Like it's
not a war that we're going to win. Get rid
of these guys, have a more Western friendly government so
that we don't go to war in our country doesn't
get destroyed. Maybe I'd be thinking that if I was
a citizen, But how do you see that going?
Speaker 2: Probably? I mean, I know that there's the Mulahs are unpopular,
that's true. But also, you know, it's such a challenge
because you know, you as leaders like Trump formerly, we're
opposed to these kinds of things. You know, you've had
many many people saying, let's not have this regime change,
let's not do this. And yet now here we are
supposedly because you know, because of the threat to Israel
and so we're we're probably going to see some sort
of you know, false flag blamed on a ran. Eventually,
you've got to have something to motivate, you know, popular support,
because nobody really wants this except for Nanna, who who's
you know, they wanted this for a long time. So
and and surprisingly, remember you know, the last few rounds
of this, you know, Trump didn't do exactly what na wanted.
Now it looks like, for whatever reason, we are doing
all of that. So you know, who knows what the
real game plan is. But I would guess that it's
probably not going to be successful. I mean, again, you're
you have to understand it's a it's an ideology motivated
by a cult if you talk about Shia in general,
and that's not going to operate in a rational way.
But yeah, I think it's it's just bad news all around.
I mean, we've had some Orthodox clerics and people warning that,
you know, we might actually have a big war in
twenty twenty six if a lot of this continues.
Speaker 1: Wasn't there one? I mean I remember dph talking about this.
It might even have been with you. He was talking
about an Orthodox cleric who said that there would be
strikes on Iran and it would come to some sort
of a war, and he predicted that ages Ago.
Speaker 2: I think that's Elder Apaisios said that before he died,
but he you know, he's a pretty recent holy man.
But yeah, I think his his story was that there
would be presages of a big war when it comes
to Iran, and then I think some didy to do
with Turkey and Greece if a recall.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, difficult to see where it's going to go.
Witsus came in and said, hi, j and Jakello WHITSI
is good to see you. Blame Pisasik says Jay do
your nick cage impression.
Speaker 2: I'm so glad to be here with my good buddy Jake.
Thank's probably the best shaman on the internet, because you're
going to give me a reading later. I've got a
bit of a cold, so my neck cage is a
little off, but.
Speaker 1: You can't be sick on the nick cage. Not bad though,
Amelia sent twenty eight. Thank you very much, Amelia greatly appreciated.
All Right, what did we have next on the agenda here? Kabbala?
So this is something I'm curious. I've had you and
Dph talk about this a lot in your various streams.
It's something that I've listened to a fair bit, but
I just still don't understand it at all, some sort
of a mystical practice. It's just one of those things
that's so late. Like, first of all, what is kabala
and what are the origins of kabbala?
Speaker 2: Well, the word just means the tradition or the receiver
passed on tradition. So the word is referring to, in
some sense, the oral teachings of Rabbinic Judaism, and it's
the idea that all the way back to Genesis or
to the time of the prophets like Ezekiel. There's this
oral form of revelation or Judaic tradition that's also been
passed down that's sort of concurrent with the rabbinical written
texts or the Torah or whatever. But there's also branches
of it that get into mysticism and what you'll find
in a lot of you know, Western religions in general,
whether it's from Meticism or whether it's Christianity or Islam,
a lot of times they will borrow or utilize the
structures of neoplatonism. So Neoplatonism is later Platonic schools in
the first, second, and third century that developed Plato and
Aristotle into some sort of systematized way to understand the
structure of reality. One of the classic examples of neoplatonism
is what's called the Porphyrian tree. If you look that up,
it's a tree that's intended to kind of give you
the structure or the dimensions that make up reality. And
there's all kinds of theories, there's all kinds of schemes,
but this is a basic template that's used. And Christianity
or Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Sufism, Shia Islam and Judaism, particularly
with Kabbala, have appropriated and utilized Kabbala and the Porphyrian
treat to kind of give meaning and structure to reality
beyond just the basics of you know, Genesis and creation
and this kind of stuff. So it's a more of
a metaphysical thing, and within Kabbala and Judaism it gets
in many cases way more mystical, where you can have
practices and include things like magic, sigil magic. There's a
there's a medieval Jewish myth called the Gollum. You probably
heard of the Gollumn, and this idea that through magical
incantations or perhaps even through technology or whatever, and using
the words, the Hebrew words and names of God, you
can create sort of animatronic or living beings. And I
don't even think that Judaism is necessarily the beginning of
that idea. You can find that idea in ancient Greece,
where some of the philosophers talked about creating sort of
technotronic beings or mechanical beings so to speak. So long
story short, A big part of that school of mysticism
deals with things like what we would call perhaps computer beings,
or Ai beings. Right, if you're a cabalistic Jew, you
would interpret or think of a lot of things like
Ai or robotics as a version of the Gollumn. So
there's much more to it than that. But I mean
it kind of branches into gnosticism at times. A lot
of the medieval Jewish coblists were influenced by Christian gnostics,
so they utilize kind of good and evil as flip
sides of the same coin principles. So it gets all
it's all over the place, and every different cobblist kind
of has its own scheme or system. So that's just
quickly like what, like who.
Speaker 1: Is actually practice? Do we know that people are practicing
this sort of thing these days? And is it a
small portion of the Jewish religion? Is it like a
weird sect of the Jewish religion or is it something
that's pretty ingrained. It would be like orthodox people or.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, any person within and even without Judaism
could conceivably be interested in or have some version of Kabbalism.
I mean, for example, many Western esotericists who weren't even Jews,
like Alistair Crowley, he borrowed heavily from the Kabbala. Albert Pike,
who wrote the Bible of Masonry, Morals and Dogma, was
very influenced by Kabbala, so he utilizes it. And then
you know, we have pop culture figures who've been big
promoters of Kabbala, like Madonna and the La Cabbala Center.
Speaker 1: Can they know, though, d Can they know the sort
of tradition of what they're actually doing and what they're
actually saying or do you think that they have various
influences around them that that make them do these because
I can't imagine Madonna really sort of looking into any
sort of medieval metaphysics.
Speaker 2: No, I think in her case, I mean, I'm not
saying that what she's into is very well thought out
or sensible. I'm not saying that like Madonna's controlling the
world through the Rabbis. But I mean, I mean I've
read the you know, she for many years was promoting
the Cabbala Center in La back to the late nineteen
nineties actually, and I've read some of the material from
her Cabala Center in La, and I mean, again, it's
not like extremely in depth, like you know, reading Thomas
Aquinas or something like that, but I think, yeah, she
absolutely knows that it's medieval, you know, Jewish practice. You
can watch old videos of Madonna where she's actually promoting
some pretty some ideas that are a little more sophisticated in
high tier than you would expect her to promote. I mean,
it's all demonic, but I'm saying I think she is
fairly serious about it. But again, beyond you know people
like that that popularize it in the in the pop world,
I mean you have people like Ashton Kutcher was a
big promoter of it popularly speaking, but in a more
you know, serious geopolitical sense. I mean there you have
people like Jacque Atteli, who's the Kissinger of France. Uh,
you know, I read his books. He's he's obviously a
pretty systematic devotee of the ideas of it. I mean,
he utilizes it in his geopolitical writings, for example, and
brief Ish in the future. He predicted in two thousand
and six that we would all be linked into a
global hive mind, which he calls the Gollum and he
specifically links it to, you know, Kabbalism. You have a
lot of people in Hollywood, directors Darren Darren Aronofsky, for
His first movie was about Kabbala. You've ever seen Pie?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Pie is pretty famou. I mean, it's a it's
a it's a movie about numerology amongst the Jewish Hasidic
community and a guy kind of goes crazy. But most
of his movies, I mean, whether It's a Mother, or
whether it's Black Swan or you know, they're all pretty
much cabalistic theme movies. So yeah, many people do practice it,
many people are just influenced by it. But I think
more so for the geopolitical sphere, it's it's Hegel who
was really influenced by Kabbala, and he took cabalistic ideas
a thesis, antithesis, synthesis and turned that into a way
to understand all of reality. And then Carl Marx took
that and turned that into dialectics for Marxism and socialism.
So actually, when you talk about Marxism, you're actually talking
about a form of atheistic Cabala, so to speak.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. So because because Hegel was quite sort
of spiritual in his practice, in like his philosophy and
the things that he believed, and the whole idea of
the dialectically. You said, the uh, thesis and thesis and
then synthesis, and then Max translated that into sort of
like dialectical materialism, is that what he calls it? And
then a way to view the world in history in
the sense that material conditions can just keep on changing
and then create different synthesis. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: So Yeah, so that actually comes from this cabalistic metaphysical
way to view the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, at least there's a very heavy influence.
And there's an academic text that cover this is called
Hegel and Hermeticism. That's written by professor who's a Hegelian
scholar who went and looked back at the many medieval
late medieval esoteric hermetic influences on Hegel, which a lot
of people had not really noticed before. But you have
people like you, awcome, I fere, you have people like
Giordano Bruno, the famous medieval hermeticist. They were into these
ideas and even though they weren't Jews, they were still
influenced by these ideas and that was a huge Yeah,
there's a huge influence on Hegel himself, who was pretty
much a I guess what you the best way to
figure out to characterize Hegel would be as kind of
a version of neoplatonism, which one of the problems, and
I'm not going to spend too much time on us,
is pretty abstruse and boring. But one of the problems
in Platonism was always that Plato's ideas and these these realms,
these manifestations or whatever they're they're very static, and so
there was always a problem in Platonism to deal with
process and change. So, in other words, if the realm
of the ideas is eternal and static, how does it
have anything to do with the realm our realm, which
is always in flux and changing. So that was a
constant problem in in Platonism and neoplatonism, and one of
the things one of the things Hegel does is really
try to resolve that through process philosophy. So he's a
huge proponent of there being these sort of ideals, but
they're always sort of in process, moving towards what he
called the Omega point, which is everything becoming self conscious.
And and you can find this influence very heavily. I'm
sure you mentioned this probably with doctor David Patrick Carey,
and I think he would back this up, especially amongst
the transhumanists they're very much into these ideas of hegel
or tear the chardine, and the idea of the newestphere
and everything kind of becoming unified into this grand supra
consciousness via the web, the net, the global brain, Jacques Cattales, Gollum,
et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's all the same idea, the idea, and this is
like the Omega point that is the sort of final
destination of the dialectic. Absolutely interesting. Interesting. Okay, So here's
this might be like a simplistic question, but do these
people believe in God?
Speaker 2: I mean, I've got Ray Kursvall's books. He's sort of
the you know, most famous transhumanist, and he says in
the books, I don't believe in God yet, and he
basically and he says some other comments like I'll believe
in God when I'm when I become him or something
like that. So, I mean, it's like, you know, for transhumanism,
you you know, they tend to believe that the it's
an emergent deity, it's a day sex mocking, it's a
god that will emerge out of the system, meaning you know,
some super ai or whatever. Some of the people, though,
I think in that vein could be cabalistic. I've got
some books by cabalistic scholars that are into you know,
AI and transhumanism over there on my shelf, So I
would imagine that they just see it as some form
of mystical judaism. I mean, I think you've got a
whole range of people. I mean there's people who like
Peter Carroll, who's actually the godfather of modern Satanism and transhumanism,
even perhaps before Crowley, and he was kind of the
pioneer of technopaganism and cyberpunk stuff, because he actually thinks
that the Internet is kind of a form of chaos magic,
and that the Internet itself will kind of become some
sort of like uncontrolled deity. I I'm not saying that
that's true, but I'm saying, like, so, I think you
have a range of people's views amongst these these technocrats.
Speaker 1: But what about say, like the coblist, Because it kind
of appears to me as though from what you were
saying before, that they view the trajectory of humanity in
like the reverse way to we. They look at it
from man to God, whereas we look at it from
God to man. So do they believe in a source
or an original or are they big bang theorists sort
of people? Are they diagnostic?
Speaker 2: I mean, one of the things I've noticed with I mean,
I haven't read a million cobblists, but I've read probably
five or six different Cabbalistic texts and views, and I've
read the premiere cobblists of the twentieth century was a
guy named Gersham Sholm, and I've read two or three
of his books, and and he basically just says, you know,
you basically you have like this structure of the Neoplatonic tree,
and then any individual cobbolist can come on and kind
of like paste on to the structure his version of it.
So there's almost as many kabbalahs as there are cobbylists, right.
So you could read some medieval rabbi like Nachmanides and
he'd have his theory, and then you could read some
modern day rabbi or teacher I don't know any of
them off the top of my head, and they would
have their own kind of theories, and sometimes they might
emphasize number theory and number magic, which again is that's
really just like hythe agoreanism, that's not anything new. You
might find others that emphasize, you know, Orthodox Judaism, and
they might actually believe Orthodox Judaism and still be a Cabbalist,
So you kind of have again it's it's like any
other Western religion, Like you have the more rational strains
and then you have the more mystical esoteric strains of it,
and you could get anybody believing all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: M Yeah, well, because of these people would really have
to believe what they believe, because if you did, if
you do take the metaphysical realities of the world and
the spiritual warfare and the spiritual aspect to life, and
if you do believe that your soul is different from
your body and that there is some sort of an afterlife,
then I would imagine it's a question that people take
very seriously, if they're not just atheist materialists. But I
do wonder sometimes why would you want to go down
that When you look at like Alister Crowley, for example,
these Satanists, the people who worship demons, these sorts of things,
why would you want to be on that team? For
lack of a better way to put it.
Speaker 2: I guess probably the most popular reason why would be
that those systems offer people a kind of a self
apotheosis path. In other words, they offer to you this
idea that you can become your own God. So it's
kind of a repeat of what you see in Genesis, ironically,
where the serpent says, you know, you'll be your own guy,
that's why God wants to keep you down. And you know,
Crowley and these different systems offer the same thing. And
you know, I have a book over there by I
forget the name Ellen or Crieft or Crete or something
like that. She's some sort of coubalistic academic mathematician woman.
And in her book she says, well, one of the
things that's fascinat about cabal is that it offers man
this ability to through magic or technology, to become his
own God. So I think that a lot of people
think and believe that they're gonna, you know, achieve some
kind of apotheosis. You ever see that. It's a really
silly nineties movie, but it's it's the Stephen King story
lawnmower Man. If you're watched that, yeah, you should watch it.
It's pretty funny because basically there's this retarded guy and
he's literally retarded. I'm not saying he's an idiot, like
an actual retarded guy who's like a long cair dude,
and Pierce Brosnan experiments on him to see if he
can like raise the guy's IQ using the Internet, which
is kind of new at the time, and the guy
ends up becoming this sort of deity in the Internet
world because he it's like this massively high IQ and
he tries to sort of take over the world. So
Lawn more Man is a good funny example of what
I'm trying to say here.
Speaker 1: Right, So, I mean, then you contrast that with the
Orthodox Christian way to view the world and the idea
of Theosis, something that I've been looking into a fair
bit recently. How would you if you had to explain
the idea of what theosis is? Because I was watching
this viy Have you ever seen that YouTube channel Harmony?
Speaker 2: I'm not, but I've been hearing about those people have
been saying I should check it out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's really good. He does breakdowns of various different
Orthodox traditions and basically explaining Orthodoxy. And he's very like
the cinematography is really good, Like it's very artistic. It's
it's a good channel. And he did this video about
theosis being the meaning of life. So I mean, tell
me what theosis is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in an Orthodox view, that's what we mean by grace.
And you know, you hear Protestants or Roman Catholics talk about,
you know, being said by grace. We agree with that,
but we see grace as more than just sort of
God's position changing towards us from you know, anger to
love or whatever. We see it as more of an
ontological reality of participation. So it's very crucial in the
Orthodox view that we're not just being better people or whatever.
We're actually participating in the uncreated energies and life and
love of God and that's actually what transforms us. So
it's a much more metaphysical ontological stress in the Orthodox
view versus the typical sort of Western Protestant and Catholic
view about where you stand legally based on whether you
were good or bad. So that's kind of what it is.
And the Orthodox view, you know, we kind of have
this idea of there being a process to it, of
of purgation and iminating and deification and illumination. We have
this idea of the means of grace, which is the Church,
the sacraments, confession, you know, prayer, Bible study, all of
those things kind of are are part and parcel with
how we participate in those uncreated energies of God. So
the big difference between that and apotheosis or what a
lot of these you know, occult traditions or kabala or
whatever saying is that for those groups, it's kind of
a ritual, sort of magical working that you're doing to
become God. Whereas for us, we're never going to become
God in some replacement or identity sense, but we can
participate in God and become like God through grace. So
it's two different too, very different positions.
Speaker 1: And that's sort of the God's intention is for you
to like sort of live in the image, in His
image as much as possible, and to sort of shed
the passions and these sorts of things and prepare yourself
in this in this life to be able to participate
in those energies. Like I'm reading this book that I'm reading,
the Soul after Death. One of the things that they're
talking about in the part that I'm in at the
moment is the toll houses before when the soul leaves
the body that goes through these toll houses, and it
goes through a series of tests, if you will, where
different passions will be resented to you, and the demons
will try and make their case and the angels will
try and make their case. And it kind of makes
sense when I think about it, because you would have
to shit, like, you're not going to be in communion
with God in any way if you are, if your
soul is unclean, and if you have all of these
different passions that you're sort of a slave to because
you have to God's not going to allow that into
his orbit, right, So this is the idea that you
have to sort of cleanse yourself and resist the passions
and shed those things so that you can eventually be
almost like face to face with God. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely. I think the idea is that when we die,
there's still probably attachments that we have, and the purpose
of that process after death is to remove, to get
rid of any of those those passions that we're still
sort of maintaining. As you said, so, one of the
reasons in the Orthodox Church that we pray for the
dead is because we believe that there is still that
efficacy of the Church and it's sacraments even when a
person who's died in the church moves on. So, yeah,
you absolutely nailed it. And I think it's fascinating too
that when and I think Father Sif from Rowe. It's
been probably fifteen years since I read that book, but
I remember Father Rose says something to the fact of
when you look at even the other ancient religions, like
they still have the same idea, Like that's the Batan
Book of the Dead or Egyptian Book of the Dead,
they have this idea of the journey after death, and
you know that's not aliens to the Christian tradition either,
especially in the Orthodox world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is one thing I do wonder. It
kind of makes sense to me when I think about
the history if human actually got this from watching one
of your videos you did a twenty there's like an old,
old video that you've done. It's about twenty minutes or
so where you're describing the history of humanity basically, and
that you have the full of like you have the
fallen angels that have dominion over the world. Christ comes along,
he defeats death, and then now we have the ability
to be able to have power over demons because we
have the power of Christ, and he came and defeated
sin and death and these sorts of things. So before Christ,
all of these other ancient religions, Hinduism and all of
the different pagan religions and everything were all essentially manifestations
of demons terrorizing human beings. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think it was a little bit more to
it in that I did a good podcast many many
years ago, maybe six seven years ago with Seraphim Hamilton,
and we did a whole assessment of kind of ancient
history from the orthodox Christian perspective in terms of Genesis
and then the world perhaps before the flood, which the
idea there would be that even in Genesis you kind
of have proto Christianity. So all the religions derived from
a very early Genesis era proto Christianity. So the reason
that there's what we call the logos bermatikos or the
seeds of the truth of the logos, even in all
the other religions, whether Hindu or Buddha or whatever, like.
The reason that's there is because we would say the
original religion was actually proto Christianity. So over time what
happens is, you know, the descendants of Noah that lived
in China or wherever, like, they had this seed form
of the truth that they remembered from their ancestors back,
you know, in the ancient era. But what happens is
that over time it gets corrupted, It sort of fades.
People start to worship, you know, the things of the earth,
they worship the demons, et cetera, and that message gets perverted.
But there's still some truths in those religions. So I
think that that sort of understanding it from that perspective,
which is kind of unique to our view that proto Christianity.
There's another book that touches on this from the sort
of the Eastern perspective, which is a christ the Eternal
dal written by one of the students so Father Starved
from Rose, where he talks about how you can find
a lot of the orthodox Christian ideas even in like
Taoism and Confucianism and so forth, precisely because there is
perhaps this proto Christianity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, So when I go around to Eastern
Asian countries, for example, Indonesia, these sorts of different places,
and when I always notice that there is a lot
of demon worship going on they actually create, Like when
I was in Bali, they do this day of Silence
and they literally create effigies of demons and they walk
them around the street, and I was taking photos of
them because it all made sense to me after I'd
heard this sort of information. They walk them around the
street in order to cleanse the island of bad spirits,
and then they will burn the demons. And it's this
warfare where they seem like terrorized by the demons, and
it just seems like a very It just seems like
a crazy religion to be subscribed to, because Christianity, we
believe that we obviously have power over these demons, but
these people they like terrorized by them. It's like a
fight against them. But we still have that fight against demons,
but it's just so pervasive in these Eastern religions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think one of the things that happened when
you have the perversion of the religion, whether it's in
the ancient world or now, like, what happens is that
you end up, as Paul says in the New Testament,
you kind of fall prey to being subservient to the
thing that you're worshiping. So when man turns away from God,
and as he says in Romans One, you worships and
serves the creation rather than the Creator, you end up
being enslaved to that. And that enslavement is, as the
Church Fathers would say, really rooted in a kind of
demonic power or activity. So you might be worshiping the stars,
or you might be worshiping a totem figure, or you
might be an animist or whatever, but behind that worship
there is some sort of an enslavement entrapment that entraps
the spirit and the mind into thinking that you must
placate these lesser powers and lesser deities and forces in
order to get what you want harvest, you know, the
crops next season. And so when you do that, it
just really it's it's worse off for you. And that's
the irony is that people, i think, think that, just
like with the transhumanists, they think, in this bargain, I'll
get something special out of this, I'll get to be God.
But it's the same kind of in paganism, you're placating
these deities through rituals or rites or even perhaps self harm.
At times you have to do that, like in you know,
some of the shamanic or voodoo traditions, you have to
actually hurt yourself to get the spirits to give you
what you want. And you know, all of that is
just enslavement, as the New Testament says, and so Christ
sets us free and we're not in bondage to any
of the lesser elements, lesser deities, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now, the time I was doing my friend was
doing a breath well, I don't know if I told
this to you, maybe.
Speaker 2: I told you to tell me about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that when I were doing the breath work thing,
and then to demonic. Yeah, yeah, they saying that we're
going to welcome in the spirits and I just sort
of like, what the fuck? They said, We're going to
welcome in the femine goddesses. But it in yeah, there
was a big red flag.
Speaker 2: But in you were in the gay program too, Yeah,
just briefly.
Speaker 1: I got out of there. But like the thing was
though that they are always really consciously aware of this
as well. They're like, really be careful when you're doing
the meditation, because you don't want to welcome in the
wrong sort of spirits. And it's like, well, when I pray,
I guess I don't really have to worry about that
so much, but Christians do still have to worry about
that sort of like we were talking about before about
apparitions and these sorts of things, we do still have
to worry about that demonic influence. Like what's the what's
the actual difference there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've heard a couple Orthodox priests and spiritual advisors
kind of make an analogy to one of the main
difference is that a lot of times when a person
is serious about Orthodoxy, they've come into the church, this
kind of an experience tends to be more actial to them,
and before a person's in the church, a lot of
times these manifestations can be more internal, Right, So there
was actually sort of the spirit within a person, these
manifestations kind of coming out of the person up to
like full on possession. Because like you, I mean, I've
been around people sort of in meditation, New Age intentional
type settings, or guys that were like experimenting with shrooms
and that kind of stuff. My own had a bad
trip when I was I think seventeen, So you know,
my assessment to those experiences is definitely that there was
definitely something internal people were manifesting, speaking in other voices
very sort of you know, almost animalistic types of aggression
and voices that people would would have when they were
on these bad trips. Something else was running the ship,
you know what I mean. So I think, you know,
demons is a perfect explanation of that. But I think
when you're serious about Christianity, it's not so much that
the demons kind of manifest in that way, because you're
probably not going to be tripping shrooms, but you know
you're going to be battling more so with external temptations,
you know, to lust or to whatever.
Speaker 1: Right, right, All right, man, Well let's read a few
of these super chats out and then I want to
get more into debate, talk into debate, tapic tactics, these
sorts of things. Mighty Maximus, a great supporter of the channel, says,
this is a great collab, Jay, You're a legend. Great
interview so far, Jake, Thank you very much, sir. Mighty
Maximus also said, send another twenty for the mods and
twenty for the chat, Thank you very much. Man Witzius
sent five Rattlesneak TV memberships much appreciated, and so did
Michael the Pilot be safe up there. Michael real Reign
says ten for ten. Hey, Jay, one thing I wanted
to ask you is why do you think it was
so easy for Christianity to spread through Scandinavian pagan European countries.
Speaker 2: It's a good question. I mean, the only thing I
can think of that immediately comes to mind is that
there was a lot of there's a lot of Christianization
of the literature that happened by the monastic communities at
that time. And we actually study this in one of
my grad lit classes, that the monastic groups that were
missionizing those people would actually take their myths and they
would kind of put Christian themes and elements in that.
We even see that with today's version of Bilwolf's The
Bowolf Story, which most scholars believe had you know, some
Christian revisions. We don't actually know what the original Beowolf
story was, because what we have is a sort of
pseudo quasi Christian story. It's the same with Odin. I mean,
I think Odin dies on a tree, you know, this
kind of stuff. I think the monks were using their
myths would be my guess.
Speaker 1: Right right, Joel says, I'm Coptic orthodox and we reject
the Calcedonian definition of two separate nature. Do you believe
the Coptic position is illogical of a unified nature?
Speaker 2: It is, and you know nature's you can't have two
things be a nature because the nature is what it
is to be that thing. That's the Aristotelian definition of
a nature. And so there's no such thing as a
tertiam quid divino human nature. We do believe in a
real ontological change in the human nature of Christ. But
you can go watch my lecture series that myself, David
Urhan and Kai from Orthodoxia Hota. We're about five lectures
into critiquing Oriental Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: And the cut says, this has been a fantastic, fantastic interview.
I'm a fan of both Jake and Jay. Do we
get to see you guys team up in a debate
anytime soon?
Speaker 2: I'd love to. I mean, I've watched Jake's debates. I've
seen two or three. I think Jake's a good debater,
very talented, he does really well. Super smart dude. So
I mean I'm always don Yah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks man, I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: If we can find somebody that would's hard to find. Opponent.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, Yeah, something like a feminism debate
would be all that would be fun team up on
all right, man, So speaking of debate something that I've
gotten into just the last few years. It helps me
to understand the world when you when and it helps
me to be able to think through ideas when you
learn the rules of debate, because one of the things
that you always do when you're debating is you'll call
out logical fallacies. And people find that annoying when they
watch you, if they're if they're not really a debate
somebody who understands debate because they're like, oh, this guy's
just so focused on semantics. But that's the rules of
the game. That's like, if the debate was a chessboard,
you can't just grab your castle and move diagonally. That's
against the rules. And if somebody does, they're going to
be like, hey, put your castle back. You can't do that.
So it helps me to understand and think through ideas. Right,
So if there's something that I'm trying to figure out
is this true? Is this false? You can you can
sort of attack it from a few different angles and
find fallacies and find flaws in the argumentation. So what
are the first steps for understanding debate from the casual observer.
Speaker 2: You made the first point, which is step number one,
just to realize that it's not just a domain of
playing a game, or it's not semantics and wordplay. It's
not about who can be louder or talk more or whatever.
None of that is really what debate is. Debate is,
like you said, best compared to a chess game, chess match,
or some sort of game where there's rules and everybody's
bound by the same rules. And even if you don't
recognize that as an opponent, and if your opponent doesn't
recognize that, that's actually an advantage that you have, right
because if you know the rules of the game well
enough and your opponent doesn't, even if they don't believe
that there's rules, you can actually demonstrate to them that
they're making a huge mistake on their own terms. So
it's very effective first and foremost to learn at the
informal fallacies. You're not going to necessarily memorize all of them,
but you need to know some of the most basic
ones that happen all the time because you'll notice those
happen in not just debate settings, which most people probably
aren't in a debate setting, but they happen in mass media.
They happen in conversations that you're having with your spouse.
They happen when you're at Thanksgiving dinner and your uncle's
trying to argue for you know why we need to
go into war somewhere, right, Because propaganda relies on fallacies,
So deconstructing media or war propaganda requires that you know
basic reasoning skills too, For example, not fall into a
non sequitur. That's one of the most common fallacies, and
to just recognize and know that one would get you
way out of the game, because a lot of times
people will, let's say, Candace is just a case example,
and that we've moved on in the conversation. But one
of the things that keeps happening in Candace's assessments is
non sequiturs. In other words, she will say a series
of things that may or may not be true or
partially true, and then she has a conclusion on the
basis of these pieces of data or evidence that don't
necessarily But if the audience is a bunch of wine
moms and they're not perceptive enough to catch that they're
gonna oh yeah, honey, she was rat when she said, well,
it doesn't follow from the fact that this guy was
at the base in you know, Fort Wichuka, and this
guy is on the you know record causing a disturbance
at the base and they arrested him, and that this
other guy happened to be there the same day at
the base. It doesn't follow from those three things that
there was a planned assassination of Charlie Kirk. So, in
other words, it's not saying it didn't happen necessarily, it's
just simply saying that you cannot conclude logically from those
three things that necessarily Charlie Kirk was assassinated or the
assassination was planned there on those pieces of data, it
just does simply doesn't follow. And a lot of people
will think when you say non sequitor that it means, oh,
you're saying that it didn't happen, you know. No, it's
just simply saying that you cannot conclude that. Okay, And
you guys probably noticed there's a guy who's been doing
a lot of debates lately, Alex Soren, and he's an
Orthodox apologist who's got getting an audience recently because he's
a lawyer. And so lawyers, for example, are almost kind
of intuitively familiar with a lot of these ideas because
even if they didn't study logic or logical fallacies in
you know, college or law school, like, they're still using
the same principles even if they don't know the words, right,
Because if you're in a courtroom, right, and well we've
all watched law movies or courtroom dramas, it's doing the
same stuff. You're you're saying, you know, okay, you've got
this testimony that you were at the house and you
know somebody saw you walking in and the murder happened
that night. Right, Is that enough to conclude therefore you
are the murder you're guilty? Well, of course not. You
need more than circumstantial evidence to prove or demonstrate guilt.
So likewise, you're going to be using these same strategy
and techniques in debate that are again just kind of
an extension of something like a courtroom.
Speaker 1: Right, right, So those are like the logical It is
so true though, when you do look at law and
the court room, you do have to be aware of
non sequitis, even if you don't know it's a non
sequitur that doesn't logically follow. Therefore that's not sufficient evidence.
So all right, so learning the basics the chess match.
This is something because over the years of my channel,
I've dived into debates. I'm just a bit interested in it.
And then you start to view things very differently when
you look at this from this paradigm. So when I
was a teenager, I used to love the hitch Slat videos,
the Christopher Hitchins shutting down Christian and then eventually, when
you sort of understand the chess board, you realize, oh,
that was just an appeal to emotion, or that was
an appeal to authority, or that was just an anecdote,
that wasn't actually a logical argument. And then the Christians,
who are a bit more mild mannered will be making
logical arguments. And even though Hitchins is very charismatic and
he's got that English charm and wit and everything, he
actually wasn't making good arguments. It was just a series
of appeals to emotion and just rhetoric.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember watching, and you know, I enjoy watching
some of your debate reviews and streams as well. I
remember watching the Sam Harris. I can't remember if it
was Sam Harris versus I want to say maybe William
Lane Craig. But that's a classic debate example that's good
to review if you're new to this topic or you're interested,
because in that debate, Sam Harris really just constantly flexes
another version of emotional appeal. The whole debate is just
him saying, basically, I could never support a religion where
this is how women are treated, and could you imagine
being in the Middle East and you see this poor,
you know, child and having to deal with this. And
none of that was an actual argument. It was all
again just intended to emotionally elicit a response in the
audience so that you felt like Sam Harris was making
a really powerful case. And emotions are very powerful, especially
in propaganda and advertising in movies, but they're the exact
opposite in debate. Right, they have no authority in debate whatsoever.
But so many people are trapped in that they think
that the way that they feel about a subject of
the way that the thing made in the argument made
them feel. Or this is why you see, for example,
so many people get hung up on the way Andrew
debates or the way that I debate, or the way
that you debated somebody. Oh you, but you were so
aggressive and you talked loud, Okay, But none of that
has anything to do with whether what I said was
true or false. You may not like it, but again,
this is another common one. This is called a psychological report.
The fact that you weren't convinced, the fact that you
didn't like it, the fact that you found this unconvincing,
has nothing to do with whether it's true false. It's
simply a psychological report, totally irrelevant, right, I mean, imagine
being in the courtroom and right like and you say, well,
you know, your honor, I don't really find the you know,
prosecution's interrogation of me very convinsing. Okay, so what Yeah,
So in the same way, you'll notice, like a lot
of a lot of debate is really just kind of
filtering out the noise and getting to what's actually being
said and divorcing that from you know, everybody knows about
at hominem, right like, well, you know what, Jake, you
made some really interesting points, but you cheated on your wife,
so I don't really have to listen to anything you say.
That's an that's a fallacy, right, because Jake's cheating on
his wife, not that he did, but would have nothing
to do would have nothing to do with whether the
argument that he said about this or that was true.
And and and sometimes there are exceptions which I think
really low tier noubs don't realize, like there would be
an exception. For example, if we were debating whether Jake
cheated on his wife, then it would be appropriate to
bring in the evidence or the arguments that he cheated, right,
That wouldn't be at horminim. So there are some you know,
anomalies which are in the minority where you would have
to be against the man, But that wouldn't be a fallacy.
That would be just the nature of what we're debating.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And also for example the Mitch snow thing, because
that was purely relying on his sort of eyewitness testimony.
There wasn't exactly there wasn't any evidence there. It was
just like, is this guy a reliable source? And people
were saying, well, it doesn't matter about all of the
other fraud things that he's done, because you know it
doesn't it doesn't like sort of necessarily say whether it's
true or false. But it's like, no, no, no, his character
and his past here is really the only thing that
we can go off.
Speaker 2: No, that's actually that's a great analogy to where you
would want to get into the credibility of the witness.
In other words, when we're have a situation where as
Candice was doing, and she was sort of hinging a
lot of her position on the star witness, and then
if the star witness's testimony and life is not credible,
that means his arguments and his claims are not credible.
And that's exactly what would happen in the courtroom, right
if you watch any I mean I'm not a law
courtroom person, but if you watch any courtroom drama, right,
you get the lawyer will try to question the credibility
of the claims of the person, right. So that's absolutely
totally not ad hominem. Right. I mean, if somebody had
said Mitch knows arguments and claims are false because he
cheated on his wife, that might be an ad hominem.
But if we're saying Mitch is not a credible person
because he has a history of lying and not being credible,
that's not an ad hominem. Right.
Speaker 1: So when I I'm going to use a boxing analogy here, right,
So in my years in the gym, some of the
biggest there's always mistakes that you see with guys who
are coming up and wanted to do fights, and even
the younger guys who want to become pro. Sometimes they'll
get a bit sidetracked. They'll be focusing on girls too much,
and they'll be focusing on partying too much, this sort
of thing. Sometimes they're a bit too cocky in the gym.
They just like have their guard down all the time,
don't think that they need to work on defense, and
then they'll get caught a lot early career. If you
get caught a lot. Sometimes they'll rely too much on
aggression and power and these sorts of things. There are
all different kinds of mistakes that people make in a
boxing format that will make them ultimately not be able
to live up to their potential. Or sometimes you just
see things and you're like, you're just not cut out
for this because your attitude is just wrong, or because
you just don't work hard enough, any of these types
of things. So, what are some of the things that
you see in terms of debaters that you think are
some of the most common mistakes.
Speaker 2: Great analogy, great question. A lot of times people think
that you can win every debate with some kind of
easy trick, like, h if I just learned the basics
of presubpositional apologetics or the transcenental argument, I can just
use that trick on everybody. And that might work for
a lot of you know, normy co workers, or you
know somebody that you're debating with at the coffee shop
or the bar and they don't know anything about philosophy,
But that's not going to work if you debate somebody
more sophisticated, you know, in a debate setting, right, or
if you're you know, your atheist buddy says, oh, come
talk to my friend, he's a professor, and you try
your TAG argument on my professor, buddy, that's probably not
going to work because the professor is going to know
a lot more things about you know, problems and philosophy
problems in that type of argumentation, and they'll probably be
able to trip you up. So a lot of people,
I think, get a little cocky when they learn tag
really quick, and then they think that they can just
run that on anybody, and they don't know a lot
more about epistemology. So I would say it's it's good
to ground yourself in you know, some basics of epistemology.
I would say, read something like W. J. Wood's book
on a Pistemology. It's very readable, it's very short. That
would help you with debate. I would so go back
and listen to all of doctor Greg Monson's debates, because
he's a master at the craft. He's probably one of
the best in the last century at debating. I'm not
a Calvinist, but he was just I think everybody recognized
he was just an amazing debater.
Speaker 1: And would they that you said before the epistemology.
Speaker 2: Book you Jay would And it's just called a pistemology.
It's part of the it's it's part of a series
for the name of the series. But his installment's good.
And if you want something that's a little more advanced,
it's more of a grad school text on epistemology. It's
a Bonjour's text on a pistemology. It's a green text
by Bonjour. It's commonly used in grad programs. So those
are those are pretty good. But a lot of people
don't know anything about epistemology. And they think, well, I
can debate and do you know, learn a few of
the fallacies, and then I can do go to these debates,
and you're gonna do a lot better if you, you know,
learn the basics, kind of like you give the analogy
to boxing or to fighting, or you know. It's like
I could learn guitar and and memorize a solo, right,
but I'm not going to be able to play in
every band and jam with them knowing that one solo. Right,
You got to learn the basic chord structures. You need
to learn, you know, chord progressions, all these different things
that are actually going to make you a debater. And
so it's the same. I think in this domain it's
a lesser known art, but it is an art form
and it is part of You need to know rhetoric.
In other words, you need to be able to have
a good degree of communication skills that are going to help.
So I would focus on some public speaking stuff, learning
a little bit of that too, if you want to
be serious about debating. But to go back to that
main point of another thing that I've seen people make
major mistakes. This is a huge one even for the
people that are out doing pop debates. They're really bad
about this, and that is not understanding and steal manning
the opponent's position. The way to win every debate is
to first of all, want to lose. And I know
that sounds kind of corny, but I'm being serious because
I want to be committed to the truth to the
extent that if I'm wrong, I actually want to be wrong,
and if the opponent is correct, then I actually want
to lose because I want to be on the right side.
So you have to first and foremost want and love truth.
If you're out for your own gain and you're just
debating for the heck of it, like, you're not going
to get very far, and eventually you're going to lose
because you're gonna come up against somebody who's actually smarter
and better than you. But if you love and are
committed to the truth, then even if you're wrong, you're
still going to win because truth is what matters the most,
and that's what debates ultimately about, even if people don't
recognize that. So last point just simply that I see
so many debaters. They go into debates, they they come
to the to the to the meeting, lazy, not knowing
the other person's views, not knowing the other person's position.
For example, when I did all these Muslim debates, I
had to read the most boring, horrible Muslim texts that
I never wanted to read, and I had to force
myself to do it. That's why it's a lot of work. Again,
think about like a court case, right, a lawyer has
to know through discovery, right and all this, like the
other sides evidence their case. You've got to know the
other person's position. And the way I think the way
Bonson always said it was something like you said, you
should know the opponent's position to the point that you
could state it to their satisfaction. If you can do that,
you will be excellent at debate.
Speaker 1: Interesting one of the things I also I'm just going
to bring it back to boxing again for a second.
Sometimes you see somebody walk in the gym who's just
got it. You know, they're quick, they have a good
boxing IQ, they understand distance and range, they have a
good temperament, they're not getting angry these sorts of things,
and you're like, all right, yep, that person's got it.
What are some of the things that you were recognize?
And if there is any debate. Is that you that
you know who you saw like and you were just like,
all right, that guy's got it. And what are the
what are the characteristics that you that you'd look for.
Speaker 2: Some of the unteachables being able to state your ideas
and think quick in a in a concise way. The
older I've gotten, I've noticed the talent and the ability
to skill of being able to take complex ideas or
to synthesize a really complex, long argument in a very quick,
easy way. That's crucial for audience success. So to be
able to convince the audience of your position, even if
it's really difficult technical ideas, that's a unique skill set
that not everybody has. I mean, even to be able
to publicly speak is a skill set that not everybody.
A lot of people are afraid of it. They're terrified of it.
So those are some of the immediate sort of potentials
that you notice, I think in people, rhetoric and being
charismatic in a debate. What you pointed out when you
and Andrew were ranking people, you know, being funny and
being charismatic can go a long way in a debate.
I mean, you can't rest everything on that because then
it's just fluff and it's just noise. But to be
charismatic and to be funny and silly demonstrates, you know,
I think a very convincing element to the crowd. You'll
vibe with the crowd better. Being able to think on
your feet very quickly, obviously as a potentiality for debate,
and being a reader. I think being able to read
books is a big part of it, because we live
in a society where people don't debate and I mean
don't read, and then thus they can't debate and communicate
their ideas. They haven't thought hard on ideas or deeply
on ideas, and being able to debate without chat GPT,
without the Internet is also crucial. So that's another reason
why we have to do a lot of in person
or live debates now because so many people, especially on
the left, you know, not so erudite, destiny clones. These people,
they've been caught, you know, trying to use chat GBT
in the midst of debates, and that's just cheating. I mean,
imagine being you know, a chess master and you're over
here like asking the AI what the next best chess
move is? Is just retarded.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. Is there any like of the top top
tier of debaters in your mind? Are there any guys
who you look at and you're just like, damn, Like, yeah,
that guy has really got an airtight worldview and anybody
would be a tough night at the office for them.
Speaker 2: Well, there's some people that are really good at debate
that don't have the best worldview. But I mean, I
think Bonson is probably the best debater, But I don't
think that. I mean, you have to get some pretty significant,
obviously flaws in his worldview. You know, Andrew is really
good at I think andrews a silver tongue, and he's
really good at turning the debate around, really good at
internal critiques. That's, of course, you know, a thing that
comes out of presubscialism and tag. So you know, Andrew's great,
Bonson is great. John Lennox is good. I think John
Lennox I would have given John Lennox a higher place
above Trent Horne honestly when you guys are ranking it.
But I'm trying to think of people that are just
really really good. I mean, it sounds kind of douchey,
but like there's not I mean, I'll have to say
Jim Bob, I've seen immense improvements, and Jimbob constantly impresses
me when he's pressing atheists and materialists. I think Jim
Bob is getting really good. There's a lot of potential.
And I know Alex Soren's only done I think one
debate so far. He did really well in his first debate.
I mean, I think Chase Haggard has a lot of potential.
It could be really good at debate. So I mean
I'm probably missing people. David Orhan did good in his debates.
There's a lot of potential. But yeah, I would say
elite tier debaters these days. You know, Honestly, Jordan Peterson,
if he had been more aggressive, he could have been
in a I feel like he really could have been
an elite tier debater because there were so many places, well,
there were so many points in the Matt Dill Honey
debate or the Sam Harris debates where if he had
been aggressive, he could have come out and just demolished them.
But he would always kind of get up to the
point and then kind of back off, probably to you know,
maintain friendships and relationships. So I'm not knocking him in
some personal way. I'm just saying, like, I feel like
he could have really been, you know, just super tear
debate if he wanted to.
Speaker 1: What do you think his strengths are Jordan Peterson.
Speaker 2: He's a very intelligent, quick thinker. He's very good at
turner phrase and sort of silver tongue and able to
synthesize those complex ideas in a very quick, clear way. Also,
I think people overlook the fact that doing debate requires
the skill of improvisation. So if you've done improv, which
I when I was I was actually a theater kid.
We used to do a lot of improv and I
think that actually helped thinking on my feet in debate
quite a bit. So that's a skill. And I think
Jordan Peterson's good at thinking on his feet, So I
think I think that's another key element here.
Speaker 1: What do you think it would be the downfalls of Trent?
For example, you said that you thought his score should
have been lower. What are some of the things that
you're critical of the.
Speaker 2: You know, Trent Horn has had some good debates where
I think he performed well. He performed well against Alex O'Connor,
he performed well against Matt Dillon, Hunty. But to be
honest with you, I don't think Alex and Matt are
substantial challenges. So you know, when and I don't mean
this in a douchey way, but like when, So when
I debated Trent, you know, I brought some really hardcore,
intense technical material. I gave him a huge reading list.
I don't think you read any of it. Same with
Tim Gordon. I don't think Tim read any of the
of the reading list that I gave him before the debates. So, uh,
you know, I just think Trent has kind of he
lacks some of the aggression that's necessary for debate. And
I think there's just sort of a level and I'm
saying this as a student of philosophy, there's sort of
a tear and level of philosophy that if you just
do kind of a surface level study of metaphysics and epistemology,
which I think Trent probably hasn't had no epistemic studies
at all, Like, you're just not going to be able
to deal with challenges at an epistemic level. So when
I started asking him, for example, questions in our debate
about self evidence or the criterion problem, I mean, those
are really well known fundamental issues and epistemology, and he
was kind of out to lunch, you know, had no
idea really what that was. So from my perspective, I
just think Trent, again, he's a smart guy. There's potential,
but there's areas that he just doesn't want to go
into and has kind of been kind of too passive
about in the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: Right. And then Alex O'Connor, because he's kind of seen
as the guy on the atheist side these days, he's
sort of it's almost as if he's taken the mantle
from the likes of Dawkins, Harris and these guys. However,
he is probably a lot more charitable to Christianity and
open minded, and it seems as though he's tried to
sort of immerse himself in Christianity but couldn't find the belief,
couldn't find the faith, these sorts of things. So what
do you think his strengths and weaknesses?
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess strengths would be that anybody that
gets a significant audience, you know, has to be able
to handle, you know, quite a bit of opposition, and
not everybody can handle, you know, hundreds of thousands or
millions of people opposing you, right, it's it's I think,
a certain type of person that's able to handle that,
and not everybody can do that. So those are some strengths. Obviously,
he's an intelligent person, he's he's a quick thinker, but
just like with Trent, there's a really sort of vast
lack of philosophical knowledge and depth that he he doesn't have,
So you know, when he comes up against somebody like
a John Lennox or somebody who's got more of an
advanced training in some of these fields, it just can't
do anything. And I think the Linux debate was when
O'Connor kind of sort of started saying, I don't know
if I want to do any more of these Christian debates,
because I was actually supposed to have a debate with
him on Piers Morgan and he's like, I'll pass. So
oh really, yeah, why do you think that I really
wish that would have him? I think it's because, you know,
I mean, I'm not saying he spends a lot of
time watching me, but I think again, anybody with a
significant degree of philosophical understanding is not If you don't
have that, you're just not going to perform well.
Speaker 1: Right, And so when you say he lacks because he
talks about philosophy a lot and to the untrained eye,
like even to me when I look at him, like, oh,
this guy looks like he knows a lot about philosophy.
So what other areas that he's lacking?
Speaker 2: So, I mean, and how can I say this stuff
sounding like a douchebag, Like if you if you've gotten it,
like if you did philosophy grad school type stuff, you're
gonna notice people that may have had a few undergrad
classes or I don't know what his degree was, but
maybe he did a philosophy undergrad. I don't know. But
part of the has to do with the education system though,
is like a lot of the education system, even if
you do a philosophy degree, I mean, there's a lot
of gaps. There's a lot of things that are skipped.
For example, most modern philosophy programs you don't study metaphysics.
So anybody who brings like a significant metaphysical challenge, like
a Roman Catholic Wood or an Orthodox would to an
atheist debate, an atheist is not going to know what
to say because they don't study that. And most atheists
and academics, even if they study philosophy, they probably didn't
do an epistemology course. I mean maybe they did, maybe
they did Enlightenment epistemology. So they're not going to know
things like epistemic justification and what qualifies as justification. So
those are very they're just very huge gaps that like,
if you don't have that, you're not going to do
well against somebody who knows that.
Speaker 1: Okay, So then taking it back, So we've got the
basics of debate and some of the better debates out there,
some of the flaws in some of the prominent debates
world views in their skill sets. How about just four
people who are like just debate enjoyers, just debate watchers.
They like to watch the streams, but they've never done
any debates in their own personal life. But they look
at all this bullshit around them and they want a
way to be able to combat them. You get some
wokhr lady or a lawyer lady or whatever who's telling
you about her worldview, and they want to just be
able to just fucking clap back. You know what about
for these sorts of people, where do we start?
Speaker 2: I would start with go listen to the Bonds and
Stein debate about four or five times all the way through.
Take notes and you know, when you come to words
that you don't understand, look them up. The first thing
I did when I got into debating was that was
the debate that got me into it. Right, So this
is probably about nineteen ninety nine. I listened to that
debate on tape, cassette tape. I think I still have
the cassette tape somewhere, and I listened to it multiple times.
I started making notes and I was like, this is
this is fascinating. I'm going to learn how he does this.
How does he like, you know, lead this atheist into
a trap, you know, and kind of set him up.
So that's one way to begin to learn. And if
you just kind of just even mimicking kind of the
way that Bonson goes about it, would you would be
miles ahead of everybody else probably. And I've been saying
I'm saying like for co workers and for you know,
you know, family members or whoever you're arguing with or whatever,
that's a good way to begin to learn to clap back.
I would learn, you know, print out. There's a lot
of colleges that have you know, websites that list the
informal fallacies. So I would print that out and I
would learn a few of those, the more common ones.
Especially you'll start noticing them in ads or in people's conversations.
You know. I would also, you know, you can go
and watch some of the Oxford Union debates and those
are good because they're more classical style. So you'll watch
people like Peter Hitchens and you'll notice the way he
uses rhetoric. So I would I would learn from some
of those. Obviously, you could watch some of my debates,
you could watch some of Jake's debates, and just see
how we go about replying to and and clapping back.
And one thing, for example, like if you go watch
my Shabira La debates, one thing that people didn't notice
that I think some people later said, hey, I appreciate
that you did this was you know, when you're when
you're in a debate with somebody, if it's a cross examination,
for example, like if I'm cross examining him, I would
ask him questions and he would spout out all of
this stuff, right, and the more that he said, the
more he was giving me information to hang him with right.
But when he asked me, I would give very quick,
one word answers, so I didn't give a bunch of
blah blah blah so that he could trap me with right.
So that's a tactic, but it's a it's a tactic
that's useful in these kinds of engagements or in these
kinds of discourses. Right. So I would say you can
learn some of those kind of tactics. You can't rely
totally on tactics because if you do, it's going to
kind of be evident, even to people that are not
trained in debate, they're gonna be like, you're just using
you know, tactics and tricks, dude, But you didn't. You
didn't need to know some strategies and tactics, even.
Speaker 1: Especially when they're used against you as well. Hey, absolutly, yeah, yeah, yeah,
I'm going to read a few more super chats and
then I've got a couple more questions for you. If
you don't mind, you you don't have to be anywhere
right now to you?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Cool?
Speaker 1: Thanks man? All right, great? Where are we at this?
There goes my black queen, says JB. Left hand assassin
sent five. Thank you. Bachman said, for to the Goat,
tell Jake to read the Church Fathers. I'm on it, brother,
Thank you, Yamaha. Banshee said for j will you ever
appear on Peers Morgan Uncensored again anytime soon? If so,
just make sure to not share a panel with the
guy named Brian Shapiro or John Fusel, saying, I would
love to see you debate those guys. What's he talking about.
Speaker 2: I'm actually not familiar with who those people are, but
I did get an email the other day saying that
they would like to try to get me back on
in near future, so hopefully, but I never know who
they're going to have me on with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. If those guys are on there, do it.
Us is Branch Shapiro fuel saying would be hilarious for Jay,
I'm just getting into EO theology. First ten writings I
should get into builds a good foundation. First ten writings
I should get into to build a good foundation.
Speaker 2: I would amongst Church for others, I would read Alphonasius
is on the Incarnation. It's very small and readable. I
would read the Five Theological Orations by Gregory now sand Zeus,
small and readable. I would read Mystical Theology the Eastern
Church by Loski. It's a little more advanced, and I
would read as part of Katechesis. A classic is Pomezanski's
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.
Speaker 1: The cut says for ten for each of you, one
person you would debate past or president. Can't be a
philosopher or president. Thank you to both. For me, it
would probably be one of the tick It'd probably be
like a TikTok gurn, like Harry Sisson or Dean or Parker,
one of those.
Speaker 2: Guys that'd be great. Yeah, I mean, I'd love to
debate Ben Shapiro, Alex O'Connor, Sam Harris Dawkins in any
of those kind of big atheist guys. I love to
be them.
Speaker 1: Blaine says, smash the like button, don't forget to send
in those Super's great idea by Blaine, left handed Assassin
with another five and Mighty Maximus says for the goal,
thank you, sir. Papietary comes in and says, I tried
mimicking Jay in a debate and I got called a
bs n then punched in the face. I think I
still need to learn. Yeah, Papietarry is a way you
got to go about it.
Speaker 2: You know. Well, I've actually been pushed and punched a
couple of times, so really the best can get heated.
Speaker 1: Sniper Mike sent ten. Thank you, sir, guys. We've got
how many we've got to go. We've got ten to
go yellow up to get to that goal. Ten yellow
and up. If you've enjoyed the debate, then let's hit
that goal. Let's do it all right, Jay, So I
just want to talk to you quickly about the future
of Orthodoxy because I'm noticing a huge change. Like I
was messaging the other day after I left my liturgy.
I don't even know if it's appropriate to say on stream,
but that there was a bunch of guys who'd come
up to me and I started talking to you because
in the Orthodox Greek Church in Australia, it's very like
it's like a community, and it's hard for outsiders to
come in. Sometimes no one talks to them because it's
all like the Greek community and then the serving community
in the Russian community whatever, and so people are coming
in looking staring up at the ceiling, the beautiful icons
and the beautiful paintings and everything. But so we're trying
to make an effort to talk to people more to
people like newcomers in the church. It's their first time.
And there was like five or six just the other
night that I spoke to. I was like, oh, so
had you like had what brought you here? And they're like,
oh yeah, I was just watching j Dyer debates on
the internet and I was like, damn, like all the
way here in Brisbane, Australia. So I I'm seeing a
huge amount of people who are who are looking into
Orthodoxy but maybe struggling a little bit when they're going
into the church because it's like this, like no one
really approached. Maybe it's just in my church. I think
it's better in America because you have a lot more
English speaking churches. Like in my state there's only a
few churches that do English speaking services, which I find bizarre.
But how are you seeing that? Are you seeing a
big shift towards Orthodoxy And what do you think that
the future of the church looks like in terms of
like being able to accommodate for people in different in
different lands and places, like your average Australian who wants
to go and go to an Orthodox church.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a pretty wild sort of explosion of this.
I mean even to the point of Associated Press reported
on it. The other day, Wall Street journals reported on it.
I've had mainstream media outlets reach out to try to
interview me. I actually always say no because I don't
trust like mainstream reporters. So that's happened two or three
times where I'm like, no, I'm not talking to you.
But yeah, I mean, but they I think they ended up,
you know, talking to Father Josiahren and I think they
talk to maybe Pagot and some other people. But I
mean there is an increase, for sure, a surge. Most
in the in America, a lot of parishes are experiencing
doubling or tripling. My parish in Florida, for example, I mean,
we've i think tripled in the last five years. We've
had to expand, you know, space space wise, spatially, so
it is happening. You know. I don't really know what
the experience of those kinds of churches is in other countries.
I know that Orthodoxy is expanding quite a bit in Germany.
I've met a lot of German orthopros, and I hear
a lot about Australia, so that's good. One thing I
would say is like, yeah, a lot of times, not always,
but a lot of times it will be an ethnic
community and they're they're just being themselves. And Orthodoxy is
not like Protestantism or megachurches where it's like, oh, we're
just clamoring to try, you know, to get anybody in
under any circumstances. Right. So it's a very different model.
And part of the reason for that, and it was
little too when I first started looking into this, is
like they want to make they want to make sure
that you know you're serious. That's why you don't become
Orthodox like at a Billy Graham crusade. When you're evangelical, right,
you just will come on down the alta and so
the sims proud, we'll give you some pizza. Like it's
not like that, right, Like, so they want to make
sure it's going to take you time and that kind
of you know, the initiative is kind of left up
to you. But most people's experiences, even if it's you know,
Greek churches or whatever, like if you approach and you
initiate and say, hey, I'm interested, I like to come
to inquirers classes or whatever, that's the stage you know,
before becoming a catechumen, and usually the catechuman period as
anywhere from six months to three years. So it really
just depends on what they decide at that church. So
I would just say, you know, it's just not evangelicalism.
It's more of a uh, you know, firewall to make
sure that people are serious.
Speaker 1: Right, And so for people who are inquiring and who
are interested in Orthodoxy but maybe a little bit intimidated
to go down to it's not like the Protestant churches
where you walk in it's very sort of like, hey,
how I come sit down here. You know, we're going
to be playing some music and everyone's you know, dancing along.
It is a little bit more serious in the divine letogy.
You know, I actually really like that because when I
go to church, it's a very deep, like serious, contemplative
sort of time, and I like the aesthetic beauty and
the reverence and everything. I really like that sort of stuff.
But it might be a bit different for people who
are even just inquiring into Christianity or people who are
coming from a Protestant background. So what would you say
to those sorts of people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is different and you got to give it time,
so you know, don't rush it. Never rush it. When
I was first looking at Orthodoxy two thousand and seven,
I was really anxious. I tried to rush it and
ended up like not being ready for Orthodoxy until about
ten years later. So yeah, there's no rush. Take your time,
you know, ask all the questions that you have, get
all the questions out. That's really the only thing I
can think of it. And you know a lot of
websites have kind of church decorum or etiquette, so you
can look up and see kind of what you know,
the proper Orthodox Christian church etiquette is, don't come in
there praying and you know, like an evangelical service and
raising your hands and hooting and hollering. It's none of that.
So yeah, it's just it's very liturgical, which means ordered,
ritual based service, which is how God's always been worshiped,
whether it's the Old Testament, you know, or that Jesus
when Jesus went to the synagogue, it's a very ordered
liturgical service. Same at the temple right, and then when
the church was established early on, early church was liturgical always,
So that's the way that God has laid down that
he's worshiped, we believe. So anything that seems a little
weird or new. I remember the first time when I
was a product, I was raised proudest some of the
first time I saw relic, I was like, well, this
is weird. You know, over time all that goes away.
It's not weird at all, So just just give it time.
Speaker 1: M Yeah. One of the things I've also noticed is
that guys are coming in there and they've got their wives,
and the wives are really sort of worried about the
community and this sort of thing, Like they go to
the prost and they've got the mother's clubs and everything,
and you know, the Orthodox churches. Maybe it's harder to
break into a community and maybe they're not as focused
on that sort of thing. So what would you say,
Maybe guys who are looking into it at their wives
or girlfriends are not as interested.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that can be a challenge. I mean when I
first went to I got to Russian church and took
it took a while. It took maybe six months to
a year before I really felt like, you know, I
actually have camaraderie with these people. But you know, I
had a really good, providentially speaking, really good spiritual father.
So we've always had a really good relationship and I
think that was a huge part of it. But for wives,
I think you're right. Girlfriends like they want to meet
the you know, other girls and have community and all that.
And I would say that, you know, one thing that
unique about Orthodox churches that's a big plus in this
regard is that it may be different than the Greek
Church or I don't know, but in most American Orthodox churches,
like the children are a huge part of the liturgy,
the children. Seeing the children participate that they communion, they commune.
So that's something that I think they might be able
to bond with other women about, especially is the kids
and the communion aspect of it. You don't send your
children off to some other service or keep them away.
But yeah, again, you know that might be a challenge
in in places like where you are. I'm not sure.
I just I'm only really familiar with the American experience,
so I don't know what it's like in Europe or Australia. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I went to Serbia a few months ago and I
went to the Church of Saint Sava. Unbelievable, dude, Like, well,
just they've got millions of what do they call it
with like when you put the paintings, but they're not paintings.
They're done with the little pieces of gold and pieces
of like mosaics, yeah, mosaics, Yeah, but there's millions of
pieces that go into all of the mosaics around it.
It's like literally unbelievable when you look at it that
that was all just and planning that would have gone
into it, and it's just beautiful.
Speaker 2: So you've probably experienced more of the world of Orthodoxy
than I have because I've only been to We did
go to a few Orthodox churches in Italy, so that
was fascinating, but you know, I've only experienced America in Italy.
Speaker 1: Really, Yeah, it is fascinating. I went to a service
as well in Serbia there and the singing was on point.
Because I've only been to a few. I've been been
to Andrew's one, been to the Greek one where I'm
from here in Brisilan, and then been to the Serbian
one in Belgrade as well. And this like they had
the choir up the back and then they had the
church and the and the priest would say something in
the choir would say it, and the priest and the
choir like proper like great service. Everybody is standing. There's
no seats the whole entire time. So yeah, super super cool,
like really really enjoy the Orthodox services. So going to
keep it. Let's read a feel more than you super
chet shall we does Brian Shapiro have time for debate,
considering he's constantly stalking robs his mighty maximus. I'm sure,
I'm sure he'd do it if Piers Morgan called him again. Yeah,
Pa Pietary said, a dangerous loafe of bread. Wants to
know what got you pushed and punched over over in debate?
Speaker 2: Got you?
Speaker 1: I got you?
Speaker 2: Bro. It was actually at a monastery, and it was
it was an academic conference at a Orthodox monastery, and uh,
I just I just got there and there was this
sort of big, burly, sort of chunky Viking looking dude
who's a professor, a libertarian professor of ethics oddly enough,
who was at this conference and he was there to
present a paper, and I was there, and that we
didn't know each other, but we started talking and I
think everything that I was saying he was just kind
of interpreting it in the worst possible light, and the
conversation just got worse and worse, and it got more
and more heated, and he was starting to get really
red faced. And I'm this kind of person who, like, uh,
I tend to continue like a provocation, like if somebody's
like in my face, and like I don't like just
walk away like okay. And I remember saying something like,
you know, this is an academic debate. I'm like, what
are you actually gonna do? And that set him off
and he sort of it wasn't really it was like
it was like a he didn't really know what to do,
and he just sort of push punched me, and I
went sort of rolling over a table. And you had
all these all these monks and nuns or like just
sort of like they couldn't believe that somebody punched a
guy a at a monastery.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's hilarious.
Speaker 2: It was in nineteen I think.
Speaker 1: Blaine sent twenty Rattlesnake TV memberships. He's blessed twenty poles
with a membership. Thank you very much, Blaine. That is
greatly appreciated. My father.
Speaker 2: That was a true story, Father diacon and Ice was there.
He can attest. That doesn't really happened.
Speaker 1: He got beaten up by a hockey. Eddie Garcia sent
five and says I was Protestant, then atheists, then make
a church and now I'm blackpilled. How can I get out?
I mean, Bill, in Germany.
Speaker 2: There's a large, grow, going sizeable Orthodox population in Germany now,
so find a good Orthodox church. You'll find some good
Germanic Ortho bros. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was in Berlin as well, recently in September, and
you just got to stay away from the downtown. Like
Berlin is one of the most degenerate places I've ever
been to. You go down to the downtown part and
it's just sex, drugs and rock and roll down there,
So stay away from those parts. It's pretty funny.
Speaker 2: I was gone, you know doctor David Patrick Harry, you
know he met his wife, Yeah out there. I think
she's from Austria, but you know, she was the one saying, hey,
there's like hundreds and hundreds of guys in Germany. They're
becoming Orthodox. Now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's awesome. But yeah, I was down there at
the Berlin Wall and have you ever seen that that
mural of the two guys kissing on the Berlin Wall.
Speaker 2: It's like.
Speaker 1: This. The when the Berlin Wall fell, they did all
the murals on the Berlin Wall, and one of there
is a mural of these two guys kids, and it
was a Soviet guy and a Soviet communist and a
German communist and they were doing the fraternal kiss but
where they go kiss, kiss, kiss, and then for some
reason I didn't know this, but for some reason, they
just start kissing each other, like if they're like really like,
we're in this together, me and you, bro it's communism.
Until the wheels fall off, they'll actually kiss each other
like how sus is that? And so these guys and
that's what the painting is of. But all of the
Wokis in Berlin think that when the Berlin Wall the
East and West they got together and started kissing each other.
But yeah, the fraternal kiss, it's a real thing in socialism,
sus sus socialists.
Speaker 2: That's weird too because the tendency for the gate stuff.
Actually in the Cold War, it was actually the West
and the CIA that were actually pushing and promoting the
you know, sexual liberation side of it. Because the official
Soviet line was anti homosexuals. They're actually using that as
leverage in the Cold War. I'm not pro Soviet. I'm
just saying it's odd that it's interpreted in that way.
Speaker 1: Now, Yeah, but I don't think it's meant to be
explicitly gay thing because they would kiss cheek cheek cheek
and then like they do this like kiss if you know,
I don't know, weird, weird shit. Four away from the goal, guys,
we're four away, four yellows away from the goal. We're
getting very close. Sounds like Jake is a Catechuman, says
Octavian and not a Catechuman yet. We'll see how we.
Speaker 2: Go with that.
Speaker 1: AULTA Void for ten says, so you're saying if I
go to church and I have to take off my pimp.
Speaker 2: Pat only depends on what church you go to. If
you go to a black pamp church, give it on, buddy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, great. Scott says Orthodox Christianity is the only
church that makes the New Testament real because it wrote it.
Speaker 2: I would agree with that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Rach Wilson says for twenty, great to see Rachel in
the chat. Great to see you guys streaming today. It's
like my big brother and my little brother doing the
stream pretty much correct, He.
Speaker 2: Am I the little bro?
Speaker 1: I think I'm the little bro. Amelia sent fourteenth. Thank
you very much, Amelia much appreciated. Yamaha banshees. There's there's
an Orthodox church in Japan called Nikolaido, probably butchered it
in case you're trying to find some Orthodox sayings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is actually quite a few Orthodox churches in Japan,
I think really yem hmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was looking at they've got that one in
Alaska as well. That's kind of interesting. In I was
in once again. I was in Indonesia and Bali and
I was at my kickboxing gym and I was doing
pads with some guy and then he saw my cross.
He's like, oh, you're Christian. I was like yeah, and
he's like what And I was like, I was like,
I'd go to Orthodox church. And he was like, oh,
you should come to this Orthodox church we've gotten in
there on the south of Bali. And I was researching
one for I shouldn't find one, but apparently there's now
a Russian Orthodox church in Bali as well. And apparently
in the north of Bali there was a big mass
conversion that happened where there's a whole massive Orthodox community
up there, so, I mean.
Speaker 2: I've never even heard of that. That's great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Marty Maximus came in with three times ten. Thank you,
mighty Maximith much appreciate that goal has been absolutely smash guys,
appreciate that. Q Todd for ten says, thanks for the story,
mister j for the goal, mister Jake, Thank you. Sir
Anthony says, I struggle actually consistently going to church. Am
I making excuses for myself? I know I should be there?
Is this normal?
Speaker 2: I think everybody has that struggle. Yeah. Absolutely, We're all
going to have the same passions that we battle. I
mean some of us will battle one passion versus another.
But yeah, absolutely, yep.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay, Well, I really appreciate your time today. Man,
tell every your links are all in the description everything,
all of the website, YouTube, all these sorts of things.
But what can we expect from you? And where's the
best places to find you?
Speaker 2: Thanks Jake. I always have fun talking to you, really
good show. Love your content too. By the way, you
can find me at Jasonelsons dot com. You can subscribe
there to the archives. You can get my books signed copies.
That's our Collywood one two and three and the philosophy
text as well in the shop. You can find me
on Twitter. You can find me fourth the out shown
show mostly on Fridays. You can find me Sam Hide Show.
We wrote one full season of The Sam Hide Show,
so I think we'd be starting in season two soon. Yeah,
and then everywhere else on social media, same name.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, don't forget to like the stream, guys.
I'm gonna stick around for a little bit and chat
with you guys. But Jay always a pleasure man, and
I'll see you very soon thanks to Gooday, see you later?
Did how good? Guys? Always fun having Jay on the channel,
Always fun to pick his brains about things. What did
you guys think? I want to do more interviews this year?
Get more into interview content. I really really enjoy the interviews.
I might do a few debates and everything still here
and there, but I really enjoy the interview content. The
debates are cool and everything, but I missed doing interviews
picking people's brains. Rob Nor's streaming over here, or David
Patrick Carry's streaming as well. Let's go DPH because you
guys are probably be a bit more interested in DPH
content after Jay all right, guys, we're going to go
over to DPH. He's streaming over there. Thank you so
much for joining me, much appreciated. Guys, much love. Take
care of yourselves.