Speaker 1: And is obviously to one percent continue on as it's
Speaker 1: a function area of the octopus. You know, an element
Speaker 1: that I've highlighted that no one else has highlighted ever,
Speaker 1: and that I'm aware of now. There could be some
Speaker 1: people in the tradcast sphere that probably highlighted this that
Speaker 1: I'm just not remembering. Maybe Michael Hoffman did. But you know,
Speaker 1: I stumbled across some really interesting information in Gordon Thomas's
Speaker 1: book which has been vindicated in a lot of these
Speaker 1: Epstein releases. And that's Gordon Thomas's Gideon Spy's book about Masad.
Speaker 1: You know, we covered that years ago. I re covered
Speaker 1: it in the last year many many times, and pretty
Speaker 1: much the controversial aspects have been vindicated, particularly connections to
Speaker 1: Princess Diana that seems to be there explicit with Epstein
Speaker 1: that we as we saw a couple of days ago.
Speaker 1: But the chapter on John Paul the Second no one
Speaker 1: else has. I've seen no one else cover this, and
Speaker 1: he mentions that Massad wanted I think, to bog the
Speaker 1: Vatican and they weren't sick. I think they were not
Speaker 1: successful in that, but what they did was really establish
Speaker 1: closer and closer relationships with John Paul the Second which
Speaker 1: led to the recognition of the nation state of Israel,
Speaker 1: and that happened under John Paul the Second, and Gordon
Speaker 1: Thomas's book was essentially detailing how that came about. Who
Speaker 1: else has talked about this? Now, why is that relevant? Well,
Speaker 1: it's relevant because that explains the close relationship between John
Speaker 1: Paul the Second and Jeffrey Epstein clear as day, and
Speaker 1: it also is dealt with in this extensive book, not
Speaker 1: the Masad stuff, but Darcy O'Brien's book Hidden Vote there
Speaker 1: with the close relationship between John Paul the Second and
Speaker 1: the promotion of what's in Nostrotade and Lumingentium sixty. So
Speaker 1: that is where the Vatican has been for a long time,
Speaker 1: and you might even consider it older than that, given
Speaker 1: the fact that there were five loans back in the
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds. Now, I remember the first time I noticed this.
Speaker 1: It was actually at the Jewish Encyclopedia, and it said
Speaker 1: something like the Rothchilds have been the official papal bankers
Speaker 1: since the seventeen hundreds. I think that's what the Jewish
Speaker 1: Encyclopedia says. If you go to the Rothchild's family archives,
Speaker 1: it says the significant loans began in the eighteen fifties,
Speaker 1: and that was I forget which pope that was Gregory
Speaker 1: eighteen thirties, Gregory the sixteenth in the eighteen thirties, significant
Speaker 1: loans to the papal to the papacy in the eighteen thirties,
Speaker 1: eighteen thirty three, eighteen thirty seven, eighteen thirty two. And
Speaker 1: let's see if we can find that original reference at
Speaker 1: Jewish Encyclopedia and find out exactly what it says. And
Speaker 1: I remember, I think I saw this as a trad
Speaker 1: cat and I was kind of taken aback because I
Speaker 1: didn't really know what to do with this, because I mean,
Speaker 1: wouldn't this call into question the papacy going back to
Speaker 1: the seventeen hundreds then, I mean you could say, well
Speaker 1: maybe not, Okay, yeah, maybe not. Maybe there was you know,
Speaker 1: some they maybe the paper was in dire straits and
Speaker 1: they had to resort to a roth Child loan or
Speaker 1: something like that, and it wasn't necessarily compromised at the stage.
Speaker 1: I mean perhaps, but let's see, go ahead.
Speaker 2: If they were in dire streets, would that mean they
Speaker 2: were getting money or nothing?
Speaker 1: Okay, here we go PayPal here it is eight. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is not the seventeen hundred. Excuse me. It is
Speaker 1: somewhat curious sequel to attempt a Catholic competitor to the
Speaker 1: Rothchilds pretor the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.
Speaker 1: So there you see, and that is in the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: So it's not the seventeen hundreds. It is the eighteen
Speaker 1: hundreds in the Jewish encyclopedia under the Rothschild entry right there,
Speaker 1: England was a central on competition with Bearings and Rothchild's,
Speaker 1: culminating the failure of Bearings. But in this case the
Speaker 1: ro Child came up to the rescue of the rivals
Speaker 1: and they presented a universal financial prevented a universal financial catastrophe.
Speaker 1: It is somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set
Speaker 1: up a Catholic competitor that at that at the present time,
Speaker 1: the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure. So
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is saying at the present
Speaker 1: time of the eighteen hundreds, you could read it that way,
Speaker 1: or is it saying the present time of whenever this
Speaker 1: entry was written, probably fifty seventy years ago. I don't
Speaker 1: know the exact publishing. The date of the publication of
Speaker 1: the geisencyclopedia, but regardless, it is known and admitted that
Speaker 1: the significant loans began during the papacy of Gregory the sixteenth.
Speaker 1: The first known loan was eighteen thirty two, after the
Speaker 1: Napoleonic Wars, and this was James Meyer de Rothschild and
Speaker 1: Karl Meyer. The Rothschild gave a loan of four hundred
Speaker 1: thousand pounds equivalent to four point five million in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. And then guess that, look at this loans
Speaker 1: under based in trad Pious the ninth, the so called
Speaker 1: trad pope a Vatican one. Huh.
Speaker 2: So you remember back in the day to Jay when
Speaker 2: we when people used to laugh when you say all
Speaker 2: the banks are like one big conglomerate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's called the Bank for National Settlements and uh
Speaker 1: like it's admitted when you get into the high level books, right.
Speaker 1: Well even you know what's funny is there's.
Speaker 2: A small little paperback from the sixties called the Merchant Bankers,
Speaker 2: because you were talking about like the British banks, uh huh.
Speaker 2: And even in that book they kind of do admit.
Speaker 2: And the reason that jog my memory is because when
Speaker 2: you go into like Jewish encyclopedias, sometimes they say the
Speaker 2: quiet part.
Speaker 3: Out loud, you know, yeah sure and so yeah.
Speaker 2: So sometimes in these in these Hayes geographies where they're like,
Speaker 2: you know, talking good about certain things, they say the
Speaker 2: quiet part out loud. And in that sixties book and
Speaker 2: the merchant Bankers, they basically.
Speaker 1: Admit they're like, oh yeah, like each one of.
Speaker 2: The banks bails each other out on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, remember did you hear John what we covered
Speaker 1: yesterday with the first twenty five minutes of the band
Speaker 1: in Epstein interview. No, I haven't listened to that yet.
Speaker 1: Oh man, Well, guess what he says the first twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes. Can you take a guess?
Speaker 2: He talks about knowing the ins and outs of banking
Speaker 2: and how it's all connected.
Speaker 1: And it's Fiat fractional reserve banking, and he says, they
Speaker 1: make it up out of thin air. And I understood this,
Speaker 1: and this is why David Rockefeller appointed me to the
Speaker 1: Trilateral Commission. He says in the first twenty five minutes.
Speaker 1: Isn't that crazy? That's wild? Now, guys, remember we covered
Speaker 1: this last night and that one is now a member stream.
Speaker 1: But yes, within the first twenty five minutes of the
Speaker 1: Epstein interview with Bannon, Bannon says, and what's funny is
Speaker 1: that when Bannon's asking these questions, it seems like Bannon
Speaker 1: doesn't understand it. And that's kind of shocking to me,
Speaker 1: not because I, I mean, I don't really follow Bann
Speaker 1: at all, but it's like I thought I would think
Speaker 1: he would know these kind of conspiracy classics, right, like
Speaker 1: you would think people know about fractional reserve banking and
Speaker 1: loaning out. You know, double the amount that the banks
Speaker 1: can basically print the double amount of every loan on
Speaker 1: hand and there's no gold to back it up, and
Speaker 1: on and on and on uh and in Epstein, much
Speaker 1: like with Larry Summers in the Vatican Bank email, is
Speaker 1: like having to explain these conspiracy concepts to people like
Speaker 1: Bannon or Larry Summers. Let's not forget the Vatican Bank email.
Speaker 1: Which why is this the case? Well, remember in the
Speaker 1: roth Tell's official biography that I have right here, the
Speaker 1: Morton one, you can see that, according to the biographer,
Speaker 1: the famous Waterloo story, they brag about it. They say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true. We got advanced intelligence on Waterloo and then
Speaker 1: we were able to short the market, collapse it and
Speaker 1: buy it up on an engineered panic in one day.
Speaker 1: There it is right there. That's the official biography of
Speaker 1: the roth Tails by Morton. That's why I put it
Speaker 1: up here. By the way, this got two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand impressions, so that one did good.
Speaker 2: And two is it's my Amos steel On and it's
Speaker 2: called Founder and it's about amshell.
Speaker 1: If you read in there.
Speaker 2: And once again it's a it's a ha geography, so
Speaker 2: it's presenting it in a positive light. And it says
Speaker 2: that he became a banker for like one of the
Speaker 2: dukes in Germany, and that he figured out because the
Speaker 2: duke didn't know anything about his money, he didn't even
Speaker 2: know how much he had, and he would make loans
Speaker 2: with the duke's money and then keep all the profits
Speaker 2: from the from the interest that he was charging the
Speaker 2: duke's money, and that's how he became richer than the
Speaker 2: duke was through the interest that he was using by
Speaker 2: loaning out the duke's money.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, this was a lobbyal theorized for a long
Speaker 1: time that they were, you know, keeping the heads of
Speaker 1: state kind of in the dark because heads of state
Speaker 1: or you know, usually there's just these degenerates. And what's funny, John,
Speaker 1: is that's actually what Epstein says at the beginning of
Speaker 1: this interview to Bannon. Bannon says, so are you are
Speaker 1: you saying that the politicians aren't really really running the countries?
Speaker 1: And Epstein says, look, politicians are there because they're popular.
Speaker 1: They're like the popular kids in school. That's what they're
Speaker 1: interested in. They don't know how this stuff works. He's like, well,
Speaker 1: when you got somebody like me, he's like, I understood
Speaker 1: high finance and that it's fractional reserve banking. And he
Speaker 1: says that was very useful to David Rockefeller and that's
Speaker 1: why he in nineteen ninety appointed me as part of
Speaker 1: the Trilateral Commission. And Bannon is just still kind of like,
Speaker 1: what what do you mean like the and he keeps
Speaker 1: asking that's like two or three times, like so you're saying,
Speaker 1: you're say politicians don't know what's going on. It's like
Speaker 1: Bannon doesn't even realize that politicians don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to remind you, guys of the Vatican Bank,
Speaker 1: go ahead, never read David Rockefeller's memoir, No, he didn't.
Speaker 2: And so you don't know how those guys talk, even
Speaker 2: in their own books that are like New York Times bestsellers,
Speaker 2: where he says, you know, yeah, me and my family
Speaker 2: are part of a cabala people who are looking to
Speaker 2: you know, working against he says, specifically working against the
Speaker 2: best interest of the United States.
Speaker 1: And I'm proud of it, and not as well that
Speaker 1: this shows that it's not a do you want to
Speaker 1: be with the WASP or do you want to be
Speaker 1: with Israel and the Zionists. For David Rockefeller, it's he's
Speaker 1: above that. It's a WASP Zionist alliance. And by the way,
Speaker 1: people as well, So it's all of the above. It's
Speaker 1: the elites working together. And that's why Rockfeller would recruit
Speaker 1: and bring him into the power structure. And so it's
Speaker 1: not like, wait a minute, you're saying it's David Rockfeller,
Speaker 1: it's not the Israelise. No, it's both. That's what we're saying.
Speaker 1: Now here is this Vatican Bank email. And actually I'm
Speaker 1: glad that somebody community noted this because the email is
Speaker 1: Jeffrey to Larry Summers. It's not Larry Summers, the Clinton
Speaker 1: viper banker that destroyed and looted Russia after the Cold War.
Speaker 1: It's not Larry Summers explaining this to Epstein. It's Epstein
Speaker 1: explaining shadow banking to a banker, to a public economics
Speaker 1: so called expert. And he says, look, the reason that
Speaker 1: Benedicta sixteenth stepped down was because of the Vatican Bank.
Speaker 1: The Vatican Bank is a sovereign country. It is exempt
Speaker 1: from the transparency rules not only of Italy but also
Speaker 1: of the European Union. This status allows its elite clients
Speaker 1: to evade any scrutiny in their money transfers. Last May,
Speaker 1: the Vatican Bank President Ettore god Tadeshi was fired after
Speaker 1: Italian authorities open investigation into a far flunk briberies scheme
Speaker 1: and in which he was alleged to have been involved.
Speaker 1: The forty seven dossie is including the compromise about internal enemies.
Speaker 1: So there's here's compromont of his enemies in the Vatican
Speaker 1: were searched. I remember when all this broke, by the way,
Speaker 1: because we were covered and talking about it back at
Speaker 1: the time they had instruction on how that he used
Speaker 1: this in case something happened to him today she intercepted calls,
Speaker 1: further revealed by his concern that he would be assassinated
Speaker 1: because he knew Vatican Bank secrets. By late twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: he was cooperating with an Italian investigation, but at this
Speaker 1: point it was the all powerful College of Cardinals in
Speaker 1: one of his last acts that Benedict of the papacy
Speaker 1: appoint the German lawyer Ernst von Freiberg as a president
Speaker 1: of the bank. This came came, then came the extraordinary
Speaker 1: resignation of Pope Benedict the sixteenth. Now this is also
Speaker 1: interesting because a lot of quote conspiracy theorists were also
Speaker 1: vindicated by this email because people were saying at the time,
Speaker 1: it looks as if the resignation has to to do
Speaker 1: with probably the Vatican Bank and PDF blackmail, right, that
Speaker 1: was a lot of people saying this in regard to
Speaker 1: Benedict stepping down. And although this email doesn't mention PDF,
Speaker 1: it obviously suggests it because you have, like the PDF
Speaker 1: blackmailer extraordinary here with Jeff Stin mcgeffrey admitting that the
Speaker 1: Vatican Bank is the world's most secretive bank probably as
Speaker 1: well with the BIS. They're both pretty much kind of
Speaker 1: doing the same thing. Both are oss CIA directly connected entities.
Speaker 1: In the case of the Bank for National Settlements. Remember
Speaker 1: we just covered this a few nights ago. That was
Speaker 1: set up by McKittrick and Alan Dulles in coordination with
Speaker 1: certain German bankers of the reichs Bank to help be
Speaker 1: a way to funnel and send money above the access
Speaker 1: allied conflict. So they wanted a bank that was quote neutral,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be subject to the investigation of either allies
Speaker 1: or access powers. And Dulles helped through his law firm
Speaker 1: and through his time as a banker at the Bank
Speaker 1: of England and other places Schroederbank and others, which by
Speaker 1: the way, helped tiny Mustache Man to come to power.
Speaker 1: They wanted that clearinghouse. And so that's a bank that's
Speaker 1: above allied or axis investigation or purview. And as Burton
Speaker 1: Hirsch notes in his book, the bankers at that level
Speaker 1: were above No excuse me, it's not Burnhurst, it's the
Speaker 1: new book Who Financed Hitler that my publisher put out.
Speaker 1: That chapter on the BIS notes that that's an international
Speaker 1: banking clique largely JP Morgan, which JP Morgan is a
Speaker 1: front for who Rothschild Banking. So that's how we make
Speaker 1: the connection to that, and we did a whole stream
Speaker 1: on that the other night. But to get back to
Speaker 1: the Vatican Bank, the Vatican Bank is the same apparatus
Speaker 1: and the alliance made between the os S and CA
Speaker 1: happened explicit according to multiple Catholic writers and historians, Paul
Speaker 1: Williams all the Gladiotechs that we've covered, It was James
Speaker 1: Jesus Angleton especially, but also Bill Donovan, who was a
Speaker 1: tradcat and they forged that alliance with the OSS and
Speaker 1: the CIA and the Vatican Bank during the Cold War.
Speaker 1: And then William Colby of course also further solidified that
Speaker 1: because he was stationed at the Roman Desk. This is all,
Speaker 1: by the way, in the documentary on William Colby made
Speaker 1: by his son, we did a whole livestream on that
Speaker 1: documentary because it also vindicates this information. So here have
Speaker 1: William Colby's own son literally making a documentary admitting all this,
Speaker 1: and then you've got Jessa mceffrey in the first thirty
Speaker 1: minutes of the Bannon interview also admitting all this. So
Speaker 1: you guys, especially all you load tier trad Cats and
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics who keep just incessantly ignoring this and trying
Speaker 1: to cover up for the papacy in this ridiculous nonsense
Speaker 1: that Francis hacked Epstein. Utter bullshit. Probably the biggest bullshit
Speaker 1: of the week isn't the fake AI of Epstein being alive.
Speaker 1: It's this Roman Catholic profile that's trying to argue that
Speaker 1: Francis is the hero that saved Meanwhile, you know Epstein's
Speaker 1: over here in multiple emails saying yes, I will organize
Speaker 1: the meetings with the Pope. Yeah, we'll have meetings, blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. I'm gonna go meet with the papac. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna hang out with John Paul. And by the way, no,
Speaker 1: I don't have a problem admitting here you have one
Speaker 1: of the Greek arcons of the ep Somebody said, ha ha, no, orthodox,
Speaker 1: we're in the in the files. Not true. The very
Speaker 1: influential ARCon here is listed. I think he's in the
Speaker 1: Black Book. Yeah, I don't know who this person is.
Speaker 1: John Katsimatitis, Greek billionaire and arkon behind Bartholomew. So you
Speaker 1: want to understand how Bartholomew pushes all the nonsense that
Speaker 1: he pushes is because these are the people behind Bartholomew. Duh.
Speaker 1: So it is not true. And by the way, I'm
Speaker 1: not afraid to say, oh, you won't talk about Orthodox
Speaker 1: Well there you go, right there, there's one right there.
Speaker 1: But you got to understand how ridiculous that this is
Speaker 1: when you actually read the email or assume me it's
Speaker 1: an FBI in formant report, m account there's are coping
Speaker 1: with the absolute bullshit they're spreading claiming that Francis out
Speaker 1: at Epstein and quote hacked him. And it's wild to
Speaker 1: me that no one actually read this email because this
Speaker 1: totally bullshit thing here got four point two million impressions
Speaker 1: sixteen thousand likes. Okay, this says nothing like that anywhere.
Speaker 1: There is no indication at all. In fact, the indication
Speaker 1: in this FBI informant report is the opposite. The hacker
Speaker 1: has a Vatican passport. This is Epstein's hacker, not the
Speaker 1: person who hacked Epstein, Epstein's own alleged personal hacker, you idiots.
Speaker 1: And this person is giving a confidential informant report to
Speaker 1: an FBI agent is what this document is and it
Speaker 1: says this person's report. Informant says Epstein had a compound
Speaker 1: in New Mexico. He lured and recorded things there with
Speaker 1: underage people. He had a private island, allegedly was Putin's
Speaker 1: wealth manager. Don't know if that's true, but that's this
Speaker 1: is just a person saying this to the FBI. So
Speaker 1: remember this, that's all this is provided the service for
Speaker 1: Robert Mugabe managing his wealth. Epstein had connections to people
Speaker 1: in MIT. Epstein had a mansion in Westside, New York,
Speaker 1: friends of Bill Clinton, very close to Trump, this informant
Speaker 1: is saying, and then it goes on to say that
Speaker 1: this informant was Epstein's personal hacker. Does that say that
Speaker 1: this person hacked for Pope Francis. That's why I said
Speaker 1: you're a legit moron to this guy who posted this. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe this guy's looks like he's a Spanish based profile,
Speaker 1: so he could be in Spain or Portugal, and maybe
Speaker 1: he can't read English, because this doesn't say that Epstein
Speaker 1: was hacked by the Pope's hacker, you idiot. It says
Speaker 1: this person, this informant is claiming to be Epstein's personal hacker,
Speaker 1: You idiot. He was an Italian born citizen in Calabria
Speaker 1: and he was involved in developed, helping zero day exploits
Speaker 1: for cyber tools for governments and others. He says he
Speaker 1: was involved in helping the Saudis create a surveillance program.
Speaker 1: He did a zero day exploit against Hesbelah. Okay, so
Speaker 1: this is this person's claim about his tech proclivities and abilities.
Speaker 1: Then he talks about seed money, banking, et cetera, hacking
Speaker 1: work he did, and then it says he was friends
Speaker 1: with old school European hackers. One friend was a hacker
Speaker 1: named something, and then it's all blocked out. Says that
Speaker 1: he was involved in something about with connection to Hesbelah,
Speaker 1: and then it says money was sent to Switzerland. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. Zero day exploits. That's a certain kind of
Speaker 1: a hack. It relates to a crypto for example. It
Speaker 1: goes on to say the Italian government asked blank for help,
Speaker 1: presumably this person, but he declined because he felt that
Speaker 1: the government was incompetent. Colabria was mob controlled area in
Speaker 1: Italy and did not have much loyalty for his own country.
Speaker 1: He sold the exploits to the United States in the UK,
Speaker 1: but he would not go to any Asian sell to
Speaker 1: Asian countries because quote, he was racist. So the FBI
Speaker 1: agent has taken down this guy's information. He's like, okay,
Speaker 1: so this guy will not sell to Asian countries because
Speaker 1: he's racist. And it says he was also antisemitic. But
Speaker 1: he was terrified of going to Russia. But he would not, however,
Speaker 1: and would never travel there. He lived in Dubai, he
Speaker 1: lived in Oman. He may be Iranian and have an
Speaker 1: Israeli passport as well as a Vatican City passport. Now,
Speaker 1: these idiot Roman Catholic profiles sharing this, you cannot make
Speaker 1: this up. Tried to take that and say, quote the
Speaker 1: FBI says hack of Epstein was carried out from the Vatican.
Speaker 1: Did that say anything like that anywhere at all? Absolutely not,
Speaker 1: And in fact it's the exact opposite. This person is
Speaker 1: Epstein's hacker, allegedly knows Epstein, he says is ratting on
Speaker 1: Epstein and has in Israeli and Vatican passport. You idiots,
Speaker 1: total utter bullshit, So that one wins the award for
Speaker 1: most ridiculous bullshit so far. There was something else that
Speaker 1: was gonna. Oh, by the way, as you guys know,
Speaker 1: a little side note. I suspect, by the way, that
Speaker 1: it's not just the Vatican the b I s h
Speaker 1: there are other places that that are that apparently work
Speaker 1: this way. I didn't even know that until we went
Speaker 1: there on our pilgrimage. Does anyone know about San Marino?
Speaker 1: So when we did our Orthodox pilgrimage in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: we went to San Marino, which is an independent Italian
Speaker 1: city state and this goes back to the Italian Republic
Speaker 1: days and so forth. And apparently the way this works
Speaker 1: is that it's a place where most of the population
Speaker 1: only lives there half of the year, and it's really
Speaker 1: kind of eerie when you go there because it's up
Speaker 1: on top of a mountain and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: Masonic stuff everywhere. Literally, it's the first quote Communist Republic.
Speaker 1: Let me show you what I'm talking about here, And
Speaker 1: it's named after this monk oop by the way, is
Speaker 1: holding like a hammer and chisel, so it's like a
Speaker 1: Masonic monk thing because he was This has a stone
Speaker 1: Mason connection, and that's how it relates to Freemasonry and
Speaker 1: the mafia. Somewhere in here, because I remember reading this
Speaker 1: when we were there, that it's the first communist government
Speaker 1: I think in the world. There's somewhere in here where
Speaker 1: it says that first communist socialist constitution. Yes, In nineteen
Speaker 1: forty five, San Marino became the world's first country to
Speaker 1: democratically elect a communist led government, a coalition of socialists
Speaker 1: that ruled until nineteen fifty seven together with the Committee
Speaker 1: of Freedom. The coalition was a left ring coalition with
Speaker 1: the Simarinese Communist Party. Now what's interesting is that this
Speaker 1: place functions as a international It has separate laws as
Speaker 1: a city state from the Italian government. So for example,
Speaker 1: you can actually buy like guns and crossbows in San Marino,
Speaker 1: which are illegal in the rest of Italy. But that's
Speaker 1: nothing compared to the fact that actually San Marino is
Speaker 1: I would suspect a hub of international money, criminal stuff,
Speaker 1: precisely because it's one of these independent city states that's
Speaker 1: not related to the rest of the country. I is
Speaker 1: jay homosexual. Yes, I am a homosexual, married man. He says,
Speaker 1: hello from tel Aviv. This man is gay. So that
Speaker 1: that's what the Tel Aviv people are having to say here,
Speaker 1: is that yes, anybody talking. Tel Aviv is the gay
Speaker 1: capital of the world. But I'm a gay dude. Sure
Speaker 1: you guys have seen my beautiful wife. But that's all
Speaker 1: they have. That's all they have, the Roman Catholics and
Speaker 1: the tel Avivians together. It's the only insult they have. Chunch,
Speaker 1: what's up, Chunch?
Speaker 4: I'm I don't understand why you would wait all that
Speaker 4: time and then not talk.
Speaker 1: Kenzo the Buddha, what's up? We got the actual enlightened
Speaker 1: the Buddha here with us financial crimes. Mafia grips utilize
Speaker 1: San Marino as a front for money. Lenner, Dude, what's up?
Speaker 1: Can you guys hear me? Okay, yeah, you're really loud.
Speaker 1: What's up? Let me step outside it for a second.
Speaker 1: So I've worked on murder cases.
Speaker 5: Before I worked at I was going to be an attorney,
Speaker 5: So I'll just bring this kind of to the forefront.
Speaker 5: Are you guys familiar with Power Versus Force? The Hitdden
Speaker 5: Determined That Into Behind Human Behavior and Anatomy Unconsciousness by
Speaker 5: doctor David HARTA.
Speaker 1: Hawkins.
Speaker 5: No, okay, so it's a very powerful book. Basically, as
Speaker 5: most people know that have studied quantum physics, that the
Speaker 5: universe is conscious. So I'll kind of give you an
Speaker 5: example on how this can be used in multiple ways
Speaker 5: by everybody listening, so that way they know from their
Speaker 5: own self the truth of Jeffrey Epstein being alive.
Speaker 3: I know you guys were reviewing that AI photo.
Speaker 1: We're not doing new age retarded bullshit today. Jack. What's up, Hey, Jay?
Speaker 6: How's it going.
Speaker 1: One thing I studied.
Speaker 3: I was a physics major at a college in the
Speaker 3: United States that did the first X ray in the
Speaker 3: Western hemisphere. I studied quantum physics for multiple semesters. This
Speaker 3: guy is a total moron, and I'm sick of hearing
Speaker 3: this nonsense. One thing, I kind of wanted to go
Speaker 3: back to Epstein, and if you don't want to do that,
Speaker 3: you know, go to somebody else. But my uncle's best
Speaker 3: friends was one guy named the White Rhino and the
Speaker 3: other one was Nicholas Tartaglioni. So if you look up
Speaker 3: White Rhino and Nick tartagli and FBI, you should see
Speaker 3: the articles about them. That's how Epstein's cellmate ended up
Speaker 3: in prison. One thing I will say is that you're
Speaker 3: totally right about a maximum security prison. There's absolutely no
Speaker 3: way from what I've heard from family members that you
Speaker 3: would be able to kill yourself. It's it's comical, and
Speaker 3: it goes back to I guess what was said.
Speaker 1: It's it's not me. I don't know anything about super
Speaker 1: maxis thank god, it's Sammy the Bowl from his time
Speaker 1: at Epstein's Supermax.
Speaker 3: And those were amazing interviews. And I think you're totally right.
Speaker 3: I'm Jay honestly. The fact that you've been ahead of
Speaker 3: the curve and been in the years of people like
Speaker 3: Sam Hyde and Alex Jones for years that and you
Speaker 3: only have I mean, you've done tremendous work, and I
Speaker 3: want to thank you to listen to you for a while.
Speaker 3: One thing I want to ask you, though, and I
Speaker 3: don't want to battle here, I want to get your
Speaker 3: thoughts on this. So, since Epstein was an agent, as
Speaker 3: you've clearly demonstrated, and there were people above him, why
Speaker 3: was Epstein finally arrested the first time? Why was he
Speaker 3: finally why was he arrested the second time? Why was
Speaker 3: he murdered or allowed to escape?
Speaker 1: Or was his useful life exhausted?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 3: Was it something more sinister? And I guess when I'm
Speaker 3: wondering if you consider the fact that we got the
Speaker 3: documents with enough parts unredacted for us to be confused
Speaker 3: and yelling and angry at people. But there were just
Speaker 3: enough things that were redacted that we weren't able to prosecute,
Speaker 3: or we.
Speaker 1: Weren't able to really put our foot down on people.
Speaker 1: And I and I just wanted to.
Speaker 3: I mean, we really can, but it's just not it's
Speaker 3: not overt enough, it's.
Speaker 1: Quite it's somewhat oblique. And I guess.
Speaker 3: Is, do you think that potentially the intent here is
Speaker 3: to so distrust and accelerate US fragmentation. And you have Trump,
Speaker 3: who I think is at buffoon. Maybe people disagree. He's
Speaker 3: the fall guy. He's the guy that's going to preside
Speaker 3: over tremendous cataclysm in this country. Potentially, maybe I'm wrong,
Speaker 3: maybe I'm catastrophizing, but he's the perfect individual that is
Speaker 3: too stupid to address things on their face and to
Speaker 3: just incriminate himself and make himself look like an idiot.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's lost somebody like me that voted for
Speaker 3: him twice. There's also that email that you covered on
Speaker 3: your initial stream on this topic that I saw just
Speaker 3: downloaded x again after several months I kind of go
Speaker 3: in and out of this stuff, try to focus on
Speaker 3: things I can control a little bit more. But I
Speaker 3: actually anyway, there's that email where it talks about DROG
Speaker 3: and you were like, what the hell is derog mean?
Speaker 3: And my thought was that maybe it means like either
Speaker 3: derogatory information. So it says, let's make a d ROG
Speaker 3: spreadsheet on Trump, Prince Andrew Clinton, William Barr, etc. They
Speaker 3: go through all these names, and it's right after Epstein
Speaker 3: kills himself and they immediately are compiling a spreadsheet of
Speaker 3: people they wanted to associate with him. So I guess
Speaker 3: my thought is is I couldn't explain why was he
Speaker 3: finally arrested, why was he allowed to be suicided? And
Speaker 3: then the only thing that I could think of is
Speaker 3: is this being used as a tool? Is this being
Speaker 3: used as something that is going to tarnish the leadership
Speaker 3: of this country?
Speaker 1: I mean it could be. I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: early cases I did interview the first journalists to expose
Speaker 1: and cover Epstein, Nick Bryant. In that interview is still
Speaker 1: up fairly recent on my wall. I re shared it.
Speaker 1: I mean, the reason he got arrested the first time
Speaker 1: was that there were so many victim that so many
Speaker 1: people abused by these operations that I think at a
Speaker 1: certain point, local officials, local people were forced to do something.
Speaker 1: You know. It was just there was so many victims
Speaker 1: that it's very difficult to just constantly not do anything.
Speaker 1: And also sometimes local police because they don't understand these
Speaker 1: gigantic international networks very well. I mean, you saw, for example,
Speaker 1: you know, Bannon as an educated journalist apparently not understanding
Speaker 1: fractional reserve banking, and Epstein's having to explain it to him.
Speaker 1: So it's like, I think a lot of times, perhaps
Speaker 1: the advantage of good hearted individual local law enforcement people
Speaker 1: that might be a positive because they don't realize how
Speaker 1: far this stuff goes up, and so they'll actually do
Speaker 1: some stuff. And then I think the corruption usually ends
Speaker 1: up being at a very high level. Right, the more
Speaker 1: the more it goes up, the more it's corrupt. So
Speaker 1: that would be my guess as to why you had
Speaker 1: the original arrests and prosecutions. And and also too, we
Speaker 1: get and Lord Baltimore talked about this today. We get
Speaker 1: the impression too that even amongst some of the Israeli elite,
Speaker 1: there's quite a bit of not liking each other. So,
Speaker 1: and that doesn't mean that there's not a Massad angle.
Speaker 1: Obviously there is, but there might be people within Massad
Speaker 1: that don't like Jeffrey Epstein, particularly Ari bin Minashi seems
Speaker 1: to not like him. I think there's an email where
Speaker 1: an Arianna to Rochald speaks like she doesn't really care
Speaker 1: for Nun Yahoo. That doesn't make Nun Yahoo a good guy.
Speaker 1: Just means that you can have criminals not like each
Speaker 1: other and try to screw each other over, right, So
Speaker 1: there could be an angle too to where certain people
Speaker 1: didn't like Epstein, certain people thought it would be good
Speaker 1: to burn him. So that's another possibility. But count eight,
Speaker 1: what's up? What's up? Everybody? We got about eighteen hundred
Speaker 1: a minute ago, so this week was pretty pretty packed.
Speaker 1: We had consistently two point five thousand live all week
Speaker 1: and twenty to twenty five thousand live tuned in total.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously they get more views afterwards. We're getting
Speaker 1: up forty fifty thousand views on a lot of the shows.
Speaker 1: But what's up man? Hey, Jay, do you hear me? Okay?
Speaker 7: So a lot of us like they're not specially hurst
Speaker 7: in geopolitics, or economy of that kind of stuff, especially
Speaker 7: before seeing this Epstein file release and after watching the
Speaker 7: the Epstein Banding interview. I don't know if he was
Speaker 7: bullshitting or he was talking seriously the whole time, but
Speaker 7: we had an image of these high profile elites, like
Speaker 7: those high level influential personalities as some ultra sophisticated high
Speaker 7: IQ I mean, high discipline people. But what the saga
Speaker 7: just shows, in my opinion, is that those elite power circles,
Speaker 7: it's just actually their willingness to discard ethics and through blackmail, exploitation,
Speaker 7: that kind of stuff, that's what gives them an edge
Speaker 7: rather than spurrior intelligence or sophistication.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't get the impression that Epstein is actually
Speaker 1: a great intellectual. He just seems to be very adapt
Speaker 1: at organizing, facilitating, networking, bullshitting, yapping. You know, even in
Speaker 1: this in this Bannon interview, it's a lot of yapping,
Speaker 1: and it's it's a lot of words, and it's a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, citing things to sound smart.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, he starts talking about Leibnitz and Leibnanz's philosophy,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he really understands a lot of philosophy,
Speaker 1: but it sounds you know, really really high Q high
Speaker 1: i Q high tiered to noormies. But like you're saying,
Speaker 1: what he does have a very adept understanding of is
Speaker 1: criminal networks and organizing organizing crime. That's what he is
Speaker 1: very good at that. He's that he seems to excel at.
Speaker 1: And he wouldn't excel at that. I mean, he wouldn't
Speaker 1: be put into the Trilateral Commission position according to the
Speaker 1: first twenty minutes, as he says by David Rockefeller, if
Speaker 1: he wasn't good at that, What does that tell you
Speaker 1: about the trial? Louteral, this is high level criminals, high
Speaker 1: level conman exactly. They're professional grifters, but not just like
Speaker 1: you know Instagram influencer grifters, like high level blackmail, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, almost blowfeld types. M.
Speaker 7: Also, what's striking is a also it's not just not
Speaker 7: specially high IQ. It's also a striking like absence of
Speaker 7: self discipline. I mean, they cannot get themselves to not
Speaker 7: be bds.
Speaker 1: Let's it.
Speaker 7: Or they're just Also they believe in a lot of
Speaker 7: low tear spiritual stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like it's like New age kabalistic gibbergras is
Speaker 1: what he says. Yeah, I mean Apstein doesn't really sound
Speaker 1: any different than like an Instagram yoga chick. Like the
Speaker 1: stuff he says is like the same level of that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. So it's not like he's this, you know,
Speaker 1: savant like you know, polymath or something like maybe he did.
Speaker 1: I don't really know how well he knows mathematics. Haven't
Speaker 1: looked into that, but I can tell you from philosophy
Speaker 1: that it's it's a very because he wants to play
Speaker 1: in this interview like he's like really deep into philosophy,
Speaker 1: and it's like it's kind of it's really just normy
Speaker 1: level stuff. It's not. I mean, it's like sounds like
Speaker 1: a sophomore year philosophy student, is what it sounds like. So,
Speaker 1: but I mean, you can be a kind of a
Speaker 1: Blowfeld and be very good at criminal organization. I would
Speaker 1: say he's kind of a he's an evil genius at
Speaker 1: criminal organization. I don't know about mathematics or anything else,
Speaker 1: but that's where he did seem to excel. Puny, what's up,
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 2: How's it going clean?
Speaker 8: So my question is it quickly essentially, you have a
Speaker 8: background in kademia, right, and you have plenty of years
Speaker 8: of studying and have a progress with whatever you've been
Speaker 8: doing in terms of your studies as somebody like me
Speaker 8: who is just a you know, full time worker and
Speaker 8: then I go home to a family and everything like
Speaker 8: that kind of cut off TV. I've been reading you
Speaker 8: know that way. I don't speak so good, but I've
Speaker 8: been trying to just really you know, expedite you know,
Speaker 8: my studies and stuff like that. Would you recommend in
Speaker 8: terms of finding maybe mentors or lectures and or just
Speaker 8: study in general sent academia's compromised nowadays, that's pretty much ye.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really kind of depends on what you
Speaker 1: find interesting. So it sounds like you're saying your time
Speaker 1: is limited, so you don't have a lot of time
Speaker 1: necessarily to like study five different subjects. You know, if
Speaker 1: you go to college or if you go to grad school,
Speaker 1: you're going to be learning. If you do the arts,
Speaker 1: you're going to study English, you're gonna study you're gonna
Speaker 1: study history, you're going to study philosophy. So it's quite
Speaker 1: a broad spectrum that you would do in the classical
Speaker 1: education model. So I would say you get a book
Speaker 1: like the Quadrivium. That's a good book that ties a
Speaker 1: lot of the disciplines together. It's a little square book
Speaker 1: called Quadrivium. That's a good one to have. I would read,
Speaker 1: you know, basics of philosophy, like Plato's Apology, Plato's dialogues.
Speaker 1: Read some of those to get a feel for philosophy.
Speaker 1: You could also get my philosophy course, which is in
Speaker 1: the show description. It's a full twelve lecture kind of
Speaker 1: masterclass course, twenty four hours plus of lectures, including guest
Speaker 1: PhDs to come on and discuss the subjects. But I
Speaker 1: got through the whole history of Western philosophy from the
Speaker 1: Prestocratics all the way up to Nietzsche and Postmodernism. So
Speaker 1: I would say, you know, that kind of stuff is
Speaker 1: very helpful. Professor's lectures are very helpful. You could watch
Speaker 1: Father deconductor Antonius's lectures at Patristic Faith. And then for
Speaker 1: like geopolitical stuff. I mean, I do have a whole
Speaker 1: series on my channel of writings of the Elite, and
Speaker 1: you know we've gone through probably fifty sixty seventy of
Speaker 1: those texts over the years. Over the last ten years,
Speaker 1: I would say, be familiar with Tragian hope. That's a
Speaker 1: great text for understanding geopolitics. You could get my Ester
Speaker 1: Hollywood books to you know, tying in the geopolitical side
Speaker 1: to movies. You could get Whitney Webb's book volume two
Speaker 1: on Epstein and Maxwell. That's a really timely relevant one
Speaker 1: right now. So those are good places to start. But
Speaker 1: really it kind of also depends on your own personal interest.
Speaker 1: You might not be interested in all of those topics. Milow,
Speaker 1: And this is not the big Milow.
Speaker 9: Would you be down for a tech question, quick tech question?
Speaker 1: Sure? Sure.
Speaker 9: So the texologism goes like this, right, if X is
Speaker 9: necessary for why to exist and way exist, then therefore exists.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I don't know that it necessarily necessarily needs
Speaker 1: to bring in existence. It's just necessary condition. So I
Speaker 1: mean some for some forms of logic remove the existential
Speaker 1: element or the ontological quantifiers. So for example, X is
Speaker 1: the necessary condition of why why they'refore x and that
Speaker 1: doesn't have any ontological weight kind of built into it.
Speaker 9: Okay, perfect, And one of those transcendental categories is logic, right.
Speaker 1: I would say logic is a necessary condition for knowledge.
Speaker 1: So yes, I would say you'd have.
Speaker 9: To say, yeah, and seeing some of your debates, I
Speaker 9: don't know if I got this right, but I kind
Speaker 9: of understood that the only thing that could make logic,
Speaker 9: like from your position, the only thing that could make
Speaker 9: logic possible is got s existence.
Speaker 1: Right, ultimately a divine mind.
Speaker 9: Yes, okay, so it wouldn't be possible. And for example,
Speaker 9: and a purely just empirical world view worldview, right.
Speaker 1: Well, empiris is about to do a theory of knowledge.
Speaker 1: But I would say, like an atheistic materialist worldview, that's
Speaker 1: an empiricist you know, focused worldview. Yeah, I don't think
Speaker 1: they could give a justification for universal, abstract, invariant categories
Speaker 1: or things like logic.
Speaker 9: Okay, So here's my question. So you're saying, like I
Speaker 9: don't get like I know that it like logic can't
Speaker 9: be grounded like in a purely empirical view, because it
Speaker 9: would like pre suppose that you know everything and you
Speaker 9: don't know you know that every single thing doesn't contradict
Speaker 9: logic in any way, right, But it doesn't mean that
Speaker 9: logic is not possible, you know, Like, I don't know
Speaker 9: if you understood what what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not following you there can you can you
Speaker 1: clarify that? What do you mean? Sure?
Speaker 9: So, from a purely empirical view, it wouldn't be possible
Speaker 9: to ground logic because that would presuppose you being able
Speaker 9: to know every single thing.
Speaker 1: And no, I say, yeah, so basically, right so, basically
Speaker 1: because right so, because logic has this universal quality about
Speaker 1: it for it to work, right, we don't We can't
Speaker 1: have a we can't have a world where Okay, everything
Speaker 1: on Earth is logical, but if you go under the Earth,
Speaker 1: there's no logic down there, right, So it has to
Speaker 1: be universal at all times in all places, and if
Speaker 1: you're an empiricist, there's no way to justify any universal claim. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so here's my question.
Speaker 9: Uh yeah, I know that it can't be grounded or justified,
Speaker 9: but like, does that mean that it is impossible?
Speaker 1: Say that again?
Speaker 9: So I know that it can't be grounded, but I
Speaker 9: don't know if if it not being able to be crowned,
Speaker 9: it means therefore that it doesn't exist, Like maybe you
Speaker 9: can exist, okay, but.
Speaker 1: The problem is that there's like, well what that would mean.
Speaker 1: What that would mean is that there's no good reason
Speaker 1: to believe it. So if you give up grounding or
Speaker 1: the necessity to give an account for to justify it.
Speaker 1: There's no good reason to believe it. So if there's
Speaker 1: no good reason to believe it, then there's no good
Speaker 1: reason to believe it, or it's opposite or any other position.
Speaker 1: So it really undercuts the whole point of saying, well,
Speaker 1: maybe it just is the case, but we can't know it. Okay,
Speaker 1: Well then it's kind of worthless to bring it up
Speaker 1: in a debate at that point. I'm not being dick.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that's that's how it goes. So I said,
Speaker 1: Nick says he will do a massive Epstein stream. That's good.
Speaker 1: I think it'd be good for him to get into
Speaker 1: the information call attention to it. People could say, hey,
Speaker 1: I've been covering it a NonStop all week in I
Speaker 1: think we're going on to our fifteenth or sixteenth hour
Speaker 1: of live streaming the Epstein stuff here tonight. And also
Speaker 1: to so you know, there's been a lot of kerfluffle
Speaker 1: to use sweet Candace's terminology kurfluffle kerf ruffle this week
Speaker 1: over here on X with all of the the influencers
Speaker 1: and face lords and commentators and whatnot. So I want
Speaker 1: to make it clear that we responded to the you know,
Speaker 1: the jokes that Nick makes and so forth. I'm going
Speaker 1: to respond to jokes. That's fine. But again I want
Speaker 1: to say, like, I don't have ill will towards Nick
Speaker 1: Flint this. I'm not an enemy of Nick fuin this.
Speaker 1: I've always been tried to be friendly, and you know,
Speaker 1: I want to see people flourish. I don't hate Candace,
Speaker 1: I don't hate any of the people. I want them
Speaker 1: to do well. But I don't like to see people
Speaker 1: get you know, deflected into bad ideas or whatever. So
Speaker 1: you know, I appreciate, for example that when Nick was
Speaker 1: on with Joel Webbin, he said, you know what, I
Speaker 1: have to conceive that the papas he has gone in
Speaker 1: the wrong direction when it comes to immigration and some
Speaker 1: of the stuff at Vatican too. So I appreciate Nick
Speaker 1: conceding that. So, you know, that was one of the
Speaker 1: main critiques that I had. I would say, probably, I'm guessing,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but if Nick gets into the information
Speaker 1: and he looks at a lot of the information, you know,
Speaker 1: I hope he comes to this. I think we would
Speaker 1: come to the same conclusions here. So I reached out
Speaker 1: to some people and I said, hey, here's Olive Branch.
Speaker 1: I realized that when the clips channels put up the
Speaker 1: stuff months ago that were old f wind test debates,
Speaker 1: because somebody super cheted Nick about that old debate, the
Speaker 1: clips channels put the debate up. Somebody said, are you
Speaker 1: going to debate Nick? I said, I will debate Nick.
Speaker 1: I would like to have another debate. Nick took that
Speaker 1: as an attack, and I can understand why he would
Speaker 1: feel that way. So I apologize for giving the impression
Speaker 1: that I trying to be aggressive or come at Nick.
Speaker 1: I know what it's like to feel like everybody's kind
Speaker 1: of at your throat, everybody's trying to fight you and
Speaker 1: disagree with you. So I apologize for giving the impression
Speaker 1: that I wanted to be aggressive or something like that.
Speaker 1: And people then say, well, you're only talking about this
Speaker 1: because you want to write his coat tails and you're jealous,
Speaker 1: and look't Nick doesn't have to talk to me. We
Speaker 1: don't have to have any kind of a I don't
Speaker 1: need to ride his coat tails or anything like that.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to grift on Nick or any of that.
Speaker 1: I don't need any kind of public thing. I wish
Speaker 1: Nick the best. If you would like to discuss these topics,
Speaker 1: I'm more than happy to give a friendly explanation of
Speaker 1: the positions. And you know, I don't have any ill will.
Speaker 1: I want people to become orthodox. I want people to
Speaker 1: give that a chance. I want people to hear what
Speaker 1: we have to say, whether it's Candae, whether it's Nick.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, most of the positions when it
Speaker 1: comes to the geopolitical stuff that comes out, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the information as it comes out, most of
Speaker 1: the time we end up coming to the same conclusions
Speaker 1: on a lot of things, maybe not everything, and a
Speaker 1: lot of things that Nick comes to. So you know,
Speaker 1: when it comes to alignment, we tend to be geopolitically aligned.
Speaker 1: And when he concedes those points on the Vatican and whatnot,
Speaker 1: I think that's a strong point. Are we do the
Speaker 1: stream cutout? Are we still hear it? Makeing sure it
Speaker 1: looks like it am. I have just refreshed. So I
Speaker 1: sent out some statements to mutual friends because I don't
Speaker 1: actually have any direct flint test information, So I don't like,
Speaker 1: I don't have his contact info or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So I just told some friends that knew him and
Speaker 1: I said, hey, reach out. I said it to Tim
Speaker 1: Gordon as well. I said, look all the branch, I
Speaker 1: don't want to fight with Nick Flint, Tess. I don't
Speaker 1: dislike Nick Flint this on any personal level. I did
Speaker 1: say some things in DMS that I wish that he
Speaker 1: hadn't said. But hopefully, you know, he understood that I
Speaker 1: was explaining my situation as to why certain things in
Speaker 1: certain outlets I don't talk about, like YouTube and so forth.
Speaker 1: I did undergo quite a bit of deplatforming and persecution
Speaker 1: as well for talking about these subjects. So I think
Speaker 1: to cast it as if I don't talk about dangerous
Speaker 1: things and I've never been persecuted. That's not true. So
Speaker 1: but he may not be aware of the elements of
Speaker 1: things that I've gone through. So I haven't made it
Speaker 1: a big part of what we talk about over here.
Speaker 1: When he says something about us, I do respond. So
Speaker 1: I have responded in the last several months to I
Speaker 1: think five different times that he's brought me up. And look,
Speaker 1: that's that's friendly, silly banter. So you know, if people
Speaker 1: can make fun of me, I don't see why I
Speaker 1: can't make a joke back. But I think the merch
Speaker 1: was a miss. I think the position on the conspiracy
Speaker 1: hard stuff is a mistake. However he may have meant Candace,
Speaker 1: So I would agree with Nick. I think Nick and
Speaker 1: I have been on the very same page with Candace,
Speaker 1: and a lot of stuff that Candace has said I
Speaker 1: think is getting crazy. And really the only position that
Speaker 1: I mainly disagree with was the Vatican take in regard
Speaker 1: to the idea that well, the Roman Catholic Church has
Speaker 1: just kind of made some bad political positions. Well, the
Speaker 1: problem with that is that the political positions reflect Gaudium
Speaker 1: at Spez, which is part of Vatican two, and also
Speaker 1: Noceritate and Lumigentium are Vatican two documents as well. So
Speaker 1: like the theology and the geopolitics, they actually go together
Speaker 1: because a lot of people don't realize like humanism is
Speaker 1: a geopolitical movement as well, and that's what we see
Speaker 1: in the David Wimhoff text that we've covered. So so
Speaker 1: there's my offering of you know, let's have a why
Speaker 1: don't we have a what if we Here's what I
Speaker 1: think could work. And again I'm not saying this because
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get attention. I would be happy to
Speaker 1: have a private conversation that nobody hears. We could have
Speaker 1: Tim Gordon there as well, other Catholics as well, So
Speaker 1: you know, I constantly try to explain that, like I
Speaker 1: want to see people do well and flourish, and I
Speaker 1: try to give olid branches and then usually what I
Speaker 1: get in response is, you know, pretty rough things back.
Speaker 1: So that kind of puts me then in a defensive mode. Again.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, all right, so every time you try to,
Speaker 1: you know, offer an olive branch, it seems to get
Speaker 1: you know, discarded. So you know, whatever, Look, I don't
Speaker 1: want to like I've had the same message for ten years.
Speaker 1: I tell everybody the same thing, So you know, that's
Speaker 1: the best I can do. I guess, Dimitri, what's up.
Speaker 1: I think that it's important for us as Orthodox to
Speaker 1: do to handle all these situations the most in the
Speaker 1: most righteous way, and so I don't go after people's
Speaker 1: private drama. Never done that. I only talk about the
Speaker 1: issues where I disagree. I'm not going after I don't
Speaker 1: talk about Elijah Shaeffer's issues and Sarah stocks issues. We
Speaker 1: don't do personal drama over We stick to the topics
Speaker 1: and the issues a lot of people do the drama streams.
Speaker 1: I've never really done that, so I would think you
Speaker 1: guys would have the people would appreciate that we only
Speaker 1: talk about and specifically go against the issues of the
Speaker 1: areas of disagreement. And I'm spurgery like that, Like I
Speaker 1: don't go after people's personal lives. Ever, we don't ever
Speaker 1: do that. What's up? Man?
Speaker 8: Oh hey, I have a question, and you know I'm
Speaker 8: a big fan of your show, and it's about what
Speaker 8: do you saw something Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: I mean, I've always had pretty much the same position
Speaker 1: about any politician. Uh you know, when they if they
Speaker 1: ever rarely do something good, then I guess that's great.
Speaker 1: Most of the time they don't. I mean, I've been
Speaker 1: post politics for a long time. I never really had
Speaker 1: a huge expectations, so I don't. I don't know what
Speaker 1: people are looking for with that. I mean kind of
Speaker 1: the same way I view Putin, Like I don't worship Putin.
Speaker 1: If Putin does something good, that's great, but uh, trust
Speaker 1: not in princes and sons of men. Scripture says, what's up?
Speaker 1: I mean we sing that every time in the liturgy, right,
Speaker 1: every liturgy is trust not in princes and sons of men?
Speaker 1: What's up? What's up? So I have a question. And
Speaker 1: so regarding tech, so.
Speaker 10: I watched the videos on tech to trinity and everything,
Speaker 10: but I still don't get how that gets you to
Speaker 10: the Bible and Christianity in specific.
Speaker 1: Okay, but the Bible in Christianity is the only religion
Speaker 1: that even posits a personal triad. So what what other
Speaker 1: what other trinity? What other personal triad trinity would it
Speaker 1: get you to? Well, it could just be like in deism,
Speaker 1: just like a generic Again, it's not Deism wouldn't work
Speaker 1: because deism wouldn't ground any of the universal categories because
Speaker 1: deism is a religion where or it's a pseudo religion
Speaker 1: is an atheistic position where you don't have any connection
Speaker 1: to the deity. The deity is not related to this world.
Speaker 1: So it wouldn't do any of the grounding work. Aiden,
Speaker 1: what's up? I'm you? Aiden? Do you hear me? Yeah?
Speaker 1: There we go, It's okay. I gotta I have two
Speaker 1: questions for you. The first one, I'm really curious if
Speaker 1: you I think you would say that you at least
Speaker 1: hope for I.
Speaker 11: Personally believe that America will will will become Orthodox.
Speaker 1: What do you think that looks like? Do you think
Speaker 1: that will be you cut out? Man, I can't hear
Speaker 1: you kind of. I mean, we're a long time from that,
Speaker 1: so I don't know what. I don't know what you
Speaker 1: mean by what does that look like? I hope so JB.
Speaker 1: Pild five dollars do did a great job. The internet
Speaker 1: is spazzing out and this is a hot topic. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You tell about Epstein? Ye, But John M. Pilton dollars,
Speaker 1: I'm a traditional Catholic. I'm sure you've been asked this
Speaker 1: many times. What is the straw that broke the camel's
Speaker 1: back for you? As a traditional Catholic? Nick says he
Speaker 1: will do a super stream on Epstein. Well, there wasn't
Speaker 1: like one thing, I think for me, you know, it
Speaker 1: was a long it was a long journey. It took
Speaker 1: me a long time to come out of tradcatism because
Speaker 1: I was I was really into it. I was wedded
Speaker 1: to it for most of my twenties. I think the
Speaker 1: big the big thing was ultimately probably just if you read,
Speaker 1: you know, the sixteen Papal Documents book from Tan Publishers,
Speaker 1: and then you compare that to what is obviously not
Speaker 1: just Vatican two, but the entire teaching of the papacy
Speaker 1: and its magisterium since Vatican Two, there's just a mountain
Speaker 1: of contradictions. And I tried all the different routes for
Speaker 1: many years to synthesize it, you know, the traditional reading,
Speaker 1: the reading of the hermonutic of continuity, and on and
Speaker 1: on on and and eventually, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you just get to the point where you realize, Okay,
Speaker 1: even if I have all this criminutic of continuity that
Speaker 1: tries to make it all work, or I try to
Speaker 1: become a set of a contest and reconcile the system,
Speaker 1: and like, at the end of the day, the papacy
Speaker 1: hates you. And once you kind of come to realization
Speaker 1: that do the papacy doesn't want you or the trads
Speaker 1: anywhere near Catholicism. They're ready for you to leave. I
Speaker 1: was like, okay, I'm done being you know, a Stockholm
Speaker 1: syndrome person like people that like don't like you or
Speaker 1: don't like me. I'm not going to keep sucking up
Speaker 1: and being like, please like me, please like me. You know,
Speaker 1: I'd give offers of all a branch and let's let's
Speaker 1: not be enemies here, Let's try to talk it out.
Speaker 1: Let's have a conversation, you know, let's say with Nick
Speaker 1: or something like that. But I mean, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, like if people just I'm not going
Speaker 1: to keep doing that. Like at a certain point, it's like,
Speaker 1: all right, I've tried all of you know, everything I
Speaker 1: can do extended on my side. It's the same way
Speaker 1: with power structures too. It's like the power structure doesn't
Speaker 1: want you there, Like, why are you fighting for people
Speaker 1: that hate you? It doesn't make any sense. Kim, what's up?
Speaker 1: Goober gang? Twenty dollars? Jay? Would you debate Jacob Hanson?
Speaker 1: I think we've asked that guy to call in many times.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he'll ever call in, But I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think we're going to get I mean maybe
Speaker 1: down the road if there's some high profile podcasts to
Speaker 1: do that or something. He claims that you won't debate him,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know where he's getting that. What's up?
Speaker 12: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 13: So I am I was born and raised Catholic, and I'm.
Speaker 1: Have my mind made up. I want to convert to Orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: There are two things that I.
Speaker 13: Don't know how to descend though, when I'm talking about
Speaker 13: other when I'm talking to other Catholics about Orthodoxy, and
Speaker 13: I haven't found any videos that you do on it.
Speaker 13: The first one is how not all of Orthodoxy agrees
Speaker 13: on rebaptism, And then the second one is, I guess
Speaker 13: just the issue of like how would the Orthodox Church
Speaker 13: hold an ecumenical council.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, ecumenical councils aren't even necessary for
Speaker 1: the church. There was no ecumenical council for three hundred
Speaker 1: years of the church. So I mean those are kind
Speaker 1: of like those are sort of Roman Catholic categories that
Speaker 1: they sort of impose their system and say, well, when
Speaker 1: are you going to have the you know, Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: model operating? And then I'll you know, then I'll believe
Speaker 1: your system. And it's like, well, but we don't have
Speaker 1: that system, so you have to understand it's a different system.
Speaker 1: So so Father John Whiteford has a talk right here
Speaker 1: that I would recommend with David Rhon and it's Baptism
Speaker 1: and the Reception of Converts. It's a really good video
Speaker 1: going through that topic. So Baptism and the Reception of
Speaker 1: Converts Father John Whiteford and David Ahhun right there, okay,
Speaker 1: And then in regard to ecamenical councils, I would, I mean,
Speaker 1: we've covered that topic many, many times, but it's oftentimes
Speaker 1: in these long livestreams, so I don't actually think of
Speaker 1: a I can't think of a single live stream where
Speaker 1: it's where it's necessarily covered as an issue. But I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's it's not really there orth like churches
Speaker 1: functioning like the church functions in the first thousand years.
Speaker 1: So for example, there's many situations in the Roman Catholic
Speaker 1: list of numbering that doesn't make any sense. Like even
Speaker 1: in the Roman Catholic system they could say, well, we
Speaker 1: have at least a way to have that medical councils
Speaker 1: with the papacy. Their system itself doesn't have any coherent
Speaker 1: way to list or explain ecumenical councils. For example, latter
Speaker 1: in six forty nine, by their reckoning, should be an
Speaker 1: ecumenical council, and it was supposed to be. It was
Speaker 1: one of the first councils called by the pope and
Speaker 1: not by an emperor. And even Roman Catholics don't list
Speaker 1: latter in six forty nine as an ecumenical Council. So
Speaker 1: why would you have the six Econimical Council meeting in
Speaker 1: six eighty six to decide an issue which supposedly should
Speaker 1: have been already reconciled in six forty nine at the
Speaker 1: first latter in council. So like that doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense in their reckoning. Plus, consider the fact that ecumenical
Speaker 1: councils from a Roman Catholic perspective, according to Vatican One,
Speaker 1: are subservient to the papacy. And yet we have at
Speaker 1: the Council of Constance a unicumenical council above the papacy
Speaker 1: because it's the council that decides which pope is the
Speaker 1: true pope when there's three rival popes during the Great
Speaker 1: Western Schism, So which one is it? Is the pope
Speaker 1: Abova council or is he subservient to it? Well, what
Speaker 1: this shows you is that we'll clearly the papacy then
Speaker 1: is an evolving doctrinal development position. But that means that
Speaker 1: if it evolved and developed, then Vatican one is not
Speaker 1: true because it claims that it was always the case.
Speaker 1: So over and over and over we see that their
Speaker 1: expectation for us is something that their system doesn't offer
Speaker 1: even make sense of and why would we expect that
Speaker 1: there has to be ecumenical councils when there is no
Speaker 1: eikumene or imperium. Furthermore, post eighth ecumenical Council, we have
Speaker 1: universally accepted in the entire world of Orthodoxy is the
Speaker 1: ninth Council, which is the Palamite Synods. So there have
Speaker 1: been pan Orthodox accepted teachings and councils in Dogmas post
Speaker 1: even eighth Council. Jack, what's up? Uh? Yeah, thanks, thanks
Speaker 1: for giving me another shot here. I actually do want
Speaker 1: to talk about this. I am a you call me
Speaker 1: a trad cap I frankly.
Speaker 3: I just come from an atheist family and I'm just
Speaker 3: trying to follow my way to Jesus Christ and that's
Speaker 3: gone through the Catholic Church.
Speaker 1: So uh, you called me a troll.
Speaker 3: One time when when I called it on a debate
Speaker 3: several months ago. But I just want to ask you
Speaker 3: a couple like a pointed just just really one pointing
Speaker 3: question about this. To Kin's point, when like you, you
Speaker 3: see things like contraception, the fact that from what I
Speaker 3: can see, that's not universally opposed in the.
Speaker 1: Worth doc church.
Speaker 3: There are instances in which it is relegated to preests
Speaker 3: from what I understand.
Speaker 1: Correct, have you have you seen have you seen have
Speaker 1: you seen Ubi's documentary? Yeah? Did you watch Ubi's documentary
Speaker 1: on this topic?
Speaker 3: I did not.
Speaker 1: Can you can you blink me to it? Or yeah?
Speaker 1: So Ubi Patris in the chat. Yeah, we've already covered
Speaker 1: this one hundred times, Ubi Patris. That's why we did
Speaker 1: two different videos on this two different documentars, a documentary
Speaker 1: and a interview with doctor Bradshaw on this topic.
Speaker 4: You understand, did the page I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be combative or anything.
Speaker 3: I'm just genuinely curious if you could give me the
Speaker 3: spark notes here.
Speaker 1: But well, that's why we made this documentary. Sounds good,
Speaker 1: all right? I what are some what are some other issues?
Speaker 1: So it's right here. One of them is it's called
Speaker 1: contraception n FP and humana vita. This is one of
Speaker 1: the videos. And then the other one is I think
Speaker 1: it's called divorce and remarriage, but it also gets into
Speaker 1: what you're referring to here. It is divorce and re
Speaker 1: marriage in the early Church fathers. So there's two different ones,
Speaker 1: contraception and then divorce and remarriage. Why did the papacy
Speaker 1: accept the Basilian Canons?
Speaker 3: Jack, Oh, well, listen, I'm not super well versed on
Speaker 3: these things.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to speak out of turn here. I
Speaker 1: don't even know what those are. No, So, the Canons
Speaker 1: of Saint Basil, the Canons of Saint Basil are the
Speaker 1: Eastern normative canon law for many centuries. Rome had no
Speaker 1: problem with the Basilian Canons, the Canons of Saint Basil,
Speaker 1: and they allow for certain circumstances like fornication for there
Speaker 1: to be remarriage. And by the way, UBI also shows
Speaker 1: examples of popes per divorce and remarriage in the first
Speaker 1: thousand years. And so it's just it becomes a really annoying,
Speaker 1: just moral want to be trump card that you guys
Speaker 1: don't actually have. Well, what's up, Hey, Jay, what's up?
Speaker 1: What's your question?
Speaker 14: Hey Jay?
Speaker 12: I've seriously been enjoying the streams this past week or so,
Speaker 12: especially the one when Epstein's trying to figure out how
Speaker 12: to get the kosher pig kosher pigs.
Speaker 1: That one was hilarious. One. I wanted to.
Speaker 12: Know if you have heard or seen any evangelical leaders
Speaker 12: mentioned in the files or corresponding with Epstein A really
Speaker 12: good question.
Speaker 1: Should not. I don't even know if anybody's even thought
Speaker 1: to look at that, but they should. That's a great question,
Speaker 1: really good.
Speaker 12: Well one one one name comes to mind, Jerry Folwell
Speaker 12: as a as a Liberty UNI as a Liberty University
Speaker 12: student myself. That really does interest me. I know that
Speaker 12: he was down in Miami a lot. That's where he
Speaker 12: met his wife's boyfriend. And it just it would not
Speaker 12: surprise me him being in that upper echelon of of society.
Speaker 12: Interested to know if if, if his or any other
Speaker 12: big names are mentioned. Uh. I did have another thing
Speaker 12: I wanted to mention, and it was a caller that
Speaker 12: called in either earlier this week or later last week,
Speaker 12: and that one my question revolves around the forthcoming Bethels scandal.
Speaker 1: Uh that has has recently. Yes, I don't uh like
Speaker 1: Mike Winger at all. I don't know anything about Mike
Speaker 1: Winger other than that people are saying that he is
Speaker 1: covering this well, which I don't even know what this is. Uh,
Speaker 1: he did a five hour live stream.
Speaker 12: Yeah, he's he's clearly a goober. But you know, bethel
Speaker 12: Is is a is the powerhouse for pumping out the
Speaker 12: trancelike worship songs that a ton of churches around the
Speaker 12: world use, especially in the US.
Speaker 1: Okay, even if they.
Speaker 12: Don't subscribe to the charismatic thing?
Speaker 1: Okay? Can can somebody give me the the t L
Speaker 1: d R. I don't I'm not going to watch a
Speaker 1: five hour Mike Winger stream. What's the basic idea?
Speaker 12: Well, as far as I know, it revolves around a
Speaker 12: profit type guy that.
Speaker 1: It's already off to a bad start, so I know.
Speaker 12: Right, yeah, But he was endorsed by Bill Johnson, who
Speaker 12: I believe uh knew of his you know, uh Shenanigans?
Speaker 1: And and who and who is who is Bill Johnson?
Speaker 1: Help me understand? Who's Bill Johnson? I don't know these names?
Speaker 1: Who are these people?
Speaker 12: Bill Johnson is like top man at Bethel Okay?
Speaker 1: And and and is this a megachurch or like a
Speaker 1: megachurch that makes music like Hillsong or what exactly is it?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 15: Oh?
Speaker 12: Bethel is identical to Hillsong in that they're an international,
Speaker 12: multi campus uh charismatic, crazy cult church. But the majority,
Speaker 12: I mean a ton of evangelical churches of all denominations
Speaker 12: have to subscribe to be able to play their music
Speaker 12: in their churches. On top of that, they have like
Speaker 12: a college of some sort.
Speaker 1: You don't get a degree, you.
Speaker 12: Get a certificate, and supposedly, by the time you graduate,
Speaker 12: you'll be able to do all of these superhuman feats
Speaker 12: like praying people back to life, praying people, you know,
Speaker 12: to have cancer cured, and what have you. But anyway,
Speaker 12: Bill Johnson has he has supported this profit type guy
Speaker 12: who is a sexual deviate under you know, under the surface.
Speaker 1: But he's a prophet.
Speaker 12: Suppose yeah, he's a prophet's he was. He was brought
Speaker 12: around to different conferences that Bethel would put on. He'd
Speaker 12: come and visit different campuses that Beth has, you know,
Speaker 12: like a paid to play type of guy. But he
Speaker 12: would prophesy over people that were in the crowd, and
Speaker 12: all his prophecies revolved around was easily accessible information on
Speaker 12: people that he knew were in the crowd, So he'd
Speaker 12: go on their facebooks, he'd go on their instagrams. He'd
Speaker 12: scrape up some corny info from that and then use
Speaker 12: that in his you know, live prophesying at these events.
Speaker 16: On top of.
Speaker 12: Like being a sexual deb.
Speaker 1: Wow, well, you know, it's almost always these sort of
Speaker 1: like so called profits that it's like like Joseph Smith
Speaker 1: or that are just like in some kind of crazy
Speaker 1: sex goal. So no shocker there, Archer. What's up, man, Okay,
Speaker 1: what's up? What's on your mind?
Speaker 3: What's on the line is.
Speaker 1: The Epstein files.
Speaker 11: I mean, I saw you retweeted a couple of things,
Speaker 11: and it kind of seems.
Speaker 1: Like you're, I guess, pushing this.
Speaker 11: I mean, there's a lot of misinformation and franking, fake bullshit,
Speaker 11: and I saw you repost a few of them, which
Speaker 11: doesn't really feel intellectually rigorous.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean I could have made him. I could
Speaker 1: have made a mistake. Sure which one did I mess
Speaker 1: up on? Well, there's a few.
Speaker 11: I mean, like, well, most of the stuff that's going
Speaker 11: on Twitter is is this when it's the screenshots and stuff.
Speaker 11: But for example, the picture of Jeffrey Epstein has the
Speaker 11: little girl on his lap and he's sitting with a
Speaker 11: Duban guy, Glenn Dubin. That's literally his daughter, that's Jeffrey
Speaker 11: Epstein's goddaughter. And then everyone made this insinuation that he's
Speaker 11: like raping this little girl.
Speaker 1: It's absurd. Okay, I don't even think I shared that photo.
Speaker 1: I may have. I may have, but then then there
Speaker 1: was the other one of them. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: that is still a suspect, because what do you mean, like, like,
Speaker 1: anybody bringing their children to that guy is immediately suspect.
Speaker 1: So why would that be dis info? Even that?
Speaker 11: Okay, well it's his goddaughter friends with Glenn Dubin, So
Speaker 11: Glenn Duben will.
Speaker 1: Bring his daughter around. Well, so these people don't know
Speaker 1: who this person is, and like, who would bring who
Speaker 1: would bring your children around this guy?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean, okay, sure, but that doesn't really matter
Speaker 11: when they're friends.
Speaker 13: You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Like that, No, it absolutely doesn't matter. In fact that
Speaker 1: their friends makes it even worse. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Your trolling? What do you trolling? Get out of here, dude,
Speaker 1: fuck you trash. See this is he thinks that's funny
Speaker 1: to cover up for Epstein. He thinks that's funny. Intellectually rigorous. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what would you what would be revealed or happen in
Speaker 1: the world for your worldview to be incorrect? Faraden says
Speaker 1: for five dollars, well done with these emails. You seem
Speaker 1: to be the one covering it. Uh, I mean I
Speaker 1: think that if anybody's worldview would be undone if there's
Speaker 1: a fundamental, like paradigm level contradiction. So but I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't see how that could be given the I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really what we hinge our world view on. So
Speaker 1: what's up, Hi? How you doing? I have a question
Speaker 1: for you? Yeah, That's why I said, yeah, what's up?
Speaker 1: She right? I'm sorry.
Speaker 17: So are you aware of the stream that Ben did
Speaker 17: yesterday about the couplistic roots and Protestantism.
Speaker 1: I have heard Anthony Westgate's take on some of that,
Speaker 1: and I do already separate from I think Anthey and
Speaker 1: I did a I think we did a podcast on
Speaker 1: that one time too, so I'm familiar. I did not
Speaker 1: hear their stream, but I know this material somewhat well, gotcha.
Speaker 17: I just wanted to get your opinion on that because
Speaker 17: I thought I had a lot of roots with Memorialism,
Speaker 17: just because.
Speaker 1: I think you you can vindicate.
Speaker 17: It a lot and a lot of times people just
Speaker 17: kind of underestimate your opinion and then you know, ten
Speaker 17: fifteen years later down.
Speaker 1: The line, what did you say? Just turn this to
Speaker 1: be true?
Speaker 17: So I just wanted to see if you had any
Speaker 17: opinions about those two or well related what to be Yeah,
Speaker 17: with narcissism and memorialism in the Eucharist.
Speaker 1: With Protestant oh, I don't. I mean there probably is.
Speaker 1: I mean, definitely there's a connection between just the anti
Speaker 1: sacramental approach of Protestantism and the idea of gnosticism that
Speaker 1: it's anti material, it's anti sacramental. So that's true. But
Speaker 1: exactly how you trace that lineage. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: argue that like Luther and Calvin had perhaps Gnostic influence.
Speaker 1: I mean, Luther was influenced by the Theologia Germanica, which
Speaker 1: has Gnostic influence, but Luther is still believe in the
Speaker 1: real press, so it's not exactly gnostic. But also the
Speaker 1: second generation Lutherans like Johann Andre were it appears into Rosicrucianism.
Speaker 1: So I would say that's the case, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: So the strict memorials memorialist view is like the counter Reformation,
Speaker 1: and that's a whole bunch of kind of weirdos. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, I mean, excuse me, radical Reformation. I
Speaker 1: don't know who in the Radical Reformation would be the
Speaker 1: most influential and influenced by gnosticism. So probably there is
Speaker 1: an academic work out there that demonstrates that, but I
Speaker 1: just don't know off the top of my head, An Schultz.
Speaker 1: I mean imagine calling in and like thinking it's funny
Speaker 1: to defend Jeff Say mcguffrey, Like I just like this,
Speaker 1: so weird. What's up, man, Hey man, what's a great stream?
Speaker 18: I got a question for you about kind of the
Speaker 18: argument you use to defeat Protestants when it comes to
Speaker 18: the cande of scripture. I'm wondering how you integrate that
Speaker 18: into the Old Testament because I've been encountering some people
Speaker 18: who say, well, there wasn't a church, there wasn't a
Speaker 18: formalized canon or epistemic principle.
Speaker 1: Of the church. Yeah, but what there was in the
Speaker 1: Old Testament. We already dealt with this objection in the
Speaker 1: Dale the Protestant debate. So if you watch me and
Speaker 1: doctor Branson debate Dale the Protestant, I think Dale brings
Speaker 1: up this for some version of this kind of an argument.
Speaker 1: And doctor Branson, who really specializes in part in this
Speaker 1: area with how a second Temple, Judaism and earlier functioned.
Speaker 1: They had normative authorities in the levitical courts, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't a sol scripture issue. You didn't just read the
Speaker 1: scrolls and interpret them for yourselves. In fact, the priest
Speaker 1: and levite had the authority to interpret and make judgments
Speaker 1: on the basis of the law. So this is actually
Speaker 1: worse for the Protestant to try to go to the
Speaker 1: Old Testament as a proof of soul scapturro when it's
Speaker 1: in fact the opposite.
Speaker 18: Are you there, Okay, No, that's good. Yeah, it's good,
Speaker 18: thank you. And you would say it's kind of like
Speaker 18: the same kind of principle.
Speaker 1: There's a normative authority, there's tradition, absolutely no. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church a snodal model comes out of the
Speaker 1: Jewish sonodal model. That's exactly the argument that we make
Speaker 1: against Dale the Protestant, because Dale tries to take that
Speaker 1: route and say, well, hey, Old Testament, it's soul scaptura.
Speaker 1: They're going by the Bible the text level. Actually, even
Speaker 1: in the Old Testament they have the oral law to
Speaker 1: the to the law and the testimony. Isaiah says, well,
Speaker 1: the testimony is the oral tradition. Now there's bad oral
Speaker 1: tradition and there's good oral tradition both are the case
Speaker 1: and Jesus himself in certain places Paul as well, they
Speaker 1: cite oral tradition right in the Old Testament. So there's
Speaker 1: legiti oral tradition, and there's fake old tradition which was
Speaker 1: attempting to at times replace the Word of God that
Speaker 1: even Jeremiah bitches about. Right. So Jeremiah in certain chapters
Speaker 1: saying hey describes and the Pharisees are adding to and
Speaker 1: corrupting the texts uh so, good question though, good question, true, patristic, true, Patricia,
Speaker 1: you want to I'm mute.
Speaker 14: Yeah, ok, I have a question on the trinity. Yes,
Speaker 14: so I have heard many times and obviously the Orthodox
Speaker 14: doctrine is that the Father is the one God, so
Speaker 14: defunt right now.
Speaker 1: The difficulty I.
Speaker 2: Have is when we say.
Speaker 14: The one and the three, meaning the one of the many, right,
Speaker 14: so you have the one God, which doctrinally rehab to
Speaker 14: says the Father. However, the divine essence is what we're
Speaker 14: actually referring.
Speaker 4: To when we say that.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, it's a both hands.
Speaker 14: Okay, And you explain the how it's not the botomy
Speaker 14: like a false dichotomy that like a contradictory the ichotomy
Speaker 14: there because that's it's easing me.
Speaker 1: How can it be full of hands for that? Because
Speaker 1: the word God picks out different things, the same argument
Speaker 1: we make against Muslims, right, Muslims think that God can
Speaker 1: only pick out Allah himself or Allah essence. And then
Speaker 1: you say, well, but doesn't Alla have ninety nine names
Speaker 1: and all these attributes, and doesn't it also pick out
Speaker 1: the attributes? So you notice that the Muslim, for example,
Speaker 1: immediately runs into that issue with thinking that God only
Speaker 1: has a single reference. Well, in scripture and in tradition,
Speaker 1: God can pick out first and foremost the person of
Speaker 1: the Father, but it can also pick out a divine
Speaker 1: energy or operation. It can pick out a divine hypostasis,
Speaker 1: and it can pick out the divine essence, and it
Speaker 1: can also pick out angels, humans and demons. So the
Speaker 1: word God is used in many different senses. That makes sense.
Speaker 14: Now my question would be this might be some of
Speaker 14: the question, but so does the essence from hypostace he's
Speaker 14: from the father or is it a misunderstanding?
Speaker 1: So doesn't it be so according to the original Nicene creed,
Speaker 1: the son is generated whole and entire from the Father's essence,
Speaker 1: so that means that everything that the that the son has,
Speaker 1: and Jesus himself says this, right, everything that I have,
Speaker 1: he has from the Father, so that would include his
Speaker 1: hypostasis and his essence. And later Blackerne says that it
Speaker 1: is the even the essence itself is communicated from the
Speaker 1: father to the son. Right.
Speaker 14: And now that being said, the divinecence, which is proper
Speaker 14: to the father's hypostaces like pontologically, the father becomes before
Speaker 14: the divine essence.
Speaker 1: Now there's no before or after relations in an eternal generation.
Speaker 1: The father is the source. It's a personal hypostatic source.
Speaker 1: It's not the divine essence that's the source. So it
Speaker 1: was the divine essence that was the source. Then the
Speaker 1: would generate inspirate itself, right, the spirit would spirate himself.
Speaker 1: It's the father's essence. And that's why we talk about
Speaker 1: in hypostatized the essence only exists in the mode of
Speaker 1: the persons that have it. So the essence exists in
Speaker 1: the person of the father. And thus the son is
Speaker 1: generated of the father's essence. It's not just he's generated
Speaker 1: from the divine essence. He's generated from the father's essence.
Speaker 1: So that's the way Athenacious constantly argues that against the
Speaker 1: Arians perfect.
Speaker 14: And my last question would be, because each mentioned happenacious,
Speaker 14: would there be a particular reading from the Church fathers
Speaker 14: that you would recommend on this topic.
Speaker 1: I would get khalid Anatolios's book on Athenacious because there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different I mean, there's a whole volume
Speaker 1: over here. I mean you could read the Discourse against
Speaker 1: the Arians. But kaleid Anatolius's book is really good kind
Speaker 1: of collating all of the Athenacious texts into explaining how
Speaker 1: he conceives of the triad. But great questions. Appreciate that, William,
Speaker 1: what's up? I have? Khalid Onnatoya's is one of his
Speaker 1: affenacious books. I think he's got a few, but there's
Speaker 1: one that I think specifically is dealing mainly with the
Speaker 1: generation of the sun. William, what's up? You gonna wanna?
Speaker 1: I'm mute? All right? Caspar? What's up?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 1: H Caspar? You want I'm mute?
Speaker 7: Hey?
Speaker 1: What's up? Man? How you doing good? What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 1: Much? So?
Speaker 16: I was debating an atheist the other day and they
Speaker 16: got in.
Speaker 1: They got stuck on this.
Speaker 16: Uh key five mortal modal logic, and I kept saying it,
Speaker 16: I don't see how he's making the jump from you know,
Speaker 16: if if God's necessary in some other world, he's unnecessary.
Speaker 16: I don't I didn't understand the jump, and I just
Speaker 16: kept saying like, that's as a non secretar, it's not.
Speaker 1: Really going anywhere. I still can't answer the deeper. I
Speaker 1: just wanted to hear what your insight to that would be.
Speaker 1: That would be a good question for FDA. And he's
Speaker 1: not here. You know, he's a lot more studied in
Speaker 1: the modal logic stuff than I am. So I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna have to plead. I'm not sure exactly because I
Speaker 1: don't know exactly what the guy's arguing. But Chinese script,
Speaker 1: what's up? I can't read your name? You want to unmute? Okay, Lasia,
Speaker 1: Lejandro Aleandro? What's so? Lady got Goy? What's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Lady God Goy? Hey Jay.
Speaker 6: First of all, I just want to tell you thanks
Speaker 6: see you and Father h I said to start going
Speaker 6: to the Dogs Church Sunday. I'm a first fourth of
Speaker 6: Dogs Church, so this Sunday and one that leurgy. Thank
Speaker 6: you for that.
Speaker 1: But also you're saying you're going. Did you it's hard
Speaker 1: to hear you. Did you? Did you say you're going
Speaker 1: to Father Josiah's church? You said, I couldn't hear you.
Speaker 18: No, No, I wish now it's just the church with
Speaker 18: the dogs church.
Speaker 1: I found your body, Okay, gotcha, go ahead. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: I wanted to.
Speaker 6: Ask you about this movie that I found a while ago,
Speaker 6: and and I.
Speaker 1: Was just thinking about it.
Speaker 6: I was like, Jay would probably like called the classic
Speaker 6: animation adventure movie.
Speaker 1: It's called The Adventures of Mark Twain. It's like a
Speaker 1: movie on thost.
Speaker 18: Okay, it's really like weird, a lot of symbolisms.
Speaker 1: You might like it, Okay, Adventures of the Mark Fighting
Speaker 1: Oh is that that weird one that's got all it's
Speaker 1: kind of gone viral for having like weird stuff in it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it shows satan. I like the animation stuff, but it's
Speaker 1: really weird. Thinking you you definitely catch some Okay, I
Speaker 1: would be able to Yeah, all right, yeah, okay, I
Speaker 1: appreciate that. I'll check it out. Now. I've got a
Speaker 1: lot of energy. I'm gonna keep going. If you guys
Speaker 1: want to hang around. We got a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the chat. We still got at least ten people
Speaker 1: lined up for questions. But I'm gonna have to run
Speaker 1: to the little girls room and go T T. So
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let y'all listen to a little bit of
Speaker 1: this interesting spy music and I will be right back.
Speaker 1: Don't go anywhere. Here's some spy tunes that fits the mood.
Speaker 1: I think, baz Bo, you're discussing childish people. I was
Speaker 1: not pooping my pants. I was about to freaking whiz everywhere. Dude,
Speaker 1: Let's get a little more spy music going to get
Speaker 1: this the vibe. What's up? Uh? Gear May? What's up?
Speaker 1: Gear May?
Speaker 5: Mhmm?
Speaker 1: Yeare May? What's up? Hey? What's up?
Speaker 5: Jake?
Speaker 1: What's on your mind? Yeah? I would like to ask
Speaker 1: you a question.
Speaker 15: Every once in a while we see this claim and
Speaker 15: I want I want to know your thoughts on it.
Speaker 15: When people say Jesus was Jewish or Jesus was a jew,
Speaker 15: what is how do you evaluate it? What is the
Speaker 15: angle that you think these people are taking when they
Speaker 15: when they make the claim, and how do you respond
Speaker 15: to it?
Speaker 1: I mean, if you read the Book of Ezra or
Speaker 1: if you read the book of Zeremiah, Zechariah, Old Testament
Speaker 1: religion is called Judaism. Jesus says in john Ford to
Speaker 1: the Woman of the Will, the salvation is of the Jews.
Speaker 1: So there's nothing theologically or even remotely incorrect there. All right,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, thank you. So there's this, you know,
Speaker 1: this argument goes around where people think that there's no
Speaker 1: such thing as Judaism. It's kind of a Christian identity
Speaker 1: white wig nat argument that goes around. Now, the religion
Speaker 1: of the Old Testament is proto Christianity, and that's Hebrew Judaism.
Speaker 1: After the split between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism
Speaker 1: becomes kind of its own thing that we think of
Speaker 1: as today's rabbinic Judaism. Okay, and those people are still Jews,
Speaker 1: but the religion is a different religion than what we
Speaker 1: would argue is authentic Judaism, which is Christianity. So our
Speaker 1: interpretation is that it was always own only through faith
Speaker 1: in the Messiah that you were saved. You could never
Speaker 1: be saved by being just merely a genetic descendant of Abraham.
Speaker 1: So Galatians three is very clear about that that faith
Speaker 1: in Christ and baptism is what makes us a member
Speaker 1: of the Abrahamic Covenant, and that's fulfilled now that the
Speaker 1: Messiah has come. So when we look at texts in
Speaker 1: the Old Testament, even the Old Testament notes that there
Speaker 1: were Jews as well as Kaldeon's at Mizpop. The Old
Speaker 1: Testament notes in Ezra that the Jews exist, Nehemiah the Jews.
Speaker 1: So these are Old Testament canonical texts. And I don't
Speaker 1: know why it's not coming up in Zechariah, but there's
Speaker 1: a reference in Zachariah as well. Here we go in
Speaker 1: this these are predictions even in the Messianic era. They
Speaker 1: will grab the sleep of a Jewish man. Let us
Speaker 1: go for you. We have heard that God is with you.
Speaker 1: This is referring to the Apostles and their preaching of
Speaker 1: the Gospels that Criat is a prophetic it's predicting the
Speaker 1: Messianic era. And that's why in John four, Jesus says,
Speaker 1: you know not what you speak, because the Samaritan woman
Speaker 1: was a schismatic, right, the Samaritan woman thought that the
Speaker 1: Samaritans were the true religion. They were the schismatics of
Speaker 1: that time. And Jesus says, you know not that of
Speaker 1: which you speak. By the way, notice there being a
Speaker 1: generic monotheist doesn't get you anywhere. So that refutes no
Speaker 1: stretate the idea that, oh, well, we all believe in God,
Speaker 1: because we all believe in one God, so it's the
Speaker 1: same God. Right. Samaritan woman says, hey, you are prophet,
Speaker 1: settle my theological dispute question. Our fathers worshiped here on
Speaker 1: this mountain in Samaria, but the Jews say you have
Speaker 1: to do it in Jerusalem. What's the right place? Jesus says,
Speaker 1: The day is coming when it will be global, right,
Speaker 1: everybody everywhere will worship, not related to specifically a single location.
Speaker 1: It will be a global worship, he says, But you
Speaker 1: do not know what you worship for. Salvation is of
Speaker 1: the Jews, and that is factually, historically, biblically correct. Shouldn't
Speaker 1: even really be an issue? David, what's up? David? What's up? Man? Hey,
Speaker 1: it's something I have. I'm an northodox kata koum.
Speaker 5: I just have a question about what books would you
Speaker 5: recommend that you would have liked to have I guess,
Speaker 5: in your hindsight knowledge by what would you have liked
Speaker 5: to have read?
Speaker 1: I have a bunch, but some.
Speaker 5: Of them are like saying Seraph in his books, they're
Speaker 5: really complex, and I need to start something smaller.
Speaker 1: Really, just what would you suggest, I mean, I would
Speaker 1: I would Uh, looking back, I would say I would
Speaker 1: have It would have been good to have read the
Speaker 1: entire Palmazansky book Orthodox Dogmatics starting out. It would have
Speaker 1: been good to have read Visiting Theology by my Endorf.
Speaker 1: If it would have been good to read christ in
Speaker 1: a Christological Controversy Saint Cyril of Alexander, Christological Controversy by mcguckan.
Speaker 1: And I'm just telling you the books that I kind
Speaker 1: of staggered over many years, but if I'd read them
Speaker 1: kind of early on, I would have been able to
Speaker 1: avoid I think a lot of questions and issues and
Speaker 1: disputes and and and and things. Later on the Orthodox
Speaker 1: Faith by John Damascus, Uh, five Theological Orations by Saint
Speaker 1: Gregord now Sanzus, and then when you get beyond that,
Speaker 1: one read all the orations because they're actually all really important,
Speaker 1: but the five is a good place to start. On
Speaker 1: the Incarnation by sant Athanasius. Those are all absolutely kind
Speaker 1: of essential necessary reads. Mystical Theology by laws Key, So
Speaker 1: I would do all those hobber Moss, what's up, hobber Moss,
Speaker 1: what's up? We've got actual Frankfurt school Djens in the chat.
Speaker 1: What's up, man? Oh Amen, I hope you're doing well.
Speaker 1: Nice to me you.
Speaker 8: I was curious to know if you were familiar with
Speaker 8: the Stanley Monty, if you ever collaborated with him or
Speaker 8: have looked into his work,