Speaker 1: Happening. The books were very prophetic. I'm speaking of course,
Speaker 1: of John doctor John Coleman's book Socialist Dictatorship, where he
Speaker 1: specifically talked about collapsing the EU and the UK with
Speaker 1: Fabian socialism. And the mass people movements that you're seeing
Speaker 1: are not accidental, they are by design. In fact, they
Speaker 1: were written about in several of doctor Coleman's books back
Speaker 1: in the nineteen nineties as a specific plan that would
Speaker 1: come to fruition in the next several decades, and of
Speaker 1: course he was spot on. More relevant and more recent
Speaker 1: is the Jowan Ratu book The Milner Fabian Socialist text
Speaker 1: that we've lectured through that we've been promoting and talking
Speaker 1: about since I just randomly happened upon it through somebody
Speaker 1: recommending it on Twitter. I found the last copy available
Speaker 1: on Amazon, and as you can see here, I shared
Speaker 1: this some months back. It got almost six hundred thousand views,
Speaker 1: so it kind of went many viral. The Milliner Fabian conspiracy,
Speaker 1: how an international elite is taken over and destroying Europe,
Speaker 1: America and the world. And of course people who don't
Speaker 1: read and assume things and just make up nonsense about
Speaker 1: me claim, oh you don't talk about other countries in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Oh, you don't talk about European peoples
Speaker 1: and their heritage. And this book covers that. If you
Speaker 1: had listened to me, if you'd read the book, which
Speaker 1: I think is in print again, you would know it
Speaker 1: covers all that, and you would know that it's simply
Speaker 1: not true. I just used wisdom about how I go
Speaker 1: about talking about things. Now, what about the Middle Eastern countries?
Speaker 1: What about the Rothschilds. You don't talk about them. You
Speaker 1: only talk about these made up fabian socialists. It's the
Speaker 1: same plan, dummies, There's no difference, the same people. The
Speaker 1: internationalist technocratic socialists are not out of a chord with
Speaker 1: the rabbinical Marxists, shall we say. And we've covered, of
Speaker 1: note recently, Moses Hess's book Rome in Jerusalem. We have
Speaker 1: covered Victor Ostrowsky's Massad texts. So I've covered these texts,
Speaker 1: and I've known about these texts and read these texts
Speaker 1: way before almost all of you. I knew about all
Speaker 1: this stuff in the early to mid two thousands, was
Speaker 1: when I was first introduced to a lot of these topics,
Speaker 1: even when I was a triedcat. I read the anti
Speaker 1: Zionist traditional Catholic critiques of masonry and masonry is a
Speaker 1: judaic institution. I knew all that stuff fifteen twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: So stop wasting my time and stop lying about what
Speaker 1: I don't know and what I've never covered. It's just
Speaker 1: your own laziness and ignorance. And you think that you're
Speaker 1: some special person because you've just learned these things in
Speaker 1: the last few years from people on Twitter, when we've
Speaker 1: actually undergone being booted from platforms, being demonetized, losing hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars on YouTube for discussing these topics
Speaker 1: for many years, having my entire website deleted for questioning
Speaker 1: major events. So don't tell me about you haven't gone
Speaker 1: through shit. You know you have never spoken up about nothing.
Speaker 1: Okay anonymous profile with fifty followers, Yeah, uh huh. I've
Speaker 1: never gone through anything, never dealt with anything. Imagine having
Speaker 1: your entire means of income and living that you spent
Speaker 1: ten years building, hundreds and hundreds of articles and essays
Speaker 1: that you wrote suddenly deleted one day when you wake up.
Speaker 1: That's what I dealt with And what did I do
Speaker 1: to whine and bitch? I was upset, I asked for
Speaker 1: some support on a livestream. I think I got eight
Speaker 1: nine thousand dollars, and guess what that helped. That helped
Speaker 1: me learn to rebuild an entire freaking website from scratch.
Speaker 1: I didn't know anything about that. I'm still not even
Speaker 1: a tech dude. I was forced to do that. So
Speaker 1: don't give me your bullshit about how I don't talk
Speaker 1: about this or that, or I've never undergone any persecution.
Speaker 1: I've never who doesn't do anything, who doesn't talk about this?
Speaker 1: Just no, you just don't know what I talk about,
Speaker 1: and you don't listen to what I've talked about. I've
Speaker 1: been talking about this stuff. By the way, nobody else
Speaker 1: lectures to these books. Everyone just talks about stupid ass drama.
Speaker 1: And all you low tier people that follow the drama streamers,
Speaker 1: you're like chaff in the wind. You come and go.
Speaker 1: So I don't even care about you, guys. I'm not
Speaker 1: worried about the latest drama streams. I was watching the
Speaker 1: drama in the Worski days. People were following the drama
Speaker 1: and what Worski was covering. In twenty seventeen, and his
Speaker 1: channel blew up, and then his channel died. Does anyone
Speaker 1: care about the drama from twenty seventeen with who Richard
Speaker 1: Spencer versus whoever? Nobody cares about any of that shit,
Speaker 1: And in ten years, nobody's to care about today's Twitter
Speaker 1: drama except all of you low tier people. Now, we
Speaker 1: don't focus on that here. If I'm forced to talk
Speaker 1: about drama, I will. Somebody calls me out, somebody trust
Speaker 1: to challenge me. In those situations, I will talk about it.
Speaker 1: We actually cover the books, the text, the material. No
Speaker 1: one else does that. I take that back. Richard Grove
Speaker 1: does it. Certain people do it, but in this sphere
Speaker 1: of geopolitical espionage, conspiracy topics, and in religion and theology,
Speaker 1: no one does that. I mean Richard focuses mainly on geopolitics,
Speaker 1: that's it, okay, But we focus on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: So all of these people who complain and whine about me,
Speaker 1: it really only helps me because what happens is people
Speaker 1: hear these things and then they come over here and
Speaker 1: listen to what we actually say, and they see me
Speaker 1: lecturing through books, and then they realize actually knows what
Speaker 1: he's talking about, not just spouting out about whoever, what
Speaker 1: Sassy face lord is having sassy drama with another face lord,
Speaker 1: But a lot of you people actually feed on the drama,
Speaker 1: and so you're your own worst enemies. You could be
Speaker 1: actually learning about this stuff. If you'd listen to me,
Speaker 1: for example, about BTC, you would have a forty to
Speaker 1: fifty x profile portfolio. But what did you do the
Speaker 1: last seven eight years? Did you listen to the stuff
Speaker 1: I talked about where we actually applied this knowledge to
Speaker 1: getting monetary game And I'm not saying that's the only
Speaker 1: thing that matters, I'm just using it as an example.
Speaker 1: Or did you spend all these years playing video games,
Speaker 1: talking shit on the internet, scrolling nonsense and wasting your time?
Speaker 1: So you're your own worst enemy, not me. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about the long term plans. By the way,
Speaker 1: I learned about replacement people groups, shall we say, I
Speaker 1: don't know in two thousand and seven, and that this
Speaker 1: was a strategy. I had not read into Fabian socialism.
Speaker 1: I didn't know a whole lot about that at that time.
Speaker 1: I knew that Marxism socialism was bad. I've never liked that,
Speaker 1: but I didn't realize that this was a pretty well
Speaker 1: thought out plant. And then when over on my channel.
Speaker 1: We just decided to cover the Quickly book the massive
Speaker 1: classic Tone Tragy and Hope. I noticed that he mentioned
Speaker 1: Count kutenhof clergy, and he says that the clergy and
Speaker 1: it might be also in Angle American established it in
Speaker 1: one of the two books. He says, they decided that
Speaker 1: the best strategy for Europe would be breaking it up
Speaker 1: and turning it into some sort of melting pot through
Speaker 1: the erasing of the existing people groups. And what's the
Speaker 1: best way to do that? Well, Quickly didn't really answer
Speaker 1: that question. He references Count Kutenhoff's book, and guess what,
Speaker 1: I bought and read Count Kutenhoff's Practical Idealism book, so
Speaker 1: I know what he says, and it's pretty much right.
Speaker 1: You can call it a conspiracy theory all day long,
Speaker 1: but it's in his texas in his books, and Quickly says, yes,
Speaker 1: they adopted that plan. You can fast forward all the
Speaker 1: way to General Wesley Clark, and we're recently saying in
Speaker 1: the last I don't know, fifteen years, twenty years. Yes,
Speaker 1: the plan is to essentially unravel and destroy the existing
Speaker 1: European groups and that will be done through mass people movements. Now,
Speaker 1: when I go on Twitter, and when I go on whatever,
Speaker 1: and I hear people on chatting about why this is happening. Really,
Speaker 1: only Lord of Voldemort has the full big picture to
Speaker 1: point out that it's by design, because he's familiar with
Speaker 1: all these texts that we're talking about now. Maybe not
Speaker 1: the Ratio book, because this book is basically an appendix
Speaker 1: to Tragedy and Hope and Anglo American Establishment. In fact,
Speaker 1: Ratio has read all those texts. He's also aware of
Speaker 1: the Big Nine event, and so he's able to integrate
Speaker 1: all these as well as critique the Fabian socialist origins
Speaker 1: of British intelligence and how this was really a bigger
Speaker 1: strategy that's methodical and by design. But it is so
Speaker 1: hard and it's almost damn near impossible to convey to
Speaker 1: people that it's by design. I don't know why people
Speaker 1: can't figure this out. The first thing they say is, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a conspiracy theory. And then they'll say, you think
Speaker 1: that the lib towards are that competent, You're vastly over
Speaker 1: oathed to mouting the competency of the Lib towards. Look
Speaker 1: at Ker Starmer. He can't do anything. Ker Starmer's strategies
Speaker 1: and plans are working beautifully if you understand that the
Speaker 1: plan of the strategy is to destroy the existing people
Speaker 1: groups and nation states. And that doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: nation state out of the Enlightenment is the ideal government.
Speaker 1: I'm not even saying that. I'm just saying that it's
Speaker 1: the next phase of the revolution. I'll ah brave new
Speaker 1: world is to get rid of nation states. Nation states
Speaker 1: are like bigger versions of families, so to get rid
Speaker 1: of them is what is absolutely not necessary to transition
Speaker 1: into internationalism. Now we're already a long way down the
Speaker 1: road to internationalism. International economic order was achieved, you could say,
Speaker 1: out of the Renaissance the acceptance of gold standard eventually,
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying that that makes anything other than
Speaker 1: gold standard good. I'm just saying that's just a reality. Right.
Speaker 1: Quickly talks about international law, international maritime law being set
Speaker 1: up out of the European wars, out of World War
Speaker 1: One or World War two, which essentially puts us in
Speaker 1: this Breton Woods scenario post World War two, where we
Speaker 1: have the dominance of democratic capitalism and the money power
Speaker 1: that's what runs the world. And you can include the
Speaker 1: corporations in that as well. They're pretty much the same thing.
Speaker 1: So it's not a libertarian versus you know, the state model. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's what the Enlightenment people were saying five hundred years ago. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not living in the five hundred years ago world.
Speaker 1: We're living in a methodically strategically planned scenario about how
Speaker 1: to move the world into a Fabian socialist technocratic order.
Speaker 1: That's what we're living under right now. And if you
Speaker 1: doubted that, the koof period should have shown you that
Speaker 1: the international corporate order of the fortune one hundred, fortune
Speaker 1: five hundred are all on board, and most of the
Speaker 1: governments are on board. Why would they all have had
Speaker 1: the same policies if they aren't already on board. Another
Speaker 1: way to see this is the entire world teaches, for example,
Speaker 1: Darwinism almost almost the entire world. It is an unquestioned dogma. Now,
Speaker 1: even if you think that it's true, why does the
Speaker 1: whole world teach it? How come there's not a And
Speaker 1: yes there are more recently rise and compete challenges to
Speaker 1: it with Stephen Meyer and intelligent design all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. But I'm just saying, for the last one
Speaker 1: hundred years, it's basically been unquestioned dogma throughout the world.
Speaker 1: Beyond that in economics, as we just saw, as we
Speaker 1: lectured through Seiphidine's book Bitcoin Standard, the majority of that
Speaker 1: book actually wasn't even about bitcoin, it was about monetary history.
Speaker 1: So it's a great introduction to the basics of Austrian economics.
Speaker 1: I have some criticisms of Austrian economics, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: better than the monitorism of Milton Freeman or the Fabian
Speaker 1: socialism of John Mayner Keynes. Why is the whole world
Speaker 1: built on Keynesian institutions. That's what Ratu has demonstrated in
Speaker 1: this text. He showed that whether it's the IMF, or
Speaker 1: whether it's the post Bretton Woods mckinsian system, whether it
Speaker 1: is the World Bank, whether it is the United Nations,
Speaker 1: all of these have that ethos behind them. Why why
Speaker 1: would the whole world have one dominant gnomic theory If
Speaker 1: supposedly we live in a free West, of free exchange
Speaker 1: of ideas, there's dogmas that are not questionable, which shows
Speaker 1: we don't actually live in a free exchange of ideas civilization,
Speaker 1: and as we track the history of socialism in the
Speaker 1: twentieth century, particularly famine socialism. So I have to understand
Speaker 1: we're not talking about classical Marxism. Everyone knows and we
Speaker 1: can very clearly see that classical Marxism failed. And I've
Speaker 1: studied under Marxists. My graduate advisor, people, doctor Martel, was
Speaker 1: a trained under Frankfurt School Marxist guy. If I recall,
Speaker 1: he studied under Habermass's protege, I forget the guy's name,
Speaker 1: but he wrote his dissertation on Hegel and Republicanism. So
Speaker 1: I understand Marxism very well from the end, all the
Speaker 1: different branches and the theories and all this kind of
Speaker 1: stuff frank for school versus the classical histmat Dia Matt.
Speaker 1: I know all that stuff, and what we are dealing
Speaker 1: with today isn't exactly any of that. And that's what
Speaker 1: is so hard to convey to people. Because people don't
Speaker 1: know the history of Marxism and the nuances in the
Speaker 1: different sects and schools and schisms of Marxism. They think that, oh,
Speaker 1: if you talk about Marxism, then you won't talk about
Speaker 1: the Jews. Well, many Jews have been involved in Marxism,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely true. Most of the founding fathers of the
Speaker 1: modern nation State of Israel, as we've covered at nauseam
Speaker 1: for so many years, were explicitly atheistic socialist Jews. In fact,
Speaker 1: Moses says in his book Roman Jerusalem that he hopes
Speaker 1: and believes that through the doctrines of Freemasonry that Tel
Speaker 1: Aviv will become the kind of socialist utopia that the
Speaker 1: whole world looks to. And Theodore hertzel Heim Weitzmen, many
Speaker 1: of the other founding Zionists of the nation State of Israel,
Speaker 1: the modern Nation of Israel, should say back at in
Speaker 1: the late eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds, they also basically
Speaker 1: the same stuff. And if you read Roman Jerusalem, what's
Speaker 1: fascinating is that he relies very heavily on Spinoza and Hegel,
Speaker 1: which Spinosa doesn't surprise me, because he was, of course
Speaker 1: a Jewish guy who was actually excommunicated from his synagogues
Speaker 1: because of his pantheism. But you can begin to see
Speaker 1: the imminentizing of this process philosophy, which is, yes, Spinoza
Speaker 1: and Hegel. When you imminentize that, that's exactly what would
Speaker 1: lead to Marx. Right, it's not ethereal god beings and deities,
Speaker 1: the real gods and systems and battles that we're fighting
Speaker 1: are the dialectics within time and space, and so Hegel's
Speaker 1: hermetic religion, which actually also is very heavily influenced by Kabbala,
Speaker 1: which we've talked about, lectured about for ten years. Again,
Speaker 1: I took classes on Hegel, so I understand from Marxists
Speaker 1: how they read and understand Hegel. I don't. It's like
Speaker 1: people just don't have a clue about any of this stuff,
Speaker 1: and they listen to face lords who give them like
Speaker 1: one sliver of the message, and then they think that
Speaker 1: their Internet experts and they don't know anything. So, for example,
Speaker 1: did you know that social justice we hear about all
Speaker 1: the social justice warriors, all this do you know that
Speaker 1: comes out of Fabian socialists idealogues, The very buzzwords that
Speaker 1: we hear, some of them were used by the Bolsheviks,
Speaker 1: and the Fabian socialists only disagree with the Bolsheviks in
Speaker 1: terms of their strategies. Bolsviks wanted blood right away, take
Speaker 1: it over now, rise up right. Fabian socialist said that's
Speaker 1: not gonna work. The workers are too dumb, they're never
Speaker 1: gonna rise up and understand all this abstract socialist economic theory,
Speaker 1: and they were correct, and they said, we have to
Speaker 1: make alliance with big capital. Classical Marxists were hesitant to
Speaker 1: do that, even though Classical Marxism itself was funded by
Speaker 1: banking elites. However, the goals of socialism, according to doctor Coleman,
Speaker 1: are the eventual abolition of nation state governments, the abolition
Speaker 1: of the idea and belief in patriotism. Now, it's true
Speaker 1: that patriotism can be used and you can be manipulated
Speaker 1: through your patriotic desires, but this is a bigger picture
Speaker 1: than that. We're looking beyond. You know, did George Bush
Speaker 1: manipulate people at the Big Nine event through patriotism? That's true,
Speaker 1: But this is actually saying that the entire abolition of
Speaker 1: the belief in your own nature, your own nations, state,
Speaker 1: your own people group, etc. Has to be obliterated. The
Speaker 1: abolition of all property rights, the abolition of inheritance rights,
Speaker 1: the abolition of marriage and the family, the abolition of religion,
Speaker 1: particularly Christianity, the destruction of all national sovereignty and national laws.
Speaker 1: For internationalism, what are the buzzwords that the Fabian socialists
Speaker 1: pioneered to be liberal, to be pacifist, to be tolerant,
Speaker 1: to be believe in progress, to be moderate, to be peaceful,
Speaker 1: to be democratic, to support the people, all the same gibberish.
Speaker 1: And now we can talk about colonialism, oppression, whiteness, right,
Speaker 1: all the same buzzwords, just updated versions. Now, isn't it
Speaker 1: amazing how prophetic this book was because he says, they're
Speaker 1: going to open up the borders and import zillions of
Speaker 1: people from the Third World, and if you don't like that,
Speaker 1: they're just going to call you racist. And everybody will
Speaker 1: be afraid of being called racist. And in fact, the
Speaker 1: key element that they would use that would also be
Speaker 1: overlooked is the breaking down of male female relations. Women's
Speaker 1: liberation would be key to the success of Fabian socialism.
Speaker 1: And this actually comes out of people like from Eric
Speaker 1: Frohm and Walter Lippmann who said this as well. And
Speaker 1: I always forget this. Who's the guy that came up
Speaker 1: with the magical plastic garbage, the orgone guy that he's
Speaker 1: actual lunatic, But I'm not joking. He's like one of
Speaker 1: the key thinkers of the Frankfurt School. Is this lunatic
Speaker 1: who came up with orgon? I always forget this guy's name,
Speaker 1: but anyway, he was a He was a key figure
Speaker 1: in pointing out that in order to get rid of
Speaker 1: the patriarchy and to destroy Western civilization, what we'd have
Speaker 1: to do is get rid of the idea of the patriarch.
Speaker 1: How do we do that, Well, we do that through
Speaker 1: promoting the goddess. How do we promote the goddess? We
Speaker 1: promote sexual liberation. Okay, somebody in the chat, remind me
Speaker 1: of the guy who's the I never remember this guy's name,
Speaker 1: even though somebody sent me orgone one time in the mail,
Speaker 1: like as if I wanted that. And it's all it is,
Speaker 1: is like a little pyramid of like a bunch of
Speaker 1: garbage in case and a plastic pyramid, and it's supposed
Speaker 1: to like channel vibes or Wilhelm Reich, thank you. Wilhelm
Speaker 1: Reich was the father of Orgone, also promoting the notion
Speaker 1: of promotion of the goddess to promote sexual liberation, which
Speaker 1: was the only way to destroy patriarchy, according to them.
Speaker 1: So all these people write about this, you understand these
Speaker 1: this is in their books. And I studied under a
Speaker 1: dude who studied under the Frankfurt school guys, so it's
Speaker 1: not conspiracy. This is all real. So the obstacles to overcome,
Speaker 1: as we said, are national pride, patriotism. Rule of law
Speaker 1: is another one. You might think, well, I wait a minute,
Speaker 1: why would they want to aren't they liberals? Why would
Speaker 1: they want to undermine rule of law. They don't want
Speaker 1: rule of law to be a firewall to their scientism,
Speaker 1: technocratic tyranny. In other words, all the firewalls need to
Speaker 1: be gotten rid of. So even though the US Constitution
Speaker 1: isn't perfect, it's not necessarily an explicitly Christian document, it
Speaker 1: does have the influence of Christian you know, English common law,
Speaker 1: Roman law, Christian canon law, all those things had an
Speaker 1: influence on the Constitution. So there's Christian elements within it,
Speaker 1: and that's what's actually why it has to be gotten
Speaker 1: rid of. So more income tax and IRS models of
Speaker 1: taxation need to be promoted, by the way he's writing
Speaker 1: this in the nineteen nineties, getting rid of trade barriers
Speaker 1: to have complete open and free trade. And you'll notice,
Speaker 1: like the idea of having tariffs, which everyone was hating
Speaker 1: Trump for, that's actually a classic American model of producing
Speaker 1: so called funds for the government, not IRS. Taxation. How
Speaker 1: do you think the government under itself when there was
Speaker 1: no income tax, which by the way is just theft.
Speaker 1: But still, how do they do it? Well, it was
Speaker 1: things like tariff And so he's actually pointing out that
Speaker 1: total unrestricted free trade is itself a strategy that Marxists,
Speaker 1: socialists and Fabian socialists have always pushed. And you understand open,
Speaker 1: total unrestricted free trade is intimately tied with total unrestricted
Speaker 1: people movements. Now, idiot libertarians always picture this and portray
Speaker 1: this as this is what the market would dictate. People
Speaker 1: need to be freely able to go and trade. Oh
Speaker 1: but wait a minute, they're not. Look, they're not considering
Speaker 1: the forced people movements as a form of demographic warfare,
Speaker 1: which the Navy War College writes about. For those that
Speaker 1: don't know, this is a known principal warfare.
Speaker 2: We do.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about your racist Oh, I can't talk about
Speaker 1: the actual books Like Kelly Greenhill wrote Weapons of Mouse Mike,
Speaker 1: So the Navy War College is racist for writing a
Speaker 1: book about the thing that they talk about. And this
Speaker 1: is so stupid, like this is this is how everyone
Speaker 1: is controlled, because they will just shut you down if
Speaker 1: you talk about what the system itself writes about So
Speaker 1: we talked before too about how social security didn't even
Speaker 1: exist until Fabian socialists pushed and had it put in place.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even a thing, and it actually went into
Speaker 1: the UK first and it bankrupted the UK. So you
Speaker 1: understand that they've had the UK has had many many
Speaker 1: labor governments and Labor is really just the Fabian Socialist Party,
Speaker 1: but it's rebranded as Labor to give the impression that
Speaker 1: it's about the workers, because they wanted to stop using
Speaker 1: the term quote labor, I'm excuse me, you the term socialists,
Speaker 1: so they just went with a rebranding of the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Labor Party are the ones
Speaker 1: that are always pushing these open border scenarios and that's
Speaker 1: what leads to these horrible grape gangs and situations that
Speaker 1: we now see. So people cannot figure out though again
Speaker 1: it's not accidental, and nothing is ever going to change
Speaker 1: or be fixed until we figure out that you can't
Speaker 1: fix this by just electing a new crop of scoundrels, right, well,
Speaker 1: throw the scoundrels out, they're the bad apples. Then how
Speaker 1: do we fix it? The only way to fix it
Speaker 1: is to understand this is a systemic level problem, right.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like when we try to argue with
Speaker 1: or convince Roman Catholics of the problem, and the Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic thinks, well, I'll just wait until they elect a
Speaker 1: abased in trid pope. The errors are in the documents
Speaker 1: of Vatican Two. Gaudi Mespes teaches Fabian socialism, United Nations socialism.
Speaker 1: Popes don't do away with dogma in Vatican Two. They
Speaker 1: teach it. In fact, Leo just celebrated James Martin's skittles.
Speaker 1: What's the word I'm looking for, pilgrimage? The skittles Pilgrimage
Speaker 1: is being celebrated. Meanwhile, these delusional Roman Catholics are saying,
Speaker 1: oh no, this is actually based in trid. You can't
Speaker 1: make this up. Let's see, I think I put it
Speaker 1: in my bookmarks.
Speaker 3: Let's see, no way, where is it at.
Speaker 1: Let's see somebody sent me I think as a DM
Speaker 1: is what it was.
Speaker 4: Let me see if I can find.
Speaker 1: It based and tried Pope Leo. Oh, turns out he's
Speaker 1: hanging out with Oh here it is James Martin, everybody's
Speaker 1: favorite activist. Dear friends, I was profoundly grateful for my
Speaker 1: audience at the Apostolic Palace with Leo. The message I
Speaker 1: received is that Leo will continue with the openness that
Speaker 1: Francis showed to gay Catholics. Where's the based and tried. Now,
Speaker 1: these delusional people are ones that constantly attack me on
Speaker 1: a daily basis, These Roman Catholics, these tridecats. Every day
Speaker 1: is about refuting me, and their whole position is that
Speaker 1: we need to submit to Rome because that's really the
Speaker 1: only way to guarantee salvation. Why would anyone submit to
Speaker 1: this unless it's some sort of like gay BDSM submission
Speaker 1: thing that you guys are into, Like that's maybe that
Speaker 1: is what you guys mean. Now, Oh, but you have
Speaker 1: Lpdophoros went to a gay winning Yeah, do I support
Speaker 1: ELPTO foros No is our structure the same as yours.
Speaker 1: This is the head of your church. This is the infallible,
Speaker 1: indefectible head of your church who supposedly cannot teach error
Speaker 1: in theology or morals. So it's not just a question
Speaker 1: of impeccability sinlessness. It's a problem that is systemic, and
Speaker 1: it's the same inability that people have to understand systemic
Speaker 1: problems and how they're defeaters for system, just like it
Speaker 1: is impossible almost until they, I don't know, are awakened
Speaker 1: to it, to understand that it's not liberal incompetence. Nothing
Speaker 1: will change until we understand that it's not the liberals
Speaker 1: and their incompetence that are strong. That's a layer, protective
Speaker 1: layer that hides and cloaks the inner cunning technocrat who
Speaker 1: knows what he's doing. Ah, but you see, you don't
Speaker 1: talk about the big Z. You are a failure because
Speaker 1: you don't talk about the big Z. Really, so you
Speaker 1: would have me convert to Rome? Submit to Rome, even
Speaker 1: though I've already been through all this, and we're talking
Speaker 1: about the same Rome who praise in the synagogues, the papacy,
Speaker 1: whether it's John Paul the Second. In fact, entire books
Speaker 1: have been written about John Paul the Second's close most
Speaker 1: lifelong friendship with Jersey Klueger and how this changed Catholic teaching.
Speaker 1: So what the heck are you talking about? Are you insane?
Speaker 1: Do you not have basic reasoning skills? You can't figure
Speaker 1: out a basic contradiction? Submit to Rome? Oh, you mean
Speaker 1: the Rome that says that Jews shouldn't convert in the
Speaker 1: two thousand and three US Conference of Catholic Bishop Document
Speaker 1: Reflections on Covenant and Mission. What does it say? It
Speaker 1: is certain that there should be no mission of Christians
Speaker 1: to Jews because their Covenant remains in force. This is idiotic,
Speaker 1: dispensationalist heresy that the Vatican and the US Conference of
Speaker 1: Catholic Bishops is promoting. And I say the Vatican, because
Speaker 1: did the Vatican ever correct this? Has this ever been rescinded?
Speaker 1: I said this to Tim Gordon and he said, you
Speaker 1: want to know what, Tim? Can you believe what? Guess
Speaker 1: what Tim Gordon said about this document? And this is
Speaker 1: this is a lovely lawyer speak here. Tim said, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't say not to It doesn't say that you
Speaker 1: shouldn't convert them. It says don't have a mission to them.
Speaker 1: It's like, now, you guys actually are tumbletists. Like the
Speaker 1: words are just redefined and they're they're they're massaged as needed.
Speaker 1: So again I'm sure some of you can't even read that,
Speaker 1: but there you go. Let me make it bigger for you.
Speaker 1: Can you read that? Yeah, submit to Rome. That says
Speaker 1: not to convert Jews and that supports skittles pilgrimages give
Speaker 1: me a break. The heck are you talking about? And
Speaker 1: how come nobody can figure this out? Like it's literally
Speaker 1: in everybody's face. I'm almost feeling like, really, the answer
Speaker 1: is that there's a spiritual blindness that they can't see,
Speaker 1: Like there's something that just like shuts off their mind
Speaker 1: and their spirit and their discernment when you show them
Speaker 1: things that are just out in the open. It's not
Speaker 1: like this is there. These are really difficult, obscure examples
Speaker 1: that we have to spend. You know, what does it
Speaker 1: actually mean? How do we understand that? And look at
Speaker 1: there's the difficult language. No, it's not even language, it's
Speaker 1: actions that show the beliefs. Jay, do you have an
Speaker 1: orthodox reading list? There's a video that's up called top
Speaker 1: ten or fifteen books. Kotsu ke Ignacio two dollars. I'm
Speaker 1: finna get some yakub knowledge. You know that much? You
Speaker 1: know that's right remnant ten pounds. In the UK, the
Speaker 1: Epping Hotel was overturned it's a micro hotel by Judge Bean,
Speaker 1: who's a Fabian socialist chair. He straight up said the
Speaker 1: rights of the migrants are above all those of the natives.
Speaker 1: There you go, the judge who overturned the attempt to
Speaker 1: stop this is the former Fabian Socialist chair. This vindicates
Speaker 1: everything that's in the Ratia book and every everything I've
Speaker 1: been talking about for years. So we have these epic vindications,
Speaker 1: We have these perfectly precise explanations telling you who's doing what,
Speaker 1: why they're doing it, what the overall plan is. And
Speaker 1: all of the retards on Twitter and the Internet just
Speaker 1: want to complain about me. I mean, you guys are
Speaker 1: your own worst enemy. Don't you understand I'm trying to
Speaker 1: help you guys out and you're your own worst enemies
Speaker 1: complaining about me. He's mean he only debates Catholics. I
Speaker 1: don't only debate Catholics. The majority of the debates are
Speaker 1: not Catholics. It's not even true. The majority of the
Speaker 1: debates are Muslims. And all you idiot tradcats thought you
Speaker 1: were gonna have a Muslim trad cat alliance. You are
Speaker 1: so stupid, you're so naive.
Speaker 5: Oh, we don't talk about what the talbot says. Do
Speaker 5: you know what the talbot says about Jesus? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I learned twenty years ago what the talman said is
Speaker 1: about Jesus. And if you'd listen to me, you would
Speaker 1: have known that twenty years ago. Matt Scrogan's two Dollars.
Speaker 1: I'm late to the stream. What is the book? Well,
Speaker 1: we got several books that we're talking about today. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Joan rot Tou's book Millner Fabian Conspiracy, which
Speaker 1: details this conspiracy like Tragy and Hope. In fact, he
Speaker 1: pulls heavily from Tragy and Hope. We're talking about doctor
Speaker 1: John Coleman's books Socialist Dictatorship, which was very prophetic. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Practical Idealism by Count Kutenhov Kolergy, which I
Speaker 1: knew about fifteen years ago. We're talking about is that it.
Speaker 1: Those are the main text we're discussing today. Now. I
Speaker 1: don't have my Ratcha book with me. I left it
Speaker 1: at the other place, but all the other books I
Speaker 1: do have with me. So Austin Alvarez five dollars. I
Speaker 1: was brainwashed as a government boot licker in the military.
Speaker 1: It's unfathomable, cringe looking back at it. It's funny you
Speaker 1: say that because people said, have you seen the trailer
Speaker 1: for this Jessica Chastain show on Apple? And it was like,
Speaker 1: oh wow, dude, this is like next level. Actually it's
Speaker 1: not even next level. It's literally just she's a meme. Now,
Speaker 1: it's so silly. So this whole thing got turned into
Speaker 1: a meme because the new show is her and her
Speaker 1: black husband rooting out you got it, white supremacist terrorists
Speaker 1: everywhere who are internet and sell people, and her job
Speaker 1: is to infiltrate the organization through the chat groups. Now,
Speaker 1: it's funny that we've had in the last few months,
Speaker 1: the last couple of years some actual you know, satanic
Speaker 1: online network groups that BX. I did an interview with BX.
Speaker 1: You can find that on Twitter where we talked about
Speaker 1: a lot of these groups. You might think, well, that
Speaker 1: kind of is real. No, no, no, this is actually the
Speaker 1: Alex Jones audience against So it's like they think the
Speaker 1: propaganda of ten years ago is still going to work,
Speaker 1: even though now everyone knows that this is just literal,
Speaker 1: ridiculous propaganda. And it's funny. I was reading the comments
Speaker 1: on YouTube underneath the trailer and they're all making fun
Speaker 1: of it, which is that's that's that's a sign that
Speaker 1: they're all losing. Everybody's saying propaganda, bullshit, nobody believes this
Speaker 1: and that, But that's great. So this is so the
Speaker 1: Hollywood propaganda is cracking and breaking. Oh yeah, so glad
Speaker 1: we got girl bosses in here stopping all the extremists.
Speaker 1: Now watch who the extremists are?
Speaker 6: What do you do?
Speaker 1: These are the unseen heroes that protect.
Speaker 5: Us all night.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I try people who are planning the text. Uh
Speaker 1: who's planning? Oh so heterosexual, straight, fit, buff white dude.
Speaker 1: Uh huh sure, Yeah, it's not like an actual t
Speaker 1: R E and Z lunatic. My job is pretending to
Speaker 1: think like them.
Speaker 7: To stop those people.
Speaker 1: Here we go military guys, right, r OTC guys, white
Speaker 1: guys with glasses, who, by the way, aren't tr.
Speaker 4: A n Z.
Speaker 1: They're just normal straight white dudes.
Speaker 8: Yah bombings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all those white Christian snipers? Uh huh? Are there
Speaker 1: any of these crooks? Are you serious? You mean, like,
Speaker 1: like all of these loons that they get to do this,
Speaker 1: they're like total shit lib insane, skittles, weirdos. You know,
Speaker 1: the real threat is the white Christian terrorist militia. Man,
Speaker 1: I look at that. Look at that. He's wearing a
Speaker 1: southern hat like a Southern boy, and he's he's unloading
Speaker 1: guns with a fat dude oh, militia. They're training in
Speaker 1: the woods. The militias are remember when who was the
Speaker 1: Maxine Wallaser what Maxine Wallas said? Trump? The training militias
Speaker 1: in the woods. They're coming to get you. The militias
Speaker 1: are training that you come get all the black people's
Speaker 1: remember that.
Speaker 4: It's massive.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny too about this, which a lot
Speaker 1: of like the the ship lips never seemed to realize. Hey,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, let's say this narrative is true. How
Speaker 1: come all the black people need white Jessica Chastain to
Speaker 1: save them? I thought we were anti racists, but hold up,
Speaker 1: hold up, hold up, we gotta have a sassy white
Speaker 1: girl to come save all the black Excuse me as
Speaker 1: racist as hell? Why are you trying to not be racist?
Speaker 1: Excuse me?
Speaker 9: Landing violence to make a state.
Speaker 1: That's a funny thing about I forget who. Somebody made
Speaker 1: this point years ago, and it was like the people
Speaker 1: who pushed the Hollywood propaganda like this, like nobody even realized.
Speaker 1: I think maybe black people are starting to white people
Speaker 1: are starting to realize it now. It's like, how come
Speaker 1: the saviors are always the liberal white people. It's like
Speaker 1: lib white salvation and This is the delusion of the
Speaker 1: Sandra Bullock movie with a football. I forget the name
Speaker 1: of it. You're not talking about precious though. That's a
Speaker 1: precious joke. Yeah, that was an example of it. But
Speaker 1: you start to notice, Hey, wait a minute, it's always
Speaker 1: uh oh, look, white dudes getting mad. Uh oh, white
Speaker 1: dudes getting mad at he's looking at Twitter. Somebody somebody
Speaker 1: called him racists on Twitter. He's getting mad. He's banging
Speaker 1: his locker after working out. Oh so all the white
Speaker 1: guys got to get to get there with the militias
Speaker 1: and the American T shirts. We've got a bunch of
Speaker 1: fat white dudes together, fat boomer gen X, no boomers,
Speaker 1: it's all gen X now with young guys.
Speaker 2: The kind of history refers to with.
Speaker 8: A month and it days.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, here we go, Big nine event. Uh huh yeah,
Speaker 1: the Big nine event, which was run by Christian twenty
Speaker 1: five year old white guys. Right, I'm pretty sure they
Speaker 1: were behind the Big Nine. Yeah, absolutely, uh exactly. I mean,
Speaker 1: just insane levels of propaganda and and but what's funny
Speaker 1: is the comments on your YouTube, like nobody buys it.
Speaker 1: It's just making fun of it, like we don't this
Speaker 1: is bullshit. Nobody believes this anymore, so it is funny
Speaker 1: to see. Uh, the disconnect, like the Hollywood people's disconnect
Speaker 1: with what everybody actually thinks, is pretty funny. So here's
Speaker 1: an Antifa dude in the UK. What's he up to that?
Speaker 1: Oh he's tearing down British flags. And by the way,
Speaker 1: these people always look the same. They look like total degenerates,
Speaker 1: covered in tats. They look like just slob trash because
Speaker 1: that's pretty much what they are, right. Oh, look at this.
Speaker 1: Look how edgy he is. Oh he cut down the
Speaker 1: British flag and stepped on it. When that's so edgy,
Speaker 1: when literally the entire establishment is behind you, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's really edgy. Oh look at that, dude, you just
Speaker 1: got double double middle fingered. Oh take that right wingers,
Speaker 1: take that racist, you just got owned. I'm over here
Speaker 1: slapping my locker like that white christ and Mail in
Speaker 1: the Savant trailer. Yeah, he's so brave, Like he's taking
Speaker 1: down flags on a bridge alone in the middle of nowhere.
Speaker 1: It's he probably hung him up to take him down, right,
Speaker 1: to look him brave and edgy. Paul Watson says this
Speaker 1: is very dodgy. We have four AfD candidates dying in
Speaker 1: the middle of the election. Now, I haven't kept up
Speaker 1: too close with German politics, my assumption is that probably
Speaker 1: these right winging parties are pretty milk toast. That's they
Speaker 1: usually are, because you basically can't get away with anything
Speaker 1: in the EU or whatever, with anything wholesome at all
Speaker 1: without be called. I mean, they think Alex Jones is
Speaker 1: far right in the UK right the EU, and the
Speaker 1: UK think Alix Jones, who's libertarian, and Trump they think
Speaker 1: they're far right, which is ridiculous. But that is pretty suspicious.
Speaker 1: But now if it's suspicious, then that would suggest that
Speaker 1: we're actually up against a pretty cunning group of people,
Speaker 1: not a bunch of idiots. I mean, if you're going
Speaker 1: to take out people, you've got to be kind of competent.
Speaker 1: You can't be total like shit lib incompetent people. And
Speaker 1: yet we still have a giant, massive people that listen
Speaker 1: to Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles and all those people.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure Matt they say some good things, but
Speaker 1: remember what was it a year ago? I had a
Speaker 1: response to Matt Walsh and went viral where he's saying
Speaker 1: the libs are so incompetent, the incompetent libs. The incompetent
Speaker 1: I mean, like, it's not the incompetent libs that are
Speaker 1: running shit, dude, it's competent evil people. Why is this
Speaker 1: so hard for people to grasp? Lord diar? Can we debate?
Speaker 1: Anybody who would like to call in can call in
Speaker 1: today and I will open it up in a bit
Speaker 1: and you can call in and ask questions about whatever.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're on YouTube, so it can't be literally whatever. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not going to debate six million because it was
Speaker 1: actually six hundred million people. Okay, so no debates on that.
Speaker 1: We're going to be debating the topics that are listed.
Speaker 1: And then yeah, I guess I please don't ask me
Speaker 1: about fasting and that kind of stuff. That's I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna answer. If you ask me catechumen questions about fasting,
Speaker 1: about the calendar, I'm gonna immediately move on. And then
Speaker 1: oh you block up menia. Is you want to answer
Speaker 1: my question?
Speaker 4: Do?
Speaker 1: Now people are realizing, hey, our countries are Africa, what
Speaker 1: the heck's going on? When we went to Italy in
Speaker 1: our pilgrimage, I went to places where I didn't see
Speaker 1: any Italians. I'm not kidding. We went to Genoa and
Speaker 1: I was scared in Genoa. I'm serious. I didn't see
Speaker 1: any I thought Genoa is Africa or Pakistan. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know that. But like if you go
Speaker 1: to these places, they say, here's Vienna, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: a protest in Vienna. Now, if you read Calergy, his
Speaker 1: reasoning is that we're going to have to have a
Speaker 1: world socialist government of some kind. There's just no other way.
Speaker 1: The other strategies and techniques of government and the models
Speaker 1: of living in life have not worked, and that's what's
Speaker 1: got to happen. And they just treat it like it's
Speaker 1: this inevitable thing. And then when we come to people
Speaker 1: like Peter Sutherland, right, he was another one of these
Speaker 1: major architects in recent years. I doubt that I'll be
Speaker 1: able to find that because that was an old Telegraph article.
Speaker 1: Maybe on Yendex we can find that.
Speaker 4: Let's see.
Speaker 1: Carnegie Council for Ethics, Secretary of General for Migration from
Speaker 1: two thousand and six to two thousand and seventeen. Wow,
Speaker 1: so here's a major character. Here we go, here's the BBC,
Speaker 1: the EU should undermine national homogeneity, says you and migration chiefs.
Speaker 1: Here's the Carnegie Council Carnegian Downment, major international in goo
Speaker 1: think tank power structure right here. United Nations special representative
Speaker 1: to the Secretary General of International Migration for eleven years
Speaker 1: key years from two thousand and sixty twenty seventeen. Who
Speaker 1: does he work for? Wt GAT and wto all fabian
Speaker 1: social institutions right here? This is a twenty twelve article.
Speaker 1: Now that's the institutions that you hear me talk about
Speaker 1: all the time. Here's the guy in charge of running
Speaker 1: all of this for eleven years of those key years
Speaker 1: that we're talking about. Do you think he did it?
Speaker 1: Know what he was doing as the guy in charge
Speaker 1: of open borders migration.
Speaker 5: The inculpetent Libs, the Libs are incumpetent, They don't know
Speaker 5: what they're doing. This guy knew what he was doing,
Speaker 5: You idiot. You're the incompetent conservative who's actually a lib.
Speaker 5: What does his fifth tab say? The fifth tab is
Speaker 5: a treat for you guys gay rappers. We're not to
Speaker 5: the gay rappers section of the show yet.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure that some of you in the chat
Speaker 1: are very eager for that. Don't worry, we'll get to it.
Speaker 1: I think somebody thought they caught me. Oh look he's
Speaker 1: got a tab open of gate gay things. What does
Speaker 1: it say? Oh, it turns out it's just gay rappers. Nah, dude,
Speaker 1: I'm not into skittle stuff, but I am into exposing
Speaker 1: the rap because then rappers is up to no good.
Speaker 1: Them rappers is growth. Oh nasty what they're doing over
Speaker 1: there and nasty stuff. So can you figure this out? Midwind? Conservatives?
Speaker 1: You have a guy in charge of running this at
Speaker 1: the biggest thing tanks in the world. United Nations got
Speaker 1: Carnegie Endowment.
Speaker 5: It's the incompetent libs. They don't understand that if they
Speaker 5: open the borders up, it's gonna harm the population and
Speaker 5: the people. I'm a confirmative. You're the reason that things
Speaker 5: are so bad. It's the conservatives are the They're the
Speaker 5: problem because you're too dumb to figure out what's going on,
Speaker 5: even though it's literally right here in the BBC, Like,
Speaker 5: here's the guy that says destroy Europe, who's running a
Speaker 5: giant globalist institutions. I don't know if it's a plan
Speaker 5: or not. What's the evidence of it being a plan.
Speaker 5: Is there really proof?
Speaker 1: Are you conspiracy? Now protests? Here's thousands of French people protesting.
Speaker 1: Look at this. Oh wait, excuse me, that's old. That's
Speaker 1: protesting Macron. Well, I mean there's I mean protesting. Macron
Speaker 1: is protesting the same shit, because he's another one of
Speaker 1: these socialists technocrats that's pushing.
Speaker 4: All this stuff.
Speaker 1: Let's see, let's go to Radio Genoa because they almost
Speaker 1: always have this kind of stuff up. Why is this
Speaker 1: happening in the UK Because the Fabian Socialist Labor Party
Speaker 1: has had this plan for over one hundred years and
Speaker 1: I've lectured through this over and over. Not Islamic mom
Speaker 1: spits in the water to bless it Allah forbid sleeping
Speaker 1: on your stomach. This is funny here we go. Did
Speaker 1: Japan just send a bunch of ninjas to attack? What
Speaker 1: the heck's going on? This actually looks like Pakistan though,
Speaker 1: because if you look on the or I don't know
Speaker 1: what language that is. If you look on the wall,
Speaker 1: I don't think that. I mean, that could be Europe
Speaker 1: because maybe they have like entire Pakistan Africa and grocery stores.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, if if degenerate elites in
Speaker 1: the UK one hundred years ago wrote about how they
Speaker 1: would flood the UK and Europe with Muslims. Is that
Speaker 1: not enough for you idiot conservatives to figure out? It's
Speaker 1: a plant?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: What is wrong with you people? How can you be
Speaker 1: so dense and so midwind? I don't understand. And for
Speaker 1: you trad cats, your Vatican pushes the same shit. Open
Speaker 1: the borders. Francis said it a hundred times. And you
Speaker 1: expect us to submit to Rome? Are you insane? What
Speaker 1: is wrong with you people? Donus says half of the
Speaker 1: signs in my town are Arabic. Well, guess what happens
Speaker 1: when you go to Houston. When you go to Houston,
Speaker 1: there are entire miles that you will drive where you
Speaker 1: see nothing but Cantonese billboards. Houston has the largest Chinese population,
Speaker 1: the largest immigrant population as far as I understand, in America.
Speaker 1: Why is there a giant miles of billboards of cant
Speaker 1: of Chinese billboards? So apparently even Japan is having Muslims
Speaker 1: brought into Japan to destroy Japan. And here's Japanese people protesting.
Speaker 1: People in Spain can't go to work because the idiot
Speaker 1: cult of Muslim of Islam is forcing everybody to shut
Speaker 1: down so they can pray the streets to Allah. I mean,
Speaker 1: people are so you guys are so naive, man, All
Speaker 1: of the right wingers that remember how all these for
Speaker 1: the last four or five years, all of you idiot
Speaker 1: right wingers believed and thought that the Muslim trad right
Speaker 1: wing alliance was gonna work. Oh, Sneako and Tate and all, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make alliance with Islam. Islam is your enemy,
Speaker 1: you idiot. You're so dumb. Now. I fell for this too,
Speaker 1: because I thought back in the two thousands, not that
Speaker 1: it wasn't into Islam, but I thought, oh, well, if
Speaker 1: the Big nine event is making them the bad guys,
Speaker 1: then maybe they're not the real bad guys. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's way too naive. And what have we learned in
Speaker 1: the last eight years of debating Muslims. This is the
Speaker 1: dumbest cult out there. It is dumber. It's probably dumber
Speaker 1: than scientology. I mean, you have to be really dumb
Speaker 1: to believe what Islam teaches. And I didn't actually realize
Speaker 1: that until I got into a studying it. So I'm
Speaker 1: really glad that we had the debates with the Muslims
Speaker 1: the last seven or eight years, because how do I
Speaker 1: done that? I would have just assumed, as a person
Speaker 1: from the outside looking in, well, they have like bays
Speaker 1: and tried morals, and no they don't, you idiot, they
Speaker 1: do not. It's a slow boy, tarted religion. That's a
Speaker 1: cult for dumb dumps. In fact, when I read C. S.
Speaker 1: Lewis's Narnia many years ago, in fact I read it
Speaker 1: before i'd been doing a lot of these Muslim debates,
Speaker 1: I didn't even realize that A Horse and his Boy
Speaker 1: is a very subtle critique of Islam. Did you realize that?
Speaker 1: Did you know that? And what's funny about it is C. S.
Speaker 1: Lewis is basically calling Islam a pagan religion, And it's
Speaker 1: a genius way to critique that goofball cult religion. Why
Speaker 1: do you think it's so popular amongst people with Adiq.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that IQ is everything in religion, but
Speaker 1: there is an element to which when they start critiquing
Speaker 1: the Trinity and the deed of Christ and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and you start to see, wait a minute, these people
Speaker 1: can't make basic metaphysical distinctions, even when their own position
Speaker 1: about Allah's attributes requires those metaphysical distinctions. They can't do it.
Speaker 1: It's like, did you guys remember when we did the
Speaker 1: six hours of asking the hypothetical questions and we couldn't
Speaker 1: find a single Muslim who was able to entertain a hypothetical.
Speaker 1: They can't do it, vindicating the meme, how would you
Speaker 1: have felt if you hadn't had breakfast today? And so
Speaker 1: basically we have religion and cults that appeal to people
Speaker 1: and hold people who's who max out at double digit
Speaker 1: IQs ninety eighty eighty five. That's it. So you're you're
Speaker 1: not talking to you're talking to people who just can't
Speaker 1: do it. Yes, there is generational generational I N B
Speaker 1: R E D I N exactly.
Speaker 4: G.
Speaker 1: So in seventy two British schools there are basically no
Speaker 1: British students. There's two out of all of these. Here
Speaker 1: is on twip. So this is Germany is a giant. Now,
Speaker 1: all these idiot Muslims love this and I think that
Speaker 1: they're winning. They don't even realize that they're tools for
Speaker 1: this global elite.
Speaker 8: It's insane.
Speaker 1: Here's Brussels and it looks like Kabul. This is Brussels,
Speaker 1: Like I see one white dude, in this whole cavalcade here, Uh,
Speaker 1: there's one fat white woman and all Muslims.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: Now, this couldn't be done and it hasn't been done
Speaker 1: merely because there was one election that favored a bunch
Speaker 1: of liberal socialist candidates. You have to understand that the
Speaker 1: entire EU and the EU project was created, did buy
Speaker 1: the OSS and the CIA. On record, the Rattia book
Speaker 1: details that going all the way into the European Steel
Speaker 1: a coal conglomerate which is the origin of it, the
Speaker 1: OSS putting together mountains of propaganda to promote the European
Speaker 1: Project which becomes the EU. There's the documents of the
Speaker 1: Builderberg group which came out that the Builderberg was planning
Speaker 1: the EU in its earliest meetings. And yes, they adopted
Speaker 1: the count Koutenhove plan, as I detailed many many times over.
Speaker 1: I brought and have the book with me, so it's
Speaker 1: not a conspiracy. It's a real thing. He talks about
Speaker 1: it right here in his book Practical Idealism. What book
Speaker 1: the book I'm holding in my fucking hand, dude. You
Speaker 1: guys need to get with the program, man, Alexander, what's up?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 1: Let's text some.
Speaker 2: Calls hey, Jay, how you doing, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm great, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing all right?
Speaker 10: Obviously, no critiques.
Speaker 1: Just have two.
Speaker 11: Points that I feel like people don't really focus on.
Speaker 11: The First is like the generational divide that we have. Obviously,
Speaker 11: the boomers when it comes to immigration, borders, geopolitics, they
Speaker 11: kind of sold to sound.
Speaker 4: We all know that.
Speaker 11: But I call the Gen X boomer lights and I
Speaker 11: feel like they're trying to make a mark on them
Speaker 11: have revitalizing the economy, and the backbone of their plan
Speaker 11: is just more immigration, more you know, bringing in people
Speaker 11: from India to drive the trucks and everything like that.
Speaker 11: That's why you see so many of them. They are
Speaker 11: just even big name political figures just absolutely in the
Speaker 11: tank for guys like Vivic. You see estate politicians and
Speaker 11: Ohio you know, taking photos with him with their kids
Speaker 11: who look like it's a you know, I don't know
Speaker 11: if you saw that photo of the state politician in
Speaker 11: Ohio taking a picture with Vic with his kid, uh
Speaker 11: and the kid just looked like he was in you know,
Speaker 11: a hostage situation. But there's they just want to make
Speaker 11: a mark for themselves as revitalizing the economy and the
Speaker 11: way they view as doing that is through this egalitarian,
Speaker 11: open borders mindset where you know, anybody can be an American,
Speaker 11: let's bring them all in. They're going to make America better.
Speaker 11: Guys like this is our time to you know, bring
Speaker 11: the economy.
Speaker 2: Back, you know.
Speaker 1: And well this was this was the whole thesis behind
Speaker 1: our first episode of the Sam Hyde Show. Yeah was
Speaker 1: this was this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and an offshoot of that.
Speaker 11: My second major point is there's the specific type of
Speaker 11: those people would be, like the evangelicals, and the problem
Speaker 11: that they have is that if you were to actually
Speaker 11: try to internally critique their mindset, uh, they actually, when
Speaker 11: a push comes to shove, don't rely on any Christian
Speaker 11: backing for the decision making process. If you ask them, well,
Speaker 11: you know, why can't we, for instance, make Christian laws
Speaker 11: in this country?
Speaker 2: Will the point to the First Amendment.
Speaker 11: But if you were to logically walk them through and say, listen,
Speaker 11: say we got the majority of the states to you know,
Speaker 11: pass an amendment that abridged the First Amendment and made
Speaker 11: it where we could specifically pass a you know, a
Speaker 11: type of Christian law or something like that, well, they
Speaker 11: wouldn't be in favor of that, even though it followed
Speaker 11: their you know, liberty first, democracy first process of you know,
Speaker 11: utilizing the Constitution as it's been laid out. Because when
Speaker 11: it comes down to when most of the evangelicals, they
Speaker 11: have this false tringy they've set up where it's basically
Speaker 11: the Constitution, Schofield, Bible, and a historian Jesus, and that's
Speaker 11: really the trinity that they worship. They're always going to
Speaker 11: be liberty first, are always going to worship the Constitution
Speaker 11: before anything else.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the other religions and worldviews do not believe
Speaker 1: in these separations, and they do not believe in abstaining
Speaker 1: from having power. So this is precisely why they will
Speaker 1: always lose and eventually they will die out. Because God
Speaker 1: is the source of power and providence and authority. He
Speaker 1: ordained and created the state. The state has a duty
Speaker 1: then to God and to Christian laws and morals. If
Speaker 1: it doesn't follow that, there will be penalties for that,
Speaker 1: and those penalties are exacted through things like massive Islamic immigration.
Speaker 1: So if Europe abandons its Christian heritage, the chastisement that
Speaker 1: you get is you're going to be ruled over by
Speaker 1: this crazy cult and This has always happened in history,
Speaker 1: where when people don't follow God, when they don't keep
Speaker 1: the commands, they don't keep his law, they get ruled over.
Speaker 1: That's you, you know, if you if the sault lose
Speaker 1: its savior, you get trampled on. And that's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. So you either rule and do things the
Speaker 1: way that the Orthodox Church has laid down and the
Speaker 1: scriptures say, or you suffer the consequences and you're ruled
Speaker 1: over by these goons who will take power. And this
Speaker 1: whole idea that power is in the state is anti Jesus,
Speaker 1: anti Christian is a Baptist heresy that has led and
Speaker 1: it's out of the Enlightenment that has led to all
Speaker 1: this nonsense.
Speaker 11: Oh yeah, I know. I mean it was Baptist before
Speaker 11: I was, you know, brought in before I went to
Speaker 11: the Orthodox Church. Now, so I know all about that.
Speaker 11: One of the big things that you'll notice is that
Speaker 11: a lot of these evangelical types, the conic types and
Speaker 11: stuff like that, they're so willing to team up with
Speaker 11: anti Trinitarians. They'll team up with like the based Muslim
Speaker 11: or a lot of them will like you know, they
Speaker 11: adore Mormons, for instance, and they'll group up with them,
Speaker 11: but they will slander and absolutely talk down upon anybody
Speaker 11: who's in the Orthodox Church who actually is Christian. But
Speaker 11: they'll team up with people who aren't Christians because again,
Speaker 11: their first God is Libertus and that's that's who they worship.
Speaker 2: Honestly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well this is what you get with heresy. So
Speaker 1: the reason heresy is such a massive problem is not
Speaker 1: just individuals. Heresy also affects society as a whole. If
Speaker 1: you guys recall, we lectured through the massive scholarly tone
Speaker 1: by Malcolm Lambert some years back, medieval heresy, and we
Speaker 1: saw that the motivations that a lot of the kings
Speaker 1: the Middle Ages had was to root out and to
Speaker 1: ban heresy wasn't because they were mean tyrants. Heresy had
Speaker 1: the effect of being socially revolutionary. So when we see,
Speaker 1: for example, the idea that Christians shouldn't have any role
Speaker 1: in government, there should be no Christian laws, et cetera,
Speaker 1: you're leaving a vacuum that wicked men fill and then
Speaker 1: they put in place wicked laws. You're gonna have Sharia law,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have secular tyrannical Socialist, Marxist law, whatever, those
Speaker 1: things step in and fill the vacuum. So either Christians
Speaker 1: are faithful to their calling and get rid of the
Speaker 1: Enlightenment and Reformation presubpositions that they have. I mean all
Speaker 1: of these Americanists, people who are like the Americanist Orthodox
Speaker 1: people of ancient Faith radio. It's like everybody knows that
Speaker 1: we had Orthodox kings and the Orthodox imperium, but they
Speaker 1: act like no. What's sacrosanct is separation of church and state,
Speaker 1: meaning that there's no relationship between laws and society and God.
Speaker 1: So they're basically Baptist Pietists who pretend to be Orthodox
Speaker 1: Christians and priests because they basically submit to the State
Speaker 1: department and do the Americanist version of what Christianity is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. So their first and foremost deity is America,
Speaker 1: just like he pointed out, like the Baptists, the Dispensationalists,
Speaker 1: the Constitution America, religious freedom is number one. Where is
Speaker 1: this anywhere? Okay, let's go to the first thousand years
Speaker 1: of Christianity or the scriptures. Where is this idea of
Speaker 1: religious freedom being the first and foremost hollowed protected thing.
Speaker 1: It's not. It doesn't exist. It's it's all just assumptions,
Speaker 1: post Reformation, post Enlightenment that everybody just assumes that, Oh well,
Speaker 1: all we all know that. How do we know that's? Where?
Speaker 1: Where does this come from? Here's Kier Starmer praising Islam.
Speaker 1: So you see, do you think these people are dumb?
Speaker 1: I just don't understand why you think these people are dumb. Hey, Conservatives,
Speaker 1: it's your it's you that's actually dumb because you can't
Speaker 1: figure out that these people are cunning, psychotic, sociopathic, psychopathic technocrats.
Speaker 1: They're not dumb, They're evil. This is what you don't understand.
Speaker 12: You're the problem in Globo of the government's missions in business,
Speaker 12: helping to grow our ecultomate, in education, giving young people
Speaker 12: the opportunities that they deserves.
Speaker 13: Of course, in charity work.
Speaker 12: British Muslims are amongst the most generous group in the
Speaker 12: United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: So do you think he doesn't know what's going on
Speaker 1: in his country. He's part of the Fabian socialist elite
Speaker 1: who want that for the country, and they've had it
Speaker 1: as a plan for a hundred years plus. I've shown
Speaker 1: you the books so many times. They said they would
Speaker 1: start with Oxford University bringing in Sufis. Why do they
Speaker 1: start with Sufi's because Sufism was cool and like syncretists,
Speaker 1: and it was a little more applicable to open minded
Speaker 1: professorial types. And then when they brought in more and
Speaker 1: more Muslims, then they started bringing in the Wahabi Salafi,
Speaker 1: real Muslims. But they couldn't bring in the Salafis immediately.
Speaker 1: They actually said, we'll bring him in gradually. Gradualism. That's
Speaker 1: the meaning of Fabian socialism, gradual transformation. Wow, here's so Paris,
Speaker 1: France is now Africa. They yea.
Speaker 6: On the fact, Well you have what about Russia? Russia
Speaker 6: has got millions of Muslim Yeah, it's a mistake there too.
Speaker 1: I mean, unfortunately, people in Russia think that there is
Speaker 1: this trad alliance between Islam Uh and Orthodox Christianity, just
Speaker 1: as foolhardy as all of these people and the trad
Speaker 1: cats in America, just as don't whoa, oh, here's this,
Speaker 1: here's this ridiculous Shia nonsense where they slapped themselves for Ali.
Speaker 4: Ali.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I mean, I don't know what else to say. Like,
Speaker 1: we've covered this countless times for so many years. People
Speaker 1: don't listen, they think, oh, you won't talk about Jews.
Speaker 6: Muslims are good?
Speaker 1: Really really okay, good luck with that. Let's see, we've
Speaker 1: covered that. What is this? Okay? Did you know? There's
Speaker 1: new Epstein files? Shocker, and it vindicates what we've talked about.
Speaker 9: The file leak that just happened from Ahud Barak, the
Speaker 9: ex Prime Minister of Israel, one of Epstein's very good buddies.
Speaker 9: Thousands of his emails were leaked online and like alternative sorts,
Speaker 9: they are talking about it, but the mainstream media totally silent,
Speaker 9: radio silence. And I have spent the last I don't
Speaker 9: even know how long just going down the rabbit hole,
Speaker 9: and I'm about to take you with me. This is
Speaker 9: just the start. This is just preliminary reporting. There's a
Speaker 9: lot of files, and just figuring out how to even
Speaker 9: analyze them has been a whole process. But through that process,
Speaker 9: working with my buddy over here on one screen and
Speaker 9: the reports on the other screen, and getting AI involved
Speaker 9: to write code that would scrape and then combine and
Speaker 9: then then analyzed. By the end of this, we're gonna
Speaker 9: get to how they were surveilling the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, and Putin and Jeff Bezos, Bill Clinton, Benjamin
Speaker 9: det Yahoo, and there's links that will go to email report.
Speaker 9: But first I just want to tell you how we
Speaker 9: got because when you actually download the leaked emails, they
Speaker 9: come from two different emails. But when you go into
Speaker 9: those emails, there is just this whole mess of folders,
Speaker 9: and in each one there's more folders with different things.
Speaker 9: And each of these files is an individual email. Right,
Speaker 9: We're talking like fifty thousand emails or more each individual files.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, but I mean Epstein's sending fifty thousand emails
Speaker 1: to Ahod Barock. That's just that's just because they were
Speaker 1: hanging out doing science. It's not because jeff Stein mcgeffrey
Speaker 1: was working as a Israeli intelligence in any capacity. It's
Speaker 1: because they were like sharing, you know, like cheat codes
Speaker 1: for video games and ideas for scientific discoveries and how
Speaker 1: to help the countries that they work in to promote
Speaker 1: the general welfare. That's what it was about. What do
Speaker 1: you mean like, of course there's thousands of emails between them,
Speaker 1: even though he didn't have any connection to Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine not knowing this by now, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is so stupid right. They were just doing science. Man,
Speaker 1: Why don't you trust the science and stop being a
Speaker 1: hate moment?
Speaker 9: All these different folders, How the fuck are we going
Speaker 9: to analyze them?
Speaker 1: So lately I've been playing, well, what's to analyze? Because
Speaker 1: it does not there's no connection other than just being
Speaker 1: friends sharing science. They're science friends. Why would you think
Speaker 1: there's anything other than being a science friend. Fucking science, bro,
Speaker 1: We're just studying earthworms and shit, man, we're trying to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of how to heal cancer. Dude, Jamie,
Speaker 1: could you make me an expresso? We're working we're working
Speaker 1: together with Jeff Stein McAffrey and Ewood Barrock on healing
Speaker 1: cancer and saving the world. Why would you try to
Speaker 1: stop us? Huh huh. I'm working with Jeff Sent McAffrey
Speaker 1: and Ewood Barrock on healing cancer. Why are you trying
Speaker 1: to stop us? They're they're just sharing science. Why are
Speaker 1: you being weird? So he likes Zoro? I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: I like, who doesn't like Antonio Banderas He played a
Speaker 1: great Zoro? So so you oh, Jeff sy McCaffrey's bag
Speaker 1: cause he likes Zoro? Whoa whoa? Yeah, good job temple hat.
Speaker 1: I got a science friend and his name is E.
Speaker 1: Barack and Jeff Stein McCaffrey. We're doing some science together.
Speaker 1: We got a test tube and we got a little
Speaker 1: dreda and we spend it and we do some alchemy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: alchemy together with science and Secrets of life are gonna
Speaker 1: heal cancer. We're doing science. Yeah, just me and my
Speaker 1: science friends. We're doing science. Yeah, we're gonna heal the world.
Speaker 1: Alam is science. Yeah, anyway you can. That's there's there's
Speaker 1: material for a funny song.
Speaker 4: There.
Speaker 1: We have money. The tariffs were the backbone of American sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Cosmic dump sauce five dollars. Jay put the super chat
Speaker 1: image over on the right. Yeah, I moved it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It was popping up over my face because I moved
Speaker 1: the camera. So I moved the superch think ck three months. Remember,
Speaker 1: papacy is a spiritual It spiritually blinds people. It's like
Speaker 1: a zombie virus. Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 1: It's like dealing with the zombies. Man submit to Rome
Speaker 1: because the Rome. I mean basically, if you submit to Rome,
Speaker 1: you're submitting to Zionism. So think of it that way,
Speaker 1: So try to make me so what I thought. You
Speaker 1: don't mean to submit to Zionism, but you want to
Speaker 1: submit to Rome. I don't understand AC five dollars, submit
Speaker 1: to not submitting. It's the new avenue and papacy. There
Speaker 1: we go, Troitthodox ten dollars. The occult elites are the
Speaker 1: root cause of all the degeneracy and collapse. They are
Speaker 1: merely or are they merely accelerants? Would humanity have a
Speaker 1: downfall of its own or without them? Or would it
Speaker 1: be at a slower pace? Who knows? We I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't live in you know, the alternate
Speaker 1: realities Man in the High Castle scenarios, So we don't
Speaker 1: know what it would be like otherwise. But one thing
Speaker 1: that people don't like, the world's problems are not Jewish people.
Speaker 1: The world's problems are not China. The world's problems are
Speaker 1: not all one thing. Now, maybe our national foreign policy
Speaker 1: and stuff like that, and free speech. Yes, APAC has
Speaker 1: a huge amount of control. They seem to tell us
Speaker 1: what to do. Sure, But man's problem, as Jesus said,
Speaker 1: is his heart. Man has to have a change of heart,
Speaker 1: has to have repentance. That's the root of the problem
Speaker 1: because otherwise he's just kind of by default serving satan
Speaker 1: ac two dollars Jahankka Honk jahank Ka Honk Savior Center. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So basically, liberal whites are so anti racists that they
Speaker 1: are reverse racist because they want to save all the
Speaker 1: brown people sold by whitebro five dollars. Bianca fights to
Speaker 1: the zombies, broke down every Hollywood propaganda peace that had
Speaker 1: blue eye blonde Christians, and it's basically.
Speaker 8: All of.
Speaker 1: Okay, that must be a channel. Yeah, I mean we've
Speaker 1: noticed for a long time that this is where I
Speaker 1: wear the glasses because apparently I'm a villain because I
Speaker 1: have bright blue eyes if you see me in person,
Speaker 1: So I'm having to hide my appearance because I'm apparently
Speaker 1: a Hollywood villain because of my genetics. LDN two pounds, Jay,
Speaker 1: I love your work much love from Romania. August ten
Speaker 1: dollars Jay. What's your favorite Muslim country in Europe? All
Speaker 1: of them? Islam is its own nation. It is the
Speaker 1: Nation of Islam. Actually the Nation of Islam with Yakub
Speaker 1: is my favorite Muslim country, which isn't technically Muslim, but
Speaker 1: one day, one day, we can hope we'll all be
Speaker 1: a Kubians, b Ryan two dollars, who coined the term
Speaker 1: skittles me Gelato Boy gifted five memberships. What's up houling
Speaker 1: the goods five dollars? This is off topic, but talking
Speaker 1: about heresy. Oh my gosh, No, I told you guys,
Speaker 1: I'm not dealing with calendar questions. Jubb. Jeff Say mcaffreey
Speaker 1: was obviously just emailing science tips on how to heal
Speaker 1: cancer and harvesting things from people. Yeah, exactly, thank you.
Speaker 1: I don't know why everybody's making a big deal about this.
Speaker 1: It's ten thousand emails about holistic medicine, cures, healing broken limbs,
Speaker 1: healing cancer, stopping smoking. I'm sure. Jeff Stin mcguffrey was
Speaker 1: very interested in how do we get people to stop smoking?
Speaker 1: It's bad for their health. Again, you guys need to like,
Speaker 1: why are you hating on people that are trying to help.
Speaker 9: With AIS in terms of helping find sources, helping dig
Speaker 9: through complex details and data, and helping get to primary
Speaker 9: sources and or in this case, aggregate thousands of email files.
Speaker 1: So it looks like so far, I was reading about
Speaker 1: what's come out so far, and it looks like it's
Speaker 1: just I mean, I'm not saying this is the only
Speaker 1: thing that's come out, but here's a video, another video
Speaker 1: covering and let's see.
Speaker 4: What this says.
Speaker 14: Documents have surfaced revealing startling details about the relationship between
Speaker 14: Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barrack, shedding
Speaker 14: new light on Epstein's global connections and his involvement in
Speaker 14: the surveillance industry. Leaked emails suggest that Epstein wasn't just
Speaker 14: a financier of secretive projects.
Speaker 1: So this one is interesting. It seems to be talking
Speaker 1: about getting close to the circles of Peter Teel. And
Speaker 1: let's be clear here, not every one of these emails
Speaker 1: means these people are compromised. What the emails show is
Speaker 1: we want to get close to and get in the
Speaker 1: circles of these people. So maybe they are, maybe they aren't,
Speaker 1: we don't know. But that's what this shows, which again
Speaker 1: shows that will then obviously he was doing this on
Speaker 1: behalf of.
Speaker 14: But was actively seeking to shape the future of global
Speaker 14: security with the help of powerful figures. Following his arrest
Speaker 14: for sex crimes, Epstein sought a new career path in
Speaker 14: the surveillance sector. In twenty fifteen, he partnered with Barak
Speaker 14: to invest in a security tech startup reporting homeland security,
Speaker 14: now known as Carbine. But this wasn't just about business.
Speaker 14: Epstein aimed to build connections with influential global figures. The
Speaker 14: leak of over one hundred thousand emails from former Israeli
Speaker 14: Prime Minister Ehud Barak's inbox paints a picture of Jeffrey
Speaker 14: Epstein not just as a financier, but as someone eager
Speaker 14: to sit at the crossroads of private wealth and global surveillance.
Speaker 14: Among the revelations, Epstein was reportedly arranging a meeting with
Speaker 14: Peter Thield, the PayPal co founder and Pallenteer CEO. In
Speaker 14: twenty fourteen. Epstein even asked Barak to spend real time
Speaker 14: with theel to build further connections.
Speaker 15: And moreover, it's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that
Speaker 15: this guy had direct connections to a foreign government. Now
Speaker 15: no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel,
Speaker 15: because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that that's naughty.
Speaker 15: There is nothing wrong with saying that.
Speaker 14: These shocking details have reignited discussions around Epstein's mysterious ties
Speaker 14: with right wing pundit Tucker Carlson, even suggesting that Epstein
Speaker 14: had been working with Israeli intelligence during the years he
Speaker 14: was allegedly trafficking Minus. Carlson speaking at the Turning Point
Speaker 14: USA Summit added fuel to the ongoing conspiracy theories surrounding
Speaker 14: Epstein's ties to global power networks. Epstein's efforts weren't just
Speaker 14: limited to Silicon Valley. In twenty fifteen, he introduced Barak
Speaker 14: to Russian business elites connected to Vladimir put In Circle.
Speaker 14: Leaked emails show Epstein positioning himself as an apolitical go between,
Speaker 14: offering advice to navigate US sanctions and suggesting meetings with
Speaker 14: Russian officials on the markets and financial systems.
Speaker 1: Epstein's interest in Sabina, as you know, we've covered many
Speaker 1: times over and for a few years now Whitney Web's
Speaker 1: excellent book volume two from my publisher, International Blackmail Volume
Speaker 1: two about Maxwell and Epstein. And so I think if
Speaker 1: you've read this text, and as we have, and we've
Speaker 1: promoted it, recommended it, not really anything in this is
Speaker 1: that surprising. It's kind of like, yeah, this is just
Speaker 1: further confirmation of what was obvious. However, to a lot
Speaker 1: of the public and the normies out there. This is
Speaker 1: apparently still not obvious. So it's like, man, guys need
Speaker 1: to get with the picture, dude, Like this is obvious
Speaker 1: and well known. No Lean's technology was more than just financial.
Speaker 14: He was deeply involved in take discussions asking Barak about
Speaker 14: emerging I mean, this.
Speaker 1: Is not anything revelatory. I'm not saying the emails on revelatory.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they will be. I'm saying this point, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course he was involved in all these tacked transhumanist adventures.
Speaker 1: There's whole chapters and when he was a book on.
Speaker 14: That trends like cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and Israeli military strategies.
Speaker 1: What na ah, that's just science. He's just sharing science
Speaker 1: tips with science friends. That's it.
Speaker 14: Through report, he Epstein sought to influence emergency response technologies,
Speaker 14: even engaging with a former Israeli intelligence officer to keep
Speaker 14: tabs on these developments. Despite Epstein's involvement, Barrack tried to
Speaker 14: distance himself publicly. In twenty nineteen, after Epstein's rearrest, Barrick
Speaker 14: announced he was dissolving his partnership with Epstein, But as
Speaker 14: the leaked emails show their ties were deep, with Barrack
Speaker 14: seeking Epstein's investment advice for other ventures, including levertection and
Speaker 14: electromagnetic imaging startup. These emails offer a rare glimpse into
Speaker 14: Epstein's network of influence, one that's spanned across industries and borders.
Speaker 14: As the fallout continues, the implications of Epstein's relationships with
Speaker 14: global power players like Baraque Feel and Russian elites raised
Speaker 14: troubling questions about the intersection of surveillance technology and international power.
Speaker 14: With the leaks now public, the ripple effects are only just.
Speaker 1: Beginning, so it's going to be interesting to see as
Speaker 1: people dig through these what is actually going on?
Speaker 8: Right Jaden, what's up man?
Speaker 1: I'm you and turn them onto one.
Speaker 4: Doing.
Speaker 1: Jay, thank you so much.
Speaker 16: For having me as the cause of an or to
Speaker 16: speak with you. Hey, I just had a quick question.
Speaker 16: I'm about to finish this book. I'm not sure if
Speaker 16: you're familiar with it against our better judgment by Alison
Speaker 16: Weir Uh just regarding the establishment of the state of Israel.
Speaker 16: And I understand that Israel is a different you know,
Speaker 16: political and theological sense, but I've been looking into Orthodoxy
Speaker 16: recently and I've just been doing quick little chat GPTs.
Speaker 2: I know that's usually not a good way.
Speaker 16: To cateche somebody, but could you give an explanation or
Speaker 16: the Orthodox explanation of replacement theory and supersessionism, Because when
Speaker 16: I read the Catholic explanation it makes sense to me,
Speaker 16: but I tend to not agree.
Speaker 2: With most things that are Catholic. Thanks to you, I'm
Speaker 2: leaning towards more Orthodoxy.
Speaker 16: But then when I look up the Orthodox position on
Speaker 16: replacement theology and supersessionism, I find it a little hard
Speaker 16: to understand.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that it's wrong. I just would like
Speaker 2: a better explanation from some like you.
Speaker 1: Well, when you say I read the Catholic position, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the Catholic position is because it keeps
Speaker 1: evolving in morphine. And in two thousand and three, the
Speaker 1: US Conference of Catholic Bishops, basing itself on knos or
Speaker 1: taught to him, Vatican two said that Jews shouldn't be converted.
Speaker 1: So who knows what the Catholic position is? Because the
Speaker 1: post Vatican two Catholic position is basically like dispensationalism. However,
Speaker 1: Jesus is very clear in Matthew twenty one that the
Speaker 1: nation state of Israel was divorced.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly what I assumed.
Speaker 16: And I only asked this because I actually I'm not
Speaker 16: a Protestant, but I have a close, long term family
Speaker 16: friend that is a Protestant pastor, and I asked him
Speaker 16: just a simple explanation of why he supports Israel the
Speaker 16: way he does, and he still believes in the Old Covenant,
Speaker 16: and he says it's really because of the Book of Revelations.
Speaker 16: And then as I was explaining my position in my
Speaker 16: thought process, he said, oh, well, you sound like someone
Speaker 16: that is a fan of replacement theology, that you know,
Speaker 16: we the Christians, are the new Israel, that we are
Speaker 16: now God's chosen to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean God, I mean the New Testament says
Speaker 1: that like dozens of times. So so whoever you're talking
Speaker 1: about is an ignorant, brainwashed dispensationalist, That's.
Speaker 16: What That's what I was assuming. The only reason why
Speaker 16: I wanted your position was because when I was reading
Speaker 16: what the conclusive Orthodox position was, it seemed to say
Speaker 16: that Orthodox tend to stick stay away from the term replacement,
Speaker 16: and they do believe in the New Israel, but they
Speaker 16: don't like calling it replacing. They still say that Jews
Speaker 16: have a part of God's plan.
Speaker 1: Well, Jews will be saved in the future. The Eastern
Speaker 1: Church Fathers believe and speak consistently about a future conversion
Speaker 1: of the Jews. So Jews are still Jews, but Rabbinic
Speaker 1: Judaism is essentially a cult that has set itself against
Speaker 1: against Orthodox Christianity and against Christ. So both of those
Speaker 1: things are true at the same time. And that's why
Speaker 1: we say that, as Romans eleven says, when use convert,
Speaker 1: they can be grafted back in.
Speaker 2: Okay, makes makes total sense.
Speaker 16: I think that's exactly the answer I was hoping to hear.
Speaker 2: But yeah, thank you so much.
Speaker 16: I could probably say I'm here and ask questions all day.
Speaker 2: But I want to give somebody else the chance.
Speaker 10: Every time you do one of these, I want to
Speaker 10: jump on and ask a.
Speaker 2: Question, but I don't want to be that guy.
Speaker 1: Are those are good questions?
Speaker 4: Man?
Speaker 1: You just pop back in anytime ex communicado, ex communicado,
Speaker 1: what's up, hi Jae?
Speaker 2: Or to look up here? I have one question.
Speaker 17: So it's about my debates with protest answer regarding how
Speaker 17: do we how do we believe to saints and church fathers.
Speaker 17: They say Bible is infallible, about tradition and the rest
Speaker 17: of things, that they are not valible. Why why do
Speaker 17: we believe then, among.
Speaker 2: God that things?
Speaker 18: I say, because the they lived holy life, and many
Speaker 18: many with them asthetics and infesting, and some day they
Speaker 18: have so much grace they could perform miracles are prophesizing.
Speaker 2: That's the reason.
Speaker 17: Whether and they respond to whether those miracles are from
Speaker 17: Satan or or even lie spells.
Speaker 10: How good?
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't go without. If you're debating where the
Speaker 1: Protestant I wouldn't go to the route of trying to
Speaker 1: prove to them that our saints are holy, because they're
Speaker 1: just gonna immediately filter it out because they need to
Speaker 1: have their presuppositions challenge. So I would debate with them
Speaker 1: about the notion of tradition itself and the formation of
Speaker 1: the Biblical Canon, because if that falls, Protestantism will falls.
Speaker 1: But you're not will fall, and that's what always happens.
Speaker 1: That's what happened to me, and most most people who
Speaker 1: convert from Protestant Orthodoxy, they have that process or conversion.
Speaker 1: You're never going to convert a Protestant by trying to
Speaker 1: prove to them and our saints or holy because they're
Speaker 1: just gonna filter it out and handwave it. Cyde girl,
Speaker 1: what's up, cy girl? What's up?
Speaker 19: Yeah?
Speaker 20: I hate to blindside you with this because it's more
Speaker 20: political than theological, and you were probably too young at
Speaker 20: the time to think about it much.
Speaker 2: But if you've see in the.
Speaker 20: Movie Charlie Wilson's War, you probably know all about the
Speaker 20: Cold War effort of the United States to support the
Speaker 20: Islamic Muhaja Deen against the Soviet Union. And I'm wondering
Speaker 20: which side you would have taken in that conflict, or
Speaker 20: what if you have just stood back and not gotten
Speaker 20: involved in all at all, as opposed to the Reagan
Speaker 20: administration and Zubignya Brazinski, who actively supplied to Mujahadeen against Moscow,
Speaker 20: And after all, Moscow is still the Third Rome, is
Speaker 20: it not.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm going aware of that for twenty years.
Speaker 1: I've lectured on Razinski's books that whole strategy. We just
Speaker 1: covered it actually about a month ago we did a
Speaker 1: whole free inter page book on that topic by Max Blumenthal.
Speaker 1: So I'm very familiar with Representative Wilson Charlie Wilson, the
Speaker 1: support for the Mujahadeen. There's no easy answer to that
Speaker 1: because of the complexity of the Cold War. But overall,
Speaker 1: I think the Cold War was a long term false
Speaker 1: dialectic to transition the world into a technocracy. So I
Speaker 1: don't believe in Sovietism or the NKVD. But I also
Speaker 1: don't believe in Western atheistic capitalism, so I don't really
Speaker 1: care for any of them. So I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: your question assumes that I'm supposed to choose some side
Speaker 1: of this conflict.
Speaker 20: Why Well, because the muJava Haadeen clearly represented fundamentalist Islam,
Speaker 20: whereas at the very least, even the Soviet Union, even
Speaker 20: though under the Bolshuviks, is still the residence of the
Speaker 20: Third Rome.
Speaker 1: No, that's crazy. Why would Bolshevism have anything to do
Speaker 1: with the Third Rome when their whole goal was to
Speaker 1: stamp out the czar and the Christian monarchy.
Speaker 20: Because because stalin formed an alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church,
Speaker 20: No he didn't.
Speaker 1: He infiltrated it and tried to install KGB bishops and
Speaker 1: they had a three tiered system where they marked the
Speaker 1: bishops that were compliant, the ones that were possibly compromisable
Speaker 1: or compliant, and the ones that were absolutely not compromisable.
Speaker 1: So you've oversimplified something that was way more complex than that.
Speaker 20: So with respect to the Afghan Mujahadin, is it fair
Speaker 20: to say you would have stood aside from that conflict
Speaker 20: and been sort of a conscientious objector to even getting
Speaker 20: involved in it because you wouldn't want to pick sides
Speaker 20: between Bolshevism and fundamentalist Islam. That does that summarize your review?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: Well, Stalin tried to tried to stave off some of
Speaker 1: the problems that Bolshevik revolution caused. One of those was
Speaker 1: the massive delinquency and single children that resulted from Bolshevism
Speaker 1: pushing free love and pushing gay rights, all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff, a bobo abortion. So it's part of the
Speaker 1: reason that Stalin made the NKBD have these anti homosexual
Speaker 1: and anti degeneracy policies. Had nothing to do with him
Speaker 1: being Orthodox. He was an atheist, but he saw that
Speaker 1: that was a better approach to stopping Bolshevik collapse than
Speaker 1: continuing to allow it to happen. So he tried to
Speaker 1: take on kind of a I forget that there's a
Speaker 1: guy named something like Ustinov or something that he was
Speaker 1: influenced by these guys who thought that there should be
Speaker 1: some some allowance for the church, but they needed to
Speaker 1: be submissive to the Soviet state. But you're completely wrong
Speaker 1: that has any that that has anything to do with
Speaker 1: the Third Rome. So you sound like a brainwashed neocon
Speaker 1: who believes a bunch of nonsense about the Third Rome.
Speaker 1: As if that's like Sovietism, which is retarded well.
Speaker 20: After the fall of Constantinople, at least in a technical sense,
Speaker 20: the center of Eastern Orthodoxy did in fact migrate.
Speaker 1: Did I say that there's not a Third Rome? I
Speaker 1: said that Sovietism has nothing to do with the Third Rome.
Speaker 1: That's retarded.
Speaker 20: What about the current Russian Federick?
Speaker 1: How about you go be a neocon boomer and live
Speaker 1: out your existence in that retarded bullshit. How's that okay? Grandma,
Speaker 1: go back to the go back to the to the
Speaker 1: diner and get some Tata tacks and some Virginia slims. Grandma,
Speaker 1: go back to the bas Ye, Grandma, I don't have
Speaker 1: the patience to debate a retarded boomer right now hauling
Speaker 1: the goods. Nope, we're not doing that job. I know
Speaker 1: you read that until a while. Do you think Destiny
Speaker 1: will go to prison? I have no idea what is
Speaker 1: going on, but I hope so. He seems like a complete,
Speaker 1: just piece of trash. Is there some update that Destiny
Speaker 1: might go to jail these boomers? Man, there's nobody more
Speaker 1: arrogant stupid than these boomers that are brainwashed. Destiny will
Speaker 1: be going to trial. This is just random. Actually this
Speaker 1: is old, so I don't know this is true. Let's
Speaker 1: see Latest. I wish you could actually look up the
Speaker 1: the recent news on here, but you can't. If you
Speaker 1: search a topic. When you hit this is what's so
Speaker 1: annoying about the way this is set up. Right now,
Speaker 1: you get the top post from February nineteenth. I don't
Speaker 1: care about February, like that's not relevant anymore. But if
Speaker 1: I go to the Latest, I get infinite gibberish bots
Speaker 1: that are just This is why this is so, I mean,
Speaker 1: this thing is still broken. They need to fix this.
Speaker 1: And it's the worst of all is if you try
Speaker 1: to look up crypto news right because if you want
Speaker 1: to see something up to date, obviously all you get
Speaker 1: is a thousand crypto bots in the replies, which is
Speaker 1: completely worthless, Keem argus five dollars. Who is better the
Speaker 1: persons that hate the Orthodox religion or the other guys
Speaker 1: that hate it? Yeah, it's just like boomers can never
Speaker 1: get out of dialectics, right, It's like they're just completely
Speaker 1: in masched in dialectical conflicts and either ores and so
Speaker 1: the whole question just assumes that there's like either or
Speaker 1: that I'm supposed to choose. Do you want Satan or Lucifer?
Speaker 1: Choose wisely, I'm mute Keem Hello, yep.
Speaker 21: You know, I hear you say often about submitting to Rome,
Speaker 21: but you should actually be submitting to Jerome, you know,
Speaker 21: blm now. But on a more serious note, I hear
Speaker 21: like on a lot of these protests they're complaining about replacement,
Speaker 21: which is fine, and I actually.
Speaker 2: Agree on a lot of that topic.
Speaker 21: But what I commonly see in these protests are guys
Speaker 21: that are like forty and older dudes. And especially in
Speaker 21: Australia and extremely liberal country where the birth rates are
Speaker 21: extremely far down and it's extremely atheistic and agnostic, I
Speaker 21: wonder what these people believe.
Speaker 2: Who's going to fight, like, who's going to fight off
Speaker 2: the Muslims?
Speaker 21: Because they're willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs,
Speaker 21: and you can't really battle that ideology with atheism.
Speaker 1: No, that's absolutely right. I don't know how anyone thinks
Speaker 1: they're going to fix this by what protesting bitching about
Speaker 1: your socialist government. Well, I mean, you guys have been
Speaker 1: atheists as a society, like he's saying, for decades. Like
Speaker 1: that's what I'm like. One of the reasons we focus
Speaker 1: on people at an individual level converting and having a
Speaker 1: change and getting into orthodoxy is that that's the best
Speaker 1: thing at a local, organic level to change things, Like
Speaker 1: trying to change the society politically is for ignorance twenty
Speaker 1: year olds. By the time you're forty, you realize that
Speaker 1: that's pretty much futile. So all of these people that
Speaker 1: are thinking they're going to do that, well, they're going
Speaker 1: to wise up. They're going to learn that what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is right as they get older. Eastern what's up? So,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean people are saying Europe will
Speaker 1: be in a civil war. I mean, who's going to
Speaker 1: fight a bunch of like forty year old pubgoers that
Speaker 1: worship English soccer. They're not going to fight. All they
Speaker 1: have to do is keep providing them endless bread and circuses,
Speaker 1: and like what are they gonna fight for?
Speaker 4: You?
Speaker 1: Hear me?
Speaker 2: Yep, okay cool? Some a CD of human had a question.
Speaker 2: I was reading John Damascus and he was.
Speaker 22: Talking about basically like how the father is eternally the
Speaker 22: father and that's like this necessary, but with him being
Speaker 22: the creator and I'm probably like confusing the his essence
Speaker 22: and energies here, but with him being the creator, is
Speaker 22: creating like an energy or is it like he doesn't
Speaker 22: have to he just do not have to eternally be
Speaker 22: a creator?
Speaker 2: Or am I just like way off?
Speaker 1: Well, he eternally has the power of creating, but he's
Speaker 1: not eternally a creator. So he actualizes the power of
Speaker 1: creating when he wills to create. But the generating of
Speaker 1: the sun is not an action of will, and the
Speaker 1: son is not a product of energy. So this is
Speaker 1: something that the Cappadocians argue against you Unomias, because you
Speaker 1: know me says any action is an energy, is a work.
Speaker 1: Therefore the son being generated is an energy and therefore
Speaker 1: the son is a work. Therefore he's a creature. And
Speaker 1: the cappit Doocian saying no, no, there's different types of
Speaker 1: things that God does, different types of works. The action
Speaker 1: of generating is not an action of will, it's of
Speaker 1: the Father's nature. So the son is eternally generated by
Speaker 1: necessity because God is eternally a father. But God is
Speaker 1: not necessarily eternally a actualizing creator. He eternally has the
Speaker 1: power of creating, but he's not eternally a creator until
Speaker 1: he wills to create. So that's the difference between different
Speaker 1: types of things that God does.
Speaker 22: And would that cause any problems for him being immutable?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: No, because to actualize the power of creating doesn't doesn't
Speaker 1: necessity or lead to any change in God or in
Speaker 1: his essence.
Speaker 22: Okay, okay, And then I have one more question. It's basically,
Speaker 22: what do you have like a holdout? Like I think
Speaker 22: it was Saint makes.
Speaker 2: Seems a confessor, he has to hold out? What do
Speaker 2: you mean, like, maybe I'm not the.
Speaker 22: Saint wrong, but what do you have a large part
Speaker 22: of the church in heresy? Oh yeah, basically, how do you.
Speaker 2: How do you like, how do you know that they're right?
Speaker 2: Or how do you like, how do you know what
Speaker 2: the true faith is?
Speaker 1: If like the majority of the church, Well, the true
Speaker 1: faith isn't determined by the majority. So knowing the true
Speaker 1: faith according to what is said in First John. John
Speaker 1: says you have an anointing and you know all things.
Speaker 1: He's not saying you have omniscience. He's saying that the
Speaker 1: Holy Spirit, when you were chrismated, guide you to know
Speaker 1: what is true. And so as long as our motives
Speaker 1: are sincere and we trust God, God's going to lead
Speaker 1: us to truth. There's nothing it's not Protestant to say
Speaker 1: that the individual Christian, ordized Christian can know the truth.
Speaker 1: The difference is that there's times where there's confusion, there's
Speaker 1: times where there's chaos. It doesn't mean that you can't
Speaker 1: know the truth, even if a lot of people are confused,
Speaker 1: and even if you're in the minority, because truth isn't
Speaker 1: determined by majority. It's just that there are rare instances
Speaker 1: in church history where the majority can be wrong, like
Speaker 1: in the Arian Crisis or the Iconic Class crisis. A
Speaker 1: large portion of the Church was Iconic class and it
Speaker 1: was wrong. So the means of knowing the true faith
Speaker 1: are what was the faith prior to that time. So
Speaker 1: if we're in the seventh century and there's a there's
Speaker 1: a controversy about icons or something like that. How are
Speaker 1: we going to know what the true faith is when
Speaker 1: a lot of the people don't believe it. Well, we
Speaker 1: look at what was the faith of the last seventh centuries,
Speaker 1: So that's one of the means. But ultimately we know
Speaker 1: that God will guide us the truth because we have
Speaker 1: an anointing and we know all things.
Speaker 2: Okay, oh yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, that's actually a good question because I think
Speaker 1: people overlook this because they think that not you. But
Speaker 1: like when people you know, talk about like usually it's
Speaker 1: like the Roman Catholic mindset. Let me see, so John
Speaker 1: is writing to us who've been Chris maated talking about
Speaker 1: this anointing of the Holy Spirit. Right, you have the
Speaker 1: unction of the spirit and you know all things. So
Speaker 1: if we're actually living our Christian faith and we're living
Speaker 1: according to Christ teaching and living in the life of
Speaker 1: the Church, we will have the gift of discernment. We
Speaker 1: will have the unction to know all things. We're not
Speaker 1: going to be I have no idea what's true. We don't.
Speaker 1: This is the difference between us and the Roman Catholic position.
Speaker 1: The Roman Catholic position, it's almost like it doesn't even
Speaker 1: grasp that the individual Christian can't have a direct knowledge
Speaker 1: of the power and work of the Holy Spirit. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: you do what Rome says? Well, how do I know
Speaker 1: I'm interpreting Rome?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: Oh well, well, uh, look at the interpreters of the
Speaker 1: Holy Father's words. Okay, well, but are they infallible? So
Speaker 1: it's this never ending hamster wheel spiral. And again this
Speaker 1: is not in isolation. Okay, this is not some Pentecostal
Speaker 1: thing where it's like the apostle John is teaching that
Speaker 1: you have the anointing of the Holy Spirit and you
Speaker 1: don't need the bishops or the church. It's in concert
Speaker 1: with the rest of divine revelation. But you'll notice that,
Speaker 1: I mean, Roman Catholics are supposed to have chrismation, right, confirmation, Well,
Speaker 1: what significance does that even have in the Roman Catholic system?
Speaker 1: Basically nothing? And yet because why well, they don't have
Speaker 1: and believe, they don't believe in the direct energetic presence
Speaker 1: and action and knowledge of God. You only know creative effects,
Speaker 1: and the created effects are some kind of like hierarchy
Speaker 1: that that's run by the pope. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: So it kind of reminds me of Uh. I think
Speaker 1: there was this phrase that Kant said, and I'm taking
Speaker 1: out of context because kat was talking about he said
Speaker 1: something like self imposed slavery, and he's talking about the
Speaker 1: Enlightenment and or philosophy. But that's the best application, not
Speaker 1: for contentism, not promoting content philosophy. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: principle is true, that like people want to be enslaved,
Speaker 1: like That's the weird part is like people want to
Speaker 1: be enslaved to these idiotic systems, and they're their own
Speaker 1: worst enemies. That's the problem here. And so people want
Speaker 1: to make they want to project as if all the
Speaker 1: problems are everyone else, and sometimes the problems are other people.
Speaker 1: But in many cases you're your own worst enemy. You're
Speaker 1: the real problem. Jad.
Speaker 2: Hello, Yeah, you hear me.
Speaker 23: Hey, Jay, it's a gem. I have a different now, but.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not so much.
Speaker 23: I was gonna ask a quick question. This is one
Speaker 23: of the topic of like Catholicism and all that I've noticed,
Speaker 23: and I'm sure he's noticed. It is like a strain
Speaker 23: of some Eastern Orthodox I don't know if they're all
Speaker 23: cradle or convert and they tend to be trying to
Speaker 23: like correct what most of Orthodox he is, you know
Speaker 23: what I mean. I mean we refer to them sometimes
Speaker 23: as like Latinizers.
Speaker 2: I think most Orthodox you.
Speaker 23: In particular, are not you know, good enough at original
Speaker 23: Sin and we've strayed too far from the West or something.
Speaker 23: I obviously don't believe those claims.
Speaker 2: But what would you say about.
Speaker 23: This weird chronically online habit, this little phenomenon where these
Speaker 23: guys are trying to i don't know, relatinize Orthodoxy, you
Speaker 23: make it less different than the Western Church.
Speaker 2: What do you think of that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? In fact, it's great timing that Errors of the
Speaker 1: Latins just came out, because although George was not directly
Speaker 1: intending to write this book to combat Latinizers, it actually
Speaker 1: ends up providentially being a great reputation of these people. So,
Speaker 1: you know, as we pointed out in the Tim Gordon debate,
Speaker 1: this two volume series is really good. It's out you
Speaker 1: can get over here at Uncut Mountain Press. I've been
Speaker 1: going through both volumes, finding quite a bit of excellent
Speaker 1: gems in this and what we start to notice is
Speaker 1: that no the Orthodox conception of original sin or ancestral
Speaker 1: sin is not wrong. We didn't all misread it. And
Speaker 1: in fact, one of these main people the other day
Speaker 1: that was pushing this on Twitter, turns out he's not
Speaker 1: even Orthodox. He goes to a Melchite church. So it's
Speaker 1: like nobody should be listening to these self published, anonymous
Speaker 1: weirdos who never tell who their bishop or their priest
Speaker 1: is or anything like that. They just push their self
Speaker 1: published nonsense online to a bunch of ignorant and new
Speaker 1: convert Catechuman inquirer people. So if you actually are serious
Speaker 1: about refuting and rebutting a lot of this stuff, Ariz
Speaker 1: the Latins is great because it's all of the ethos
Speaker 1: of the errant Latin positions. It's not just a question
Speaker 1: of do we believe in august sinning original sin. First
Speaker 1: of all, they don't even understand that Augustine's conception of
Speaker 1: original sin is bound up with his neo platonism. He
Speaker 1: thinks that all men are in adam as in an archetype,
Speaker 1: and that's not the Orthodox conception. And so you'd have
Speaker 1: to buy into neoplatonism and his conceptions. And guess what,
Speaker 1: I've already done a three hour talk for you guys,
Speaker 1: and I've already gone through this. This is another reason
Speaker 1: why I know what's right on this position is that
Speaker 1: I was in the exact same boat as these people
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seven. I was stuck in a
Speaker 1: lot of these Augustinian and Western and Latin ideas of
Speaker 1: original sin, and I struggled with it. But I didn't
Speaker 1: understand the type of metaphysics and anthropology that you read
Speaker 1: about in a book like Free Choice in Saint Maximus,
Speaker 1: and when you read Saint Maximus's approach, that there's different
Speaker 1: systems here between Augustine Origin and Saint Maximus. Right, they
Speaker 1: have different accounts of creation, Fall, Grace, and Escaton, all
Speaker 1: three of them. And so you've really only got three
Speaker 1: options in the history of theology unless you want to
Speaker 1: be a Protestant Calvinist or something like that. You're going
Speaker 1: to have to choose Maximus's account of Genesis, kinesis, and stasis,
Speaker 1: or you're going to have to choose Origin or Augustine. Obviously,
Speaker 1: for the Orthodox position, the explicitly developed and I don't
Speaker 1: mean that in the Roman Calolic development of doctrine sense,
Speaker 1: but the explicated sense of all this is found in
Speaker 1: Sa Maximus. None of these people have significantly read, say Maximus,
Speaker 1: and so they should be discarded. They don't even know
Speaker 1: how to cash out a non dialectical conception of willing
Speaker 1: after the Fall or in the Esketon. So don't waste
Speaker 1: your time with any of these people. And if you
Speaker 1: want a talk, here's my three hour talk on this subject,
Speaker 1: and then you won't burden yourself with listening to a
Speaker 1: bunch of twenty year old melkites. Troy Orthodox ten dollars
Speaker 1: on X I create custom lists of trusted accounts. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe I need to do that. These will auto update
Speaker 1: and they'll filter out junk. Never touch the for you,
Speaker 1: Yeah no, I absolutely never do it for you. So
Speaker 1: I'm ahead of you on that account. So here's the
Speaker 1: link to get volume one and two of Against the
Speaker 1: Latins right here by George book already been making profuse
Speaker 1: use of the book. Does anybody know what the story
Speaker 1: is with Destiny? Is Destiny going to jail? Or like what?
Speaker 1: I have no idea what's the story with this? I
Speaker 1: know it has to do with revenge, prawn and whatever
Speaker 1: kind of thing he was running, but like I don't
Speaker 1: know about court and court case stuff. Put away the
Speaker 1: sword one dollar. If orthodoxy is true, then how come
Speaker 1: Orthodox priests bless soldiers because the Church is always blessed
Speaker 1: soldiers because they're about to die. Does Orthodoxy serve the state? Well,
Speaker 1: Church history is complex and every church has had to
Speaker 1: deal with the relationship of church and state. So this
Speaker 1: the fact that you're looking at Orthodox priests blessing soldiers,
Speaker 1: Not only is that not an that's not anti Christian,
Speaker 1: that's actually the historic Christian practice. So you're ignorant of
Speaker 1: church history because all priests in all nations have always
Speaker 1: blessed soldiers before going to battle because they're about to die.
Speaker 1: So of course, how would that disprove ortho Christianity. That's
Speaker 1: just ignorance eighty five dollars. I'll think Tucker is legit
Speaker 1: when he has the full interview with KGB sorcerer Jay Dyer. Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm looking forward to that. If that ever happens,
Speaker 1: it would be a great thing. I'd be very thankful
Speaker 1: and appreciative. I feel like, you know, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: have people like Doug Wilson on like, I got a
Speaker 1: lot better material than Doug Wilson. So jub now we
Speaker 1: read that we're in the turn of three dollars, gop
Speaker 1: Republicans will be pro trends in five to ten years.
Speaker 1: They're actually mostly pro skittles. Now, yeah, exactly. But I'm
Speaker 1: not just talking about the normy Republican. I'm actually talking
Speaker 1: about the supposed you know, the Knowles they're the humid
Speaker 1: Matt Walsh's and then Michael Knowles is and these kind
Speaker 1: of people. Like even these people are like they don't
Speaker 1: really know what's going on. Bob Dog ten dollars. I
Speaker 1: know you don't know anything about soccer. But English is
Speaker 1: the premier successful soccer league. It's a billion dollar industry.
Speaker 1: I'm aware of that. It has a lot to do
Speaker 1: with geopolitics too. The British government is trying to regulate
Speaker 1: it to make it better. It's the next big thing
Speaker 1: to destroy. Uh what, I guess, I don't know. Why
Speaker 1: would they want to destroy it. It's like bread and circuses,
Speaker 1: just any and three dollars. I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: you're wrong, I just don't know. What do you think
Speaker 1: about Ukrainian Autocephalist Church. I've never been to one. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I know that they were saying some pretty
Speaker 1: nasty bad stuff because that guy gave an icon to putin,
Speaker 1: which is just seems like proper protocol. I grew up Protestant,
Speaker 1: I got into Gnosticism, but now I'm seeking Jesus and
Speaker 1: the church. I would say look for a ro corp
Speaker 1: or Serbian Orthodox Church, or maybe even Antiochian Orthodox clips
Speaker 1: became a member. What's up, dude, Rossi? What do you
Speaker 1: think about Gridell's ontological proof? Could you combine it with tag? No,
Speaker 1: not really, because the ontological argument. I have an essay
Speaker 1: critiquing that on my website, So you could go look
Speaker 1: up my critique of the ontological argument and that would
Speaker 1: apply to Anselm and Gridell's version. You could make a
Speaker 1: ontological a transcendental version of the anthological argument, but as
Speaker 1: it is, it wouldn't work anymore than the other classical
Speaker 1: arguments work because they assume a whole bunch of things
Speaker 1: that won't be granted. What do you think about Rostafarian
Speaker 1: Rossavarians don't actually have a theology. There's it's a very
Speaker 1: non theological tradition, if you want to call it that. Now,
Speaker 1: I do like to remind people about rappers in the
Speaker 1: rap community that it's faking.
Speaker 7: Gay Chakor and I attend Tamipie High School and I'm
Speaker 7: seventeen years old?
Speaker 15: Do you like being seventeen?
Speaker 7: Like, seventeen is such a weird age, it's such a
Speaker 7: in the middle age. You're not eighteen yet and you're
Speaker 7: older than sixteens.
Speaker 1: But I like it.
Speaker 4: It's nice. It's like a learning stage for me.
Speaker 2: Do you wish you could be eighteen or when.
Speaker 7: You get some more rice, Well, eighteen will bring lots
Speaker 7: of responsibilities that I don't want, but it'll bring respect
Speaker 7: that I feel like that's the only way I can
Speaker 7: get it.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 7: I try to be as mature as I can be
Speaker 7: and demand it wherever I can get it.
Speaker 2: But eighteen is like you're an adult.
Speaker 1: What's funny about the rappers is that all the other rappers,
Speaker 1: for years, we're all saying all the other rappers are
Speaker 1: faking gay. That it turns out they're all faking gay.
Speaker 1: I just thought that was funny and a little bit
Speaker 1: of a reminder there. I thought there was actually more
Speaker 1: to this story because I saw a thing pop up
Speaker 1: saying that there was more gay rapper drama going on
Speaker 1: or something. But turns out that was all a bunch
Speaker 1: of fake people were just trolling, which is funny, but
Speaker 1: it didn't actually end up being the story I thought
Speaker 1: it was gonna be. So I turned on I searched
Speaker 1: gay rappers, and leonarda our friend, is the first one
Speaker 1: that came up here talking about how the rappers are
Speaker 1: all faking gay. Let's see we covered that. Bobby, what's up?
Speaker 1: Plus the speaking gate? What's up? Man, Bobby Alfredo, Fredo Corleon,
Speaker 1: what's up? I'm you.
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 10: Can you hear me?
Speaker 20: Hey?
Speaker 1: Jay?
Speaker 10: So I've heard you talk about the transcendental argument for God.
Speaker 10: It's very compelling. You know, we get knowledge morality from God.
Speaker 10: But I want you to expound upon that in terms of,
Speaker 10: you know, how does that relate to the specific Judeo
Speaker 10: Christian God.
Speaker 2: I haven't quite yet.
Speaker 10: Figured out how this character that we have in the
Speaker 10: Bible could be that guy that we have in the
Speaker 10: transcendental argument. It seems like, you know, from when I'm
Speaker 10: meeting in the scriptures, that the God in the Bible
Speaker 10: isn't moral. He seems to be evil. You know, It's
Speaker 10: just it's a character. So if you can, if you
Speaker 10: can explain, well, now.
Speaker 1: I've got tons of videos on that. You can go
Speaker 1: watch those videos.
Speaker 8: So mh.
Speaker 1: But that's just another one of these pagans. He's not
Speaker 1: he's not really answering that question. Is another pagan bringing
Speaker 1: the same bullshit. What's up man, Hey, Dre, can you
Speaker 1: hear me? Yep?
Speaker 24: All right, not necessarily to derail the conversation. But my
Speaker 24: question was, I would say, over the last year of
Speaker 24: kind of you know, going through the information that you
Speaker 24: kind of provide you in relation to geopolitics, some of
Speaker 24: the you know, more considered you know, conspiratorial information. What
Speaker 24: the question was, how do you see it necessarily playing
Speaker 24: out in terms of, you know, do you just kind
Speaker 24: of see like, well, I'm providing the information so that
Speaker 24: the people are aware, but necessarily you know what that
Speaker 24: will amount to, uh, you know, it's kind of unclear.
Speaker 2: Do you see it as.
Speaker 25: You know, I am potentially providing, you know, a catalyst
Speaker 25: for people, you know, to resist in the future, you know,
Speaker 25: like you know, once there's enough people you know to
Speaker 25: kind of kind of you know, have their eyes quote
Speaker 25: unquote open in relation to the you know, kind of
Speaker 25: like a larger picture. And then I would say outside
Speaker 25: of that, you know, you personally, you know, like like
Speaker 25: do you see this as a necessary step you in
Speaker 25: order to be able to let's say, you know, let's
Speaker 25: see the powers that you know affect you know, things
Speaker 25: kind of in the background, or is it just something
Speaker 25: you know that kind of becomes like, well, you know,
Speaker 25: I'm particularly interested in this field of studies. You know,
Speaker 25: this information is interesting, but it's not necessarily crucially for
Speaker 25: somebody to be on board with all the pieces.
Speaker 2: Doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a fed question. So good job, Yeah, glad.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's funny?
Speaker 20: No?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, I'm trying to start
Speaker 1: an army, right, that's a joke. Beldner, what's up? You
Speaker 1: can go hang out with Jessica Chastain and do your
Speaker 1: savant work. What's up? Man? I'm you?
Speaker 2: Oh can you hear me?
Speaker 20: Hello?
Speaker 1: Hello?
Speaker 2: Jay or dires Sorry.
Speaker 13: I'm an agnostic and I'm also a content like a
Speaker 13: transitent to our dealist. I wanted to know if you
Speaker 13: want to debate about god existence. Okay, sure, you used
Speaker 13: to present the argument and we can talk about it.
Speaker 1: Do I what do you.
Speaker 2: Want to present the argument and then we can talk
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 1: I don't have the energy to go and represent the
Speaker 1: entire argument I presented a thousand times. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you know the argument, then let's just skip that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I just begin.
Speaker 13: So I believe asking for a grounding of logical absolutes
Speaker 13: like law non contradiction misrepresents what they actually are like
Speaker 13: under const framework. Under consts framework, we would not be
Speaker 13: permitted to apply things like substance adherents or maybe even
Speaker 13: causality to these things because they are fundamentally to different
Speaker 13: types of things.
Speaker 1: So how do you know? How do you know that
Speaker 1: every other mind is operating in the phenomenon, is operating
Speaker 1: the way that Kant thinks the mind works if it's
Speaker 1: in the nouminal realm.
Speaker 13: Well, the mind isn't exactly like in the in the
Speaker 13: noumenal realm, like that, like the transcendental subject being like that?
Speaker 1: I think, way, So you have access to other people's
Speaker 1: mind I'm sorry, what do you have empirical access to
Speaker 1: other people's minds?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 2: No, because we want to talk about like the empirical mind, right.
Speaker 1: Do you have access to other people's subjective mental experiences? No? No, no,
Speaker 1: we don't. Okay, So how do you know that they
Speaker 1: operate the way that CONTs, categories claim they.
Speaker 2: Operate like a space time in the categories.
Speaker 1: Any of them in the minds themselves. How do you
Speaker 1: know that everybody has the same type of categories and structures. Well,
Speaker 1: we can like to do something in this instruction, right,
Speaker 1: you don't have access to that.
Speaker 2: Information, Like, what's the possibility.
Speaker 1: You just said you don't have access to that information?
Speaker 2: Well, not to like empirical minds. Yeah, you don't have
Speaker 2: access to that.
Speaker 1: It's true, Well, you don't have No, you don't have
Speaker 1: access to anyone else's minds at all.
Speaker 13: Well, there's a fundamental distinction right between like the empirical
Speaker 13: mind and the transcendental mind or the transigental subject.
Speaker 1: You don't have access to either one of those. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't believe we do, we.
Speaker 1: Do, Okay, So then you don't know that anything outside
Speaker 1: of your experience actually works the way that you think
Speaker 1: it works.
Speaker 13: Well, in that'sense, no, we we know it does not
Speaker 13: apply because there's a form's of sensibility, like we can
Speaker 13: we can make negative plans about.
Speaker 1: The new mine. How do you know that you can
Speaker 1: make negative claims.
Speaker 13: Because we know like through the deduction, which we talk
Speaker 13: about if you want, but that the offeror re forms,
Speaker 13: maybe the categories or in the space and time are
Speaker 13: mere really merely forms of intuition which are presupposed in
Speaker 13: any you know thought.
Speaker 1: I know that you that that's the argument about the
Speaker 1: transcendental subject or the eye. But what I'm asking is,
Speaker 1: given Kant's scheme and system of phenomenal nominal, aren't other
Speaker 1: minds in the nouminal realm?
Speaker 2: I know, I don't think it would be.
Speaker 1: Of course they are. You just admitted you don't have
Speaker 1: access to other people's.
Speaker 2: Minds, well without their empirical mind too. That's the distinction.
Speaker 1: You don't have access to any other any of it. Like,
Speaker 1: you don't have access to anyone's mind in any sense.
Speaker 13: No, not yes, not the empirical mind. Not the empirical
Speaker 13: not access to that. But we can talk about like
Speaker 13: what's necessary for experience to know.
Speaker 1: That's assuming the things. That's that's the point is that
Speaker 1: that's assuming the thing in question. So Kan has a
Speaker 1: problem with phenomenal numinal distinction, but at the same time
Speaker 1: he wants the transcendental subject to be applicable to all
Speaker 1: the other subjects. That doesn't work. Wait, what's your issue
Speaker 1: on All right, Okay, forget goodbye, I'm done, okay, Owen.
Speaker 26: Hey Jay, I'm glad that Boomer called in earlier about
Speaker 26: the false dialectic.
Speaker 1: I mean, uh, the East.
Speaker 26: And the West for capitalism and communism, because.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm having a hard time today that the colors
Speaker 1: are testing my patience today.
Speaker 26: Yeah, I know, because I just I have a question
Speaker 26: about that, is it. I feel like capitalism basically is
Speaker 26: just a nicer road to the end goal of communism
Speaker 26: in that it treats people as like economic units, and
Speaker 26: it's globalizing, it's internationalizing.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, they'll say that it doesn't that capitalism
Speaker 1: does that, but at the end of the day, I mean,
Speaker 1: what what is a human any I mean, if we're
Speaker 1: all dialectical materialists or we're just materialists, then the humans
Speaker 1: don't matter at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 26: I also think that at least in the twenty first
Speaker 26: century for sure, the whole removal of God from as
Speaker 26: some embalmer or whatever it replaces that with materialism. So
Speaker 26: then if it's just about materialism, then the arguments will
Speaker 26: just be like, whatever is the most economically advantageous is
Speaker 26: therefore the highest good in the West, And then that
Speaker 26: kind of leads down to the thought process of like
Speaker 26: you opening up your society for the hordes of foreigners
Speaker 26: and stuff and any arguments that would like increase prices
Speaker 26: or cause economic friction. Therefore you're a bad person because
Speaker 26: don't you know that's going to make things cost more
Speaker 26: for clinical poor people, and what's good for them is
Speaker 26: not like virtue and like things that are good for
Speaker 26: their soul, but.
Speaker 2: Cheap pop tarts.
Speaker 19: Or whatever widgets, which the end goal of that is
Speaker 19: the same thing that like Marx and the communists want,
Speaker 19: which is like this adamized individual.
Speaker 26: That's uh, I don't know if it's making sense, but
Speaker 26: like that it basically you just end up at the
Speaker 26: same end state, this globalized, denationalized individual that just has stuff.
Speaker 26: And I don't really see a difference between like that
Speaker 26: kind of capitalism and in the end at least, Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, I think in the end that they end up
Speaker 1: being the same systems. So you're absolutely right, John Naruta Groper,
Speaker 1: what's up, By the way, all you have to do
Speaker 1: is type in jaydi or tag Trinity. Go watch the
Speaker 1: videos that talk about tagging the Trinity. I know, I
Speaker 1: just don't I don't want to don't make me rehearse
Speaker 1: stuff that I've talked about for ten years because you're
Speaker 1: too lazy to go look up on YouTube tag and Trinity.
Speaker 1: What's up man? There's literally like ten clips channels now
Speaker 1: that I don't have anything to do with, and they're
Speaker 1: just clipping like crazy, which is great, and so pretty
Speaker 1: much every topic is now searchable hopefully, so unless you're
Speaker 1: just farming for clips for your channel or your profile, like,
Speaker 1: just go look it up, dude, John Derrita, what's up man?
Speaker 1: I'm your.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Guys. Remember we have a show sponsor, which is chalk
Speaker 1: dot com choq dot com, the best and supplementation on
Speaker 1: the Internet. Be sure to use the promo co J
Speaker 1: forty This jyfour is already get forty percent off all
Speaker 1: those great products at chalk dot com choq dot com
Speaker 1: right there. And if you want to get a recurrent
Speaker 1: subscription to have that product coming on the regular, which
Speaker 1: I recommend, use the promo code jy four four life.
Speaker 1: That's J forty four life and they will be coming
Speaker 1: on the regular now. Yes, there are several clip channels
Speaker 1: now which are dedicated to different topics. And that's the
Speaker 1: great thing is like there's a Geopolitics dire clips channel.
Speaker 1: There is a philosophy clips channel. There's goofy funny interaction
Speaker 1: debate clips channels. If you just type in Jadier and
Speaker 1: then you search it for recent filter for recent upload date.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, how Tim Gordon actually crushed JD. This
Speaker 1: is going to be a joke. I wonder if this
Speaker 1: Cameron Dorker would actually come on and do a debate.
Speaker 1: You know, they're coping when the whole narrative has to
Speaker 1: be that I actually lost the debate. This is so silly.
Speaker 1: I think this guy's messaged me on Twitter before. I
Speaker 1: wonder if he would actually show up. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are the people defending the guy who just had a
Speaker 1: Skittles pilgrimage. I mean, this is where we're at. This
Speaker 1: is so silly. I'm looking to see if I can
Speaker 1: find this Cameron Riker guy, Cameron Riker, here we go.
Speaker 1: Oh it turns out I've asked him one, two, three,
Speaker 1: four times to debate and they're all ignored. So no,
Speaker 1: so Cameron Riker is comfortable making retarded videos that I
Speaker 1: lost the entire debate. Buddy ignores my four offers to
Speaker 1: come debate and I'll show you that here, I'll show
Speaker 1: you Tom I asked him. He said, would you want
Speaker 1: to do a debate with Voice of Reason? And then
Speaker 1: he talked about and I was like, yeah, if you
Speaker 1: will do it online, let me ask and get back
Speaker 1: to you Cameron Riker, right. Oh, it turns out he
Speaker 1: never got back to me. And then I said, how
Speaker 1: about find a papal apologist who will debate something different.
Speaker 1: Everybody's debated papacy a million times. I said, here's a topic.
Speaker 1: What's a better explanation for the papacy in the last century?
Speaker 1: Geopolitical influences or the infallible charism of the Holy Spirit? Silence,
Speaker 1: no response. Then I said, I'm doing an open space
Speaker 1: April fifth, no response, Doing an open space April six,
Speaker 1: no response, Another open space April ninth, no response. So
Speaker 1: Cameron Reiker is a coward who won't actually come in debate,
Speaker 1: but he'll make his behind the screen keyboard arguments that
Speaker 1: I actually lost the entire debate. When Tim Gordon thought
Speaker 1: that God's glory is a creature, an eternal creature, which
Speaker 1: is polytheism, he had no idea what energetic manifestation was,
Speaker 1: didn't know our position no idea what the capit Dootionians teach,
Speaker 1: and admitted that there's no evidence for the geopolitical power
Speaker 1: of the papacy as necessary for salvation in the first
Speaker 1: thousand years of the church, or that it even existed.
Speaker 1: But I lost the debate, Sure, Laser, Cameron Riker, you're
Speaker 1: a coward, Come debate. That's what I told him, because
Speaker 1: he's ignored the last four opportunities. But this is what
Speaker 1: we would expect from a religion of gay coping. I mean,
Speaker 1: what like their their papacy is literally having gay pilgrimages.
Speaker 1: By the way, I mean, I'm gonna be interested to
Speaker 1: see any of them address here's a there's a new mass.
Speaker 1: But we've heard about hip hop masses, clown masses, puppet masses.
Speaker 1: Have you seen fat Batman Mass? Is the new mass.
Speaker 1: There's a new nova sort of mass. It's fat Batman Mess.
Speaker 1: So when are they going to address the Vadic not
Speaker 1: just not that, but the the fact that the red
Speaker 1: bishop Helder Kamara co wrote Gaudium at Spees, And when
Speaker 1: are they going to address.
Speaker 4: That?
Speaker 1: Gaudium at Spees teaches Marxism, Socialism in United Nations, Pacifist philosophy.
Speaker 1: These con men are literally more concerned with trying to
Speaker 1: figure out how Tim Gordon somehow actually won the debate
Speaker 1: rather than actually addressing any significant point that I brought up.
Speaker 1: Have you noticed that Joel Heshmeier, Tim Gordon, Cameron, whatever,
Speaker 1: that none of them have actually addressed the specific arguments.
Speaker 1: Do you know why? It's because they can't?
Speaker 4: Mm?
Speaker 1: And uh, did anybody have any update on whether Destiny
Speaker 1: was actually in some court thing or what's what's going
Speaker 1: on there? Ordained Batman by the magisterial Uh, the Joker Pope.
Speaker 1: The Joker Pope ordained Batman to do the Arkham right,
Speaker 1: the Arkham right. A Mass is the new Mass. Like
Speaker 1: these guys have a really hard sell, you know, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, Like they have to try to
Speaker 1: convince you to submit to Rome, and then when you
Speaker 1: submit to Rome, you got to figure out why would
Speaker 1: I go to the hip hop guitar Batman Mass? Like
Speaker 1: what it's like, It's like bad car. It's like car
Speaker 1: salesmen that are selling you a lemon. And they have
Speaker 1: all these promises of what the Patristic Church is going
Speaker 1: to be like and what the papers is going to
Speaker 1: be like. And when you actually go there, there's fat
Speaker 1: dudes wearing Batman costumes and priests riding scooters to deliver
Speaker 1: the Eucharist on a giant drone as a techno DJ play.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what it actually is. So and
Speaker 1: this is why there's not really any point debating these
Speaker 1: people anymore, Like for me Tim Gordon, because I mean
Speaker 1: I he wanted the rematch because he felt like I
Speaker 1: was too loud on the Tempoole debate and he wanted
Speaker 1: a formal rematch, so I gave that to Tim. I didn't.
Speaker 1: I'm done with the Roman Catholics. Like there's none of
Speaker 1: them that are even any quality worth debating, So what's
Speaker 1: the point of it. Like all they have left is
Speaker 1: the pretending and coping, like this Cameron guy that like, no,
Speaker 1: we actually we've on every debate. I mean, it's like
Speaker 1: when the deer Leader right tells you that, like when
Speaker 1: Communism is collapsing and the communist dictators like still running
Speaker 1: the propaganda that the dear Leader has defeated all of
Speaker 1: the Western imperialless forces and the deer Leader has made
Speaker 1: the sunrise yet again. Today It's like that's the that's
Speaker 1: what these people are actually like and what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and they're in a cult. Like that's the reality of
Speaker 1: papism that I've come to learn is that it's it's
Speaker 1: a cult. Like it's literally a cult, and these people
Speaker 1: are tenaciously addicted to their cult. Jimmy, I will only
Speaker 1: take calls or objections. That's it at this point, only
Speaker 1: if you disagree. What's up, man, I'm mute.
Speaker 27: Uh, yeah, I guess I could phrase this is a disagreement.
Speaker 1: By the way, you guess what's a disagreement?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 27: Do you think that there's anything esoteric about Christianity? Is
Speaker 27: everything esoteric in criticisms liturgy?
Speaker 2: Or is there something missing?
Speaker 1: What do you mean by something missing?
Speaker 27: Well, so, for example, like Sean Theologian talks about the
Speaker 27: baptism of tears, and I'm not sure if that's in
Speaker 27: the liturgy or not.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he's just talking about repentance. Why
Speaker 1: would that be in the liturgy? What do you mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah? And I wonder too, I think you're right.
Speaker 27: I wonder too if there's something that the Protestants might
Speaker 27: be interesting for you since the Catholics are so boring.
Speaker 27: But like the Wesleyan idea of the Second Baptism. I
Speaker 27: think there's probably I would say Orthodoxy probably does not
Speaker 27: want to go that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know. I'm now trying to be rude.
Speaker 1: These sound like a lot of sort of Protestant ideas
Speaker 1: or like a lot of Prosonism, by the way, is
Speaker 1: influenced by gnostic and mystical strands, especially in the Reformation.
Speaker 1: The Radical Reformers, many of them had these very mystical
Speaker 1: charismatic or like the Hutterites and the Shakers and like
Speaker 1: a lot of that stuff. People try to find parallels.
Speaker 1: I remember Alexander Schmieman like trying to find these parallels
Speaker 1: between Orthodoxy and Hutterites, and it's like, dude, that's just worthless,
Speaker 1: Like why are we trying, Why are we scraping the
Speaker 1: barrels of heresy to try to find parallels and insights.
Speaker 1: It's like, these people are not worth anybody's time. So, no,
Speaker 1: we don't need Wesleyanism or anything like that to try
Speaker 1: to find some parallel with Orthodoxy. Absolutely not. It's just
Speaker 1: really not worth it. In my view, is this exercise
Speaker 1: in futility. Usually, and I'm not calling you bad, but
Speaker 1: like usually the people that want to do that, like
Speaker 1: like Western right people that are like, oh, let's see what,
Speaker 1: Let's dig up everything that we can from the West
Speaker 1: and try to make it present in the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: to for what, like, because God wants me to do that,
Speaker 1: because I'm enlightened and I'm spiritual, and like, I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to do it. No, you're not. Nobody called you to
Speaker 1: do that. Glitchy rhythm five dollars. Debating the papacy on
Speaker 1: the geopolitics topic is a perfect subject. They peepy and
Speaker 1: poopy on their diapers though at the thought of debating that.
Speaker 1: That's exactly why none of them will debate that. We
Speaker 1: are three four years in now, for me offering that
Speaker 1: topic to tons of paup apologists or even Roman Catholic academics,
Speaker 1: they won't debate it. Nobody will debate that topic. For one,
Speaker 1: none of them have actually read any of the book
Speaker 1: on the subject matter, which is well, actually a couple
Speaker 1: of them have read the wim Hoff book or well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if they've actually read it, but they've
Speaker 1: interviewed wim Hoff and they claim to have read it,
Speaker 1: but I don't think they've actually read it because I've
Speaker 1: never heard of a Roman Catholic other than David Wimhoff
Speaker 1: referred to the doctrinal warfare program. None of them know
Speaker 1: about this, and yet they're experts on defending the papacy.
Speaker 1: Interesting because this is a pretty devastating blow to the papacy.
Speaker 1: Because if I can demonstrate that geopolitical power and influence
Speaker 1: is a much better explanation of the papacy in the
Speaker 1: twentieth century and its actions, then you're going to be
Speaker 1: hard pressed to prove that the infallible charism of Peter
Speaker 1: is the real motivator and mover and shaker of papal
Speaker 1: actions in the twentieth century. And yet none of them
Speaker 1: will debate me on that, and then why, oh, he's mean.
Speaker 1: So the infinite excuse that I mean is not nothing
Speaker 1: more than a cover for the fact that they don't
Speaker 1: want to actually have their positions challenged in new ways
Speaker 1: or in ways that they're not prepared for. They only
Speaker 1: want to debate the infallibility of the papacy, which just
Speaker 1: ends up being quote minds. Ninety nine percent of this
Speaker 1: apologetic is quote minds, and they just want to where
Speaker 1: are they debating the Muslims? Do you see any Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic apologists debating the Muslims. Gregory Palamas debated Muslims. John
Speaker 1: Damascus refuted and debated Muslims. So the church fathers and
Speaker 1: the medieval saints debate Muslims. We debate Muslims. Do they know?
Speaker 1: They don't? Trent Horn, Matt Frad, Tim Gordon. Not only
Speaker 1: do they not debate the Muslims, they defend the insane
Speaker 1: idea that we're all worshiping the same God because they're idiotic, heterodox.
Speaker 1: Vatican two documents bind them to that. So who's more
Speaker 1: like the patristic Church and the medieval church father the
Speaker 1: people defending the idea we worship the same God and
Speaker 1: never debating them, or me, who's debated all the top
Speaker 1: Muslims in the last seven years. Who's more like the
Speaker 1: church fathers calling out the satanic, crazy sect of Islam.
Speaker 1: It should shouldn't be difficult. This should be like a
Speaker 1: deal breaker right here. Any one of these things is
Speaker 1: actually a deal breaker. Tim Gordon admitting that there's no
Speaker 1: evidence and he's not aware of anything in the first
Speaker 1: thousand years proving the temporal supremacy of the pope nor
Speaker 1: the salvific doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the pope
Speaker 1: should be a that's a kill shot, that's an ender
Speaker 1: for the religion, because it means that they have shifted
Speaker 1: and moved and revamped and retooled what's necessary for salvation.
Speaker 1: That means they've contradicted themselves, that they haven't preserved the
Speaker 1: true faith and the Salvafic doctrines. It's not that hard.
Speaker 1: I know the specific areas to refute their positions with precision.
Speaker 1: So what explains all their activities in the It's because
Speaker 1: it's a cult. Cults don't want you learning logic and
Speaker 1: reasoning and refutations. That's all we push over here on
Speaker 1: this side of things. How could I be a cult
Speaker 1: leader when I literally push the idea of logic and
Speaker 1: critical thinking so that you don't become subject to a cult.
Speaker 1: There are no cults that teach critical thinking, logical fallacies,
Speaker 1: and proper reasoning, none of them. Cults do not want
Speaker 1: you doing that. They want you basing your decisions on emotions,
Speaker 1: basing your decisions on like glib quote minds. Oh interesting,
Speaker 1: like the papists. Do pray the Rosary and you'll feel
Speaker 1: the burning in your book. Literally, I know. Romi Kallay
Speaker 1: guy who didn't choose Orthodoxy because he prayed the Rosary
Speaker 1: and felt the burning in his bosom. I'm kid you not,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, Mormon reasoning.
Speaker 5: Mckey's McKy's mckey's.
Speaker 1: All right, Thank you guys, A lot of fun. Everybody,
Speaker 1: have a good night. Oh wait, Brendon Turner five dollars.
Speaker 1: Did you know that when they say that twenty five
Speaker 1: to twenty eight percent of gen Z have been a bobode,
Speaker 1: It's reported that in twenty eighteen more black children were
Speaker 1: a bobode than born in NYC. You missed my first
Speaker 1: super chip, Andrew Zaying five dollars. What do you think
Speaker 1: who was the highest IQ church father? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Perhaps one of the Kappadocians, maybe say Maximus. Maybe I
Speaker 1: don't know, Argus five dollar. No, we read that, Brendan says,
Speaker 1: I missed a superjet. No, Brendan, I read your gop
Speaker 1: pro skittle Superjet chop slot three dollars. What are you
Speaker 1: wearing shades for? They're actually magnifying sunglasses, so instead of
Speaker 1: wearing these idiot, stupid looking reader glasses, I thought it
Speaker 1: looks funnier and people will talk about me wearing shades
Speaker 1: it looks cooler. DG five dollars. Is there anything that
Speaker 1: we can do to stop technocracy other than waiting for
Speaker 1: Christ to return? Well, yeah, if enough people become awake
Speaker 1: to it and actually convert, then yeah, they won't win.
Speaker 1: Dre the passport King two dollars. Did you catch the
Speaker 1: AI mass post from a while back, AI mass post?
Speaker 1: What's the AI Mass post? I don't know you're talking about,
Speaker 1: like Trump supposed to being dead or what's the AI
Speaker 1: Mass post? Guys? Remember also that Esther Hollywood three is
Speaker 1: going to be out soon. I did talk to the
Speaker 1: publisher a couple of days ago. He said he thinks
Speaker 1: that it will be next week when it actually arrives
Speaker 1: at the publisher. So I wanted to be clear and
Speaker 1: upfront because we basically got all the edits and the
Speaker 1: corrections finished, so I wanted to know exactly when it
Speaker 1: would be out the publisher. He says probably next week.
Speaker 1: He has a medical issue that he's going to have
Speaker 1: to deal with first, and then he says it's immediately
Speaker 1: going to be sent to the printer, so it'll be
Speaker 1: out the printer next week. Is the present update from
Speaker 1: the publisher. You know what I'm saying, people get mad
Speaker 1: at me. I don't have any control over these things, right,
Speaker 1: So if you have a publisher, I don't do and
Speaker 1: determine everything. If the publisher and his editor say we
Speaker 1: want you to make about one hundred different alterations and changes,
Speaker 1: I have to sit down and do all those. I
Speaker 1: can't just say no, publish it now. It doesn't work
Speaker 1: like that when you have a publisher. If I was
Speaker 1: self publishing, I could spit this out and you could
Speaker 1: have like not a top tier book or something like that.
Speaker 1: But you have to work with publishers, and so I
Speaker 1: can't control when a book is published if I have
Speaker 1: a publisher. So stop, please, guys, don't email me. You're
Speaker 1: I'm not stealing forty dollars from you. You're going to
Speaker 1: get your book, I promise you. It just takes a while.
Speaker 1: In the world of publishing. It's not immediate like self
Speaker 1: publishing or everything else on the internet is immediate. I
Speaker 1: promise you you're going to get a high quality esoteric
Speaker 1: Holly with three Just trust me. Just be patient. I
Speaker 1: thought originally it would be done by July. But that's
Speaker 1: why it says pre order. The reason it says insight
Speaker 1: in stock is it's just a default setting in the
Speaker 1: program that runs the purchasing whatever on my website. It's
Speaker 1: just a default setting. No, it's not technically in stock.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I can change that because this seems to
Speaker 1: be making people mad. Not a lot of people. But
Speaker 1: I've had five people email me and say, where's esoter
Speaker 1: Hollywood three. I guess they don't listen to this stuff.
Speaker 1: But it's gonna be a few weeks, might even be
Speaker 1: a month before it arrives in your mailbox. Maybe sooner.
Speaker 1: I hope it'll be sooner. But I swear that you
Speaker 1: will get your esoter Callywood three, And if you are interested,
Speaker 1: you can still always put it in a pre order. Now, remember,
Speaker 1: if you order other stuff, I can't go in and
Speaker 1: just send you everything, but esoter Collywood three. It's not
Speaker 1: possible in this program. Also, it's not feasible. I would
Speaker 1: be sitting here for weeks sending you half of your order.
Speaker 1: It's just not so. If you order three things, one
Speaker 1: of which is Essa Turke Hollywood three, you have to
Speaker 1: wait for es tur Hollywood three. It's not that even
Speaker 1: that they don't read. It's a lot of people order
Speaker 1: the book, but they don't hear the shows on the regular,
Speaker 1: so they don't hear me giving the updates about the
Speaker 1: fact that it's not as quick as I hoped. Right,
Speaker 1: I was hoping asap that would be July. The publisher said,
Speaker 1: I read it, I had an editor read it. We
Speaker 1: think that to have a high quality book, you're going
Speaker 1: to need to make about one hundred changes. That's pretty
Speaker 1: normal in publishing. Now, if I had just on the
Speaker 1: first go round written an astoundingly awesome, perfect book, there
Speaker 1: wouldn't have to have been about one hundred changes. It
Speaker 1: took me a while to do all these, Okay, So
Speaker 1: I went back in at him. Now the publisher's like, okay,
Speaker 1: I've got to do the index. So what he did
Speaker 1: last week was create the index for the book. Do
Speaker 1: you want me to show you so that you guys
Speaker 1: don't think that I'm making this up. Look, let me
Speaker 1: show you the book and I'll show you the index
Speaker 1: so that you know this is actually happening. It's not
Speaker 1: a fake, made up book. Okay, let's see download this.
Speaker 1: Let's see maybe I can I think I can open
Speaker 1: this over here. Let's try that. Okay, are you looking?
Speaker 1: That's the Dirk all, I went three ready, all done, contents.
Speaker 1: Look at all this. So we fixed a lot of
Speaker 1: these errors that were in this part as well. See
Speaker 1: this right here.
Speaker 5: Index.
Speaker 1: He spent the last week doing the index. Let me
Speaker 1: show you the index, so you guys believe me. In notes,
Speaker 1: look at this. How many footnotes do we end up with?
Speaker 1: Eight hundred and eighty nine footnotes? This go around index?
Speaker 1: Look at that. So Chris took about a week to
Speaker 1: create this index. Can you guys see it? Three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty four pages as the tur color with three.
Speaker 1: So there's the index. Also, I had to write a conclusion,
Speaker 1: he said, I think the book actually needs a separate
Speaker 1: section called conclusion, So I wrote that. You'll notice we
Speaker 1: have some pretty exciting apocalyptic sections here towards the end
Speaker 1: Apocalypse trilogy, the Thing, Prince of Darkness, Exorcism, Exorcist, Cia,
Speaker 1: script stuff, all this kind of classic stuff over the
Speaker 1: years that we've talked about Rosemary's Baby, a lot of
Speaker 1: new stuff. That's why this book took me so long.
Speaker 1: This book took me way longer than the other ones.
Speaker 1: Section six Hollywood Antichrist Apocalypse. So you guys see the pdf,
Speaker 1: there's a real book you're gonna get a book. We
Speaker 1: add the index.
Speaker 4: It's not fake.
Speaker 1: You're not getting scanned. I promise you're gonna get your book.
Speaker 1: And yes, you can still place the orders right here.
Speaker 1: I'm not leaking the book. I'm just showing you what
Speaker 1: was added, which was the index. So Chris did the
Speaker 1: index last week, and he says he thinks it will
Speaker 1: be at the printer next week. So the good news
Speaker 1: is that the way he described the way he's doing
Speaker 1: the printing process nowadays is that it's pretty quick. So
Speaker 1: I don't anticipate printing being something that will take many weeks.
Speaker 1: Seems like it's a pretty ironed out process. No, all right,
Speaker 1: looks like we got all the superchats. Guys. Remember you
Speaker 1: can get tickets to our event in November in Florida
Speaker 1: right here at the event right link in the show
Speaker 1: description right here, right here Athens and Jerusalem, Orthodox Art,
Speaker 1: Philosophy and Life, doctor David Patrick Carey, Metropolitan Jonah Father
Speaker 1: Vladimir Father Digging, doctor Annonayas myself. There might be other
Speaker 1: priests that a Father Vladimir is inviting. I'm not sure,
Speaker 1: but you can get the tickets right here. It's a
Speaker 1: two day conference, and you got we're several, we're a
Speaker 1: few months out, so go ahead and get those tickets.