Speaker 1: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Bring all right, can you give.
Speaker 1: Me a little bit of talk talk, give me a
little bit of joy?
Speaker 3: Hey, hi' is it going? Little jab here? Little jab there?
Speaker 1: There we go. Can y'all hear it this full? Can
you hear this? Fool?
Speaker 3: Dude? Your impressions were awesome. I watched that video twice.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah, anytime you do a
video like that, you'll get like three hundred likes and
then you'll get ten dislikes and then all these comments
that people say they like it, and then you focus
on the one comment where it's like your impression You're shit,
You're the worst impression is so I've ever heard of
my whole life.
Speaker 3: And it's like he oh, I get that because people
are used to just used to my my memes, so
they just like my meme. So if I do like
a face swap or an impression or a short video,
they're like, I didn't come here for the video, just
like this is me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, calm down. I remember when I when I started
having more subscribers on the YouTube channel, I would I
would post the comedics silly stuff, and I'd get a
lot of comments people like I'm here for lectures. I'm
here for philosophy. I'm not here for shitty comedy. Like
there's always been crappy comedy at my YouTube channel. What
are you talking about? The first video ever uploaded with
crappy comedy and it will always be there, so it's
not going away. Uh, And you should have hipped yourself
to that. But welcome everybody. We got Jim Bob back
in the house, made by Jim Bob. Let me add
I forget to add his instant to that descriptor. Your
Instagram is gayascrap dot com, Uh, scribbles gay ship dot com?
Speaker 3: Bro?
Speaker 1: Is that your website?
Speaker 3: Ignorant scribbles?
Speaker 1: Maybe I jump up and stall there we go?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So yeah, so I figured we talked about the climate cult,
the new religion grata, uh and that kind of stuff,
and then you know that would kind of be a
spring where we could branch off into talking about philosophy,
ultimate principles, how do we view the world, how you
view nature, how do we view social justice, religion, logic,
all those different topics. Is that is that cool with you?
Speaker 3: Sounds awesome?
Speaker 1: And you did have some really based, awesome scribbles this week,
so everybody check out. I really enjoy the stuff on Hawking.
I think you had the redo or you had the well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they shut that down. My Greta Thunberg Hitler was
up for It's still up on Facebook. It's like it's
getting over like seventy thousand right now, and I'm like,
how's how is that up? Literally Hitler with braids and
and but if I if I made a cartoon of
Stephen Hawking going to Epstein Island, it's in thirty seconds,
a thirty second thing, and they just took it down
so fast. It's because he's a he's godly. He's like
talk about a new religion. That's like he's like, no,
you cannot. He's not only in a wheelchair. He talks funny,
but he knows a lot of stuff that we can't understand.
Speaker 1: But we trust him. We broke that story on We
actually broke that story because I was actually with him.
I rode in, he gave me, I hopped up on
his lap, and he wheeled me around on Epstein's Island
and we were going up a hill to go to
the temple and it his his thing tippled, it toppled
over in the bat it has it's run on like
fifty double A batteries and all the batteries toppled out
rolled down the hill. I had had to gather them
all up, sticking back in the wheelchair as he rolled
me up to the orgy. And that's how I was
able to break that story on ball room, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So yeah, so he took that down and then
I was like, all right, I'll just put up five
second clip of him in the eyes, white jut mask,
looking around with the piano in the background, and that
actually was almost more effective because it was just there's
no talking. It was just him like witnessing.
Speaker 1: Uh. And for me, which I do appreciate, I'm caguified.
So you gave me the cage treatment. We always welcome
the cage treatment. Now, I didn't see this other video
of you with the you look like you have Jared
Ledo's face with your beard. Whose face is that?
Speaker 3: That's that's it, Shapi. It's unfortunate that I have. It's
Ben Shapiro. But my beard stops me from doing a
lot of people because it just doesn't work. I like,
try George Soros, I'm looking at him like nope, yeah.
Speaker 1: Well I was, Yeah, so I don't I can't really
do that good of a Ben Shapiro. But when I
was practicing it for that before I made that video
last night, I was like, you know what all I
gotta do is just speed this up with the the
speed thing and you know, final cut, and it's like
and track twenty three out and tell me, Adam, no, no,
just say a bunch of stuff that's you know, sounds say.
Speaker 3: A lot of fast things, a couple of extra.
Speaker 1: Logic contradiction, the climate change, social justice.
Speaker 3: My yeah, he's he's fun of because especially all like
my my right leaning boomer people, they get so excited
when I attack like low hanging fruit lefty social justice.
Speaker 1: And the criticize.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they just get so man. They're just like, don't.
Speaker 1: Why the conservatives? Why you hate people on our side?
Speaker 3: Exactly my side, the side, what.
Speaker 1: Are you punching rating? We're like, we're like girls slapping
on the right. All right. So so let's say, so
you've you've had uh some winners this week, You've had
quite a few hits here. Let's see what can we
which ones can we put up safely? Let's see, let's
see the Bernie one. That one's pretty good. Let's put
the Bernie one up. Bernie says, we need to have
gun control, and then we need to have rent control,
and then we need to have the full control. Let's see,
let me add that one. So we got a little
Bernie in the house. If you got them, Bernie them.
So there's our Bernie. Sorry, there's many many more. Instagram
is added now to the description my mind is I'm
kind of tired today. I had to do a whole
talk on Aquinas for the subscribers to Jason also, some
of mine is kind of mushed today, but we will
power through, all right, So let's talk about Greta. I'm
glad that you did cartoonize her and immortalize her. It
was funny. Tristan actually called my attention to Greta probably
a month or two ago. I didn't even know who
this was, why this mattered, and I remember Tristan was
talking about it. I was like, who is this girl? Who
cares what some I thought she's like a ten year old. Oh,
it turns out she's actually almost an adult. Because that
was by design, by the way, because that way nobody
can make fun of her criticizer, because then all the
idiot boomer liberals who actually came after me on my
social media. They were like, why are you making fun
of a kid? Unbelievable. I can't believe you would make
fun of a kid. And meanwhile, the system promotes pedophilia,
but don't make a joke about a kid. And by
the way, she's not she's actually sixteen, almost an adult. Anyway,
what do you think?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I didn't know much about her. I
saw a couple of early kind of clips of her,
and I knew that she would get propped up closer
to the election, and I knew they were grooming her.
I didn't know the full backstory. I don't know how
much of it is true, all the connections to the
early climate change pioneers and freemasonry kind of stuff. Usually
don't go full on with that because it's hard to
you know, to validate to like. But but she's a tool.
I mean her parents are, you know, like, never were famous.
One's an opera singer, one's an actor. She's now listed
as an actor on IMDb. The daughter Greta, and she's
just this is how it is now. It's like the
same way a Casio Cortes tried out for Congress in
a literal audition. We have to kind of get used
to this sort of total overlap of politics and entertainment.
I don't even it could have always been like this,
but now it's just kind of like rooted, and there's
a lot more you can do with media, so everything
happens faster and the process is like streamline. You can
really literally for cheap make a product out of a
person and a narrative out of a person in a
way that we've never seen before. And you could do it.
We could do it this week if we wanted. We
could like create j and do a character about climate change,
you know, pushing that narrative, and we could probably get
you popular in a month, you know what I mean.
So it's just sometimes I just I don't get too
crazy about like this is crazy because it because if
you just step back, you're.
Speaker 1: Like, oh, yeah, this makes sense.
Speaker 3: This makes complete sense, you know, And and it's all
people have to understand. It's not about her. It's about
Agenda twenty one, and it's about starting with centralized regional planopolises.
And they want to do that. They they know that
globalism and controlling food, food and resources and energy. You
can't just skip to a a standardized global system, you
have to start regional and that's cities. And so they're
gonna push these really great cities with no cars and
small spaces. I like how they're pushing. Sorry it's a
little tangent, but like it's all connected tiny houses. Like
I started watching that and I even got hooked early on,
like oh I could do that. That sounds so cool
and cozy and it's reduced and minimal and they're pushing
minimalism and all this stuff, and you realize, holy shit,
like they are. They're pushing compact living, minimal living almost
like outdoor uh jail living, but like nice, yeah, you know,
and yeah, well now that's a part of the push too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The first thing that makes me think of is Maoism.
Mao is really who pioneered this idea of the youth brigades.
I mean, you could go back and revolutionary thought prior
to Mal, where there were ideas of using kids, using
the youth, But really mal pioneered this because he was
able to convince the youth that they were special, they
were the cutting edge. They were like the generation that
was destined to overthrow the prior. You know, Chinese traditions,
and so he marshaled that that energy of youth, which
is tremendous but super dumb. You are so dumb when
you're a kid. You think you know things, especially when
you've already been you're propagandized in a system that each
is you all this kind of collectivism and whatnot. And
so so Maoism was was really good at that, and
it's exact same strategy and modus operandi of how to
utilize not just youthful energy, but also to utilize the
youth in the propaganda. And that's why that's why, for example,
even even aside from Maoism, I mean militaries, military recruitment,
it goes for young guys, right, because young guys are dumb.
Young guys fall for the propaganda. They fall for the
fact that they think that they're going to be fighting
for you know, American ideals or whatever, patriotism, and they're not.
Actually they're actually fighting for coke and pepsi and vaccines
and abortion and that kind of stuff, right, they're fighting
to have I did a joke video a long time
ago that the algorithm didn't didn't like. I thought it
was pretty good, but it was. It was a drill
sergeant who was shouting at the guys to that they
were going to be said they were going to be
fighting and giving their lives for lungs. I mean, that's
that's that's.
Speaker 3: That's actually a good commercial.
Speaker 1: That was like a true commercial. Right, so you're dying
for subway anyway. But the point is that that that's
the propagandist origin of this. We've seen it more recently.
I remember twenty first hund Wired did a really good
job covering the whole Syrian situation. There's a lot of
propaganda at the time of Syria with Dusty Boy. Dusty
Boy was a child that was used. They pasted all
over everywhere, and this was to topple a sod the
same kinds of thing that that we saw the bush
PR firm put out about Sodom Hussein throwing babies out
of incubators. Incubators that was all fake. It was all
stage kids once again, babies, right. We've seen this over
and over and over and so it's a very basic
style tactic events that I won't go into that I'm
sure everybody knows. More recent events with kids that come
out kids right as the face of these events and
then we're supposed to be lectured by a bunch of
ten year old, twelve year old thirteen year olds who
don't know anything about anything. And then yeah, but I
was actually kind of shocked when I listened to the
chick giving her speech, because I didn't realize it was
that like, whoa dude, she's like really calling for like
trying to put the guilt trip on people, right, like
you have stolen my future. It also ties into her parents,
It ties into what you said about propping up people
that have neurological disorders autism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a protective shield. It's not only they're easier
to control, but the protective aspect is pretty genius because
I mean we've seen it with It started with just minorities,
and then you add in another victim group and then
you keep adding them and I can make a list
of them, and then you can't make fun of you know,
you can't criticize Israel because that's anti Semitic. And now
we're getting to this like neural diverse stuff where if
you start making these these kinds of people, uh, the
the spokespeople, you know, it's a really good trick because
you can just be like just like Hillary, like you're
just you just hate women, and now it's going to
be like you can't make fun of her.
Speaker 1: And uh, forget the case of skin go that was
with Hillary was it was it was gender right, and
then now they're just extending it to basically any possible
identity is going to somehow be under some kind of
protected class exactly. And and that's by Yeah, we we
started noticing that too, that that was bodysign. And but
I like that people are figuring out because we used
to talk about this on the old Hoaxbusterers podcast with
John and Chris, where we would cover the fact that
people are it's almost like the audition for roles, like
they auditioned to get the role, not just in a
movie or whatever, but to be the face of a movement. Yeah.
And I think some of the pop stars have done
this actually, like they want to be the face of
whatever agenda, it doesn't matter, right, let's say veganism. This
is something that we've noticed a lot, with Tristan pointing
out all of these people sort of being being picked
out in YouTube, in the YouTube crowd and so, oh,
you're going to be the face of you know, YouTube
veganism and Saudi Prince Alba Lead or whatever his name is,
you know billionaire, there's Dad's got you know, Trump's yacht
or whatever. Then he puts he puts money into this
YouTube channel, right, And that's what That's what happens, that
people are auditioning to be the face of different movements.
And we see that really clear with Greta. And one
last point I wanted to make was that that whole
coffin apartment thing that you were talking about tiny living.
I see the millennials just totally buying into this wholesale
and just on the movie Tip Jodarowski is Holy Mountain.
If you don't know which, I'm not necessarily recommending this.
It's a really degenerate movie. But there's a sea unique
scene in the film where they're talking about future cities
kind of like smart cities, kind of box apartments smarts,
and they call it a coffin apartment. You basically you
lay in this little coffin that's where you sleep, and
you slide you into the the wall of the walmart
or whatever or the uh. So, I think that there
is something prophetic to that movie in it and that
it does kind of predict this death cult extending to
the mega smart cities, and you basically live inside of
a target and then at the appointed time, un presumably
then you know you're incinerator. Maybe you sleep in a
little coffin incinerator like a you know, and then it
like when you know, like like Logan's run, when you
hit thirty or whatever, it's time to incinerate you.
Speaker 3: Well, they'll they'll convince you that they're going to upload
your consciousness and it's not going to be provable. So
they're they're like, no, we did it. We there's all
this information out out there. We did it. We killed you,
but we saved a lot of stuff. So that's equivalent
because they're gonna you know, they're using like AI incorrect,
like we don't have AI. We have augmented intelligence, but
they're calling it AI and we don't have we don't
actually have artificial intelligence, but everyone's running with the term
and the same way, they're going to trick people into
that kind of stuff, and you know, everything is sold
with like you know, now it's all virtue and it's
the best thing for the whole nation or the best
thing for the whole. It started with nation, the best
thing for the town, the best thing for the city,
the best thing for the common good. Is now they're
trying to expand the common good to global level. It's
not gonna it's not gonna work. Like it just doesn't
work well, like even the even the utilizing protected classes,
autistic people and so forth. They're scaling that technique too fast,
so it's all collapsing everyone. The fact that it got
such a response so quickly, like people annihilated that speech
so fast that and that's like the silent majority is
kind of no longer silent. They're just like, we don't
buy this shit, Like we just don't buy it. So
that's the good news. But getting people to understand the
intent behind this stuff and the plans people you know,
you'd say, I feel like they purposely call it like
Agenda twenty one, so that you sound stupid when you
try to tell it to somebody, you know, like, oh,
that sounds like a conspiracy theory. And then you know,
the early people talking about this, probably yourself. I didn't
even really fully dive into it until like last year.
But but yeah, it's it's it's hard to communicate to
people because they just don't buy that. There's groups of
people and companies like Semens and all these large companies
that will win if this centralization takes place, because the
government will need suppliers and builders and all that stuff,
and they want that full term, long life, long contract. Basically,
this is how life is now and uh. And I
think there's enough people that will realize when it's if
it's closer, they'll be like, nah, we're not going to
do this. But there there is an element that I
think it's inevitable in some places, like some cities, some
European countries perhaps will go full on with that, with
that program. And they you know, they had the they
had the whole thing designed. I forgot the entity. It
was like they hire they used our tax dollars to
hire a private company to come up with the terminology
and the phrasing and the outline of these megalopolis kind
of central centralized cities. And it's called like growing Smart
or something. And there's a whole book on it. Actually
there's like the book. I'll try to figure it out
and maybe you could post it after in the comment
or in the description, but there's a whole manual about it.
It's so it's like you know people who are like, oh,
you're crazy. No, it's all of this stuff is documented.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, totally. I mean when I put out Estra
Hollywood one, there's a couple of chapters where I talked
about the smart cities. I talked about it in relationship
to Minority Report, Logan's Run, and maybe a couple more.
But and then I did a video last year on
the Saudi city Neom, which is one of the big
smart city projects. But what you were talking about with AI,
it reminds me. I did a talk long time ago,
five years ago, four years ago. I'll put it in
the chat right now because I'd totally forgotten this, But
I actually did a talk on There's a famous essay
called Mines, Machines and Girdell, and it's actually a famous argument.
It's I think I'll linked the paper in the description.
It's posted, maybe not, but CHI can look it up.
It's a it's a famous sort of Oxford essay maybe
from the seventies, and it's kind of making the argument
that you'll never get actual consciousness from AI because artificial
intelligence is basically just what you put into it. It's
like saying that, oh, one day the math problems will
come alive. No, math problems and algorithms are only going
to ever be math problems. They're never going to be alive.
The number seven pie is not going to attack you. Okay,
it's not going to come alive. It could be programmed
to attack you, but that doesn't mean that it's coming alive.
And this is one thing we also noticed back when
we were doing the old hoxtposter shows too, was that
point you were hinting at that a lot of this
is sold to you. It's a lot of this is propaganda,
especially something like that you're going to be downloaded into
a computer, You're going to be put on a zip drive,
right like a damn genie or something like oh yeah,
your spirit we're gonna I mean, it's literally a superstitious level,
like they're going to put you into a zip drive.
That's crazy. No, what they're doing is they're playing a
slide of hand where they're talking about if they've recorded you,
and they've recorded video of you or maybe even fMRI
recorded your thoughts or whatever. Right, the argument is that,
well that's you, because you is just these vocal patterns,
these imprints, these neurons firing, and so if we record
those things, that's you. So therefore we are uploading you
to the global brain. But of course that's not you.
That's recording of you. And I know that sounds dumb
to people, but I'm not joking. If you look up,
there's a video. I can't remember this billionaire's name, but
it's a billionaire tech person who is now she and
the lover died of the person, and so what the
guy or whatever this person is recorded a bunch of
the lovers thoughts ideas, like he would do something weird
like sit and record the love the spouse or whatever
for hours every day. And the argument was that this
person thought that when it created the AI bought of
this person, it would literally be that person because it's
that person's thoughts, mannerisms, features, and so it literally shaped
the head, you know, into the person's spouse or whatever
after it died. I mean, it looks ridiculous. It looks
like a damn beam, It looks like a B movie.
But what I'm the point of that was that here
you have a tech billionaire who's out of crazy literally
insane thinking and arguing that this severed head of a
black woman robot talking is the lover, It's not. It's
a robot head. That's not your lover. It's a robot head.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, People will want to sell themselves on that
because the level to which they are willing to believe it,
if that's matched with the how convincing it is. So
we can be convinced by illusion that we're seeing something,
or that something's really there, or the cat really knows
what that sentence meant, like fully, like we experience it,
and so we can convince ourselves. It's like those new
concave TVs. They're getting to the point. I think it's
like sixteen thousand pixels per square inch is the tipping
point to where you can't distinguish reality from a TV.
So when they get that, they're replicating the experience of
what you perceive to be real and it's a trick,
and so they're able to argue that if it can
fool the person, then it must be real because there's
no difference. But at that point it seems like a
self refuting argument because why you would be fooling yourself
to begin with then, so then nothing's real basically, so
those those kinds of endeavors are all reduced to playing
your being your own God. I think on a on
a wider baseline thing I've I've been in those communities.
Like when I left my hometown I went to l A,
I immediately ditched religion and God and I immediately immersed
myself into futurism and technology and I replaced it. I
replaced one euristic for another.
Speaker 1: And you're not You're not an ai black woman, are you? Secretly?
Speaker 3: No? No? No, And so yeah, I was all into that,
like all of it.
Speaker 1: I was.
Speaker 3: I was all around those guys, like I was helping
produce futurist events. There was like Kurtsweil and all those guys, well,
the investors were around, and I was just infatuated with
it all because it's the same concept. It's like we're
gonna transcend. There's gonna be a hive mind. It's gonna
be And of course, when I finally became honest with myself,
I was like, I'm not going to do any of that,
like I'll talk about it, sell it to people.
Speaker 1: And then I realized that that kind of looks like you,
I don't know, So that's the that's the tech billionaire's
robot lover. Uh And I did, I could not remember.
I dug it up Martin Rothblatt, and so the lover
passed away. And here is the I mean, these ai
they look like some of them a B movie do.
They don't even look that like we're supposed to believe
or in some tech utopia. And oh dude, it's so advanced.
It's so advanced. That looks like something from freaking Valley
of the Dolls or some shit. I don't I mean,
you may not be able to see it, but it
looks goofy. But yeah, so, and that, by the way,
points that that illustrates the fact that the transmutation agendas,
genetic modification, sexuality, they are ultimately about the post human agenda.
That's the right point of.
Speaker 3: It, right, Yeah, they're gonna they they're way ahead in
their heads about it, like they can imagine all this.
I remember the feeling of like thinking ahead and be
like it's gonna be like this, it's gonna be And
you realize that you're only talking to people at like
dinner parties about it, and uh, really, things don't move
the way you think. Also, there's always backlash, like people
wear natural beings. We there's something that we we just
hold on to the natural state we're in, and there's
always going to be that resistant. It's against those those people.
And even when it gets to the point where you know,
some sort of weird connectivity, like they perfect neuralink to
the point where you know, I can eat a banana
and have it tastes and someone else eats ice cream
and we both taste both things, and people will get
that novelty and get all crazy about it, but it's
all it's just it's all silly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I'm looking at a robot with crossed us,
so yeah, talk about silly. But yeah, no, it illustrates
your point perfectly there. So yeah, I mean, this is
not going to become. The only way that you would
believe that a robot could evolve into consciousness is to
redefine the term consciousness to mean whatever you want it
to mean. And that's essentially what I was getting getting
at earlier with just saying that a replica or a mimic.
Mymesis that that it is identical to you. But that's
completely absurd. Nobody actually believes that. But it's just kind
of a mythology. So yeah, we're right back at mythology.
Where're right back a superstition. So on Greta too. I
didn't want to mention too that somebody was a fussing
with me. Actually, multiple people about the actress comment now,
they said, look, anytime that you are in a documentary,
you're listed on IMDb as an actor. Okay, but the
first thing on Greta's filmography was drama. It was not
her place in a documentary, it was her place in
a drama. And she's in other dramas. So yes, she
is an actress in dramas. That means that she is
not primarily a genius whiz kid chosen for her you
know stuff on mall new level IQ, but chosen in
fact for her role as an actress. And this is
something we've seen pretty consistently. Actually I've called attention to it.
I'm i gonna read too much into this, but nobody
has really called attention to the fact except a couple
of people, that Fidel Castro has an IMDb page, and
not just for being in documentaries about Cuba. Actually, early
on Castro was in Hollywood. He was hanging out with
a lot of the Hollywood people. He tried out for
the Dodgers, and he has an IMDb page as an
extra in different movies back in the fifties. Now, make
of that what you will. I'm not trying to make
too much out of it. But I did do a
talk on the history of the CFR and the relationship
to Cuba accuarant to Savando Gonzalez, which is a good book.
But I bring all that up to say that it
is worth looking at to talk about the Hollywood side
of this, because a lot of people are chosen for
these roles, as we said, because they're more or less auditioning,
and they might not even know that. I mean, they
may have been groomed for this role since they were younger,
if their parents were connected. Now I'm told I've not
done a lot of research into her family, but a
lot of people have said that she actually is from
a very well connected family, you know, and from where
she's from. But I didn't really even pay that much
attention because it's the same thing I've seen over and
over and over. I mean, if you've looked at this
kind of stuff, yeah, you know for a lot of years,
you kind of already know how it works. You know
that the patterns, it's always the same. They just kind
of roll out the same thing over and over because
people don't remember. They don't remember that, Oh, that's what
they did with Dusty Boy. Dusty Boy was a prop
for the Syria operation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, people just generally don't like remember anything. They just
don't recall back and measure the two against each other
because if it's a brand new issue and it's a
hot button issue and it's an emotional issue, it's like
its to them has nothing to do with the patterns.
Like someone like yourself and you know, someone like Owen Benjamin,
the ability to see patterns is really powerful, and to
be able to re lay those two people is really important,
regardless of the conclusions people draw. Just laying out the
patterns the way you look at movies and see the
patterns of the delivered messages and the symbolism, and being
able to deliver that to people allows them to have
that sort of format in their brain to maybe see
it more like I don't have great pattern recognition like that.
I also don't have an in depth level of historical
knowledge or theology as you and many other people, but
I know that by practicing it, it gets better. You
can see things better wider, and I think people are
doing that, and I think that's a natural thing that
needs to happen, because we get such small bits of
information so fast that all of these attention deficit disorders
and all this stuff is just a reaction to small
bits of information. And so these longer, longer periods of
talking with people, like people are consuming a lot more
of this kind of thing now, which is cool because
they're getting what like larger bits of information that they
can digest and see on a wider scale versus this
very quick, superficial bits. Like I look at it, like
the media in Hollywood and all the powerful entities, they
are just like dropping tiny fish food like in the tank,
and most people are just swimming at the top and
eating whatever is there. Just eat it, eat it, eat it.
And sometimes you have to be like the fish who's
just kind of looking around in the corner and just
watching it all and trying to piece it all together.
And not everyone can do that, which is why, like you're, uh,
there's a lot of people who cover different topics like yourself,
But you guys are doing all good jobs because you're
collecting all the data and you're presenting it in a
way that people can understand where they can see patterns
that matter, Like it matters to see the patterns. And
you know, the Greta thing, just like you said, it's
just another pattern. It's no different than you know, Jesse's
Smollett bumping shoulders with someone at a party and they're like, hey,
you want to you want to do something bigger, you know,
you want to do something bigger than the lines. How
about something that's really going to make a difference. You
want to make a difference, Jesse.
Speaker 1: And do you see Confessions of a Dangerous Mind? Yeah,
it's like that scene when when the guy comes up
to recruit. Is it George Clooney who plays the main
role or is George Cleaney playing the CI.
Speaker 3: I can't remember Sam Sam Rockwell, that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And he comes up and he's like, son, what
do you want to serve your country? You know? And
now that's more like you know, fifties sixty cold war stuff.
But and nowadays it wouldn't be so much. Maybe the
country unless they had already you know, profiled you as
a patriot. It would be more like, you know, the
Vegan climate animal agenda. You want to save the animals,
let's go, yeah, rate some farms tonight. Oh, we liked to.
I actually knew a guy, by the way who did this.
This cracks me up because there's a guy that was
from my hometown and he was involved in some weird
churchy type stuff back in the day. I always thought
he was kind of a weird dude. And then he
got super into peta, not peta bread, but peta right
for the animals. He was obsessed with Peter Bread. He
got into peta and I remember back in two thousand
and four or five he was like devoted to this.
And his brother, who eventually became a professor at the
university that I used to go to set up a
debate between me and this dude. This is It was
actually all three of us, because one was a peda guy,
one was a philosophy guy, and then there was me.
So we had like a three hour debate about vegan as, peta,
animal rights, and atheism. This is I don't know, many
many years ago. Now. The weird part was that the
guy had left the church that he was in totally
was totally committed to the PEDA stuff and The reason
he got high up at Peta was because he snuck
into one of the Tyson I don't know, one of
those big nasty food factories where you know, the kid
the chickens are all in the little cages or whatever.
So he filmed some footage in there, and oh, you know,
the Peda people were in love with him for a while,
and then so then it sturts out. He like his
whole worldview collapsed when it came out that the Peda
people were behind that dog killing farm. If you remember
that story where was Peter was actually having dogs put
to death, and like it was this huge scandal, maybe
four or five years ago. Anyway, I'd say all that
just to say that the reason that he went down
this road was because he had a did Darwinism. He
went to college, he figured out that Darwinism was true.
And if Darwinism is true, he reasoned, well, we're just
the you know, the animals are our older brothers, and
so it's essentially killing your great great great uncle to
you know, eat them. And if you're not a cannibal,
then you should be a vegan. And this led him
down this crazy path. And it was all because he
was propagandized by the Darwinism at the university level, and
then it all came crashing down when these corporate run
He didn't realize that Pete and these kinds of things
are like corporate controlled front type things. When he realized that,
it all collapses, And the whole time I'm sitting there thinking,
Bro could have told you this the whole time I
watched the movie. I watched the movie Twelve Monkeys, And
if you've seen Twelve Monkeys, you know it's a big
bunch of front Like you're being used, right, because the
Brad Pitt character who's insane, he's literally insane in the movie.
It's his dad that runs the GMO company that's actually
doing all the you know, crazy stuff. Brad pitts insane,
and he falls in and creates this vegan cult, right,
the Society of the Twelve Monkeys, which is dedicated to
setting the animals free. So in many ways, again I'm
way off off topic, but it's just an illustrative story
that I can remember of a guy who got propaganda's
and the whole thing collapsed when he realized that Pedo
was involved in having dogs put the death.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting because even if if you abandon a
transcendent for source for morality, your need for morality doesn't
go away. It just gets transplanted onto something else that
you could morph it and invert it into other things
and justify a lot of different actions. That's not to
say that people don't justify actions, you know, religiously, but
it's the same thing what you just said. It's like,
if you go down that road, you can you are
giving yourself permission to rewrite the guidelines for morality based
on and the basis for it is just like you said, well, no,
we're all just accidents and we're all related in some level.
The dog is just a really early version or whatever,
and you can just justify anything because it's all just one.
It's like, what do you call it? Uh? Is it
monism or is that just? Is that theological? Like I'm saying,
everything is everything?
Speaker 1: Everything, everything is essentially just one type of thing. It
doesn't matter what you say.
Speaker 3: It sounds yeah, it sounds so nice, and in a
way it's true in some respects, but there's a way
to like really pervert that idea and you end up
going down some really dark paths because nothing nothing matters.
You can just say anything. You can just you know.
It's like what Sam Harris said when he was asked,
you know, Sam, but if there's no morality, then like,
how do you how do I tell my kid to
you know, to make good choices and make moral choices?
And what do I say to him? And he says, ironically,
will you lie? He just he said you lie? And so,
which is so such a funny thing that always stuck
with me because.
Speaker 1: I thought always mad that Christians are lying garden, very
garden sky.
Speaker 3: And that's why that's what's stuck with me, is that
it's it's self refuting of the argument that you know,
religious people shouldn't lie to kids, it's child abuse. But
he just said, you lie, you know, And and so
that was like, I don't know why that just that's
that was such an eye opener to me, and that
that that moment of hearing that, because I did follow
Sam Hars for a while and I was like, he's
smart and he can use all these big words and
talk around people. But then I just simply confronted the
reality that I believe objective morality exists. And we talked
about this before. Is it a different statement than morality
is objective, and you said it's the same to some extent,
but it can be different. You can break those two
statements up. Does morality? Does objective morality exist? Like can
we point to can we point to it? And I
think the answer is yes, And I can't. I can't
say that that is true that while basing it on
just my own personal like you know, human just the
idea of man creating it, it doesn't make sense that
it reduces it back to subjective. So once you once
you accept that you believe or that you know, objective
morality exists, it's some level, any level, it doesn't actually
matter because if it exists, that means it can't be
given by man. It just man. And so that logical
premise sent me into so many crazy debates watching like
you know, people like yourself and other people debate this
stuff and how it's not really presented in mainstream at all,
like these important questions that used to be front and
center in culture, Like we're all pretending that these questions
have been solved and we're going to leave God in
the past, God is dead and all this shit. It's
actually it's not even close and it's just a big
lie and everyone and you know it is because if
you bring up the conversation, people are very willing to
enter the conversation. That's how you know it's not dead.
Atheists are very willing to join the conversation. And so
I think that's cool. It's sort of a tangent, but
it's I think it's all related, like like on a
base level. That's how what we're looking at. Everything that
we're pointing out that people are doing, all the planning,
everything has this underlying baseline moral claim. Greta has a
baseline moral claim, and the question is on what basis
is it moral to listen to her and her ideas
or the people behind her. And once they realize that,
you can't answer that, or the answer is some weird
thing like pragmatism. Pragmatism, pragmatism is your basis for morality.
We can explore that. It can It's going to get
toppled in about three sentences. But and so that's kind
of like my new favorite thing exploring is like the
only valid moral claim someone could make or refute is
if they believe it's objective. That's the only way you
can refute a moral claim, because if you say no,
he's subjective, you have no basis to refute any moral claim.
And once you're in that crazy loop, I was there
for like a week going home, what the hell this
is crazy? But then it becomes very clear when people
assume moral claims, like my favorite is, if God exists,
why why would he do all those terrible things? And
I go, whose basis of morality are you using? You're
using God's sense of morality against himself. So you're already
you're already saying your argument already starts with God exists
and his morality exists. But now you're just taking it
like Christopher Higgins and used to do it all the time,
several centuries of suffering and death and teeth rots and
all of this stuff. And he doesn't realize the whole
time he was he was using the bait like someone
else's basis for morality.
Speaker 1: If God exists, how come my sister is an art
hot So what it made me think of was, yeah,
So one thing that's helpful in kind of sketching out
a basic way to categorize all possible world views, and
this can be done in philascy. This is kind of
one of the areas where I when I tutor or
teach people philosophy, I'll start out, I'm not trying to
offend you or say that you're anube or anything like that.
I'm just saying for the sake of the audience, just
for the sake of the audience, that you can sketch
out about three or four basic positions that almost all
religions and world views will fall into. Not every single religion,
because some are unique, but most of the time you
can you can pigeonhole it into about four or five
different starting points. So most religions will either or worldviews
will be monistic. And this doesn't have to just be materialism.
It could be materialism our day. Most monistic worldviews are
definitely materialists. They think that all that exists is you know,
solid physicalism, matter. And basically, when you say monisman, you're
saying that all and everything that exists is that thing,
just that one thing. Every now and then you might
bump into a weirdo philosopher who thinks that ideas are
really what exists. And so even though it seems like
things are physical, really physicality also is just an idea.
So sometimes there are philosophers who are idealists who are
also monists. Now it's really really easy to refute that.
One thing I would say is that if we still
want to be logical, if we still want to be rational,
if we still want to be cogent and coherent, monism
is incoherent because pretty consistently we have to make distinctions.
We have to talk about that thing not being that thing.
I'm not the Bunyan on Joe Rogan's foot, right, I'm not.
I mean, it may seem like I am, but I'm not.
I'm not the std Wart upon the testicles of Bill Cosby.
It may seem like I am, but I'm actually not.
I'm distinct from that thing, and so are you, right,
And we all therefore do not want to be those
warts or Bunyans. So we all implicitly do believe we
are distinct from other things. I mean, it would be
utterly nonsensical and absurd to believe that there are no
distinctions and that no distinctions are real. And ultimately some
of those world views do go there, like the Far
Eastern systems typically do go into full on metaphysical monism
and say, yeah, actually, what you need to do is meditate,
center a mountain, roll around in your feces and stare
up at the sky, and you'll realize after ten years
that all things are one, and you'll realize that all
distinctions are illusions. That's absurdity, that's stupidity. No, it's not
bad to be different, it's not bad to have distinctions. Right,
So most world philosophies and religions, once you realize that
they're premised on that dialectic of one versus many, of
the collective versus the you know, then you're kind of
already ferreting out most of the mistakes in human history.
But I know that sounds crazy, but it's really it
really is kind of that simple. You can move on
from monism and talk about dualism. Some religions have said, yeah,
you know what, that monism stuff is dumb. So you
know what, everything is just two different things fighting positive
and negative electrons day and night, black and white, good
and evil, and these are real forces and they're just
always fighting throughout it. And so all of history is
like Zoroastrianism or you know, some kind of weird dualism
or whatever, but there's really no overriding principle if everything
is intension, if everything is in dualistic tension, and the
good is just as equal to the bad, then they
necessitate one another, and you actually get some philosophy sort
of Luciferian or Masonic philosophies who will a gnostic philosophies
who will literally say that. They'll literally say good is
just the flip side of evil. Evil is the flip
side of good. But if that's the case, good and
evil are relativized. They need one another, they feed on
one another. So we can't have that philosophy that breaks
down into stupidity and self contradiction at a very basic level.
As we said, the other option could be to say, okay,
well I don't accept monism or dualism. I just accept
that we kind of like meditate into negation, into some
kind of thusness. We just become one with all things
and we just sort of dissolve, right, absorb into the
unity of all of all of the all. This is
absurd because this denies who you are. Why would you
want It's essentially a suicidal philosophy. Why would you want
to absorb into the one, into the collective? Like you're good,
you're there's nothing wrong with you existing and being here.
There's no more satanic philosophy than the idea that you
have to destroy the self. That's a suicidal satanic philosophy.
It's nihilistic ultimately. And then the only other option possible
from these starting points is to say, okay, well, I
don't accept monism, I don't accept duism, dualism. I don't
accept you know, ad negation into total unity or the
thusness of the universe. I just believe in total, pure chaos.
And some people do go that ray they so well,
you know, it's total anarchism, it's total polytheism, paganism, hedonism, anarchism,
those are all manifestations of just a kind of fundamental
chaotic worldview. And really this is just a return to
ancient paganism, right because ancient paganism, it would talk about
different gods, it would talk about different principles, but really
what what dictates is the fates. In ancient pagan religion,
the fates even determine the destiny of you and the gods.
So you can go with those options, and are those
there really the only basic metaphysical options you have. You
don't have any other options. It's just the way they're
I mean, you can look at all the history of
religions and they're all going to manifest those three or
four options. Now, I think orthodox Christianity is unique in
that it avoids some of these dialectics that are that
are fundamental presubsistional dialectics. But that's just a little primer
on philosophy and metaphysics and how to approach these questions
that I think is helpful, and you'll notice those patterns
when you look at religions and debates and how people
argue things out. But I think you hit on what's
the central basic critique that's really an easy way to
understand a transcendental argument or the pre subdisitional argument, which
is just from ethics, which is just to say, look,
if there isn't a God, then there's not objective moral standards.
If there's not objective moral standards, then we're all kidding
ourselves and we're playing a game. And it's not wrong
to be hypocrite. This is one thing that's really funny
that the atheist did. They'd be like Christians are buds
of hypocrites. Yeah, so what what's wrong with being a hypocrite?
Be a hypocrite all you want, bro, there's nothing wrong
with that. Yeah, the fact you should being a hypocrite.
Speaker 3: Right, you would need to borrow morality of the hypocrite
to use it against him. But if you don't believe
in morality, how could you call someone a hypocrite? Like,
there's nothing wrong with it. Also, the dissolving into nothing thing,
you know, i'veah with everything you said, like you're you're referencing,
like you know, all of time and man and their
transitions through all of these things, and I'm thinking like, oh,
this is actually how my life went, like it started,
you know, Christian religious, you know, just listen to my
mom and what she says and don't really think about
it and explore it, just kind of like take it
and be like okay. But then breaking away from that
and then exploring the Eastern stuff and then getting into meditation.
I did, like the passana, like the Ten Day Meditation,
and this breaking away thing into nothing into thusness is
funny because it almost makes me think of like a
meme comic, because you're the moment you think you've obliterated
your ego into a million infinite pieces where you're nothing,
You're still you observing that going like I did it
finally nothing, and it's like it's self refuting because you're
still you viewing this illusion of yourself like dissolving into
nothing and you don't exist and you're all connected to
everything and you're just and you're still just you, Like
you can't not be you declaring that. It's still you
declaring exactly. So it's the same thing with that. Yeah,
well another way, same thing with free will, another way
to like, who's who's saying they don't believe in free will?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Right, I mean there is no free will, Yes, there
is no. You can't tell me that. It's like gets
in this battle of free will about it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's yeah. You can always point out that
that if the manifestation of the world that we inhabit
is fundamentally illusory or it's some kind of syllipsism, because
I get that question a lot a lot of times,
like if people are new to philosophy, they'll say, well,
how do you know that we don't exist in like
a simulation or a dream, or how do you respond
to descartes? You know, evil demon? How do you know
that an evil demon is not putting every you sense
experience into your head and you're just the dream. You're
in the dream of a god man. Well, because we
all can agree, hopefully that we do use logic, we
do use reason, we do use truth and falsehood, we
do use categories like good, evil, non existence, existence. Right,
these are things that we utilize to talk about the world,
to reason about the world, to live in the world,
to interact with one another, to communicate. And if all
of those things are not real, if they are phantasms,
if they are merely simulations, if they are there's different
versions of this mistake or this philosophical error, then what
happens is that I also have to confront the fact
that if I come to that truth, that's also part
of the illusion. So my learning of that truth is
also illusorians it's stupid. So at a very fundamental level,
once again, this monistic position or this sort of maya
position and is a fundamentally also relativistic, subjectivist, and self
contradictory at such a fundamental level that it can't even
get off the ground.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it just falls apart just by the statement alone,
just in a full circle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And sometimes you'll have people say, well, okay, but
like if I don't believe in logic and reason and consistency,
then what's wrong with me just accepting that? Dude? Bro?
What if I just say, yeah, I'm the dream of
a god's god man and it's all fake, dude, then
then you can't debate, Like you can't come to the
table to debate, because debate assumes that there are objective
standards and that it's not just you know, a figment
of your imagination.
Speaker 3: You're also using the standard of language, whatever language you're speaking,
to make that presupposition. So the whole thing of like
I could just declare this and logic, you're like, you're still.
Speaker 1: Within the you can't make that.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah you should if you really believe that it
should sound. And then you're like, okay, man, now.
Speaker 1: I have the nihilist argument you can defeat.
Speaker 3: Exactly in a way, that's uh that manifests itself. When
you see like people who can't debate and reason, they
in protests and stuff, they go to that and it's
almost like in a way they do win because they're
like nothing exists, so you're just going you're just screeching.
So the whole the whole re means where.
Speaker 1: A lot of Yeah, the typical sort of s JW
type atheist reddit person. They do immediately go into that mode.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, yeah, And it's like a safe bet. You know,
you can't argue sound. I mean you can't. You're basic
denying all reason and logic, and in a way, in
a way you win, you win the battle, but you
lose the war because you can't live life like that.
You can't ask for the how much the oranges are
and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 3: I've seen people debate, try to debate away logic, you know,
they try to again, it's just your back to language.
You're back that's logic, Like, you can't escape the order
that you're experiencing and using as an interface with reality.
You can't escape that.
Speaker 1: Logic is false. Logic is false. That's false is within
the falses within the domain of logic true and false propositions.
Logic is not logical is essentially what you're saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm like super new on philosophy and logic. Like
I told you last time we talked, like just opening
a logic book, you think it's going to be it's simple,
but it's not. It's difficult. It's simple, but it's difficult,
and so it's trying to I think it's really bizarre
to me. Two things are very bizarre to me that
we don't learn Latin and we don't learn logic, like
very young Latin. I'm seeing just from very you know,
surface level learning YouTube, just looking up words. If you
learn the moment you start learning Latin, you're learning history,
Like it teaches you the history of the word, how
it's connected to the other things, how it applies today.
Just very simple stuff like candidate means white robe, like
very white robe. Like they use a candidate because they
would bleach it and they would go out in public,
and the poor people and the people in the village
or whatever would be like, oh, glistening white robe. We
trust this person. And most people don't know the word candidate.
And it's like all of these things tie together with
reasoning too, So like the cleaner you are with your language,
and the more you know about history through words and
the word, as I'm seeing every day, is that you
can piece together the world and the understanding of nature
and the reality you're looking at and the order of it.
And I feel like there's a there, there's a distinct
operation trying to separate people from that access and the
fact that we no longer teach Latin. People say it's
a dead language, and it's not. It's there are people
who keep that language alive and they're very powerful. And
I was just looking at that and going, wow, there's
a real disconnect. It's almost like when what was it?
Speaker 1: Was it?
Speaker 3: I'm not sure I might Newton. It was either Newton
or someone else. They were breaking through in science, but
they still had their faith and the science entity took
over the relationship that the people had to nature. So
like the lab Coats, the earliest lab Coats, they just said,
we're the ones you're you know, like you got to
trust the mathematicians and the people who can speak this language,
and they sort of captured the language and they acted
as a conduit between what they're seeing, which is like
God's creation, the nature of language, understanding reality in what
you're observing and how it functions, and how to deliver
that to people through language. And now we see it's
been clearly hijacked. Like people just believe the lab Coats
and they create all this language, almost like a lawyer
creates language to make the client not understand the thing.
So that you need the lawyer to understand, you know,
like tell me what all of this means. And really
it's just convoluting language so that people don't understand things.
I just see that happening, and I see that the
disconnect between source language languages like Latin, because we're speaking
English and we're not learning the history of it all.
And so if you don't learn the history of it all,
it's easier for a culture to invert language and change
definitions because no one's calling it out and being like, no,
the history I'm not just saying the dictionary word. I'm
talking about the history of this word that's this many
years old. Is a really powerful way to protect your
culture and your values and everything because it all exists
in word, in language. So if you hijack language, you
can turn a culture upside and it's happened. It's happening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, you're right about that. I think the the
discovery of linguistic philosophy, you could date that back to
Jumpast Jem Baptista Vico, and then after Vico you get
the Marxist tradition actually latching onto linguistic philosophy. And it's
important marx actually studied philology like hours and hours and
hours all day long, and because he understood that you
could in many ways control society through terms. Nietzsche also
understood this. Nietzsche talked about how morals, you know, terms
like vulgar uh that comes from the lower classes. So
so linguistic philosophy is very important. But sometimes people get
I think they go overboard and they think that just
because it can be weaponized, that it's all. That's kind
of the Nietzcheen route, like because it can be weaponized,
or the Marxist route, then it's always a tool of
some elite or it's it's you know, But that's not true.
There's a lot of metaphysics that goes into language. It's
very fascinating, very important. I do think that you know,
language reason logic do speak to and testify to what
we read in John one about the logos. So even
though I do critique people who overly emphasize logos as
if it was an abstract principle, it's certainly true that
abstract principles and logic do point us to the capital
L logos definitely, But the capital L logos is God.
It's it's a divine person. And I would say too
that you're absolutely right when you talk about Latin, especially
for the West. But more so, I think in terms
of biblical theology, or in terms of the history of
the first Seven Councils of like the Orthodox Church, they
were primarily Greek. They were there, so the terminology the
New Testaments in Greek, right, we use this subtuigent, which
is in Greek, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Even though I'm not like fluent scholar in Greek or anything,
you do eventually learn that that there's nuance and there's
importance to those languages. So in our view, along with
kind of the critique that we were doing a few
minutes ago about monism and dualism and chaos and whatnot,
there's also, we would say, a revealed anthropology. All right,
So there's a way to understand the makeup and psychology
and anthropology of man that we think comes from scripture
and from our tradition. And so that's how we see
salvation as healing. It's not just like psychotherapy. I'm not
saying that, but it's a version of like supernatural psychotherapy
where the human person is healed and you could see
the church kind of like in our view, a spiritual hospital,
if you will, where the purpose of all this is
the healing of the whole man, body, soul and noose,
which is a spirit in the Greek. When I encountered
the idea of news, this is very fascinating because it's
something that was essentially kind of dropped off in the
history of Western thought in Western Christianity, but maintained in
Eastern and Orthodox Christianity. So this is why for us,
man is a triad. Man is a tripartite being. He
has a body of soul and a noose and he's
so he's not just body and soul slash intellect. And
so what happens in the West is you get this
very interesting development where Western man sees the soul more
or less as just one faculty the intellect, and so
soul slash intellect smushed with body is what man is. Man.
It's this diad, this dual partit or whatever composition. And
that's why you get such a stress on intellect. But
what's been removed is the news, which is not like
Plato's news, that's something else. It's actually the heart of hearts.
It's man's inner most heart, his heart of hearts, you
could say, and that's how man connects with and knows God.
And so in our view in the Fall, it's that
inner heart of hearts that was darkened. And that's why
Paul in Rome one can say that the universality of idolatry,
the universality of worshiping sticks and rocks and stones and
attributing to created things divinity, is a darkening of man's
heart of hearts. He says, it was manifest to them
within them, and this is very different than the way
that the West eventually conceives of man's moral law and
duty towards God, for example, a quitas. He views Roman's
one as if God made it evident through syllogisms and
through Aristotelian logic and reasoning that you could reason to
there being a first cause that's not what Paul's talking about.
Paul even says in Acts seventeen, if you've not read
Acts seventeen, it's very relevant. I would say, go and
read Acts seventeen, because that's where Paul actually debates with
a bunch of Greek philosophers. And the way Paul does
apologetics is to say, not a bunch of Arisitilian syllogisms.
I'm not saying you can't make those kinds of arguments,
utilize sylogisms, but that doesn't that's not how he approaches them.
He approaches him by saying that your idolatry is morally wrong,
and you know it in your heart of hearts, and
the word the Logos is very close to you. He's
near you, even in your hearts. So even the most
furthest reaches still the Logos in their penetrates, even the
most degenerate pagan man, because you can't escape Christ, you
can't escape that logos. That's the proper way to utilize
logos and apologetics. And that's what Paul does in Act seventeen.
He doesn't do natural theology. He in fact tells them
that you are accountable to the Logos, the person Christ,
the second person of the Godhead. That's that's revealed theology.
That's natural revelation. That's not natural theology anyway. I'm sorry
for going down that rabbit hole, but as I did
it because it's a very important distinction between Orthodoxy and
the totality of the West. None of that is in
the West at all. None of what I said is
in Western theology, and I think that this is something
that speaks to you know, the power of Orthodoxy in
maintaining that tradition.
Speaker 3: Well, the way you describe it, it almost sounds like
that third aspect, the news is the thing that we
do recognize when we know something's right or wrong that
might be independent of intellect or the soul, where we're
drawn toward toward good, the good in us and others,
and we know that exists, we cannot deny it. I mean,
I have tons of atheist friends. They know good exists,
they know the good in them, they want the good
in others, and you just can't have good. I mean,
if you're going to live your life pretending it's just
an illusion, then you can't. I mean, that's no good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the part of the reason that a lot
of people make a mistake at this junk, sure, and
you're right there, is because they will look at the
intellectual side of things, and they'll look at the physical
side of things, right, because man is body and man
is soul, and they'll say, well, if those are the
two kinds of categories, then then really all we can
do about the world is reason about things of the
spirit in terms of like intellect and mind or things
of the body. So those are only two kinds of
things that you can do. And so you either know
a lot about intellectual things or you know a lot
about physical things in science, and we would say that's
kind of a division that shouldn't be there, because just
as man is a holistic being, so also we should
view reality in a holistic way. So reality isn't just
physical anymore than man is just physical. But man is
also not just intellect. We aren't gnostics. Man has a body.
So the body does matter, and the body is part
of this is why, for example, in Orthodox Christianity, the
body participates in liturgy. Right, it's not just a thing
where you go and listen to a past or talk
to you for an hour about something. You're actually standing
and you're bowing and you're you know, doing the cross
and so forth. We have icons, we have all these
things that are that are touchy since sensational, because the
body matters. But the thing with noos is that noos
is essentially what happens when we begin to pray and
when we seek God in our heart of hearts. And
what this does is it doesn't destroy the faculties of
body or soul slash intellect. It reorients them into the
proper harmony. So rather than me saying I'm going to
know God primarily through rationality and intellect or through sensational
sense experience, I know God in my innermost heart of
hearts primarily, and then the other faculties in me come
into harmony. They work in unison. Right, They're no longer
divided and split. I'm no longer in a way you
could say, I don't mean this like in a strict
MK ultra sense, but I'm no longer dissociated between my
different different aspects of my being. And I think that
when you understand it that way, you can actually almost
say that the whole modern world is essentially structured to
cause man to be dissociated. And I mean that in
a spiritual sense, like a like a fragmented kind of
mind control type of thing. And and really that's what
the whole modern world does is actually put us in
a kind of mind control that isn't just CIA operatives.
It's spiritual. It's ultimately man has a spiritual problem.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, Well that's uh, that's kind of why I
mean back to the way beginning of the conversation where
you know, the the left and right. Uh, you know,
the right is attacking me and they don't realize that
my view is not this political dialectic thing. It's I
can I can toy with that and make fun of
it and stuff and take a stance either in one direction,
but it's it's really how I see everything now is
definitely a personal spiritual battle of Man and UH. And
it's so beyond uh politics or you know, all the
even the stuff we're talking about, like you know, the
the planopolises and all this stuff, it still gets reduced
to the spirit of Man Uh and the rejection of
of of good and God and trying to replace him
and all of the stuff that's occurring. It's all just
all of the stuff. All the things we talk about
and that you see are just indicators symptoms of what
what you just said. And when people maybe revisit that,
I mean what that third aspect the news is there
a historical period that was purposefully removing that or was
it forgotten through some like mishap cold virtual transmission.
Speaker 1: What happens in Western theology is that you get at
development towards the dominance of Augustine. And I've read Augustine extensively.
In fact, he was one of the reasons that initially
I was into Catholicism was that I read City of.
Speaker 2: God when I was twenty one, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Then I read Confessions, I read all the Antidonatus works,
I read all the anti Pallagian works, and then I
read a bunch of the other doctrinal works, retractions, et cetera.
And I realized that, especially on the Trinity, what happens
is that you get a difference in not just anthropology,
but also the doctrine of God, the doctrine of who
God is, what is possible and not possible for God.
So basically you get kind of these what could more
or less be said to be Neoplatonic presubpositions that are
still carried over because Augustine was for many years and Neoplatonists,
so he carried some of those positions over into his Christianity,
and and in many of the early Church battles, they're
actually battling with Greek philosophic presuppositions, and particularly Neoplatonism. For many,
many years later on Neoplatonism kind of dies out, and
then the Church has to deal with other Hellenic type
of errors, but more or less the errors are pretty
consistently dialectical, and one of those errors is to kind
of smush man's hypostasis or his person into his nature.
And that's kind of what happens with Augustine, is that
you don't get a full understanding of the importance of
the news and the importance of distinctions that don't imply
composition or division, especially in God anyway, that's really abstract.
But this progresses by the time of up to Anselm.
You get a assumptions about what happens in the crucifixion
that can't really be reconciled with Orthodox theology, namely that
God is paying God an infinite debt satisfaction of debt.
This actually goes into later penal substitution theory of the reformers.
Orthodox doesn't have any of that. It doesn't make any
sense to say that God's paying God for a debt.
That's all sort of absurd. That's actually some of the
atheists critiques about Jesus paying off God for an infinite
debt that God owed God. I mean, that's they're kind
of right, because they're actually hitting on theological problems in Anselm.
So I could actually give some credit to the atheists
on that point, because because we don't believe that, we
don't believe that God's paying God an infinite debt. That's absurd.
But anyway, so a lot of these same issues that
you're talking about there, they're connected and they do kind
of come to fruition in the late Middle Ages, the
time of a Quietness, the time of Barlem, the time
of Saint Gregory Palamas, and so there's a bunch of
debates in the in the thirteenth fourteenth century between the Palamites,
who are the Orthodox, and the Latins over these issues.
There's an attempted attempt at reunion at the Council of
Florence and it doesn't work. So there were debates over
these issues, but it never was really resolved, and hence
why there's still an Orthodox church in a Roman Catholic church. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, interesting, Wow, you have a lot of memory space
in there.
Speaker 1: Could be maybe I'm an augmented lesbian, a black ai.
Speaker 3: That's true. That's also true. It's also possible.
Speaker 1: Who's wearing a white guy suit?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're just got a White, I see it on
I listened to a critique you had of William Wayne Craig,
and you know, because I like, I like watching his
debates and I like watching I just love watching theists
and atheists debate stuff and they give each other the
full the full effort.
Speaker 3: But you pointed at something that was really interesting that
I took with me, which was, while he has really
cool logical setups and he's just well rounded and being
able to set up the framework to annihilate something that
doesn't have logic. Uh, you pointed to the fact that
he's his premise I guess still leaves people interacting with
the scientific material approach I think is how you put it.
Speaker 1: It was like.
Speaker 3: What he was presenting, the arguments he was presenting, while
they sounded like well all crafted, they were still leaving
it in the realm of science and materialism, like we
can like every time he goes to like any kind
of any kind of reference to something we know of
science or something we know of the material, it just
leaves it open to be diminished later if that changes.
In other words, does that make sense, Like we know
this about we know this is about biology, we know
this about X Y, z it's observable if that changes.
If that's your argument for faith, then if that changes,
then it it can ruin your It could hurt your
argument if you're basing faith off of science, off of science,
that makes sense. I'll send you the thing. It may
have been old. It was just an.
Speaker 1: Audio found that I put it in the chat. Actually
for anybody that was interesting, I did dig up my
old because actually I reposted that maybe a few weeks ago.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I may have also totally misrepresentative.
Speaker 1: I just know what you're getting at. So basically, there's
a distinction in the history of theology between different schools
of apologetics, and so William Lane Craig is most known
for being an apologist, and certainly he has a lot
of good stuff in certain areas, like, for example, I
recommend his book on creation. Actually, he has a really
good book that's been in my recommended reading list for
several years on x nilo. Creation actually shows the unique
aspects to which the Genesis account presents creation as an
ex nilo, which distinguishes our worldview from many of the
other cosmogonies and pagan origins. So, for example, if you
were talking to somebody who was like of the Zeitgeist crowd,
and they were like, well, Christianity is just like Egyptian mythology. No, actually,
there's like ten specific areas of genesis that are completely
unique and different than any of the ancient pagan cosmologies.
But so that book's really good. Other areas, I feel
like William Lane Craig is really weak. And that's kind
of what I was trying to hit at in that
discussion was that his apologetics is a weird attempt to
meld both classical arguments classical foundationalism as a epistemology, and
he at times tries to use transcendental arguments. So because
I'm a big proponent of transcedent arguments and presubsitionalism to
be consistent, I can't also say that classical foundationalists epistemology
and those arguments are always the best or solid or
valid at all times. They're not. And so what I
was kind of getting in that talk was showing how
when he critiqued this atheist dude, there was an atheist
agnostic ted talk or something, and so William Lane Craig
was critiquing that, and I was critiquing the critique. So
I was doing like a critique of two different dudes,
engaging and showing how both are wrong, and the transcendental
argument is just superior. It's much stronger. And there's a
weird there's a funny debate that we M. F. Buckley
of all people is hosting between some atheist and Weiline Craig,
and we Aline Craig gives like five transcendental categories and
a transcendental argument against the atheist. It's like a two
or three minute clip. It's like a million views, and so, yeah,
that's good argument. He's using transcendent arguments. And then he's
turned around he says, oh, but the colomn cosmological argument
is a good argument. No, it's not. And the reason
it's not is that principally, I mean, there's a lot
of different ways that I would go about critiquing that approach,
but it's not enough to just say that I can
find an argument that points to some common first cause
or common accepted generic principle like causality or teleology or whatever,
and then thereby join with all of these other and
sects and weirdos and loons who could make the same argument,
And I could join hands with all them against an atheist.
That doesn't work. And it doesn't work because when I'm
granting the disunity and the lack of clarity in my view,
by joining with a Satanist, one could join with a
Satanist and believe in a first cause. That's a dumb,
stupid argument. But you quite literally could, I mean theoretically
an atheist Excuse me, a Satanist could say I believe
there's a first cause. Oh, by the way, it's satan
and so am I going to, oh, well, we have
the same apologetic against the materialist. No, that's stupid, that's dumb.
But that's literally where that argument goes. And they all
know this, by the way, which is really weird. It's
like they know of this criticism of these theistic arguments.
I just think they're really bad. They're really weak, they're
really dumb. And smart atheists will call this out. Okay,
not every atheist is a total o iq P. Here's
a smart ones will call it out, and they'll say,
you've already surrendered the strength of your argument in your position.
If you're joining with all these cults and these idiots
to try to prove what a first cause, well, if
you're only only proving that what is that. That doesn't
mean I could I could remain an atheist and admit
some generic first cause. Okay, the first the first cause
was the Great Big Bang, right right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, just say, well, the same the same problem exists
when uh, and I've dug myself this whole because I
wasn't educated enough, but I was very anxious and about morality,
which is, uh, you know, without without God, there's no
objective morality. And so the next phase of that argument,
for someone who's prepared on the other side, I can say, well,
what God? Then now you're just comparing God's I can
just say whatever God. So you have to be prepared
in understanding the nature of the Christian God in the
Bible and why that exemplifies good. Right, And I'm actually
still not knowledgeable enough to defend it, but I but
my sense is that good must be God like. God
must be good like that. You can't say there's good
and evil, good and bad and all this stuff without
a standard. You need a standard for love, and you
need a standard for good, and you need a standard
for living life good life. And the only place that
pointed me was that that separates from other objective claims
of morality and life and how God how a God,
I guess is a lot of other cases exists as
the source is that God being made in the image
of God is what allows us to understand how to
love you, how to love other people because we can
see we are in the image. So which is distinct
from a you know, a four arm six arm elephant,
Like you can't you can't love the person that somehow
is embodying the belief of the elephant, like these other
mythical creatures that you can't you don't know love because
you're not looking at the image of God. Does that
make sense? It could be raw. I just like was
exploring this, you can't you can't love that elephant or
the I mean, Buddha's kind of he's a dude, he's
kind of like big. But it's that that point alone
is what draws me in actually, which is like, how
do you know what the standard of love is and
how to express it to another if they're not made
in the image, like you can't know? You know, otherwise
you're getting into the loving the tree and praying to
the tree, and you start morphing the embodiment and the person,
and so I mean, that's all. That's where I am
actually like in all of this, like it, and it's
all very still new, like rediscovery of all of this,
and I'm like, I know that there's good, I know
that there's evil. I know that I believe in objective morality,
that it exists. Therefore God exists. So my best, like
I told someone once then when they said, well, then
how do you know which one? And I go, you
got to read them all. I guess you just got
to see which one logically makes the most sense for
what you know in your heart is good and represents that.
I mean, that's all I could do, because I just
don't have enough in for reaction.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say the next probably the next question
that would come about would be in a person's sort
of process, would be after we've kind of realized the
problems of monism and dualism in maya and chaotic nihilistic
world views, is that we might think, okay, well, there's
got to be, you know, some kind of God. The
next question typically is something like, and you're right to
talk about goodness and love the good or whatever. Those
are fine to talk about, but typically the question is okay,
but is this a personal God or is this an
impersonal God?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: And this would suggest also a distinction with a lot
of other world religions, because a lot of world religions
might say, okay, but there is some kind of beginning
or some kind of first cause there is some kind
of absolute That's a term that's oftentimes used maybe in
perennial philosophy or whatever. But the key question that that distinguishes,
like the Biblical view, is that God is not just
a force. God is not abstract, We're not new agers.
God isn't just some you know, Star Wars type force.
God is personal, and so there is as you mentioned,
this image of God and man. This is we can
form an analogy between the fact that when human persons
have communion, we interact and we understand what it's like
to communit for one another through you know, knowing each other,
talking to each other, getting to know each other, et cetera,
et cetera. That is a model also for how we
relate to God, to having that personal communion. And this
is important because like with Greek ancient Greek paganism or
Greek philosophy, you can't have a relationship with a number
you can have a personal relationship with, you know, an
abstract force. You can only have that kind of relationship
with a being that's personal. And that's why the next
step is usually to ask the question of is God
impersonal or personal? And then the terms like good and
the terms like love make a lot more sense because
it makes sense to have a relationship with a deity
that's personal. And likewise, when we talk about reality reflecting
things like math and logic and formal principles, those also
suggest information and information science, for example, tells us that
information comes from a mind. Information doesn't come out of nowhere.
It comes from some kind of conscious mind. And so
just as I have reason and logic, right and thought,
and my mind produces things, so in this in an analogy,
as the church fathers often say, the God created the
world on the basis of his divine mind. It has order,
it has structure, it has these principles that undergird it,
It has these this logos that is in creation we
in orthodoxologies called the logi right it permeates, that's the
logos in creation in his many creatures, permeating all things
being at root the basis and the meaning of all things.
That's not pantheism. We're not identifying God with creation, but
we're saying that God is present in creation. So that
is what I would say would be probably the next
philosophic step that we could take towards understanding the type
of deity that we're talking about here. And then when
you kind of flush this out the deeper that you
go into it, you realize that, okay, well, then there's
other attributes that kind of come along with the theology
that also makes sense. For example, we wouldn't hold these
things and then say, but that God is not omnipresent
like he's we say, we say he's all good and
he's personal, and he's all loving, but he's not over
there in that place, right. That wouldn't make any sense, right,
It wouldn't make any sense to say that he's you know, uh, well,
that's all true, but he came into being yesterday, like
he just popped into existence yesterday. No, he's eternal, right,
And because he's all good and he's all loving, he's
also eternal. So these these things start to flesh out,
they start to stack up, and we start to get
a better understanding. And this is what theology does theology
sort of reasons. It's not just reasoning like abstractly, but
it's also it's also getting this information, this these truths
from what we call revealed theology. And that's where scripture
comes into play.
Speaker 3: Interesting. I had a I think this conversation, this this
point has been made before, perhaps, but someone asked me,
like why you know, like why why believe in the God?
Like to understand we don't need God to understand all
of these things. And I said, well, from a strictly
logistical standpoint of like studying something that, in Dawkins words,
has only the illusion of design, coming from a place
that there is a designer, just from a standpoint can
probably catalyze understanding of what we're seeing, Like if we
just just like looking at anything, like you, if you
look at something that's made and you question, how is
that design? Like you, if you want to reverse engineer
something and understand it just coming from the perspective that
it's been designed, allows you to interact with it the
same way what we just said is like understanding how
to interact with a person knowing that they're in the
image of someone someone else, like and so like that
whole way of looking at it would be so advantageous
and has been historically force for science historically, but they've
removed that aspect of like the curiosity of looking at
something from a design standpoint to understand it is totally logical.
It makes total like sense if you're going to look
at it. You don't say that as the illusion of design.
Let me see how it wasn't designed, so that I
can then figure out how to design the thing that
I just said wasn't designed. It doesn't make any sense
to come to come from that approach. Also, the on
a side note of that Dawkins argument, if design is
an illusion, then your entire argument for randomness must also
be an illusion. You can't have one. You can't just
be like, No, design's an illusion, but randomness is not
an illusion. That's just totally real, because randomness would also
just be an illusion. You can't like, you can't be
you can't be you know, you can't cherry pick one
and not the you know what I mean, like that
doesn't how would you prove randomness? How can you prove.
Speaker 1: Something random exactly? I mean, randomness does presuppose order to
be able to distinguish, to contradistinguish between the randomness and
the order, right, I mean pattern recognition. This is all
based on principles of logic, principles of demarcation, predication, all
those things go into doing a pattern recognition, into distinguishing
objects from other objects. So that's a very complex you know.
Obviously it utilizes a lot of different transcendental categories. And yes,
absolutely teleology and cosmology are transcendentally necessary categories. You can't
get away from using them.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The atheist is correct to point out, in my view
that just a bare cosmological argument is a really weak,
bad argument. It doesn't prove what it seeks to prove.
But it's fine to do a teleological argument or a
cosmological argument if you reframe them as transcendental arguments, and
they are because they're assumed. You can't talk about the
external world. You can't talk about purpose in the external
world or causation in the external world without assuming that
they're real categories that exist. Otherwise your speech becomes nonsensical. Right,
events become incoherent, events become meaningless. If you just think
design is a subjective construct, then you fall back into
total relativism. So you have to presuppose that there is design.
It's not just in the mind. Numbers, geometrical patterns, categories,
these aren't just in the mind. They're actually in the world.
I mean, this is really low IQ stupid stuff, but
this is the kind of stuff that we have to
deal with. And the Dawkins Hitchens types, they just sort
of rehash stuff from the seventeen hundreds, as if people
haven't responded to this, as if there's no answers to
whether there is. Are you cool with reading some super
chaps before we head on out? Yeah, we got Philip
of Voros. Thank you for joining. Philip, he's a new
member to the channel. Remember, everybody, you can subscribe to
Jay's Analysis in the YouTube memberships if you want to.
Some of those people don't want to go to the website,
but you can also still go to Jay's Analysis and
subscribe by purchasing a membership to all of the archived content,
many many many interviews, many many many many lectures on
all kinds of topics. I'll leave that link in the
chat box right now so you can get your membership there.
You can also if you click on that, you can
go over to the shop at Jays analysis and get
signed copies of my book. Doorman three sixty says two dollars?
Would you visit me in my tiny house? Ladies love it?
How do ladies fit in your tiny house? I don't
think they do, so I don't buy that. Doorman Jimba,
will you visit him in his tiny house?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, he says.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Josh, two dollars, he says, Jay, please make another pastor
Randy Bill. Glad you like Pastorandy Balls. I have had
a lot of requests to do another Randy Balls video,
so I guess eventually I'll have to get on that
Amy Polino twenty bucks. Thank you, Amy. Wow, it's a
fat super chat. She's always leaving dropping them twenties drop
who's on a twenty Franklin?
Speaker 3: Franklin is on one hundred?
Speaker 1: Jackson Andrew Jackson. Anyway, she's dropping them. Jefferson's want want
five dollars five a's. I just found out that one
of my eighteenth century ancestors was an orphan raised by
the Royal Society. Can I get abased analysis abays analysis
of your orphan ancestor? I'm not gonna do that. I'm
gonna go track down those genealogical research on the wamp
Want family or do you mean abays analysis of the
royal society that I can do because they, along with
the Jesuits, by the way, are the main progenitors of
the Darwinian mythos. Of course, they were the brains behind
the British Empire. So we've talked about the royal society many, many,
many times, a lot of talks on that. Evan Schultz
twelve Do you have anything to add on that? By
the way, now, okay, Evan Schultz twelve bucks, Hello nerds,
Hello nerd, Evan Schultz, You're welcome here, some dude Sam
two bucks. Feminism is fundamentally monistic. I guess perhaps you
could say that if you adopt the goddess side of things,
the tendency is to say that the Goddess represents, you know,
like isis and all of nature isis is, like all
of space and extension in space and so forth. So
I could see maybe if you go down the goddess
route of feminism, But it seems that in terms of
like on the day to day practice, it's always intention
fighting with patriarchy and in the system.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends what you mean by feminism. It's not
like it's an easy It's not like it's an easy answer.
Speaker 1: I think you have a better JBP than I do.
Speaker 3: No, I listen to yours.
Speaker 2: Yours is better.
Speaker 1: I can't get mine too. Stops it sounds too I
don't know. It sounds actually like what it sounds like.
The dude us to call into Ralph's show and do
it is the only thing I can do. So yours
is actually better.
Speaker 3: You have to feel darker inside a little.
Speaker 1: Bit, Thomas W. Five. I joined the Catholic Church, then
I discover your channel, and now I think I'm going Orthodox.
Thank you for all the high Q thought thought or thought.
I will be your high IQ thought. Let me get
some booty pants and shorts on and I'll model those
for you, Thomas W. But I'm glad that you are
interested in Orthodoxy. I don't think Frank will be the
way you want to go, So stay away from old
Pope Frank. Ralph fling steaks ten bucks. Are there any
church fathers or Christian theologians that debate Buddhism or Eastern philosophy? Yeah?
I have an analysis I did of Father Serif from
Roses book Orthodoxy in the Religion of the Future, and
in that book he takes on Buddhism Hinduism in many chapters.
And there's also a much larger, more philosophic book called
The Dow of Christ and that's Hiral Monk Damas Scene
who worked with Father surfrom Rose. He wrote a book
taking on the Far Eastern thought and kind of pointing
out that what a lot of the Far Eastern religions
are searching for in this idea of the transcendent now
is actually the logos. So that's that's a famous book.
Speaker 3: That's really funny, and it makes me think of a
possible cartoon where someone's trying to debate a monk and
they're just they're just not talking. They're just they're gonna
they either win or lose if they just don't talk.
A true a true monk would just sit in silence
during that debate. Possible meme idea.
Speaker 1: That is a good idea. So, by the way, Father
Surfer Rose also covered aliens and UFOs. Here's my talk.
I did a talk on it. If you want to
check that out, I'll put that in the chat right now.
And there is or talks in the religion of the future.
So he talks about the New Age and the Hinduism
and UFOs and all this goofy stuff, and he does
a really good job exposing that. It's kind of a
classic book. It's converted a lot of people, a lot
of new agers. Private Death. Ten bucks or five bucks.
Do a Jordan Peanut Butters and Ben Shapiro debate, it
would be hilarious. Hint, hint he I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean I have to, like, you can be Peterson
and I'll do Shapiro.
Speaker 1: Can you do Ben Shapiria? I don't know. Mine's not good.
I just had to speed it up on the program.
I couldn't do it. That's all you do is just
see you have to do one hundred and twenty.
Speaker 3: I really need to shave. There's so many people.
Speaker 1: I just want to. You do good.
Speaker 3: You're good at it, so thanks you to be a.
Speaker 1: Good debate Country Rhythm Bear thoughts on Doug Wilson. I
assume you mean Doug Wilson by Douglas Wilson. I don't
have a very high opinion of Doug Wilson. He's actually
totally incompetent when it comes to orthodox theology, and he's
written some really really bad articles on it. So I
don't have a whole lot to say on Doug Wilson.
But anyway, that looks like that's all the super chats.
We had our big audience. We had almost five hundred tonight,
and that's a big crowd for me tonight, and thank
you for bringing probably most of those. Do the Jim
Bobs have a term? There's bears, there's nerds. Is there
a the Bobs trolls?
Speaker 3: Savages?
Speaker 1: Savages? Okay? That works.
Speaker 3: They're kind of they're kind of all. I mean, there's
such a mix, it's like it just gets It's hard
sometimes to understand the pulse of who everyone is and
what they think and believe in. It's all just overlapping
most of the time.
Speaker 1: Cool beans, all right, So I've got his insta there,
Everybody be sure and follow him on the Insta. You'll
see all those cool cartoons he does and anything else
you want to shout out. Anything coming up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm looking at doing. I was looking at Patreon,
but I think enough people swayed me away from there
because I might just get canceled to subscriber Star. I'm
going to be launching that because I want to start
putting more time into animating and doing those kind of
funny bits that will likely be taken down from Instagram,
so I'd rather keep them up on a separate account
and also not piss off my current base, who are
like I just want memes. I don't want your all
that stuff. So I'm creating a place where people can
support me and allow me to expand on more complex
stuff like animation, longer bits and talking and behind the
scenes stuff and just things that I want to make
that take a little more energy and resources, but specifically
the animation I really want to make. I think there's
a need for really funny, crazy, savage savagery that's like,
you know, ideally like South Park level, but tackling more
more of this kind.
Speaker 1: Of I got the book, and by the way, I
need to send you my book, but so thank you
for sending me savage memes. It's based it's very funny,
and also and people can get that. If you go
to to his Instagram, you'll see the link to his
website where you can buy the book. And also you
can get my books at start Hollywood one and two.
Remind me Jim Bob, and I will send you copies
of my books too since you sent me yours.
Speaker 3: Awesome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, everybody, thank you, let's talk. Well we
get one more super shat from Richard rawlf I books.
Thank you for the cool stream. Well, thank you, rich
I appreciate it. Love all you guys until next time.
I hope you enjoyed it. God bless have a good night.