Speaker 1: The the the the the the.
Speaker 2: The the.
Speaker 1: The the.
Speaker 3: The what's up all you hate us? What's up all
Speaker 3: you players? What's up all of you?
Speaker 4: Presently in the progress of de transitioning and transitionings, we're
Speaker 4: happy to have beautiful Tristana with us of the Tristan
Speaker 4: Haggard channel. Tristan, how you doing? Dog over there doing
Speaker 4: that moodra he's straight mood raw.
Speaker 5: Yo sub Jay, well, sub j sub player, just come
Speaker 5: in when it When a black queen dms me and
Speaker 5: says it's time Jay summoned me, he does a J
Speaker 5: Jay sends up.
Speaker 6: There's like a you know, the Batman spotlight. He just
Speaker 6: shines his Batman spotlight up in the hills where my
Speaker 6: mud hut is, and it's got it's got a black
Speaker 6: hand with some with some nails, with the you know,
Speaker 6: the black hand with the fingernails. There's a black queen
Speaker 6: hand emoji that lights up the sky and that means
Speaker 6: it's time and a howl.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, I can't I can't take it already,
Speaker 4: this man getting to me about to start crying already, guys,
Speaker 4: I'm going to get a little talked over here. Making
Speaker 4: me a book clump. Uh, guys. You know, our favorite
Speaker 4: friend Tristana is all about that Internet game, and he's
Speaker 4: back and we're going to be talking about the history
Speaker 4: of the Info War. He's got clips, He's got tons
Speaker 4: of reels. You guys know, Tristan is the man that
Speaker 4: sends the reels. And we're also going to open it
Speaker 4: up to debates, challenges, comments, questions, things that you guys
Speaker 4: want to discuss, because I know there's a lot of
Speaker 4: people want to come defeat us, they want to refute us.
Speaker 4: There's pagans. The pagans have been activated. They're all over everywhere.
Speaker 4: Just out of coming out of the woodworks, we got
Speaker 4: Owen Schroyer coming over here saying that he is sick
Speaker 4: of politics. It's a waste of time. A lot of
Speaker 4: people are coming to the conclusions that we came to
Speaker 4: a while back, and part of that has to do
Speaker 4: with your age. I think as you get older, you
Speaker 4: realize that politics is kind of dumb. I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: you can be into it, but also you're probably not
Speaker 4: going to affect much. It's probably a lot of waste
Speaker 4: of time before we get into Alex and the whole
Speaker 4: you know, last twenty six to seven years of info
Speaker 4: Wars and the the end of info wars. Uh. Trustan,
Speaker 4: what is your general assessment of politics? Is it a
Speaker 4: waste of time? And then tell me about your original
Speaker 4: exposure to Lord Alex Jones.
Speaker 6: Oh man, Yeah, that's a that's that's like a big
Speaker 6: door opener question, right, I mean, that's that's that's It's
Speaker 6: a hard one to answer in a sound clip, but yeah,
Speaker 6: I'll try to I'll try to keep it brief. I'll
Speaker 6: try not to ramble here like a like a black queen.
Speaker 4: You can ramble like a queen. That's what it's Channel
Speaker 4: four son, all right, all right.
Speaker 6: So, I mean generally, I think politics is a waste
Speaker 6: of time. I think, you know, local stuff can be
Speaker 6: uh you know, I mean who your sheriff is and
Speaker 6: the US who your sheriff is probably matters a lot
Speaker 6: more to you than the results you're going to see
Speaker 6: under various different presidential regimes. Now, I think I think
Speaker 6: a lot of us have just been so sick of
Speaker 6: this fake left right stuff.
Speaker 1: For so long.
Speaker 5: Just so many of the so many.
Speaker 7: Of the issues.
Speaker 6: That get thrown around, at least in kind of mainstream
Speaker 6: discourse are almost just like red herring issues. You know,
Speaker 6: they get people arguing over nonsense. But there's you know,
Speaker 6: clearly there's things that are important, you know, like I
Speaker 6: mean the normalization of you know, ending children and they're
Speaker 6: in the womb. You know, the issues that have become
Speaker 6: at the forefront of at least culture war dialogue.
Speaker 7: If those are framed, and I.
Speaker 6: Think this is all maybe part of the social engineering
Speaker 6: of the whole culture war thing, those are highly charged.
Speaker 4: Every now and then we will experience frozen Tristana. Don't
Speaker 4: don't worry. I'm sure his Highness will be back. Everybody relaxed.
Speaker 4: Are you there? You froze for me? Beautiful tst On,
Speaker 4: please come back again. We miss you so much. Beautifuflist On?
Speaker 4: Where are you on the stream? Now? There's like three
Speaker 4: Tristano's here, Beautiful trist onun please come back? All right,
Speaker 4: you're back now, go ahead. Then he froze again. This
Speaker 4: is not my fault. This is uh the the Internet
Speaker 4: that Manuel Noriega has down there in that country where
Speaker 4: he's at. It's Noriega level internet here. He's still running.
Speaker 1: They do not want to get his information.
Speaker 8: That's what's going on, folks. Unbelievable. This is unbelievable. He's
Speaker 8: just frozen. Man, He's like, you know, this is metaphorical.
Speaker 8: Kristan is frozen in another decade, right, This guy is
Speaker 8: straight out of the early two thousands. He's so early
Speaker 8: two thousands, So call that, you know. I'm not surprised
Speaker 8: that we're having these issues. We had no issues with
Speaker 8: John Karaoke.
Speaker 4: I think we did a whole two hour interview with
Speaker 4: amazingly no freezing on collabkin. I might have to create
Speaker 4: a zoom link and just put him up here with zoom.
Speaker 4: I think we will do that because I could do that,
Speaker 4: but then we won't be able to play the clips,
Speaker 4: or could I add a second when capture source, we'll
Speaker 4: do that. If Tristan can't get in here, I'll send
Speaker 4: him a zoom link and then maybe we will. Let
Speaker 4: me just go ahead and try that. Let me try
Speaker 4: a different source at a window capture. I don't know
Speaker 4: if you can do Can we do two window captures
Speaker 4: on one stream? I'm not sure you can do that sometimes,
Speaker 4: I don't know if this will work or not. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it looks like collab cam is probably not gonna work
Speaker 4: for him. So let's try a zoom link. Mhmm give
Speaker 4: me just one second, guys, I'm gonna send a zoom
Speaker 4: len here to Tristanna.
Speaker 9: Yahkah uh okay, starting zoom and then let me send
Speaker 9: this to him.
Speaker 4: It's weird because with collab cam it's like a toss up.
Speaker 4: It's like half the time it works, half time it
Speaker 4: doesn't work. You never know exactly weather's gonna work or not.
Speaker 4: So here we go. He said that his stream labs
Speaker 4: on his side just crashing. Okay, well there's the uh
Speaker 4: the zoom link, Tristan. If you want to hop in
Speaker 4: there and then let me pull you up on zoom.
Speaker 4: I hope you're all are enjoying this boring tech replacement here.
Speaker 4: All right, let's bring him in here, all right? Can
Speaker 4: you hear me now? Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Now?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Jay, Sorry, I just had to mute. I had to
Speaker 1: meet you on YouTube.
Speaker 7: I was just listening to you on YouTube.
Speaker 4: Okay, when when I play the clip, you'll have to
Speaker 4: mute and listen to it on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Sure. Oh that's gonna be.
Speaker 4: Like a big delay too. Oh is it crap?
Speaker 6: Are you able to I think you're probably able to
Speaker 6: do the same way that you were able to send
Speaker 6: the video to stream labs.
Speaker 10: Can't you send it to zoom mm?
Speaker 7: I mean maybe if you made it in I don't know.
Speaker 6: If you just started another collab cam. You got another
Speaker 6: collabcam link, maybe we could do with that. It was
Speaker 6: working for a while and then it just tripped out
Speaker 6: and said that the stream didn't exist.
Speaker 7: I don't understand.
Speaker 6: Maybe it's because if you if you weren't streaming from that,
Speaker 6: it times out or something.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'll send you one here, you can try that.
Speaker 7: It said stream not found.
Speaker 4: No, I'm just sending a new link here. Okay. Oh,
Speaker 4: I know what happened. I know what it was, the
Speaker 4: original It might be because the original stream, for some reason,
Speaker 4: it automatically starts streaming when I turn on restream and
Speaker 4: I shut down that original stream that auto streamed, and
Speaker 4: that might have been why I ended that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's what it seemed like.
Speaker 6: It just cut off, and then every time I tried
Speaker 6: to join it started freaking out, and then it told
Speaker 6: me it doesn't exist.
Speaker 4: That collab candle there?
Speaker 1: Cool? All right?
Speaker 7: Let me hang up on zoom here, all right?
Speaker 4: How about now? Good? All right, so let's get back
Speaker 4: to it. You were saying, you politics as far as
Speaker 4: useful at local level, and then I want to ask
Speaker 4: you about Alex.
Speaker 7: Yeah, for sure, useful at a local level.
Speaker 6: And you know, every I think a lot of us
Speaker 6: are kind of sick of the cycle of even they
Speaker 6: even do this with midterms, right every election, Hey, this
Speaker 6: is the most important election of our lives. This is
Speaker 6: the most important election of our lives. The opposing party
Speaker 6: is going to put you in gulags there. You know,
Speaker 6: it's all over. If the opposing party gets in, your
Speaker 6: entire life is over.
Speaker 1: It's just literal.
Speaker 6: Hell is going to break loose from the you know,
Speaker 6: from the Marianna's trench and just burst out of the
Speaker 6: ocean and swallow us whole. Every election is kind of
Speaker 6: marketed with that diarness.
Speaker 1: It gets old.
Speaker 6: And once you've gone through a few cycles of this,
Speaker 6: and I mean back in what like two thousand and
Speaker 6: nine with the whole Ron Paul thing, seeing what the
Speaker 6: Republican Party did to you know, a candidate, it really
Speaker 6: didn't fit the hold of you know, the neo cons
Speaker 6: and what they were trying to do in their project
Speaker 6: at the time, Seeing how they essentially sidelined him. I
Speaker 6: think a lot of the people who are like diehard demps,
Speaker 6: you know, a lot of leftist the same disheartening.
Speaker 4: Tristan, you might have to just call in on X.
Speaker 4: I think that's the only way to do it, because
Speaker 4: I think that I don't really honestly don't think it's
Speaker 4: the problem of collab can because I did it for
Speaker 4: two hours fine with kuraokity. So Tristan, you want to
Speaker 4: call in on X and then we'll just do it
Speaker 4: that way. You might have to watch the eclipse on
Speaker 4: on YouTube. John, did you want say anthing while you're here?
Speaker 2: I think you and I probably started listening to IM
Speaker 2: for Wars in a similar time period. You probably, I
Speaker 2: think you started listening.
Speaker 1: Before I did.
Speaker 4: When did you first hear Alex? Do you remember like end.
Speaker 2: Of two thousand and four or five, so like like
Speaker 2: right after the Carrie Bush.
Speaker 1: Election. I think the car the Carry Bush.
Speaker 2: Election kind of snapped me out of my paleoconservative mindset.
Speaker 4: Yeah. That was when they were talking at the time
Speaker 4: about skull and bones. Remember Meet the Press and they
Speaker 4: had that guy was oh really that you saw that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I actually saw Jones on se SPAN.
Speaker 2: There's a clip of him on se span where he's
Speaker 2: he goes up to the guy.
Speaker 1: And he.
Speaker 2: He says something like the guy says, oh, we want
Speaker 2: to have some other.
Speaker 1: Voice is included in here, and he goes up to.
Speaker 2: Jones and Jones says, look, both candidates are sculling bones
Speaker 2: their cousins and I'd never even heard something like that before.
Speaker 4: That was early on too. That would probably be what
Speaker 4: two thousand and four or five, somewhere in there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that was those around.
Speaker 2: It would have been around November or probably after November
Speaker 2: that I saw. I saw after the election, So it
Speaker 2: would have been after November two thousand and four election
Speaker 2: happened and somebody sent me that clip after somebody emailed
Speaker 2: me the clip. Remember when we used to have to
Speaker 2: email clips.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do remember that. Remember one. Boomers would send
Speaker 4: email chains and they believe in some sort of curse,
Speaker 4: like if you don't re send this email, you'll you'll
Speaker 4: be cursed.
Speaker 1: It was like you, yeah, something bad's going to happen.
Speaker 4: It's like the chain letter. What's that movie with Naomi
Speaker 4: Watts where it's like a curse VHS tape but it's
Speaker 4: Boomers with emails The ring ring Ring Goo. That's it.
Speaker 4: Remember Ring Goo.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you used to have to listen to impro Wars
Speaker 2: on on the win amp.
Speaker 4: Oh. Yeah, it was like an m P three player.
Speaker 4: I remember that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And he'd have.
Speaker 2: A he'd have the the show streaming on the win amp.
Speaker 2: And I remember I would go in and I'd go
Speaker 2: into work every day and just listen to uh like
Speaker 2: live stream on the win amp and I would just
Speaker 2: stream the radio show all day long.
Speaker 4: Trustan, where are you at? Come on in here. You'll
Speaker 4: have to come out on X Tristan where you're at?
Speaker 4: All right, I'll play a little bit of this and
Speaker 4: we'll react to while we're waiting for him to come
Speaker 4: in here. How fake it all is?
Speaker 11: The football, the basketball, the Lady Ga guy, the Justin Bieber,
Speaker 11: you know who gives you these carbon tax messages.
Speaker 4: They tell your kids they.
Speaker 11: Got to love Justin Biebler, and then Biebler says, hand
Speaker 11: in your guns, passed the Cybersecurity Act, and you know
Speaker 11: the police states good. And then your children are turning
Speaker 11: to mindless vassals who now they look up to some
Speaker 11: twit instead of looking up to Thomas Jefferson or or
Speaker 11: looking up to Nicola Tesla, or looking up to Magellan
Speaker 11: I mean, kids, Magellan's a lot cooler than Justin Bieber.
Speaker 11: He circumnavigated with one ship the entire planet.
Speaker 4: He was killed by wild.
Speaker 11: Natos before they got back to Portugal, and when they
Speaker 11: got back there was only like eleven people alive of
Speaker 11: the two hundred and something crew, and the entire ship
Speaker 11: was rotting down to the water line. That's Destiny, that's Will,
Speaker 11: that's striving, that's being a.
Speaker 4: Tr Destiny's child son. I want to see Alex Jones
Speaker 4: underwear clip. That's one of the best.
Speaker 2: Now, I always had a lot of issues with Jones
Speaker 2: over the years, but I will say this back when
Speaker 2: you heard somebody talking like that in two thousand and
Speaker 2: four and five, that was kind of a snap out
Speaker 2: of a wake up call for like guys our age
Speaker 2: because we were we were so innundated with the you know,
Speaker 2: with the Albundis and the you know, loser TV person personality.
Speaker 1: Dad.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean there's a little bit of like Carnival
Speaker 4: Barker and Baptist Preacher and Alex Jones two. So it's
Speaker 4: an interesting mix. It's and it's a good mix for
Speaker 4: I guess mobilizing people, mobilizing audiences and w w A. Yeah,
Speaker 4: like you mean like the ship talking scenes that the
Speaker 4: that the w w F we do the interviews guys
Speaker 4: who would like and share. We're going to try to
Speaker 4: bring Tristana on here onto the X space that FEMA
Speaker 4: Underwear Club used to come up all the time. And uh, now,
Speaker 4: of course it's it's always hard to find these things.
Speaker 4: Let me see if I can find it elsewhere. Tristan,
Speaker 4: you want to just join on here?
Speaker 12: Yeah, Tristan, you want to? I mute?
Speaker 4: How about now?
Speaker 6: I mean, it's like this different thing. I'm just I'm
Speaker 6: just one of the.
Speaker 4: When were you not six south of Mexico that bus.
Speaker 2: He doesn't want to talk to me on the same level.
Speaker 2: He wants to be above me.
Speaker 4: And that's why I found it. I found it relaxless.
Speaker 4: I found the underwear clip relaxed. This is what we
Speaker 4: were all waiting for.
Speaker 2: You're not supposed to share that, dude.
Speaker 1: Don't freaking share ideas? Man, what are you doing?
Speaker 4: No alex Is underwear clip?
Speaker 1: Oh I was. I was just making like a joke though,
Speaker 1: right there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Tristan. Tristan sends me pictures of just underwear, just
Speaker 4: just like hundreds of day just pictures of random pieces,
Speaker 4: not not anybody wearing them, just pieces of underwear. It's
Speaker 4: really weird, like cut up, just like a serial killer.
Speaker 4: I don't know where it does, but check this out.
Speaker 11: Pairs six x or the illegal aliens from south of
Speaker 11: Mexico that busts up on a train every day.
Speaker 4: You could wear this. I could wear this as a onesie.
Speaker 11: Okay, I could wear this as a leotard.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean, oh.
Speaker 11: My god, oh my god, we're being invaded by South
Speaker 11: American wall Assist.
Speaker 4: The government. You're shipping here to forty two thousand.
Speaker 12: People, begg of the job of the.
Speaker 1: This country is so screwed up.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 11: I'm sorry, I don't mean allow, but it's reaching up proportion.
Speaker 4: Have you're ready on listen you can't see.
Speaker 11: Him go.
Speaker 4: Oh I've ever lapped this heart on air? Oh my god.
Speaker 13: Over there.
Speaker 4: That was when he found out that FEMA has spit
Speaker 4: my copy of FEMA had ordered uh six x L
Speaker 4: underwear for some of the illegal immigrants that were coming
Speaker 4: up here, and he just lost it because he grabbed
Speaker 4: a pair. He grabbed a pair of.
Speaker 6: That's the average size underwear of the average Peruvian woman.
Speaker 4: That's what I was gonna say, they're coming from down
Speaker 4: there where you are. Are those large bodied ladies down.
Speaker 6: There's the ladies them coastal fas, some coastal females where
Speaker 6: they will fit corn fit corn fits South America towards us.
Speaker 4: Are there seriously like large ladies down there like that?
Speaker 1: Do you think it's?
Speaker 6: Uh, there's something about like the kind of indigenous geens
Speaker 6: that yeah, they get big. I mean you even look
Speaker 6: at their old it's not even just a modern diet.
Speaker 6: They because you look at their statues to have these
Speaker 6: old weird like these moltija statues and stuff of guess,
Speaker 6: like these weird pamasutras like sexual statues, and they're.
Speaker 1: All like fat ladies. Dude.
Speaker 2: They love they love them.
Speaker 4: They like some shapes. They like a lot of shapes
Speaker 4: going on down there. Guys, remember support the stream. Tristan
Speaker 4: is with me today if you guys want to support.
Speaker 4: Tristan's YouTube channel is linked in the show description. So guys,
Speaker 4: remember it's in the show. You can't for whatever reason.
Speaker 4: Oh crap, well that's right. I won't be showing that
Speaker 4: on screen. So you could try to join the collab cam,
Speaker 4: but it ain't gonna work, so because I'm will generate
Speaker 4: a new link, So there you go. I always ended
Speaker 4: up doing that share the collab cam link in the chat.
Speaker 14: I remember that.
Speaker 1: We always freaked out that one time.
Speaker 4: I know I did it again and.
Speaker 6: Waiting for somebody to do something to really gross or something,
Speaker 6: but it was yeah, they're all really polite.
Speaker 1: And then we realized that you put.
Speaker 13: In the chat.
Speaker 4: Yeah a lot changed the link. So I ain't gonna
Speaker 4: work now.
Speaker 1: So are you trying to get me on collab cam again?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: No, no, why wasn't it working?
Speaker 4: It has to be your internet because it worked fine
Speaker 4: with John Kiriaku for two hours. So it's you, dude,
Speaker 4: I blame you.
Speaker 6: My internet is solid, man, I could check my action anyways.
Speaker 4: Maybe stream Labs likes John Kiyaku and not you. Did
Speaker 4: you ever think of that? Uh? So people asked me
Speaker 4: about uh hold on, oh Alex again. So Tristan, what
Speaker 4: was your first exposure to Alex Jones? When did you
Speaker 4: first see him? What did you think when you saw
Speaker 4: the first thing you saw? And this was you were what?
Speaker 4: So you were so? Huh?
Speaker 1: Remember Waking Life? It was like a two thousand and
Speaker 1: one that film came.
Speaker 4: Out oh you saw that. You saw him in that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was in Waking Life, the link Later movie.
Speaker 6: It's not like a great movie or anything, but we
Speaker 6: liked it in high school. It was a fun kind of,
Speaker 6: you know, owner movie in high school. And two thousand
Speaker 6: and three was when I.
Speaker 1: Saw that, two thousand and three or four, So one
Speaker 1: of my friends really liked that movie. So I watched
Speaker 1: Waking Life. And you remember his part in Waking he's
Speaker 1: driving around in.
Speaker 4: A Yeah he's doing he's doing his classic bullhorn stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, he's basically just screaming Twitter posts out of the
Speaker 6: bullhorn on the streets of Austin.
Speaker 1: And it's this really funny clip and he's, you know.
Speaker 6: He's like a fake left right divide and he's just
Speaker 6: getting all heated and he seems he feels he has
Speaker 6: this pentecostal.
Speaker 1: Street preacher, pissed off kind of political vibe to the
Speaker 1: character there. And that was the first I'd ever seen him.
Speaker 1: I didn't put the.
Speaker 6: Pieces together until around like two thousand and he was
Speaker 6: two thousand and six or two thousand and seven.
Speaker 4: He's dropped around in a Ghostbusters. It looks like the
Speaker 4: ecdo one here it is, right here.
Speaker 11: Then any propaganda rolling across the picket line lay down.
Speaker 11: GI later, GI. We saw it all through the twentieth century,
Speaker 11: and now in the twenty first century, it's time to
Speaker 11: stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves
Speaker 11: to be crammed into this rat may.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I won't play the whole clip because it'll ding
Speaker 4: the algorithm. But yeah, there's Alex and link Lad's Waking
Speaker 4: Life and he was also in uh Skander darklic He
Speaker 4: basically did the exact same thing where he did like
Speaker 4: a two minute sort of bullhorn thing and then he
Speaker 4: gets taken away by the dystopian police. Do you remember
Speaker 4: that it was.
Speaker 1: Secret police kind of stanchial love me throwing a vand.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so that that was the first time I'd ever
Speaker 6: seen him.
Speaker 1: But then, you know, I didn't know who it was.
Speaker 6: I didn't, you know, look at the credits to try
Speaker 6: to figure out what this guy was. I knew that
Speaker 6: a lot of the people that were in Waking Life.
Speaker 6: It's kind of it's a lot of vignettes Waking Life,
Speaker 6: and some of them are slam poets and so over
Speaker 6: it just all right, there's there's a bunch of characters that.
Speaker 4: Are there's like philosophy professors talking about want them physics,
Speaker 4: and then there's a guy who talks about Philip K.
Speaker 4: Dick and his gnostic views.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that's actually link later himself. That doesn't that's
Speaker 6: at the end where he talks about and Philip.
Speaker 1: Dick says that we're still in I don't know.
Speaker 2: He says it like the year is still seventy eighty years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's got a weird preteris.
Speaker 6: It's a weird theory that Dick had at a point
Speaker 6: in his career.
Speaker 1: So I really liked that movie in high school. I
Speaker 1: don't like it anymore.
Speaker 6: It's it's an interesting film in some ways, but the
Speaker 6: rotoscope was new, so it really crude kind of rotoscope
Speaker 6: animation in there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I later heard of him.
Speaker 6: Actually, my grandma first told me about Alex Jones around
Speaker 6: two thousand and six or seven, because my grandma she
Speaker 6: was really uh, she passed away a few years ago
Speaker 6: at sixteen.
Speaker 1: She passed away, but she was great.
Speaker 6: We would always talk about conspiracy stuff, and she'd given
Speaker 6: me something like Michael Collin Piper's.
Speaker 1: Books back in the.
Speaker 6: Early two thousands, and she read like David Ike.
Speaker 1: Booked and stuff, and she was.
Speaker 6: Should always tell y'all know, I remember the day they
Speaker 6: killed Kennedy and how the whole world change they killed Kennedy.
Speaker 1: So she was as the kind of she wasn't a boomer.
Speaker 4: She was was your grandmother of Southern bell She like
Speaker 4: my grandmother.
Speaker 1: She was cool. Yeah, she was great. She wasn't told
Speaker 1: like Texas. You know.
Speaker 4: Oh, okay, well that makes sense.
Speaker 6: Why Sheiana Texas, Louisiana's family from Louisiana and Texas.
Speaker 15: She had that drawl and she would just say, oh, you.
Speaker 6: Know what they're doing now, they're just making it head
Speaker 6: on earth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's just another day in heale.
Speaker 4: Well, that makes sense why she would know about Alex
Speaker 4: because this was this was at the time when there
Speaker 4: was like a vibrant Austin, Texas, like independent art house
Speaker 4: film scene, and that's where link Later was, and so
Speaker 4: Alex was doing a lot of cable access, you know,
Speaker 4: homemade documentary type stuff back then. So that's assume I
Speaker 4: presume that's how he kind of fell into that sort
Speaker 4: of cool one hundred.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she thought that she heard him on the radio.
Speaker 6: Shoes I used to listen to Coast to Coast a
Speaker 6: lot back in the day too, and she she knew
Speaker 6: I really liked Coast to Coast and we would always
Speaker 6: talk about all those things.
Speaker 1: We had long phone conversations, and she was funny, she
Speaker 1: actually she was.
Speaker 6: She told me that Alex was a She's like, I
Speaker 6: think that Alex Jones, he's a Ax Jones, He's a
Speaker 6: Judas goat. I'm really sure he is. He's a Judas
Speaker 6: goat because she got she got that term from the
Speaker 6: Michael Collins Piper book The Judas Goats about like fake
Speaker 6: right wing movements and kind of the the twisting of
Speaker 6: the Patriot movement. And I guess he kind of he
Speaker 6: didn't like Jones at that point when he wrote that book,
Speaker 6: and he threw him in there. So she The first
Speaker 6: thing I think I heard from her about Alex Jones
Speaker 6: is how she thinks he's he's a Judas goat. I
Speaker 6: didn't know that man at the times, like what is
Speaker 6: a Judas goat? And I realized when I inherited a
Speaker 6: lot of her books after she passed away, and she
Speaker 6: had that book from Michael Collins Piper, which didn't look
Speaker 6: like it had really been read.
Speaker 1: I think she would shoot buy a lot of books.
Speaker 1: I know she read the book.
Speaker 6: That was my first, my first exposure to him. And
Speaker 6: then once the Obama administrator and popped in outs really
Speaker 6: got popular on YouTube. So that was a kind of
Speaker 6: mass exposure through the Obama deception era that was really big.
Speaker 1: Time for.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I remember first seeing Alex. As I told people
Speaker 4: the other day, I was I was actually novus Orto
Speaker 4: watch of all websites, and back when they had because
Speaker 4: I was getting into trad say to stuff, and they
Speaker 4: had a page that would cover news, and they put
Speaker 4: up a clip of Alex on cable access talking about
Speaker 4: scull and Bones and how OSS and CIA would recruit
Speaker 4: out of skull and bones. And I never heard of
Speaker 4: what sculling bones was. So I went and looked that up,
Speaker 4: and I saw that Anthony Sutton had a book on
Speaker 4: history skull and Bones, So I remember getting that very early,
Speaker 4: probably two thousand and three or four. And then I
Speaker 4: noticed that, oh he's talked to Gary Busey. There's an
Speaker 4: old Alex Jones Gary Busey interview that a few people
Speaker 4: know about. But I'll play a little bit of those.
Speaker 11: Why can't we stop it? The bigger this war gets,
Speaker 11: the more freedoms we lose the more substance D is
Speaker 11: on our streets.
Speaker 4: Can't you figure this out anyway? I can't play much
Speaker 4: of that or else it won't work. It won't work.
Speaker 4: But uh, for some reason, Alex like was walking around
Speaker 4: and found Gary Busey one day. Any interview, it's the
Speaker 4: craziest interview. Yeah, here it is right here.
Speaker 1: First back of the day.
Speaker 4: He dude as high as hell, bro or.
Speaker 1: Split my skull and put a hold of it, that
Speaker 1: big my skull.
Speaker 4: And I had measured.
Speaker 16: Brain surgery Cedar Sinai one fifteen pm Sunday afternoon, December fourth,
Speaker 16: by doctor Lauren Hooding, and he told me, if I've
Speaker 16: been three minutes later with me here now. So it's
Speaker 16: all in the quickness.
Speaker 1: To get the victim to the hospital.
Speaker 16: I came out of the hospital in recovery from a
Speaker 16: traumatic braining.
Speaker 11: They have the emails and the witnesses buying masses of
Speaker 11: prescription drugs painkillers. But then we go back to his broadcast.
Speaker 11: He said, anybody that was caught with any illegal drugs.
Speaker 4: I remember the Charlie Sheen phase too, right, So there
Speaker 4: was that whole massive several years of Alex teamed up
Speaker 4: with Charlie Sheen. You remember that.
Speaker 6: That was Yeah, I think that was kind of his
Speaker 6: peek at least that's what I remember peak kind of
Speaker 6: it for his mania, right when Charlie Sheen was in
Speaker 6: the middle of a crazy manic episode and he was
Speaker 6: he was talking about Tiger Blood and he was talking
Speaker 6: about I'm a Jesuit assassin stuff. You remember, you remember,
Speaker 6: like the Jesuit black assassins, like the anti Alex guy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was all that was all from. Yeah, that
Speaker 4: was There was two There was a group of Seven
Speaker 4: Day Avenues that were pushing that, and there was a
Speaker 4: guy that had a website that was all about how
Speaker 4: because Alex Jones one time talked out a Catholic college.
Speaker 4: They said, oh see look he's a Jesuit operative in,
Speaker 4: a Jesuit assassin.
Speaker 1: So I did the website was Jesuit it was, it was.
Speaker 4: It was Vatican assassins. Vatican assassins.
Speaker 15: He called them a Jesuit coadjutor.
Speaker 1: That was the term.
Speaker 6: Everyone's a Jesuit coadjutor.
Speaker 15: I didn't even know where, didn't even get that word.
Speaker 6: It was such a great word of coadjutor, like a
Speaker 6: mathematical term you're.
Speaker 4: Going to carry the carry, carry the carry, the integra
Speaker 4: integer to the to the look. And this was back.
Speaker 4: So I didn't realize this was This was two thousand
Speaker 4: and six, so this wasn't that long after. Greg was
Speaker 4: one of them. Yeah, that's who it is. And there
Speaker 4: was that he had a website and there was a
Speaker 4: book that came out by the Seven Day Adventists that
Speaker 4: he drew from, arguing that the Vatican runs the world
Speaker 4: through Jesuits and their assassination program. But I didn't realize
Speaker 4: that Alex is already talking to Charlie pretty regularly only
Speaker 4: three years after I'd first heard about not the case.
Speaker 17: And I was always amazed to see that you always
Speaker 17: had hard data to back up your claims. And so,
Speaker 17: you know, this was tough for me because for the
Speaker 17: longest time I've been enjoying my own independent research and.
Speaker 4: You know, oh, this is about big nine event. I
Speaker 4: remember now, Charlie wanted to fund Alex's nine to eleven
Speaker 4: documentaries in theater. He wanted a theatrical release, or he
Speaker 4: wanted to do a whole new, high production value version
Speaker 4: of Exposing nine to eleven. And that's what that was about.
Speaker 4: I remember that now, yeah.
Speaker 2: Because one of those interviews is in Terror Storm.
Speaker 4: Yes, correct, And so they were all the way this
Speaker 4: was three years later. They're still doing they were still
Speaker 4: doing stuff to this interview with Charlie questions.
Speaker 17: These are the facts, these are the issues that found
Speaker 17: their way into my letter because.
Speaker 4: So follow the Republic. Okay, that was an Alex documentary
Speaker 4: from two thousand and nine, and that included a bunch
Speaker 4: of the Charlie Sheen interviews. But people also forget that
Speaker 4: way back then Alex also because I was listening at
Speaker 4: the time, he also interviewed David Lynch and that was
Speaker 4: also questioning nine to eleven. If people remember that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, I remember the Lynch the Lynch interview.
Speaker 15: I mean you remember what was the eugenics film that
Speaker 15: he made?
Speaker 1: Game Endgame.
Speaker 15: Endgame was pretty influential.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I was gonna say, I'm the dude from
Speaker 2: Readers of the Lost ARCYA Harrison Ford.
Speaker 4: He was a big Wait who did he have on
Speaker 4: from John Ryse Davies. Oh, I forgot about that. He
Speaker 4: also had Hugo Weaving on Do you remember that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And Ernest Ordine ed Asner yep. But a bunch
Speaker 1: of the old timers.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I re the I remember one of the first
Speaker 4: times I went on Twenty first Century Wire was right
Speaker 4: after ed Asner and Patrick had him on, because I
Speaker 4: think there was a there was a early on in
Speaker 4: the two thousands there was quite a few Hollywood people
Speaker 4: that were into nine eleven truth. Uh, And that's, of course,
Speaker 4: you know, that's part of the reason why I was
Speaker 4: always connected to the Democratic Party. Was like, oh, if
Speaker 4: you're into nine eleven truth, it's because you're a Democrat
Speaker 4: and you're against the bushes and all that. So it
Speaker 4: was always ferreted into party politics, even though it was
Speaker 4: like a joint you know, neo con Democrat operation. It
Speaker 4: wasn't like one party. But yeah, this the context of
Speaker 4: this whole interview was questioning nine to eleven.
Speaker 11: Just it and it's getting obviously rave reviews. I've got
Speaker 11: several here in New York Times, Austin American statesmen in
Speaker 11: front of me. I mean, for those that I mean
Speaker 11: to give them some handle. What's the basics with Inland Empire?
Speaker 13: Well, you know, Alex, bless your heart, man, it's the
Speaker 13: story of a woman in trouble and and and that's it.
Speaker 13: You know, I always think I don't like to know
Speaker 13: too much about a film going in and I love
Speaker 13: the experience.
Speaker 4: Of so wow this was. This was when he was
Speaker 4: promoting In an Empire, which is two thousand and seven.
Speaker 11: I always love.
Speaker 6: That answer that he gets there too. I mean, that's
Speaker 6: the perfect answer.
Speaker 14: For it, David Lynch, it's a move.
Speaker 1: It's about a woman.
Speaker 4: I don't want it's a woman in trouble.
Speaker 6: For Empire is unhitched just one of the most such
Speaker 6: a great film.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I wonder if that Hugo Weaving one that's probably
Speaker 4: forgotten in the archives. He also interviewed Nicholas Refin too
Speaker 4: after a Drive came out.
Speaker 1: If you guys remember and Vigo Morton soon.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I forgot about Vigo. Good point. Yeah, I
Speaker 4: don't see the Hugo Weaving one.
Speaker 1: But White White and Vigo going in tours I.
Speaker 4: Don't remember, probably because there was a period where Alex
Speaker 4: was able to interview a lot of Hollywood people when
Speaker 4: they had a thing to promote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he won.
Speaker 2: Hey, Alec Wild Wild Courses.
Speaker 4: Oh that was when that movie. Yeah, the Horse movie
Speaker 4: came out, which that movie was not very good. I
Speaker 4: went to see it, but no, oh no, no, take
Speaker 4: that back. It was about The Road, right because they
Speaker 4: did Matt McCarthy's The Road with You with Vego in it.
Speaker 4: That's why. Yeah, back around two thousand and nine, right
Speaker 4: when we had the Obama era, it was very dystopian
Speaker 4: and Alex was like super hyper dystopian. That's when you
Speaker 4: know Obama Deception came out around that time, and uh,
Speaker 4: Alex talked about cor Matt McCarthy's The Road just all
Speaker 4: the time. He would reference it, like for at least
Speaker 4: two or three years. I remember listening over and over
Speaker 4: and over and the movie is so like hard to watch.
Speaker 4: It's super.
Speaker 6: Yeah, somebody, if somebody's only seen the film, I would
Speaker 6: recommend forgetting it the novel.
Speaker 1: The novel is really something special. That's a really good novel.
Speaker 4: I was going to ask you, because I know you
Speaker 4: and you and John have read a lot more. I've
Speaker 4: only read Blood Meridian, but you guys have read a
Speaker 4: lot more. What's your thoughts on The Road?
Speaker 6: I mean, I think The Road is one of the
Speaker 6: most beautiful novels of the twentieth century. It's it's really sparse,
Speaker 6: simple pros and he doesn't it's not you know, Blood
Speaker 6: Meridian is a little bit more purple and pros you know,
Speaker 6: blood Meridian, he gets kind of it's very Melvillion, and
Speaker 6: you know he's influenced by you know, James Joyce and stuff,
Speaker 6: but he later in his career he kind of really
Speaker 6: dug in on the hemingway, not thematically, but like you know, stylistically.
Speaker 1: Kind of more minimalist. It's what you don't say. And
Speaker 1: he I just think he.
Speaker 6: He mastered so many different types of pros and and
Speaker 6: The Road is something real special. So as far as like,
Speaker 6: you know, a critique of modernity, there's you know, it's
Speaker 6: just it's it's eternally. It's themes that are very outside
Speaker 6: of space and time, and The Road it habits this
Speaker 6: liminal space of kind of the sublime essentially, and it's
Speaker 6: a book that's so it's so beautiful. Actually, it's like
Speaker 6: this is what you don't get in the film. The
Speaker 6: film's bleak and dark, but actually the book, The Road
Speaker 6: is sublime and beautiful.
Speaker 15: And it's it's that that beauty in.
Speaker 1: The pain and the darkness is what the novels about.
Speaker 6: It's about a modern assign it's about death. It doesn't happen,
Speaker 6: it's yes, it's in this post apocalyptic kind of post
Speaker 6: post postmodernism thing where.
Speaker 1: The the ultimate results.
Speaker 6: Of postmodernism have shattered and you have this kind of
Speaker 6: it's it's also a critique of hyperindividualism, whereas the man
Speaker 6: who's the main character of The Man and the Boy
Speaker 6: and the Man himself has a lot of these American
Speaker 6: almost postmodern presuppositions, but they're constantly being destroyed and he's
Speaker 6: consistently being shown.
Speaker 15: By the world that he inhabits that you can't go
Speaker 15: it alone.
Speaker 1: And you know, his reason for living is his son.
Speaker 6: Right, and it's you know, it's it's also about the
Speaker 6: kind of it's his exploration of like.
Speaker 1: Of the whole.
Speaker 6: Abraham and his son when the sacrifice of Isaac.
Speaker 1: So it's a beautiful book. I highly recommend it. It's
Speaker 1: a really great course. It's one of the most beautiful books.
Speaker 6: But it's it's also it's intense and dark, but it's
Speaker 6: an easy read and it's a fun read.
Speaker 1: And the last.
Speaker 6: Page of it is one of the most beautiful paragraphs
Speaker 6: ever written, Like this poem at the end of it.
Speaker 1: It's just one of the most beautiful things I ever written.
Speaker 4: I remember around that time when that came out. McCarthy
Speaker 4: was saying that there's no point in writing the Great
Speaker 4: American Novel anymore because no one will read it, which
Speaker 4: is somewhat prophetic because I guess he already saw that
Speaker 4: people were gonna not read as the as the dystopia
Speaker 4: came into fruition.
Speaker 6: There's a scene in the Road where they read they
Speaker 6: find a library and the books are just all the
Speaker 6: pages are molded and falling apart, and it's just like
Speaker 6: everything in the road, everything is artifact. So it's, you know,
Speaker 6: you're kind of inhabiting this post temporal space, whereas most people.
Speaker 1: Are looking at it as well.
Speaker 6: It's post apocalyptic and everyone's reading it trying to forensically
Speaker 6: figure out what happened, but it never tells you what happened.
Speaker 6: You don't know what happened, and it doesn't matter what happened.
Speaker 6: But literature itself is obsolete there, and I think that
Speaker 6: was something he always struggled with too, And just like
Speaker 6: you know, he obviously gave his whole life to writing,
Speaker 6: but it's, you know, one of the beautiful things in
Speaker 6: there is he kind of destroys that as well and
Speaker 6: just shows like none of this matters. All that matters
Speaker 6: is the love between the man and the boy. And
Speaker 6: it's very there's christological, it's very Christian name, it is
Speaker 6: very Christmas.
Speaker 1: He originally was.
Speaker 6: Going to the Road, the original title, the working title
Speaker 6: for it, and one of.
Speaker 1: His early drafts was The Grail, which he and he
Speaker 1: chopped a lot of that and just really.
Speaker 15: Brought it down and distilled it into something that he
Speaker 15: didn't want it.
Speaker 6: To be too blatant, too allegorical.
Speaker 1: But it is.
Speaker 6: It's highly uh christ Is It's a christe haunted book,
Speaker 6: kind of like who was it?
Speaker 1: That?
Speaker 4: Was it? A flannering?
Speaker 1: So christ haaunted exactly. That's there's the Neil Postman.
Speaker 2: I was actually just reading this the other week where
Speaker 2: Postman brings in the Orwellian Huxley comparison, and he says,
Speaker 2: and you know, Orwell is fearful that the government's going
Speaker 2: to get rid of books, and Huxley talks about.
Speaker 1: How there won't even be a need to get rid
Speaker 1: of books because nobody's going to read them.
Speaker 4: Exactly, you won't have to have fahrenhear forbid you wanted,
Speaker 4: because people will just stop reading the books to begin with.
Speaker 4: So I remember too. The first thing that I saw
Speaker 4: actually by Alex documentary wise was not Bohemian Grove. It
Speaker 4: was actually America Destroyed by Design, because after right around
Speaker 4: two thousand and three and four, you had the advent
Speaker 4: of Google Video, and I remember the first documentary that
Speaker 4: I sat and watched through. It may have been Behemian Grove,
Speaker 4: but it was also America Destroyed by Design. People always
Speaker 4: forget this one, but this was back when he was
Speaker 4: doing local Austin stuff, and he did this interview with
Speaker 4: a bunch of people about Chinese Communist Party buying large
Speaker 4: ports in America and that this was all tied to
Speaker 4: the United Nations and sort of the rewilding program to
Speaker 4: take over a large portion of the land of the
Speaker 4: US and to appropriate it by the state to then
Speaker 4: give it over to United Nations affiliated entities. This is
Speaker 4: like I think America des Robot has done is nineteen
Speaker 4: ninety seven. I mean I think that's when it came out,
Speaker 4: and then Bohemian Grove was around two thousand or two
Speaker 4: thousand and one, so maybe ninety nine, I can't remember exactly,
Speaker 4: but this was the first documentary that Alex got a
Speaker 4: lot of traction from right because this was pretty popular.
Speaker 4: A lot of people watch this on the underground, and
Speaker 4: because Bohemi Grove was typically a neocon outfit. I mean
Speaker 4: they would invite some Democrats too, like David Gergan went,
Speaker 4: but it's usually classified as more of a kind of
Speaker 4: a neocon Kissinger style meeting. I think this probably endeared
Speaker 4: Alex to a lot of people who would have been
Speaker 4: more on the left. But I'll play a little bit
Speaker 4: of that.
Speaker 11: Well, basically that's enough for me. It's it's hard to
Speaker 11: even describe it with words, and I hope that our
Speaker 11: hidden cameras can give you at least a small piece
Speaker 11: of what I witnessed. To have world leaders engaging in
Speaker 11: this type of shickening behavior. Oh yes, there's much more
Speaker 11: to come. Mock human sacrifices they claim, just shocks the
Speaker 11: very foundations of what Americans believe their leaders to be.
Speaker 11: Ceremonies that in truth had their roots not in the Druids,
Speaker 11: but in Babylon itself. As the railroads brought commerce and
Speaker 11: larger and larger populations, the prestige of the club grew
Speaker 11: until in the year two thousand. It is a gathering
Speaker 11: place for the world establishment, the elite.
Speaker 4: So This is two thou Old Dwight D.
Speaker 11: Eisenhower, later to become president. The roster of the Bohemian
Speaker 11: Club reads like a who's who of the elite. Look
Speaker 11: at this photo taking inside the grove back of nineteen
Speaker 11: sixty three. There you'll see Ronald Reagan and sitting two
Speaker 11: people over from him, later to become president, Richard Milhouse Nixon. Frankly,
Speaker 11: we don't know if these men actively enjoy the things
Speaker 11: that go on inside the Bohemian Club. One thing is
Speaker 11: perfectly certain from the evidence. They are forced to go
Speaker 11: and to ten and take part in these illustration from
Speaker 11: the pages of Parade Magazine, February twenty second, nineteen eighty one.
Speaker 4: This story was the most accurate.
Speaker 11: And revealing detailing the so called mock human sacrifice.
Speaker 4: I like how he keeps saying it's so called, like
Speaker 4: it might be really even sacrifice. But I remember this
Speaker 4: is one of the first books that I saw Alex
Speaker 4: reference all the time, right, Men in Powers by Helmut Schmidt,
Speaker 4: And I bought the book, right, I have it right
Speaker 4: up there, Men in Powers, because I was like, is
Speaker 4: this guy for real?
Speaker 14: Is that?
Speaker 4: Would they really put this in the books? And I
Speaker 4: eventually found a copy of this and sure enough, yes
Speaker 4: it is in there. It does talk about Bohemian Grove,
Speaker 4: So I'm not going to play any more of that.
Speaker 4: But of course, I'm sure most people have probably seen
Speaker 4: Dark Secrets inside Bohemian Grove from a long time ago.
Speaker 4: But I think for Alex right, the Pivotal documentary was
Speaker 4: originally mean Grove that kind of got his name out there,
Speaker 4: and then he did several Police State documentaries which were
Speaker 4: lesser known. There was like three or four of them, right,
Speaker 4: Police State nine to eleven, Martial Law, et cetera. I
Speaker 4: had like three or four parts you know where.
Speaker 1: You know where. I saw all of those on MySpace.
Speaker 4: Really I didn't know that. Yeah, there there used to be.
Speaker 2: A dude back in the day after after I originally
Speaker 2: saw that c Span clip that was talking about skullm boons.
Speaker 1: On my Space. There was this guy which if he's
Speaker 1: if he's ever listening, I think him. His name was.
Speaker 2: Andrew, but he was a musician in LA and he
Speaker 2: was he shared all of the Alex Jones videos on
Speaker 2: MySpace all day long. That's all he would do, was
Speaker 2: like Jones videos all day.
Speaker 4: That's funny because my Space was always kind of immediately
Speaker 4: associated with music. But by the way, this might be
Speaker 4: what you're talking about. Let's see, here's John Carey, many
Speaker 4: many years ago on talking about us say.
Speaker 1: The importance today.
Speaker 18: Nor could he have predicted the number of Americans abroad
Speaker 18: that we help with their passports, with visas, with other
Speaker 18: problems that arise, or that we help offer to those
Speaker 18: who want to grow their families through adoption, or who
Speaker 18: find themselves in legal trouble or distress far from home,
Speaker 18: or the role our diplomats play screening potential security threats
Speaker 18: and taking them off the radar screen before they ever
Speaker 18: reach your consciousness, potentially in the worst ways.
Speaker 1: Or that we create a new American job.
Speaker 18: Understanding that is already investing more than we do. There
Speaker 18: four of the five biggest oil and natural gat now
Speaker 18: buy our exports terrorism.
Speaker 4: You both remembers of sculling Bones a secret society at Yale.
Speaker 1: What does that tell us? Not much, because it's a secret.
Speaker 1: Is there a secret handshake? Is there a secret code?
Speaker 1: I wish there were something sacred I could manifest three
Speaker 1: twenty two secret number.
Speaker 18: There are all kinds of secret stem but one thing
Speaker 18: is not a secret.
Speaker 1: I disagree with this president's direction.
Speaker 4: Classic political deflection. One thing that's not a secret. This
Speaker 4: guy is foreign policy. This guy is that can not hit.
Speaker 4: And then he asked the same thing to Bush.
Speaker 1: You were both in.
Speaker 2: Stelling Bones the secret society so secret, we can't talk about.
Speaker 4: What does that mean for America?
Speaker 1: The conspiracy theorist are going to.
Speaker 2: Go, I don't know.
Speaker 4: I haven't seen the rep selling bones. So yeah, this
Speaker 4: was This was huge back in the day, right, Like
Speaker 4: if you were on the Internet and you were in
Speaker 4: message boards or like John was saying, you're on MySpace,
Speaker 4: you would see these clips going around and Alex had
Speaker 4: like an archive, by the way, of all these clips.
Speaker 4: If you were a prison Planet member back in the
Speaker 4: two thousands, go ahead, John.
Speaker 2: The other place Jones was on that got him out
Speaker 2: there was he was on OPI and Andy and he
Speaker 2: talked about that and they played the clips on it.
Speaker 4: Oh, Alex won OPI and Anthony. Yeah, oh, I didn't
Speaker 4: know that. And that was before they split, back when
Speaker 4: they were I never did listen to those guys, so
Speaker 4: I didn't really know their whole their whole thing mean neither.
Speaker 2: I just I just remember seeing a clip of it,
Speaker 2: and I it was.
Speaker 1: Not something I listened to or watched or anything, but
Speaker 1: there was.
Speaker 2: A clip of him on there and he's he's telling
Speaker 2: them that about the skull and bones thing, and they're
Speaker 2: like really, oh okay, and then they like looked it
Speaker 2: up and they're like, oh crazy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this might be it, but that might also be old.
Speaker 4: I can't, I can't are more recent. No, that's probably it.
Speaker 4: So you're right, John, I think that's the original one
Speaker 4: from a long time ago anyway. But then I think,
Speaker 4: like Tristan said, uh, the Charlie Sheen stuff definitely propelled, uh,
Speaker 4: the notoriety because Alex was right there when Charlie she
Speaker 4: was having all that news attention because of the what
Speaker 4: was he saying, like he'd do an eight ball every
Speaker 4: day or something crazy shit like that, And then he
Speaker 4: was he was up on top of the building telling
Speaker 4: everybody that he he was he was drinking tiger blood
Speaker 4: and Alex that he's.
Speaker 15: Like, I'm pounding five grand rocks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I got tiger blood.
Speaker 1: Assassin. He was. She was out of control and and
Speaker 1: Alex was on the view.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, that was was that before even the Peers Morgan.
Speaker 4: The Peers Morgan took us because.
Speaker 2: He Charlie Sheen appointed Alex to be a person and
Speaker 2: Jones went on the view and then Charlie Sheen like
Speaker 2: told him, don't.
Speaker 1: Even really talk about me, just talk about building seven.
Speaker 4: Here's the Tiger Blood winning.
Speaker 19: I don't know, man, I was banging seven grand rocks
Speaker 19: and finishing them because that's how I roll. I have
Speaker 19: one speed, I have one gear go because on me,
Speaker 19: I'm different. I just have a different constitution. I have
Speaker 19: a different brain, I have a different heart, I have
Speaker 19: a different you know, I got tccer blood.
Speaker 1: Man, I'm too smart and I cured my brain.
Speaker 4: That's epic.
Speaker 19: The run I was on made Sinatra, Flynn, Jagger, Richard's
Speaker 19: all of them just looked like, you know, droo, be eyed,
Speaker 19: armless children. I exposed people to magic. I exposed them
Speaker 19: to something they're never otherwise going to see. And they're
Speaker 19: boring normal lives and I gave that to them, the
Speaker 19: built different.
Speaker 4: Talcer. I may forget about them tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Was that two and nine?
Speaker 4: This clip? I don't see a day, but probably around there, yeah.
Speaker 1: The probably, yeah the problem there.
Speaker 6: There used to be a great YouTube channel, right, I
Speaker 6: mean and four's YouTube channels were deleted around.
Speaker 15: Twenty eighteen or eighteen it was, and there were.
Speaker 1: Just thousands of videos.
Speaker 6: Alex's channel was one of the biggest channels on YouTube
Speaker 6: in the early YouTube days that he was He was
Speaker 6: live streaming his show as soon as live streaming came out,
Speaker 6: which was like twenty fifteen or sixteen or so.
Speaker 1: It was. It was huge.
Speaker 6: I mean, he helped to build YouTube's base really and
Speaker 6: then once they you know, they had multiple ad apocalypses
Speaker 6: and kind of started tightening up over the years, and
Speaker 6: then finally kicked him off around.
Speaker 15: Twenty eighteen because he got kicked off of everything.
Speaker 6: Around twenty eighteen, they had that kind of the show
Speaker 6: trial era began and he was being you know, sued
Speaker 6: by the parents the kids of the event, and it
Speaker 6: was and they took him on Twitter like within the
Speaker 6: same week I think as.
Speaker 4: YouTube it was. It was all the same few days actually,
Speaker 4: because my WordPress site got deleted at the exact same
Speaker 4: day that all of Alex's stuff was removed from everywhere,
Speaker 4: so it was coordinated.
Speaker 6: And one of the reasons I think when they kicked
Speaker 6: him off Twitter it was because he yelled at like
Speaker 6: a CNN.
Speaker 1: Reporter Yeah, it wasn't even on Twitter.
Speaker 15: They kicked him off of Twitter for him being mean
Speaker 15: to somebody.
Speaker 4: For Oliver Darcy. Ir. Yeah, it was Oliver Darcy. He
Speaker 4: said he looked like a rat or a goblin or
Speaker 4: a munchkin or something, and they decided that was a mean,
Speaker 4: mean speak. So no mean speak in the New World
Speaker 4: Order for sure. Yeah. So then I think the next
Speaker 4: phase was Obama deception because that was huge. I remember
Speaker 4: that had at one point on YouTube thirty million views.
Speaker 4: So that was like the next phase. And that was
Speaker 4: a period when they, according to Alex, they offered him
Speaker 4: like a Fox show and all that kind of stuff,
Speaker 4: and he says he said no to that. And then
Speaker 4: the next level up was of course when Trump signed
Speaker 4: on and came on, and then in for Wars kind
Speaker 4: of went to like the top news side out there
Speaker 4: due to the support for MAGA and the Trump the
Speaker 4: Trump election in twenty sixteen. So twenty sixteen led to,
Speaker 4: as Tristan said, the twenty eighteen like total deplatforming. And
Speaker 4: that's also when all the lawfair began. So I would like, I.
Speaker 6: Really like back in the day, I really like endgame
Speaker 6: because I don't don't think you mentioned that.
Speaker 4: No, I'm sorry forgot an Endgame was that was two
Speaker 4: thousand and.
Speaker 6: Six or five or so it came out, but I
Speaker 6: think I saw around two thousand and seven or maybe
Speaker 6: that's when.
Speaker 1: It came out.
Speaker 6: But I really liked Endgame and at the time for
Speaker 6: one of one of these like seminars was senior seminars,
Speaker 6: and I hit a history degree that I was getting
Speaker 6: at the time.
Speaker 15: I did a I did like an academic.
Speaker 1: Treatment of the eugenics movement and the.
Speaker 6: US influence on the Kaiser Villahoum Institute and vice versa,
Speaker 6: and so I kind of, you know, the thesis that
Speaker 6: he lays out in End Game, I kind of essentially
Speaker 6: expanded on some of those ideas and just did an
Speaker 6: academic treatment of that.
Speaker 1: But that was that was those fun.
Speaker 6: Times back in the day diversity kind of like just yeah,
Speaker 6: I was a pretty liberal university in California, and the
Speaker 6: actually the professors were all fine because these are critiques
Speaker 6: of general kind of US policy at the time, and
Speaker 6: you know, they're they were fine with it. Now, a
Speaker 6: lot of these ideas and Alex Jones have been has
Speaker 6: been kind of become the right wing guy.
Speaker 1: But like you said at the time.
Speaker 6: This was during the Bush administration, right, So, during the
Speaker 6: George W. Bush administration, anybody who's pushing back against the
Speaker 6: Iraq War, anybody who's pushing back against the surveillance state.
Speaker 15: They were auto filed.
Speaker 6: As leftists in kind of the media circus realm. And
Speaker 6: you know, so you're if you don't like TSA, you know,
Speaker 6: feeling up your your genitalia, you're you're a lefty. You
Speaker 6: got to be a you got to be a dem
Speaker 6: You're the liberal, radical left, anti war crazy person. And
Speaker 6: a lot of Alex's audience I think were kind of
Speaker 6: like farmer's market kind of we're like, you know.
Speaker 1: Crunchy soccer moms.
Speaker 6: Uh, you feel like anti anti uh mandatory pharmaceutical uh
Speaker 6: things put in your veins, mamas and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Back in the day.
Speaker 4: No, Alex actually introduced me to the whole the whole
Speaker 4: idea of like organic food and all that that all came.
Speaker 4: That was all introduced to me from Alex via you know,
Speaker 4: two thousand and three, four five six, that's when I
Speaker 4: first even I didn't even know there was such a
Speaker 4: thing until I listened to that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, Alex talking about how there you know, they
Speaker 6: didn't want to make everything GMO.
Speaker 1: They're gonna be all your babies.
Speaker 6: It was, you know, he was connecting the idea of,
Speaker 6: you know, this kind of the eugenics age, which then
Speaker 6: became like the era of cybernetics, and then became the
Speaker 6: era of like, you know, psychosocial control through mass.
Speaker 15: Media, and then all morphed into you know, we're going
Speaker 15: to control.
Speaker 1: Everything at the cellular level.
Speaker 6: He was talking about Montanto back in the early two
Speaker 6: thousands and again.
Speaker 1: That was that was always considered up.
Speaker 6: Until Trump when they switched it and they're like, oh, well, yeah,
Speaker 6: that's like a kind of a right wing talking point now, No,
Speaker 6: And that was I mean Alex really Alex was the
Speaker 6: reason that Trump.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're right. Our endgame was two thousand and seven,
Speaker 4: so actually in game was two years before Obama Deception.
Speaker 4: Obama Deception was a lot bigger documentary. I mean, it
Speaker 4: just went massive. I mean it was getting like, you know,
Speaker 4: promoted on Fox News and stuff. But Endgame was two
Speaker 4: thousand and seven, and I think that did take Alex
Speaker 4: to another level because that was very popular online.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just I was going to say it was it
Speaker 2: was a little it was older than that, because I
Speaker 2: can remember if it.
Speaker 1: Was two thousand and six or seven, but I know
Speaker 1: it was.
Speaker 2: It was ancient times because I watched it in an
Speaker 2: Internet cafe.
Speaker 7: Wow.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's old school, dude. Those don't exist, so those
Speaker 4: are those are retired. I did see one the other
Speaker 4: by the way in a small town, so there is
Speaker 4: like there are a few Internet cafes still.
Speaker 6: But a lot of a lot of his stuff too
Speaker 6: was disseminated by people burning DVDs back in the day,
Speaker 6: back in two thousand and seven, two eight.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I did that. I did that.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of libertarian types and that at
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 6: Locally there were there were groups where I lived at
Speaker 6: the time, there are groups and we were we were kind.
Speaker 15: Of anti smart meter and stuff.
Speaker 1: So these were big concerns.
Speaker 6: Was like Wi Fi back then, smart meters and microwave
Speaker 6: radiation being put up all over the place, mandating it
Speaker 6: being put on your house, and you know the carcinogenic
Speaker 6: effects of this, and a lot of the people that
Speaker 6: would distribute Alex's DVDs would be distributing like what in
Speaker 6: the world are they spraying in some of those other
Speaker 6: kind of classes.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I remember those classics. Yeah, that was introduction
Speaker 4: of geo engineering too. I first heard about that from
Speaker 4: Alex in two thousand and six.
Speaker 2: But I spent many in the afternoon burning.
Speaker 4: BB Yeah I did too. I would do that at
Speaker 4: my college, and I was, as I was telling Harrison
Speaker 4: yesterday on the last broadcast, I remember at college we
Speaker 4: did a showing in the theater of Endgame when it
Speaker 4: came out. So and it was a hassle too, because
Speaker 4: the college didn't want us to play that, so we
Speaker 4: had to like wrangle and you know, deal with bureaucracy
Speaker 4: to get it played, which is weird because the university
Speaker 4: are supposed to be neutral. It's supposed to allow all
Speaker 4: that kind of stuff that students want to do. But yeah, here,
Speaker 4: by the way, is uh, I'll never forget this do
Speaker 4: or doo. That's very John carbon Er durn Her. Oh
Speaker 4: it ends with ah she wells quote countless people will
Speaker 4: die hating the countless people hate the New World Order,
Speaker 4: and they will die against it.
Speaker 11: I appeared before the Congressional committee to tell what I
Speaker 11: knew of activities which might lead to an attempt.
Speaker 18: To set up a fascist dictatorship.
Speaker 4: So yeah, he begins with Smedley Butler and Military Industrial Complex. Anyway,
Speaker 4: you guys can go back if you want to watch
Speaker 4: all those. But again it was it was, I mean,
Speaker 4: nothing really will change. A lot of people are asking, No,
Speaker 4: Alex is not retiring, he just will already has new
Speaker 4: studios and they'll have a whole new network. It's just
Speaker 4: not called in for war. So basically they lost the name,
Speaker 4: the equipment and the studio studios which is a large facility.
Speaker 4: But he's are they.
Speaker 6: Going to come out for his new company and try
Speaker 6: and just shattered as well.
Speaker 4: No, they set it up. No, they set it up
Speaker 4: to where now he's not it's not his company, so
Speaker 4: he's it's under Big Lee, so Bigley runs it like
Speaker 4: they previously have the Hodge Twins and a bunch of
Speaker 4: other people. So it's Alex Jones Network is now owned
Speaker 4: by Bigley, so it's under a different company. But he
Speaker 4: already just he's already built all the new stuff and
Speaker 4: today was the first show on the new network. People
Speaker 4: were asking about why the website, Well, they took the website, right,
Speaker 4: so they have they shut down the website and all that. No,
Speaker 4: technically the Onion doesn't own it, but they were able
Speaker 4: to get everything shut down yesterday for the first time.
Speaker 4: So the very last a few minutes of an Info
Speaker 4: Wars broadcast was believe it or not, was me doing
Speaker 4: an Alex Jones impression. I thought. I was trying to
Speaker 4: figure out what could I say, what what would be
Speaker 4: like the ultimate sort of sign off, and Harrison went
Speaker 4: to me and I was like, I'll just say my
Speaker 4: classic Alex impress Jay Dyer. You can follow him at
Speaker 4: Jay Dyer on X. Final thoughts are that the floor
Speaker 4: is yours.
Speaker 20: How do you feel about this being the final show
Speaker 20: under the Info Wars ban.
Speaker 21: I mean, I'm unbelievable, crazy, unbelievable. That's very convincing.
Speaker 4: So there you go. That was the end of Enforce broadcast,
Speaker 4: right there was me too, and that which is a
Speaker 4: lesser known little thing that Alex does when he's ranting.
Speaker 4: But uh yeah, there we go, and I'm thankful. I
Speaker 4: had a blast there with the you know, many many
Speaker 4: times in studio, probably six or seven times in studio
Speaker 4: hosting the Fourth Hours since two thousand, twenty twenty, so
Speaker 4: six years of a fourth Hour mini in studio and
Speaker 4: full shows as well. I had a blast, And Alex
Speaker 4: never told me that I couldn't talk about anything. Never
Speaker 4: since ORed me, never said don't talk about this, please
Speaker 4: talk about this. It was always straight up. Alex never
Speaker 4: lied or did anything weird to me. Nothing was sus
Speaker 4: that I ever saw was always straight up. So I
Speaker 4: have nothing but appreciation and support and look up to
Speaker 4: Alex quite a bit. It was a lot of an
Speaker 4: inspiration for what we do over here. And very happy
Speaker 4: to host. And I assume that people are asking, are
Speaker 4: you still going to be hosting? Yes, so we don't
Speaker 4: exactly know what the format will be on the Auctionhows network,
Speaker 4: but I will still host, but I don't know at
Speaker 4: what capacity. And he has plans he wants to do
Speaker 4: like a network with a lot of different shows, and
Speaker 4: so that might be a possibility. We'll see modern apostate
Speaker 4: what's up?
Speaker 1: Yeoh Jay, look grets to you and Alex.
Speaker 22: Hopefully the fight goes on.
Speaker 1: Rip in for Wars.
Speaker 22: But someone called in I think two days ago, and
Speaker 22: they were talking about how, like the East and the West,
Speaker 22: there are two lungs of the same church and somehow
Speaker 22: the Catholics can kind of keep both theologies together. Ironically,
Speaker 22: I was listening to some possible hymns that in some
Speaker 22: of the playlists on Spotify had some Catholic choir seeing
Speaker 22: it and they sing something about Christ being the only
Speaker 22: sinless one in in the liturgy, And it seems to
Speaker 22: me completely contradictory to if they're meant to hold to
Speaker 22: the doctrine of the immaculate conception that they could possibly
Speaker 22: sing that Jesus is the only sinless one.
Speaker 1: I feel like that.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, it still might be. You could still
Speaker 4: you could still say that in a relative sense. For example,
Speaker 4: you know people Protestants will say something like, you know,
Speaker 4: the Romans says all have sin and voluntar the glory
Speaker 4: of God. Okay, Well is Christ a man? Yes, is
Speaker 4: a part of the all right? So in Romans three,
Speaker 4: everybody agrees that it's not. It's a relative usage of
Speaker 4: no one or none, right. So in the same sense
Speaker 4: you could say, and you could also say, Mary, bro,
Speaker 4: what are you doing, dude? You cranking gear shifts over there?
Speaker 1: I share.
Speaker 4: You could also say, hold on, let me finish, let
Speaker 4: me let me finish, let me finish. You could also say,
Speaker 4: for example, well, Mary is under original sin. That's why
Speaker 4: she died, right, So she has the effects of original sin,
Speaker 4: and sometimes original sin or ancestral sin is spoken of
Speaker 4: as the effects. Right, we are all under original sin, okay,
Speaker 4: and that includes Mary. That does not mean that Mary
Speaker 4: had actual sin or actual guilt.
Speaker 1: Well, I would agree from.
Speaker 22: Like the Eastern perspective, if she's still under the effects
Speaker 22: of original sin. But I think I think doesn't the
Speaker 22: doctrine of the Immaculate conception.
Speaker 4: Oh you're saying, why would Roman Catholics say that, I'm misunderstood.
Speaker 22: Yeah, no, I feel like it's a contradiction or it
Speaker 22: seems like a contradiction that the East is able to
Speaker 22: him Christ.
Speaker 1: Is the only sinless one.
Speaker 7: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 22: Well, they're meant to hold to the doctrine of the
Speaker 22: Immaculate conception.
Speaker 4: I see, Yeah, No, that is that is a good point.
Speaker 4: But again, I think that would demonstrate that immaculate conception
Speaker 4: is a doctrine that evolved and was very late.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 23: I think that that was kind of my point, saying,
Speaker 23: you know, in the same way that they don't have
Speaker 23: to say the Filio way in the in their version
Speaker 23: of the Creed, right, and you know, they have some
Speaker 23: cop out saying, you know, we hold to the theology
Speaker 23: or maybe they'll come up with some other cope, but
Speaker 23: I feel like this is another one of those where
Speaker 23: they're trying to have it both ways and kind of
Speaker 23: the papacies just it's the only thing that really matters
Speaker 23: in terms of binding the whole Catholic world together. Kind
Speaker 23: of have any liturgy anything you want, as long as
Speaker 23: you affirm the Pope.
Speaker 1: So that's the only point I wanted to bring up.
Speaker 4: And just yeah, that's a great point. I appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 4: look to you and Alex appreciate that. Yeah, guys, if
Speaker 4: you didn't see the I think it's an hour and
Speaker 4: a half, two hours that I did with Gerald over
Speaker 4: on the Crowder channel that went up today. A lot
Speaker 4: of people are vibing with it very well because we
Speaker 4: critique the idea that we need to unite with Islam
Speaker 4: to fight degenerously.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: And no, we do not just simply worship Israel or
Speaker 4: anything like that. I call out both Islam and Ionism
Speaker 4: and Christians Iionism. That is in the topics today. If
Speaker 4: you guys want to talk about that, you feel free
Speaker 4: to call in on any topic. Tristan joins me today
Speaker 4: as my coadjutor. He is officially a coadjutor today provocateur,
Speaker 4: some would say coadjutor, right, Tristan, you a coadjutor today,
Speaker 4: said black assassin. Tristan is a tiger blood vacking assassin.
Speaker 4: I felt like I'm only like black assassin up here
Speaker 4: because I'm bypod. But I mean you could be an assassin,
Speaker 4: just not black assassin.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is.
Speaker 2: I want to ask my good Tristan something, because you're
Speaker 2: like ten years younger than.
Speaker 15: Me, and.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I am a boomer, so no. But but back
Speaker 2: at the time when all of you know.
Speaker 1: Ten all that, did you see.
Speaker 4: People not a topic necessity.
Speaker 2: With things that like emport Wars was talking about back
Speaker 2: at the day, because I think like people who were
Speaker 2: more my age probably nobody resonated with that. I was like,
Speaker 2: you know, yeah, like nobody resonated. I was just curious
Speaker 2: if you thought that, like ten years down the line,
Speaker 2: people your age were more open to that.
Speaker 6: So two thousand and six, two thousand and seven, eight,
Speaker 6: at that era, yeah, or even you know, up to
Speaker 6: like nine, ten eleven. Yeah, no, I don't think it was.
Speaker 6: It wasn't It wasn't normal. It definitely wasn't normal. There
Speaker 6: were some people, it was mostly you know, there was
Speaker 6: a kind of a like a freedom Forum saying that
Speaker 6: was some libertarians, but mostly just people that were interested
Speaker 6: in some of these issues. So they ended up you'd
Speaker 6: have these me up groups that ended up being run
Speaker 6: by kind of libertarian types at the time because that
Speaker 6: was who was willing to organize stuff. But it wasn't
Speaker 6: not everybody there was libertarian. Like I never really was
Speaker 6: fully sold on the libertarian thing, and Alex has always
Speaker 6: been kind of like classical liberal libertarian type, at.
Speaker 1: Least back then.
Speaker 6: I don't know where he's where he's been going lately.
Speaker 6: But it wasn't it wasn't popular. There were a lot
Speaker 6: of boomers, there are a lot of gen xers, and
Speaker 6: it was just it was a lot of people who
Speaker 6: were kind of.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't know.
Speaker 6: I wouldn't say they weren't fringe people, but they were
Speaker 6: just not These were normal people.
Speaker 1: These were people that had seen.
Speaker 6: Something, experienced something that kind of made you know, question
Speaker 6: grand narrators in certain ways, and you know, people that
Speaker 6: were that were a little bit a little bit out there.
Speaker 4: By the way, JE throw in the chat, No, that
Speaker 4: was the old interview that I did with Gerald. The
Speaker 4: new interview just went up here eight hours ago. It's
Speaker 4: called Unholy Alliance Decoding the Islam Christian quote Friendship with
Speaker 4: Jay Dyer. So they just premiered that today and we'd
Speaker 4: actually recorded that I think like two two or three
Speaker 4: weeks ago. So, uh, this did finally go up. It's
Speaker 4: already got like a lot of you is on Rumble.
Speaker 4: It's like half a million on Rumble already. So it
Speaker 4: was a really good conversation. I think the first one
Speaker 4: was good too, because we went pretty hard into Christian
Speaker 4: Zionism and I was, you know, posing several points I
Speaker 4: think where Gerald and I would disagree. Uh. So this
Speaker 4: one was focused more so on are we being sold
Speaker 4: on this you know, sort of fake right wing alliance
Speaker 4: with Islam? But I think people are beginning to see
Speaker 4: through that. I don't see that as much. You know,
Speaker 4: that is one area where I think I just definitely
Speaker 4: disagree with Tucker because Tucker seems to continue to lean
Speaker 4: into this position that that we do have a common
Speaker 4: ground with Islam, that we could oppose you know, Israeli
Speaker 4: Zionist control or something like that. But it's like, look,
Speaker 4: both of these religions and there are religious commitments even
Speaker 4: if there's Zionists. Ultimately it's still quasi religious commitment. Like
Speaker 4: both these religions are Talmudic. That's what people don't understand.
Speaker 4: That's what I told the Hodge Twins, Like, no, you're
Speaker 4: saying Islam is also heavily Talmudic. So if you want
Speaker 4: to be you know, opposed to the talmut or whatever, like,
Speaker 4: you can't make an alliance with Islam. It's just and
Speaker 4: I understand why people think this. It's because so many
Speaker 4: people in the West don't understand Islam. They don't know
Speaker 4: what it actually teaches, and because we're so lied to
Speaker 4: they think, oh, well if nine to eleven, you know,
Speaker 4: if I'm gonna question that, well, the Muslims must not
Speaker 4: be bad, right then It's just it's not that simple
Speaker 4: or black and white or good guy bad guy. I
Speaker 4: think you guys have seen. You know, we've done eight
Speaker 4: years of debates with top Muslims now and they're all
Speaker 4: just bad news. I mean, the religion is, it doesn't
Speaker 4: matter what flavor it is. Yes, you could find countries
Speaker 4: where Islamic secular regimes are a little more tolerant, like
Speaker 4: assad or something like that towards Christianity, but the Muslims
Speaker 4: of the West has always funded the Salafi Wahabi radicals.
Speaker 4: They absolutely eradicate Christianity. That's what they did when the
Speaker 4: West and Israel supported Julaanni to come in. They just
Speaker 4: destroyed all the churches in Syria. Uh, they're Israel's bombing
Speaker 4: Christian Orthodox Catholic churches in Lebanon now. So, and that's
Speaker 4: why you have to understand, as many many many rabbis say,
Speaker 4: Islam is the broom of Judaism. Once you understand that,
Speaker 4: you won't fall for the idea that we can be
Speaker 4: buddies with the sheikhs and whatnot. And again, think about this.
Speaker 4: The whole conversation that we had with Karaoke yesterday or
Speaker 4: day before, right, he pointed out how anti Christian, anti,
Speaker 4: you know, Western, all the stuff that Saudi Arabian ideology is.
Speaker 4: So if we wanted to really be opposed to Islam,
Speaker 4: as we've been supposedly through this war on quote terror,
Speaker 4: then we would have been against Saudi Arabia. But we
Speaker 4: were set up with Kissinger's machinations and plans to rely
Speaker 4: on Middle Eastern Saudi Arabian oil to have the quote
Speaker 4: Petro dollar. So this was all that's all smoking mirrors anyway. So, no,
Speaker 4: Islam is not a friend to the West. And as
Speaker 4: you get into Islam, you learn more and more and
Speaker 4: more that no, Daniel haikikachu actually does represent authentic Islam.
Speaker 4: And when Daniel Higikitchu gets up there and says, yeah,
Speaker 4: we're gonna take you over with I nb r e
Speaker 4: ed ad iq people with swords, he's not joking fdags.
Speaker 4: You want to say something, Father Deacon either.
Speaker 1: Well, this was just another example. You remember I texted you.
Speaker 24: That people were so blinded for their hatred of the
Speaker 24: tribe that like they literally become retarded.
Speaker 4: And oh, well we were talking about the Pagans, right,
Speaker 4: this this uptick in the neo Pagans in the last
Speaker 4: few weeks, they're going crazy.
Speaker 24: Yeah, well I've seen that.
Speaker 1: It's the same with you know.
Speaker 24: Even conservatives like oh, we could join teams with.
Speaker 1: Islam, like it's the same thing, or the.
Speaker 24: You know, the the Ortho people that fell for Brother Nathaniel,
Speaker 24: And it's just like people get so blinded by that.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Yeah, it's a it's a fervor kind of an obsession.
Speaker 13: Uh.
Speaker 24: I mean, look at Europe, do you how well is
Speaker 24: joining forces with Islam going.
Speaker 4: For exactly Yeah, people in the chat. People in the
Speaker 4: chat are saying that anybody who thinks that we should
Speaker 4: align with Islam should come visit Europe in the UK. Yeah, Tristan,
Speaker 4: did you want to comment? I feel like Tristan is
Speaker 4: getting drowned out in the many edivas that are joining
Speaker 4: us today when he's our chief Ediva for the day.
Speaker 1: I'm just one of the just one of the crowd today.
Speaker 4: No, no, you're no, you're not. No, You're a special
Speaker 4: Diva guest today, and I want you to feel affirmed.
Speaker 4: We affirm you.
Speaker 1: You just listen when I talk.
Speaker 4: Anyways, we affirm you, Tristan, We affirm you.
Speaker 6: Well, you try to you try to deny my black
Speaker 6: my bipop status.
Speaker 1: So I thought I was pretty messed out, to be honest.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know what I just I don't
Speaker 4: know what you're identifying as presently, so I can't I
Speaker 4: don't want to make rash judgments or dead name you.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: It's it's interesting thinking about kind of what we're talking
Speaker 6: about earlier, with the the shifting tides of political discourse,
Speaker 6: you don't shift that much. It's uh, there's a there's
Speaker 6: a consistent corralling into utilitarian groupings that people will make
Speaker 6: in order to try to create, like, you know, some
Speaker 6: political leverage. And I understand the concept, but it's also
Speaker 6: just there's you know, looking from from the time of
Speaker 6: around you know, two thousand and seven and on, you know,
Speaker 6: two thousand and six, seven and on, when it seems
Speaker 6: like maybe something could be done to me, and going
Speaker 6: through that period of like the Ron Paul stuff, seeing
Speaker 6: what happened with you Obama election.
Speaker 4: Ron Paul was another catalyst for Alex to kind of
Speaker 4: go to the next level and ran Paul too to
Speaker 4: a degree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was that was a big deal. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was that was huge.
Speaker 6: It just keep his conversations with Ron Paul back in
Speaker 6: the day, those.
Speaker 1: Those would blow up and be all over the place.
Speaker 6: But it's then, you know, seeing how things went with
Speaker 6: Trump and you kind.
Speaker 4: Of feel I just feel like a.
Speaker 1: Lot of sympathy a lot.
Speaker 15: I got a lot of sympathy for Alex. It's he's
Speaker 15: been that.
Speaker 1: Dude has never taken away.
Speaker 6: Has he ever taken a week off, has he ever taken.
Speaker 1: A month off?
Speaker 6: You know, he's he's just he's got to be so
Speaker 6: burnt out. You could see he's burnt out. But he's
Speaker 6: here the last show, and uh, you know, kind of
Speaker 6: the public behavior the last few months, he's he's been struggling, man,
Speaker 6: and it's uh, he's been through a lot, and there's
Speaker 6: been a lot of little incarnations of different political movements
Speaker 6: that he's had his hands on, and he's consistently, he's
Speaker 6: been consistent in his positioning and been open about why
Speaker 6: he allied in certain ways certain movements and certain people.
Speaker 15: And you just see him getting just slapped in the.
Speaker 1: Face over and over again.
Speaker 6: And he's alex Is, he's like the last great American.
Speaker 1: You know, he's kinda he's a he's a true American, either.
Speaker 6: Exalting or a derogatory way, looks like he truly believed
Speaker 6: in the American principle and this idea of you know, uh,
Speaker 6: the Republic.
Speaker 15: Of America and those kind of libertarian values and that
Speaker 15: the people should.
Speaker 1: Have a say in this.
Speaker 6: And I think, you know, he's got he got kind
Speaker 6: of he got kind of beat up along the way,
Speaker 6: and yeah, alex is America. Alex Is the American hollegue.
Speaker 25: But he's also that's a good That's I was going
Speaker 25: to say, that's a good statement and a good encapsulation
Speaker 25: of it, because like someone like myself, I did learn
Speaker 25: a lot from him over many years, but I'm more cynical,
Speaker 25: like I was raised to be cynical, and he he.
Speaker 2: Always, like like you said, he always believed in the
Speaker 2: idea of America and.
Speaker 1: Kind of where I was not like that.
Speaker 2: That was never something that resonated with me as I
Speaker 2: listened to his radio show over many years.
Speaker 11: It was just.
Speaker 2: Something that, you know, it was like, he says a
Speaker 2: lot of good stuff here, but then this kind of
Speaker 2: faith and the Founding Father's type stuff didn't resonate with
Speaker 2: my version, with my version of Generation X, because he's
Speaker 2: a little older than I am.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's it's it's hard to Yeah, I think it's
Speaker 6: easy to get real critical of people. I think, you know,
Speaker 6: people like us who come from kind of more cynical
Speaker 6: subcultures and countercultures and who have been through a lot
Speaker 6: of these different countercultures, we've had a deep seeded itsm
Speaker 6: there's something about California too.
Speaker 1: They'll do that to you.
Speaker 6: Growing up around like culture creation and seeing the faultness
Speaker 6: of it there, that that deep rooted cynicism. Sometimes we
Speaker 6: turn against Alex, you know, definitely don Winter period.
Speaker 15: So I was like upset with Alex, like how I
Speaker 15: doing this?
Speaker 1: But you know, as the.
Speaker 6: Years go by, as you mature and get older, you
Speaker 6: kind of realize, you know a little more sympathy for
Speaker 6: you know, even.
Speaker 1: Mistakes that people make, right, we all mess up.
Speaker 6: And I think the first thing that you asked me
Speaker 6: Jay earlier about just my thoughts and all, you know,
Speaker 6: politics and everything, I definitely agree kind of with you
Speaker 6: that it's it's mostly fake and gay, and you see
Speaker 6: the results of people who try and hitch their wag
Speaker 6: into it too hard. You know, there's there's a few
Speaker 6: different directions you can go, but you kind of just
Speaker 6: I don't know, the little like like you can't sell
Speaker 6: just parts of your soul over and over again and
Speaker 6: have a kind of effect. And I'm not saying that,
Speaker 6: you know, involving yourself in political movements is selling your soul.
Speaker 6: But there's this inherent compromise that happens, and this consistent like,
Speaker 6: oh well, you got to pick a team, you got
Speaker 6: to pick a side.
Speaker 1: This is this.
Speaker 6: Bifurcated reality, and this is just how it is.
Speaker 1: But this is this has been how it's been.
Speaker 15: The whole post World War two order and the whole.
Speaker 6: Project of like postmodernism is uh, it's it's a giant
Speaker 6: failure at the human.
Speaker 1: Level, at the level of the soul.
Speaker 6: And we're not going to find some political solution. You're
Speaker 6: not going to get like the right political movement that's
Speaker 6: going to fix it all. And Alex has known that,
Speaker 6: but he, you know, he thought maybe we could get
Speaker 6: certain things done with Trump and I think that I
Speaker 6: think that took the biggest toll on him. It's just
Speaker 6: how you know how much it hurt him to see
Speaker 6: what happened with that momentum and that energy.
Speaker 1: And now it's just this.
Speaker 15: You can see the cynicism coming back to him.
Speaker 1: Every once in a while. And then you'll pump himself
Speaker 1: up with.
Speaker 6: Like the street Preacher stuff like life is firing in
Speaker 6: its beauty and he's Yeah, I like Alex a lot.
Speaker 6: I like he's a he's one of the he's a character.
Speaker 6: Shout out to my buddy Dangerfield. He always says that
Speaker 6: Alex is the last great American.
Speaker 1: I get where.
Speaker 4: Last right American? Yeah, with that b LA has got that. Uh.
Speaker 4: Larry Nicol so uh. And by the way, trustan over
Speaker 4: talking in past tense. Uh, nothing changed, Alex went right
Speaker 4: back to the show the next the show today. So
Speaker 4: the only thing that changed, like talk like like you
Speaker 4: passed away or some of the He's not that dude.
Speaker 4: We didn't pass away.
Speaker 1: Bro, He's good.
Speaker 4: So again, does it like take a.
Speaker 1: Break and get so over for a bit?
Speaker 6: You know, I'm not saying that he's like, you know,
Speaker 6: breaking down or anything, but you can say alcohol takes
Speaker 6: his toll on you. It takes a toll on the
Speaker 6: body and on the and I if I was in
Speaker 6: his position, I'd be drinking a health a lot too,
Speaker 6: So I can't I can't blame him for that.
Speaker 1: But it's just you.
Speaker 14: You want the best for Alex. You want to take
Speaker 14: to take a break.
Speaker 6: It's got to be freaking exhausting going so hard for
Speaker 6: so long. So I hope he uses this transition to
Speaker 6: kind of you know, get a little bit of a
Speaker 6: little bit means mental health, his mental health.
Speaker 4: Like the millennial the gen Z millennials speak of mental healths.
Speaker 15: He's having mental health right now, guys.
Speaker 1: We needed to get his mental.
Speaker 4: Health redeem Zoomer. By the way, I thought this was
Speaker 4: a funny comment said in this and I'm saying this
Speaker 4: because Ru's run Ruslan retweeted it. There's nothing in the
Speaker 4: Church Fathers that they unanimously confess that the Protestant Confessions
Speaker 4: also don't teach. This is so preposterous, and these people
Speaker 4: are so absurd that they're just going to continue making
Speaker 4: converts orthodoxy by saying these kinds of ridiculous things. And
Speaker 4: he already's gotten ratioed, as you can see. So how
Speaker 4: about baptism, regeneration, how about the episcopacy in terms of
Speaker 4: church government, how about relics? How about the Eucharus? How
Speaker 4: about the Saints? How about works? How about the very
Speaker 4: existence of canon law? Like none of that exists in
Speaker 4: the Protesting Confessions. In fact, the Prussing Confessions explicitly say
Speaker 4: those things are demonic and denials of the Gospel. So
Speaker 4: this goober just keeps digging his hole more and more
Speaker 4: and more. And the fact that Rouslan is retweeting this
Speaker 4: kind of nonsense just shows these guys have no no clue. Okay,
Speaker 4: I don't think Rousselan even reads books, so how's he
Speaker 4: gonna know what the Church Fathers teach? He doesn't even read.
Speaker 4: So I mean, maybe maybe if they translated The Church
Speaker 4: Fathers into Pigeon or into Ebonics, we could get Rousselan
Speaker 4: to read a few pages of it. But until then,
Speaker 4: I don't think Rouslan's going to be reading much of
Speaker 4: The Church Fathers. And then I saw there was a
Speaker 4: clip on TikTok where some dude met cosmic skeptic in
Speaker 4: person and he asked him about me. Now I didn't
Speaker 4: I don't know who this is is. I didn't plan this.
Speaker 4: But the dude said, hey, why don't you have a
Speaker 4: discussion with Jay Dyer about theism or an agnostism or whatever.
Speaker 4: And Cosme Scheptsuas said, oh, he's too pompous. Now. Remember,
Speaker 4: of course, the Psalms say that the heart and root
Speaker 4: of pride is saying things like there is no God.
Speaker 4: The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Speaker 4: But even if I'm the most pompous dude on planet Earth,
Speaker 4: if there's no God, what's wrong with pompousness? Right? There's
Speaker 4: nothing wrong, Like, there's nothing. It's not objectively a problem.
Speaker 4: So aren't all atheists and everyone else, by the way,
Speaker 4: not doing anything wrong at any time? Because everything's meaningless,
Speaker 4: So who cares about pompousness? And by the way, what
Speaker 4: does it have to do with whether or not any
Speaker 4: of the arguments are true or false? And like Tim
Speaker 4: Gordon said here, well, if somebody's pompous and you refute them,
Speaker 4: couldn't that make the victory all the more sweet because
Speaker 4: you refuted the pompous Internet man, the mean Internet man.
Speaker 4: So again, I don't buy that a cosmic skeptic doesn't
Speaker 4: want to have a discussion because he's seen how pompous
Speaker 4: UH people are or I am. Guys, it's open for him.
Speaker 4: You can call him about any topic you want to discuss.
Speaker 4: Tristan Haggard of the Tristan Haggard YouTube channel and on
Speaker 4: x as my guest today with me as well as
Speaker 4: our other good friends. Conive, what's up man? What's on
Speaker 4: your mind? Conive? Connive? You want to I'm mute, Connive,
Speaker 4: I I'm mute. We can't hear your dog, Farah pont Leontiev,
Speaker 4: what's up?
Speaker 1: Go ahead?
Speaker 4: You're on the air.
Speaker 14: Hi, can you guys hear me?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: All right? Thanks?
Speaker 6: Man?
Speaker 26: Uh, I was just speaking about Ruslan.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 14: Did you see the video he did?
Speaker 26: Where he was interviewing that Jared atheist like.
Speaker 14: Church audit guy. Did you see that?
Speaker 1: Like, so he invited him.
Speaker 14: To his like you know, to the talk there.
Speaker 26: And it's funny because so the guy's an atheists. He says,
Speaker 26: it's all nonsense, it's all ridiculous stuff, and like he.
Speaker 14: Doesn't believe it. He's one hundred percent certain that Christianity
Speaker 14: is not true.
Speaker 26: And then Ruslan and all these other and this other
Speaker 26: dude that was with him was like, hey, you know,
Speaker 26: asking him for advice, like how should Christians.
Speaker 14: Like be able to preach to him more, you know,
Speaker 14: to be more accepting.
Speaker 26: It was one of the most cut things I've I've
Speaker 26: ever seen. And obviously the guy was like was saying
Speaker 26: stuff like, well, you know, be more accepting, don't shove
Speaker 26: religion down people's like making it more amenable to him.
Speaker 4: You know, Well that's right, that's the whole brand, right.
Speaker 4: Ruslan's whole brand is make Christianity into a black R
Speaker 4: and B manifestation, right, and then then we'll get all
Speaker 4: the the cool people. Is it is it you talk
Speaker 4: aout heliocentric or is it a different person?
Speaker 14: Yeah? I think it is.
Speaker 26: I think it's the same guy, stat Jared guy that
Speaker 26: he went to an Orthodox church too, he visited some
Speaker 26: other he visits church.
Speaker 14: Just he's an.
Speaker 4: Atheist, that's him.
Speaker 14: Yeah yeah, I mean I'm.
Speaker 26: Like, well, Ruthlan's willing to talk to him even though
Speaker 26: he thinks like Christianity is complete nonsense, and he is
Speaker 26: like the point, isn't he wants his perspective, Like that's
Speaker 26: how serious he takes the faith. But he's not willing
Speaker 26: to talk to you know, people like you or whoever else,
Speaker 26: like you know the game.
Speaker 4: Like yes, so right, remember this was the same critique
Speaker 4: of Trent Horn, right, like I don't want to toxify
Speaker 4: myself by being in the in the circles of toxic
Speaker 4: people like Dire or Tim Gordon or whoever. But then
Speaker 4: they'll go and they'll talk to and do debates and
Speaker 4: platform themselves with the most absolute, degenerate, disgusting people like Destiny,
Speaker 4: who has for ten years called for violence. And then
Speaker 4: you got these atheists and I think this guy's gay, right,
Speaker 4: so he'll have gay dudes come speak at his thing,
Speaker 4: and then he's his response to all this is just
Speaker 4: that Jay is mac because I didn't invite him to
Speaker 4: my event. I don't care about your event, dude, I
Speaker 4: really don't like that. It has nothing to do with
Speaker 4: why all of this popped off because of Ruslan Rousselin
Speaker 4: himself said that, hey, all of this was my fault.
Speaker 4: I caused it by putting the catechumen on the stage
Speaker 4: and it wasn't a debate. Well then why was it
Speaker 4: titled everywhere including on Trent Horn's video debate? Oh well,
Speaker 4: I'll change the title debate. So it's just like pill
Speaker 4: pull talmud type stuff of like, oh well, let me
Speaker 4: just change the name, Like, we don't care about the name.
Speaker 4: The point is that you did it. And then he's like, Okay,
Speaker 4: maybe I did it. Maybe it's bad optics, my mistake.
Speaker 4: Well then why don't you decaid it from the get go?
Speaker 4: None of this nonsense would have happened if you didn't
Speaker 4: have done that. Right, And then it turns out it's
Speaker 4: actually a good thing that all this happened, because then
Speaker 4: we get to see that there is this skittles undercurrent
Speaker 4: to all this stuff, right, because the whole Gavin Ortlund
Speaker 4: circle with his dad and the co pastors there, they're
Speaker 4: like pro gay, pro kamala affirming quote ministers of the Gospel,
Speaker 4: and that's all come to light. I didn't even know
Speaker 4: that that's all come to light as a result of
Speaker 4: all this nonsense. So thank you Ruslan for actually causing
Speaker 4: everybody to see that all of your stuff is actually
Speaker 4: faking gay and probably your numbers are faking gay too,
Speaker 4: because he wanted to throw his numbers in my face.
Speaker 4: He doesn't even have the numbers that we have who
Speaker 4: know this, numbers are probably inflated, right, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 26: I think maybe part of it too is I think
Speaker 26: kind of the tension here is that like they don't
Speaker 26: have this critiques with Muslims, you know, like like for example,
Speaker 26: because they see Muslims as the other right, like as enemies,
Speaker 26: so to speak.
Speaker 14: But they can have like they can make.
Speaker 26: Fun of them, they can have dialogue with them, even
Speaker 26: like sitting in the same room.
Speaker 14: But I think with Orthodox since they they assume they
Speaker 14: have the like.
Speaker 26: The conceit that we're on the same team, they get
Speaker 26: like mad when we make fun of stuff that they do,
Speaker 26: even though it's kind of the same thing, like they
Speaker 26: are a different religion, and so we engage in this like,
Speaker 26: you know, we engage in this dialogue that can sometimes
Speaker 26: be more friendly, but also sometimes.
Speaker 14: More you know, rhetorical rhetorical.
Speaker 26: And then because they just like you said, collapsed all
Speaker 26: this into ecumenism, like there's no space. They can't tolerate
Speaker 26: that we're the like we've up ended them, you know,
Speaker 26: like that's pretty much.
Speaker 4: Yeah, their whole ethos. Yeah, the whole ethos is the
Speaker 4: dogma of ecumenism, right, because notice they want to talk
Speaker 4: about toxicity, they want to talk about the common Gospel
Speaker 4: that they supposedly share. According to the confessions that Redeemed
Speaker 4: Zoomer holds to, Trent Horn is a damnable heretic. He's
Speaker 4: outside of the church. Redeem Zimmer believes in a magisterial
Speaker 4: Protestant church which he just made up with in the
Speaker 4: last year that fixes his previous accusmanism, supposedly, and so
Speaker 4: now he's but he's buddy buddy with Gavin Ortland and
Speaker 4: Trent Horne, when even Galvin Ortland is not in the
Speaker 4: same communion with him because Gavin Ortland's church has Baptist theology,
Speaker 4: they don't believe in infant baptism, and yet they're given
Speaker 4: the impression it's all fake, it's all smoking mirrors. They're
Speaker 4: given the impression that they're on the same page, they
Speaker 4: have a common theological grounding in a lowest common nominator
Speaker 4: Jesus view. No they don't. They're not even in the
Speaker 4: same communions. So every one of them's position is absolutely
Speaker 4: inconsistent in rejecting their own supposed BFFs. They're but buddies.
Speaker 4: But then the Orthodox are the bad guys because their
Speaker 4: position is actually consistent that we think that there's one
Speaker 4: true church. All of these guys position is based on
Speaker 4: there's not one true church. That's their presupposition Number one.
Speaker 4: Number two. This is an online monetary generating grift, and
Speaker 4: anything that disrupts that, namely questioning acumenism, is thus toxic
Speaker 4: ortho bro and bad. That's what this comes down to.
Speaker 4: Rouslan's numbers do not match up to his flexing. He
Speaker 4: doesn't even have anywhere close to what we're getting in
Speaker 4: the last few months on YouTube, and he's flexing that
Speaker 4: in our faces, like, bro, we got it locked down
Speaker 4: on YouTube. I got a Henry K dude, you could
Speaker 4: have easily, you could easily have somebody buy those numbers
Speaker 4: for your channel. So given the actual metrics of who's
Speaker 4: searching what. I don't believe his a hinndry k anymore,
Speaker 4: which means is propped up. Is the point here, Just
Speaker 4: like Gavin's dad that he co pastors with is one
Speaker 4: of the foremost ecumenists in America, together with the support
Speaker 4: that he has through Christianity today and doctor Russell Moore,
Speaker 4: the gender affirming co minister, right, I can't believe people
Speaker 4: don't like, how is it Protestants? How is this not
Speaker 4: like a defeater for these guys like if any Worth,
Speaker 4: Like when Elpeda Fous went to that h you know,
Speaker 4: gay baptism or whatever he was at, the entire Internet
Speaker 4: was like, oh, Orthodoxy done right when we pick out
Speaker 4: their top dudes, going way beyond just one LP de
Speaker 4: four ros and the actual open support of these things
Speaker 4: through doctor Russell Moore and Ray Ortland, who again was
Speaker 4: telling everybody how bad Trump was, how bad borders were,
Speaker 4: support Kamala and I don't care whether you like Trump
Speaker 4: or not. The point is that no Christian can support
Speaker 4: pro trans, pro abortion political candidates. And by the way,
Speaker 4: Rouselm was doing that not that long ago with Andrew Gang.
Speaker 4: He was all about Yang and then before that he
Speaker 4: was pro Obama, So like, does nobody have discernment that
Speaker 4: you just think that automatically like a dude. Oh they
Speaker 4: suddenly everybody's trad and bays. Now it's the same with it.
Speaker 4: You fall for that, You guys fall for the Ethoughts
Speaker 4: as well, right, chicks that are suddenly trad wives and
Speaker 4: sun dress you know, sourdough chick on Instagram. Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: of course we're we're winning, we're winning. Well, don't you
Speaker 4: think a lot of these people like Nala are grifters?
Speaker 4: Is that not obvious?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 26: I don't want to take too much of people's time
Speaker 26: here who want to speak up?
Speaker 14: The only thing I was I'm thinking about.
Speaker 26: Too, is just maybe you know, because of what you've
Speaker 26: said here, do you think it's time to kind of like,
Speaker 26: I know this is going to sound controversial, but do
Speaker 26: you think orthodox maybe need a step back from actually
Speaker 26: debating people because it's obvious that you don't care anymore?
Speaker 4: No, no, no, I mean I think by the way,
Speaker 4: uh oh oh.
Speaker 20: People should be debating as Jay and I all right, everyone,
Speaker 20: thank you to stand down.
Speaker 4: Well, look what it.
Speaker 26: Needs to be more concentrated, like only a few people
Speaker 26: debating and it needs to.
Speaker 14: Be like a public thing, like very public.
Speaker 26: Not these things you see once in a while on
Speaker 26: the internet that's just you know, uh, swap to consume.
Speaker 26: But like formal debates that are big, big audience and
Speaker 26: then and then kind of leave like debates aside and
Speaker 26: kind of be almost a sitting, like we need to
Speaker 26: be more focused on ourselves and building up.
Speaker 4: No, I don't. I mean again, there's plenty of that,
Speaker 4: but like, uh, I mean, we saw in the last
Speaker 4: what a few years, in the last couple of years.
Speaker 4: This year we saw tens of thousands of people, according
Speaker 4: to Deacon Rolling, brought into Orthodoxy, and in twenty eighteen
Speaker 4: it was it was in the thousands. So no, if
Speaker 4: we continue, we will see hundreds of thousands in the
Speaker 4: next five years.
Speaker 22: I was just joking about that, but I would like
Speaker 22: to be father Deacon Gatekeeper and those debates.
Speaker 4: You could be the You could be the gate You
Speaker 4: could be the gaate keeper. All right, right, you got
Speaker 4: me with a gay joke like two weeks ago, So
Speaker 4: I'm getting back to that. You got me and I
Speaker 4: got you guys. Guess what just went up one minute ago? Yes,
Speaker 4: you got it them. Freemason debate. It just went up
Speaker 4: literally two minutes ago. So everybody's been asking for weeks,
Speaker 4: when is the Freemason Chase Guyser debate going up? There
Speaker 4: you go, boom, it's up, baby, two and hours and
Speaker 4: fifteen minutes right there. I don't wonder why he didn't
Speaker 4: send me a link to Maybe he did, I just
Speaker 4: haven't seen the text message yet. But this one is
Speaker 4: a wild one. I wonder if we should save this
Speaker 4: for a separate stream, because I mean this one, this
Speaker 4: one went hot and heavy. I mean, we get pretty.
Speaker 4: You can see how Look watch Chase Guyser's face, how
Speaker 4: mad he gets throughout this debate, Like this debate is
Speaker 4: so intense, dude. And I did not expect that this
Speaker 4: would be intense at all. I thought this was gonna
Speaker 4: be the most boring, technical, just talking debate. And I
Speaker 4: mean we got freaking loud, dude people. I thought twice
Speaker 4: they were gonna rage quit. I really did it really did.
Speaker 6: What were the points where they were most where they
Speaker 6: were most upset? What was the what did you say
Speaker 6: or what was your argument that really trip them up?
Speaker 4: So the debate early on, so they didn't even get
Speaker 4: to open I give an opening statement like a like
Speaker 4: more like a formal debate, and they they gave personal
Speaker 4: testimonies as to why they're they're Freemasons and they think
Speaker 4: it's a good organization. Oh yeah.
Speaker 15: It was just like, well this is I feel like
Speaker 15: this is cool.
Speaker 4: Well I thought so after the opening statements, I thought
Speaker 4: that was what was going to happen. But we right away.
Speaker 4: The first hour of the debate ends up being whether
Speaker 4: or not Freemasonry has theological commitments. And so their position was,
Speaker 4: we're absolutely neutral. You don't have to have any theological
Speaker 4: commitments except that you have to believe in higher power.
Speaker 4: And I was like, well, first of all, I'm going
Speaker 4: to show you that you do have theological commitments because
Speaker 4: when you say a higher power, that already assumes all
Speaker 4: kind of all kinds of stuff. So guys, remember the
Speaker 4: now natural theology debates. This is another debate that shows
Speaker 4: that there is no neutral natural theology because that's really
Speaker 4: the same position that the Masons are coming from. And
Speaker 4: you watch this, Yeah, quick, I wasn't say it.
Speaker 6: Wouldn't Freemasonry also have a theological assumption of like pism?
Speaker 4: Correct? Yep, radically human is That's exactly where the debate
Speaker 4: goes yes, yep. So the first hour I start bringing
Speaker 4: forth examples of things that they would not allow. I say, so,
Speaker 4: for example, if I am a committed theistic Satanist and
Speaker 4: that's my quote, higher power, can I join the lodge?
Speaker 4: And they say, well, we wouldn't typically allow a Satanists.
Speaker 4: And I'm like, well why not, Well, there's certain theological
Speaker 4: points that would exclude you. I'm like, oh, so you
Speaker 4: do have theological dogmas?
Speaker 1: Well what about you say? Well, what if I were elusive?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 4: Actually, I do bring up the Albert Pike quote that
Speaker 4: that ends up being a contentious part of the debate
Speaker 4: in a second hour. But again, the first whole first
Speaker 4: hour is getting them to admit that they do have
Speaker 4: theological dogmatic commitments. And the way I got them to
Speaker 4: eventually admit that was by bringing forth multiple examples of
Speaker 4: things that they wouldn't allow. So, for example, I said,
Speaker 4: what if I believe in a higher power, but I
Speaker 4: believe it's me, like I worship myself as a god
Speaker 4: in potentia or something like that, And they kind of
Speaker 4: fumble around and they're like, no, we wouldn't allow that,
Speaker 4: and so I'm like, okay, So you start understanding that
Speaker 4: you have these metaphysical commitments, then that those are untenable
Speaker 4: religious positions that you will not allow. So you can't
Speaker 4: just sit here and tell me that I have to
Speaker 4: believe in an ecumenist dogma to be and that's the
Speaker 4: only dogma. And then eventually, as you said, Tristan, I
Speaker 4: got them to say, so is the one dogma that
Speaker 4: I have to be an ecumenist in my dogma? And
Speaker 4: they were basically like, yes, so you do have religious dogmas.
Speaker 4: And then they start saying, well, we don't call it
Speaker 4: a dogma, like, well, I don't care what you call it,
Speaker 4: because Albert Pike calls his book morals and dogma. And
Speaker 4: they're like yeah, but you don't have to believe what
Speaker 4: Albert Pike says. And I'm like, well then why do
Speaker 4: you So you don't have any authorities in masonry and
Speaker 4: they're like no, and then I say, well, so who
Speaker 4: decides who joins the lodge and who doesn't? They're like
Speaker 4: the local jurisdictions, so you do have authorities. Like they
Speaker 4: just keep going back and forth.
Speaker 1: The Scottish writer you're right or did they get into.
Speaker 4: That of like we so.
Speaker 11: Right?
Speaker 4: They're Nigerian, right. No, we do get into that. I'm
Speaker 4: trying to remember. Most of the debate ends up just
Speaker 4: being about the the structure of the the Master Mason degree,
Speaker 4: the first three degrees, and the Blue Lodge and all
Speaker 4: that stuff. We talk a little bit about Scott about.
Speaker 9: Uh so you know.
Speaker 24: Mormons are structurally Masonic, right, other things. I've had the
Speaker 24: second encounter with Mormons where they just straight up live
Speaker 24: like we don't have any hierarchy, like nobody's in charge.
Speaker 4: Like yeah, that The whole first hour of the debate
Speaker 4: is that, And yes, I do eventually get them to
Speaker 4: admit multiple times. And then later on in the second
Speaker 4: hour of the debate, the question comes up when so
Speaker 4: the audience starts asking questions and then we get back
Speaker 4: and forth between them and me, and somebody asked the
Speaker 4: question about ethics, like where does masonry derive its ethics?
Speaker 4: And then the other guy, I forget that guy's name,
Speaker 4: but Ryan he's actually the higher degree studied academic Mason
Speaker 4: and chases more of like the public you know, speaker
Speaker 4: type mason. The higher studied degree guy was like, oh,
Speaker 4: we derive our ethics from the ancient religions. It's like,
Speaker 4: wait a minute, I thought you didn't have religious commitments,
Speaker 4: and then he realized he made a huge mistake when
Speaker 4: he said that. So you guys want to hear a
Speaker 4: little bit of.
Speaker 1: This, Yeah, you little pipe it through here here?
Speaker 4: Yeah, sure, yeah, I'll put it on a little bit
Speaker 4: faster speed here.
Speaker 20: All right, everyone, thank you for coming out today. We
Speaker 20: have a awesome debate that we're very excited to do
Speaker 20: in person. First and foremost, you want to thank the venue.
Speaker 20: This venue is super awesome and it's a it's a
Speaker 20: dual purpose venue for events and as a workspace, So
Speaker 20: anybody who lives in Nashville, we do highly recommend this
Speaker 20: place to do either of those things. So Robert, if
Speaker 20: you're here, thanks so much. If Freemasonry incompatible with Christianity,
Speaker 20: and first and foremost, I want to say that I
Speaker 20: myself am not a Freemason, nor am I an orthodox
Speaker 20: Christian for that matter, I am not an expert on
Speaker 20: either subjects, but I will try my best to moderate
Speaker 20: the debate with the utmost neutrality. So without further ado,
Speaker 20: we're gonna go ahead and kick it off into opening statements,
Speaker 20: and Jay can start with you make sure to include
Speaker 20: your religious affiliation and your relationships sponsors, guys, think yeah, books,
Speaker 20: the whole nine yards, and your relationship to Freemasonry.
Speaker 4: Obviously, go for it. I'm no longer in a relationship
Speaker 4: with Freemasonry. No, I'm joking. So I'm Jaydre, orthodox apologist, debater,
Speaker 4: sometime community comedy writer, a host of the Fourth Thout
Speaker 4: Alex Jones Show, and you can find me, of course
Speaker 4: on YouTube and whatnot. I am an Orthodox Christian, so
Speaker 4: I believe that Masonry is incompatible with not just worthodox Christianity,
Speaker 4: it really any of the traditional bodies of Christianity have
Speaker 4: pretty much exerted statements on that. So am I doing
Speaker 4: an opening statement now? Or are they going to say
Speaker 4: who they are first?
Speaker 20: Now, let's go ahead and say who you guys are,
Speaker 20: and then we'll kick it off with a extended opening statement.
Speaker 4: So go ahead, Ryan, I'm Ryan for people.
Speaker 27: I'm the only guy up here that you probably don't know.
Speaker 27: I am a lifelong Ashilian, thirty third degree Freemason and
Speaker 27: a freemason for about eighteen years now, and I am
Speaker 27: a Protestant Christian put it Rawley, and obviously I am
Speaker 27: pro Freemasonry.
Speaker 20: I'm Chase geyser. I have been a Freemason since two
Speaker 20: thousand and eleven. Saw was that, but fifteen years a
Speaker 20: thirty second degree Freemason, not a thirty three degree like
Speaker 20: big boy Ryan over here. And I'm a non denominational Christian.
Speaker 4: Perfect.
Speaker 20: All right, Well, you just go in the same order here,
Speaker 20: go ahead and kick off with your extended opening statement,
Speaker 20: and then from there we'll go into an open discussion
Speaker 20: where it's kind of just a no holds bards, go
Speaker 20: any direction you want within the prompt at the debate.
Speaker 20: So go ahead in your open statement, Jay, Yeah, So
Speaker 20: I think that what we want to think about in
Speaker 20: terms of Christianity. And again I'm going to argue that
Speaker 20: although I'm Orthodox, really any of the representative historical bodies
Speaker 20: of Christianity have already made public statements. For example, Protestant
Speaker 20: denominations like the OPC, the PCA, various the Lutheran traditional
Speaker 20: denominations themselves have stated that they don't believe that it's
Speaker 20: in any way compatible with traditional Christianity. And here what
Speaker 20: we would mean as nic seing Christianity in terms of
Speaker 20: the Nicene Creed. As an orthodox Christian, of course, most
Speaker 20: of the jurisdictions and patriarchates have public statements that you
Speaker 20: cannot be a Christian and it is anthithetical in terms
Speaker 20: of the philosophy of the organization as a whole. At
Speaker 20: the same time, the Roman Catholic Church still has as
Speaker 20: part of its canon law the official statement, and this
Speaker 20: was reaffirmed in the earlys by Rat Singer in terms
Speaker 20: of the CDF, that is anthithetical to Catholicism to be
Speaker 20: a freemason. So, regardless of what Atican two says that
Speaker 20: seems to line up with freemasonry, at least on the books,
Speaker 20: you can't be a Roman Catholic and be a freemason.
Speaker 4: So what is it that would make it antithetical to Christianity. Well,
Speaker 4: for my argument, I would argue that saying that you
Speaker 4: are a Christian freemason is equivalent to saying I'm a
Speaker 4: Christian gnostic, or I'm a Christian pagan, or I'm a
Speaker 4: Christian who's a member of the Marxist Communist Party. The
Speaker 4: reason that you can't say that is that the philosophy
Speaker 4: and the ethos of those systems that I gave are
Speaker 4: at roots antithetical to the basics of the philosophy in
Speaker 4: the world of the Christianity. For example, the Nicing Creed
Speaker 4: has as its a basic definition the Deity of Christ
Speaker 4: and the Doctor of the Trinity one Holy Catholic and
Speaker 4: Apostolic Church. Masonry is premised on the idea that older
Speaker 4: religions essentially are kinds of mass of God, and they
Speaker 4: tend to prefer a kind of deistic version of the Deity.
Speaker 4: So deism right from the outset, and I've have many
Speaker 4: Masonic sources that I can go to, they're going to
Speaker 4: basically say, a deistic type of perspective. If you don't
Speaker 4: what deism is, it's an Enlightenment perspective that God is
Speaker 4: not imminent in the world, active doing things, miracle, et cetera.
Speaker 4: Rather the God of the Bible, or seeing the God
Speaker 4: of masonry in the way that Mason is a turbit
Speaker 4: of the Bible is that it's a first cause, a
Speaker 4: kind of Aristotelian mover that you don't have a relationship with.
Speaker 4: And in fact, that great architect of the universe philosophy
Speaker 4: that masonry has is identical to the pagan Greek philosophy
Speaker 4: perspective that aristotl talks about. An architect works with pre
Speaker 4: existing matter and tools. He does not create ex nilo.
Speaker 4: So the very idea of calling God merely the architect
Speaker 4: already suggests a Hellenic Greek pagan perspective that for example
Speaker 4: Saint Basil and his famous Examara lectures where he goes
Speaker 4: in tech Samaran two. To call this position a diad
Speaker 4: is antithetical to Christianity's triad Freemasonry and its representative philosophers
Speaker 4: and thinkers, whether it is people who are in the
Speaker 4: York Right or promoted by the York Right like Albert
Speaker 4: Mackie and I have with me. Mackie's works here explicitly
Speaker 4: downplay the Trinity and the deed of Christ to promote
Speaker 4: their generic theism based around a kind of naturalism. And
Speaker 4: Albert Pike himself in Morals and Dogma, and we can
Speaker 4: go into all these quotes if we need to explicitly
Speaker 4: denies the Trinity. The person who to the Holy Spirit
Speaker 4: and says that essentially Masonry is all of the ancient
Speaker 4: mystery religions, whether it's Marsianism, Zoroastrianism, or some form of agnostis,
Speaker 4: and they're essentially all combined into the system of Freemasonry.
Speaker 4: So again to make my final statement as to why
Speaker 4: it's synthetical, I would simply argue that if you look
Speaker 4: out the way that Maki, as a test case, defines God.
Speaker 4: He says that God is the name Tetragonmeaton, the yahwe
Speaker 4: reference that we have in the Old Testament. He says
Speaker 4: that name can only be understood and pronounce and theologically
Speaker 4: interpreted through of a Kabbalah. And he says man to
Speaker 4: look to the Zohar and the teachings of the Talmudus
Speaker 4: and Kabala to understand what the theological significance of the
Speaker 4: name of God is. And he says that it's essentially
Speaker 4: the male and female principle of the universe. And then,
Speaker 4: according to Maki, when you talk about things like the Yoni,
Speaker 4: which is of the vagina, the a jj. For those
Speaker 4: who don't know, we got a little single men here.
Speaker 4: They man not unfamiliar with that. What that is we
Speaker 4: the Yoni or the Ajj is the female privy parts
Speaker 4: to so to speak. And according to Maki, the name
Speaker 4: of God amongst the Brahmins and the Hindus is the Yoni,
Speaker 4: referencing the female principle of nature equippent. So I would
Speaker 4: simply ask if according to Masonry, the God of Masonry
Speaker 4: is the male in free principle the universe, and according
Speaker 4: to Masonry, the name of God in Hinduism is the
Speaker 4: female principle is Yoni. Masonry Centory worships PEPs and the
Speaker 4: Jajay's and says that those things are God and are
Speaker 4: the ultimate generative principle and female principle the universe, which
Speaker 4: is absurd and is also cabalistic because Caabbala says that Adam,
Speaker 4: Cadman and God are essentially a bisexual deity. That's where
Speaker 4: we get batham. Mem I've got scholars here who are
Speaker 4: writing from out of Harvard. William B. Green has a
Speaker 4: book about Kabbala as the root of masonry. So cabalist
Speaker 4: agnosticism is another way to prove and show that masonry
Speaker 4: is empathetical to Christianity. To be like saying to saying Irenaeus,
Speaker 4: who wrote the Great Treatise in the second sentry one
Speaker 4: eighty eighty against the Gnostics, to say, oh, but erin As,
Speaker 4: don't you understand I am a Christian, and I'm a Freemason,
Speaker 4: and I'm a Gnostic. They're all pretty much the same.
Speaker 4: And the other thing is that the last comment I'll
Speaker 4: make is that their position essentially predicates a tiered strata
Speaker 4: between Christians who are Masons or Masons in general, versus
Speaker 4: the profane who are not initiated into their gibberish mysteries.
Speaker 4: So that would mean that all the Christian pastors and
Speaker 4: ministers who are not initiated into the mysteries are therefore profane,
Speaker 4: and so really only the gnostic inner elite Christian Masons
Speaker 4: would be the true Christians. That's the very thing that
Speaker 4: Saint Aarone's rebukes in his Rebukes out of the Gnostics,
Speaker 4: when he says that orthodox Christianity has a public.
Speaker 1: Point at the jay, I like that. You got that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I wanted to. I wanted to throw in a
Speaker 4: twist and get them to realize that, you know, you're
Speaker 4: actually saying that you're more enlightened and spiritual than your
Speaker 4: own Protestant pastors who aren't Masons. So you're introducing a
Speaker 4: tiered Gnostic structure into Christianity, which Irenaeus says one on
Speaker 4: one is a refutation of the Gnostics.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could just.
Speaker 6: Bring up the actual rights of initiation, which point is
Speaker 6: you guys did get into that.
Speaker 4: Right, We do get into that. Yeah. At one point, yeah,
Speaker 4: I bring up the.
Speaker 9: Uh.
Speaker 4: We actually get into an argument over one of the
Speaker 4: one of the rights and rituals, and then they act
Speaker 4: like they'd never heard of it. I forget which one
Speaker 4: I mentioned, but one of the rituals has something. Is
Speaker 4: it It's either the name Maha Bone or the name Jabulan,
Speaker 4: which is one of the supposed names of the deity
Speaker 4: or whatever, and they act like that doesn't exist. I'm like, dude,
Speaker 4: come on, it's like, you look this up. It exists
Speaker 4: in the roy It's the Royal Arts Degree. That's it.
Speaker 4: The right, the Royal arch degree.
Speaker 6: Obliged by the rights of initiation and the oaths that
Speaker 6: they take to deny that.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 1: I know it's a lie, but.
Speaker 6: It's outside and that's a part of the rights of initiation.
Speaker 1: The symbolism of what's not symbolic.
Speaker 6: It's symbolic and seemingly real if you look at the
Speaker 6: history of like the Captain Morgan.
Speaker 4: And these I bring up the Morgan incident to bring
Speaker 4: up William Morgan. Let me see if it's I think
Speaker 4: it is Jabulan in the Royal arch degree. And then
Speaker 4: at one point in debate, they just say that doesn't
Speaker 4: even exist, and I'm like, oh, come on, dude.
Speaker 2: Well, even in Pike in the general Masonry, he's telling,
Speaker 2: you know, Mason's once he get up to a certain.
Speaker 1: Degree, that you risposed to trick the lower level mason
Speaker 1: thumb correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And to be fair to them, they may have
Speaker 4: not known that because this According to dismainline Google search,
Speaker 4: it claims that this was actually removed in the late eighties.
Speaker 4: So Jabulon is a controversial word that was used in
Speaker 4: the Royal arch rituals. It was often interpreted as a
Speaker 4: compound name of Yah Boul and on so Yahweh Hebrew Bul,
Speaker 4: the Syriac Babylonian deity and on from Egypt. It was
Speaker 4: used to represent quote the true Living God. However, this
Speaker 4: faced a lot They faced a lot of criticism for this,
Speaker 4: and then supposedly the Royal Arch degree removed this in
Speaker 4: nineteen eighty nine. This was the Grand Chapter of England
Speaker 4: decided this. It doesn't say that it was in the US,
Speaker 4: by the way, but then there's all these different disputes
Speaker 4: as to what it actually means. Of course, no Masonic
Speaker 4: philosophers describe it as the three tiered thing, right, yah
Speaker 4: boul and on. So the reason that people would think
Speaker 4: that this means Yahweh, the Syriac God and the Egyptian
Speaker 4: God is because the Masonic philosophers like Macki describe it
Speaker 4: that way. So we're not just theorizing. And that's why
Speaker 4: I brought all the sources. I brought like twenty different
Speaker 4: Masonic books, and his history is there now here is
Speaker 4: go ahead, feel free soul on. It makes Solomon, yeah,
Speaker 4: classic Jordan, Jordan Maxwell, the Masonic deity soul am on.
Speaker 2: Which which is always funny about the wordplay stuff, because
Speaker 2: they take the Masonic sources as being.
Speaker 4: True like the found So yeah, they go with just
Speaker 4: like the Pagans default to the Rabbinic interpretation. Right. If
Speaker 4: you talk to any of these Neopagans, they ironically just say,
Speaker 4: did you here's the great contradiction, right, all the Pagans
Speaker 4: in the last few days, you idiots follow the lives of
Speaker 4: the Jews and their books. And it's like, okay, why
Speaker 4: is that? Because the Rabbinic interpretations tell me that we
Speaker 4: have to follow the Rabinic interpretations the Old Testament. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but I thought you said the Jews lie all the time.
Speaker 4: So it's like, basically like the Pagans, dude, they cannot
Speaker 4: do basic logic. Now here is their opening statement. I
Speaker 4: think you guys will see, uh, Like, I start giggling
Speaker 4: because their opening statements are just their It's like a
Speaker 4: Baptist church where you give your personal testimony. I was
Speaker 4: fourteen years old and I started drinking and smoking the
Speaker 4: dopes and the old Jesus came to them and I
Speaker 4: gave him a laugh. To him, It's like, what does
Speaker 4: that have to do with proving that it's true? For
Speaker 4: soona a public doctrine. We don't have secret esotery teagingus.
Speaker 4: It's not necessary. All right, great, over to you Ryan,
Speaker 4: all right, So Jason a lot there.
Speaker 27: Instead of trying to initially respond to just each point,
Speaker 27: I would stay, You're gonna hear a lot from me today.
Speaker 4: It's an opening statement, dude. You don't respond to the points.
Speaker 4: An opening statement.
Speaker 27: That the quotes that he pulls out, the books that
Speaker 27: he references. Jay will try to make the attempt that
Speaker 27: Albert Pike, er Macki or any of these guys speak
Speaker 27: for Freemasonry, that they are authorities on the craft.
Speaker 4: Now the book is called Morals and Dogma. It was
Speaker 4: handed out for decades at lodges when you graduated from
Speaker 4: I don't know, like thirty second degree or something. Right,
Speaker 4: then you've got the Albert Pike book you're supposed to study.
Speaker 4: So the idea that these people are not authorities, in
Speaker 4: my view, is preposterous. Right does it mean that? And
Speaker 4: he tries to twist it as if I was saying
Speaker 4: that you have to believe everything that Albert Pike says
Speaker 4: like he's a pope. No, I never made that argument.
Speaker 4: There's nothing in the term authorities that requires it to
Speaker 4: be papal infallibility authority. It just means authorities recognized representative
Speaker 4: speakers for just like Protestantism has representative authorities and theologians,
Speaker 4: right John Calvin, Martin Luther, they have confessions that are authoritative.
Speaker 4: So he this guy does a lot of like that
Speaker 4: kind of twisting.
Speaker 27: As you'll see, No man speaks for Freemasonry. Freemasonry's not
Speaker 27: a religion.
Speaker 4: We don't know man speaks for Freemasonry. Are you speaking
Speaker 4: for Freemasonry right now? When you say no man speaks
Speaker 4: for Freemasonry, I have apostles. We don't have Cannon.
Speaker 27: You know, there is no authority on Freemasonry. It's a fraternity.
Speaker 4: Again, notice everything he says in the open statement, because
Speaker 4: I bring it up all throughout the debate. There's no authorities,
Speaker 4: nobody speaks for Freemasonry. And then I later ask him
Speaker 4: who decides who's irregular and regular in your Masonic jurisdictions? Oh,
Speaker 4: the Grand Lodge.
Speaker 27: I mean, it's like what that is a system of morality,
Speaker 27: as we call it. It's essentially a philosophy, and in
Speaker 27: studying that philosophy, in the system of self improvement for men,
Speaker 27: we pull from a lot of different religions alber Pigmull's
Speaker 27: and dog.
Speaker 4: I'm sure that's going to come up today. You're that
Speaker 4: we pull from religions, and then he's going to later
Speaker 4: argue it's not theological, it's basically a book and comparative religion. Mackis.
Speaker 27: Some of these other people we quoted, these are individuals
Speaker 27: with their own ideas as it pertains to the deity,
Speaker 27: to Christianity. Some of them are Christian or not. Freemasonry
Speaker 27: does not require you to be of one religion to
Speaker 27: be a member.
Speaker 4: You simply have to be Oh, but it does you
Speaker 4: have to be of the Acumenist, syncredous religion, and that
Speaker 4: ends up being my whole argument, and it takes them
Speaker 4: an hour to get them to admit that I believe.
Speaker 27: In a supreme being. And I'm sure we'll dig into
Speaker 27: that further. I'll save that for later. But essentially, Masonry
Speaker 27: leaves a lot up to the individual man as it
Speaker 27: pertains to his beliefs in deity, because it's not its purpose,
Speaker 27: it's not its skull. It's not that it's indifferent, it's
Speaker 27: not that it doesn't care. It simply says that this
Speaker 27: is a fraternity with certain moral teachings and principles that
Speaker 27: sure they borrow from different systems, but the purpose is
Speaker 27: not to create a new system. There's no Masonic Plan
Speaker 27: of Salvation, there's no Masonic worship. It's not meant to
Speaker 27: replace religion. And so me, as a Christian, I don't
Speaker 27: agree with some of my brothers and their views on religion,
Speaker 27: and that's fine. There's nothing that says that I have to.
Speaker 27: And the entire point, or one of the main points
Speaker 27: of the fraternity, the reasons why we allow men of
Speaker 27: different beliefs to come together, is that Christian concept of
Speaker 27: as iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another. By bringing
Speaker 27: me in together of different beliefs that still were united
Speaker 27: upon core principles, we're able to work towards bettering ourselves
Speaker 27: and bettering the world.
Speaker 4: Now, I'm gonna go ahead and warn you that they
Speaker 4: were not prepared for a presubsitional critique. That's what I
Speaker 4: brought to the table was because, as you guys know
Speaker 4: on this channel, I've sure many of you who are
Speaker 4: regular listeners you're already beginning to think, wait a minute,
Speaker 4: we're going to do some tag here. What is the
Speaker 4: criteria for making men better? What's the value judgment based
Speaker 4: us there? How are we judging what actually improves? And
Speaker 4: of course yes, all that will be brought up, but
Speaker 4: I just want to highlight that. Remember all the things
Speaker 4: he said there and the words that he used in
Speaker 4: his opening statement, including more than once religious ideas that
Speaker 4: masonry draws from withdraw from the religions.
Speaker 20: Keep that in mind, all right, jas Well again, I'm
Speaker 20: Chase Geyser, former Info Wars host. It's actually how I
Speaker 20: interacted and met Jay the first time. The first thing
Speaker 20: I want to do is I want to thank DJ
Speaker 20: for putting this event together. Kudos to you and all
Speaker 20: your hard work. I think it's important that these debates
Speaker 20: continue to happen.
Speaker 4: Ryan. Of course, I want to thank you.
Speaker 20: Ryan's a very close old friend of mine here in
Speaker 20: Nashville for a Green to participate in this, because I
Speaker 20: know that it was participating in something like this is
Speaker 20: it opens up the door for criticism and problems or whatever,
Speaker 20: and you just really decided to do it. And Jay,
Speaker 20: I also want to thank you for Agreen to come
Speaker 20: out here and do this debate. And I just want
Speaker 20: to be totally explicit that although I disagree with Jay
Speaker 20: on this particular issue, I have astounding admiration for the
Speaker 20: work that he's done and I'm very grateful for specifically
Speaker 20: all the content that he's made on the info Wars
Speaker 20: platform hosting the fourth hour of the Alleys Jones Show,
Speaker 20: and so I genuinely appreciate that very much. I want
Speaker 20: to just start briefly by saying why I decided to
Speaker 20: become a Freemason. I was a sophomore in college at
Speaker 20: Belmont University here in Nashville, and I was looking at
Speaker 20: the different fraternities at the university and I just wasn't
Speaker 20: really feeling it. There's no frat houses at Belmont University.
Speaker 20: There wasn't much of a community. It was just kind
Speaker 20: of this ethereal group that would meet together for these
Speaker 20: different fraternities. And I happen to be reading the autobiography
Speaker 20: of Benjamin Franklin summer after my freshman year.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, go ahead, Tristan.
Speaker 1: That's his opening, that's his opener. It is just tell
Speaker 1: you about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I said, it's it's like Bautist church where
Speaker 4: you give your personal testimony?
Speaker 6: Is it ad read for himself? And like that's that's
Speaker 6: pretty funny.
Speaker 1: How long?
Speaker 14: How long is this debate?
Speaker 4: Two hours of fifty nine?
Speaker 1: Is?
Speaker 4: Do you want me to skip? Let me let me
Speaker 4: skip let me skip ahead to let me let me
Speaker 4: skip ahead to some of the heat here.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, well what about right after the open statements?
Speaker 4: Yeah, let's go to that. Let's let's go to that
Speaker 4: immediately here we go. I'll go to that after this.
Speaker 20: We're gonna have some questions on the side over here
Speaker 20: at the very end. So during this debate, if you
Speaker 20: have anyth comes to minds you, any questions, write it
Speaker 20: down and take a note and we'll step over there
Speaker 20: for a brief period at the end where some of
Speaker 20: you guys would have to ask questions. Now, I think
Speaker 20: the best jumping off point was Ryan, you said that
Speaker 20: there's a lot to respond to in Jay's opening statement,
Speaker 20: but you want to make a statement of your own, obviously,
Speaker 20: So I think just pick a point, any point in
Speaker 20: that statement, and we'll just jump off into it and
Speaker 20: I'll mostly step back.
Speaker 1: And I.
Speaker 4: First became interested in masonry, like Chase, it's a lot
Speaker 4: of storytelling. Let's get to the heat, dude.
Speaker 27: He it's worth checking out. And I got into it,
Speaker 27: and that's what I experienced. Alloge as a website, but
Speaker 27: we're one of the rarities I view other Christians or
Speaker 27: my Christianity.
Speaker 4: In order to call his book morals and Dogma, I
Speaker 4: don't know if we're gonna do just Q and a
Speaker 4: back and forth. I don't care either way. But I
Speaker 4: mean the idea that well, you know, we just make
Speaker 4: good men better. It's a radical individualism because it's a
Speaker 4: Enlightenment philosophy. It's just simple philosophy. I mean that's not
Speaker 4: actually the case, because first of all, I mean, just
Speaker 4: the name of the book itself is morals and Dogma.
Speaker 4: Dogma to me doesn't sound like it's just opinion. That's
Speaker 4: the opposite of opinion, it's dogma. So when you say
Speaker 4: that there's no authorities in masonry, why does Albert Pike
Speaker 4: call his book Morals and Dogma? I was handed out
Speaker 4: to so many people in the Scottish right. If it's
Speaker 4: not in some sense a kind of authority, why is
Speaker 4: he one of the most honored Masons in Washington, DC
Speaker 4: in terms of By the way, did I say he's
Speaker 4: a papal authority? No, So notice he's going to do
Speaker 4: a straw man because I never said that. I just said,
Speaker 4: in some sense he is obviously an authority in masonry
Speaker 4: with his Confederate monuments still standing there and hasn't been
Speaker 4: torn down when they turn on all the other monuments.
Speaker 4: To me, that's preposterous to say that there are no authorities,
Speaker 4: Because if there are no authorities, who decides that Morals
Speaker 4: and Dogma isn't an authority and that masonry has no authorities?
Speaker 4: Notice right there, boom from the outset basic precept question,
Speaker 4: it's going to take an hour to get them to
Speaker 4: understand that simple argument. I promise you it's one hour.
Speaker 27: So this is a little newer version of Morals and Dogma.
Speaker 27: But it's the same stuff, just a nicer cover. This
Speaker 27: is the original preface by Albert Pike, page sixty nine.
Speaker 27: I don't know what version you have over there, but
Speaker 27: it'll be in your version as well. He starts out
Speaker 27: by saying, the teachings of these readings are not sacramentals.
Speaker 27: They go beyond the realm of morality into those other
Speaker 27: domains of fult and truth. The ancient accepted Scottish right
Speaker 27: uses the word dogma in its true sense of doctrine
Speaker 27: or teaching, and is not dogmatic in the odious sense
Speaker 27: of that term. Everyone is entirely free to reject and
Speaker 27: dissent from whatsoever here.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but my argument was, who decides that it's dogma
Speaker 4: that you are free to reject or assent to whatever
Speaker 4: you want in masonry? That is the dogma. You guys
Speaker 4: see that right.
Speaker 27: And may seem to be him to be untrue or unsound.
Speaker 27: It is only required of him that he show wig
Speaker 27: what is taught, give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment.
Speaker 27: So that's the beginning to Morals and Dogma Morels and Dogma.
Speaker 27: As you can see, it is quite a lengthy book.
Speaker 27: About a thousand pages, pretty complex read what most Scottish
Speaker 27: Rite Masons today receive since nineteen eighty three, there is
Speaker 27: this book ridged a light. This is what's given to
Speaker 27: most guys when they come through the Scottish Right. And
Speaker 27: again on page three reiterates that same preface of Pike,
Speaker 27: with an addition with the guy who wrote this book,
Speaker 27: doctor ch Hutchinson. It says it expresses the opinions of
Speaker 27: doctor Hutcherson thirty third degree concerning the Scottish righte ritual
Speaker 27: and Albert Pike's moles and dogma. We respect his opinion,
Speaker 27: offered them for the consideration and personal evaluation of each
Speaker 27: reader of this volume. And then it repeats Pike's claim
Speaker 27: that this is not sacrament, it is not doctrine, it
Speaker 27: is not dogma in the odious sense of the term.
Speaker 27: It's his ideas, and it's mine and Chase's job to
Speaker 27: study them, ponder them, and we are allowed and encouraged
Speaker 27: to disagree with him.
Speaker 20: I'd like to add a point, if I may, I understand,
Speaker 20: from a perspective of Western Christian America values American values,
Speaker 20: how it's easy to look at an organization like the
Speaker 20: Masons and look at it through the lens of religion.
Speaker 20: What I mean to say is, in Christianity we have
Speaker 20: the Matthews, the marx the Lukes, the Johns, the Pauls,
Speaker 20: and these canon voices that are considered to have pen
Speaker 20: even though pens weren't a bad yet.
Speaker 4: The word of God.
Speaker 20: But with masonry this is really more along the lines
Speaker 20: of apologetics when we talk about the Macis or the
Speaker 20: mainly Beall's, or the or the Albert Pikes, in the
Speaker 20: sense that I would like in an Albert Pike to
Speaker 20: masonry in the same way that I would like in
Speaker 20: a C. S. Lewis perhapstick Catholicism, and that nothing that C. S.
Speaker 20: Lewis wrote, whether it's.
Speaker 4: Mir cs Lewis wasn't Catholic, Belaware.
Speaker 20: Shandy or another work is considered to be part of
Speaker 20: the canon of Catholicism. It's just his thoughts, his philosophies,
Speaker 20: his interpretations, his ideas around Catholicism. Specifically, there's not a
Speaker 20: situation in masonry where we're.
Speaker 4: Getting oh way, I was sented to correct him and
Speaker 4: show him that he didn't even know what he's talking about.
Speaker 4: Because CS Lewis was Anglican but I think I bet
Speaker 4: my tongue on.
Speaker 20: That thing together, and we're singing psalms that are the
Speaker 20: words of Albert Pike like he would sing psalms in
Speaker 20: church that are the words of David for example. And
Speaker 20: I just want to emphasize again, just like he did
Speaker 20: in your introduction, Ryan, that yes, these are all interesting
Speaker 20: books with interesting perspectives and philosophies, but they're by no
Speaker 20: means canon in terms of Masamic philosophy.
Speaker 4: Opinion, Maybe you misunderstood what I was arguing, because I
Speaker 4: didn't argue that you don't claim to have quotes from
Speaker 4: Albert Pike saying that there's no dogmas. For example, I
Speaker 4: noticed in my copy from maybe ten years ago, when
Speaker 4: I read this on page two hundred twenty two of
Speaker 4: this older version, I noted that it's the subjectivest relativist
Speaker 4: contradiction because he says it is dogmatic in masonry, that
Speaker 4: there's no dogma. So to see the argument, they keep
Speaker 4: missing this argument. I was doing a philosophical critique and
Speaker 4: I'm asking you, is it dogmatic that there's no dogma
Speaker 4: in masonry? What's your definite?
Speaker 20: Ooh, should a dog in a way? We should start
Speaker 20: with that how did he define it? He defined it
Speaker 20: as what do you say perfect true? He says perfect
Speaker 20: truth or some perfection something like that.
Speaker 4: I don't know. How do you define dogmas the beliefs
Speaker 4: that you can't question.
Speaker 20: I don't believe that there are any beliefs other than
Speaker 20: the existence of God that you can't question in freemasonry.
Speaker 4: So there is dogma infreemasony. If you would define how
Speaker 4: do you guys? I find know?
Speaker 20: If you would defe the necessitation of the belief in
Speaker 20: God is dogma? Then yes, according to that definition, that
Speaker 20: would be dogma.
Speaker 4: Because so there are dogmasms, there are requirements for membership,
Speaker 4: so well foundational pray for your reado iline. The word dogmas,
Speaker 4: any requirements, is not dog anymore. I mean, if we
Speaker 4: want to argue over words, we can do that. But no,
Speaker 4: it's not arguing over words. This is the first time,
Speaker 4: when you know, any times somebody's being to lose itt
Speaker 4: of eight most of the time in my experience, when
Speaker 4: they start saying this is semantics we're arguing with. No,
Speaker 4: it's there's disqualifiers, right, Oh, they're not words, they're your
Speaker 4: own teaching. Now, what are you trying to get that
Speaker 4: in terms of what you're one of the implications saying,
Speaker 4: do you do you I'm not trying to be rude
Speaker 4: or you know, I'm not taking it that way. Do
Speaker 4: you not understand the argument that I'm making. I don't
Speaker 4: think that I do. Could you rephrase it? The argument
Speaker 4: was initially that masonry does not have dogmas. There's no
Speaker 4: specific authorities, there's not a canon of things that we
Speaker 4: would look to by which we would exclude people. But
Speaker 4: you just admitted that you have to believe, for example,
Speaker 4: in a higher power. So there are at least some
Speaker 4: minimal dogmas, and so it's not true that there are
Speaker 4: no dogmas in Mason.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 27: I think the argument was that the words of Albert
Speaker 27: Pike are not masn on dogma.
Speaker 4: No, I'm asking you, are there any Yeah, well you
Speaker 4: have to believe in God. So if you consider that
Speaker 4: to be a dogma, then yes, he's not the only ones.
Speaker 4: There's just one.
Speaker 27: We have what's called the ancient landmarks. Now the landmarks
Speaker 27: can differus.
Speaker 4: Oh so now there are dogmas, you see, Yeah, you
Speaker 4: see the movie and the goalpost. Now there are dogmas,
Speaker 4: but we don't call him dogmas. They're called doctrines and landmarks.
Speaker 1: Changes.
Speaker 6: Have to change the title of Albert Pike's book the
Speaker 6: next edition correct doctrinemarks.
Speaker 4: Doctrine landmarks exactly.
Speaker 24: Remember he said there's one dogma and that's you and
Speaker 24: for some reason things dogmas that which you can't question.
Speaker 1: Anyways. Uh, it's you have to believe in God. It'd
Speaker 1: been nice to ask him, like.
Speaker 4: Who that's where it goes, and then it turns into
Speaker 4: and then it turns into what what kind of do
Speaker 4: you do?
Speaker 27: I can't give him step back just to we use
Speaker 27: Masonic terms, and I have to realize that you guys
Speaker 27: may not know what what that means. Mason, he's very decentralized.
Speaker 27: So in Tennessee, there's the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. That
Speaker 27: is the supreme Masonic authority for Tennessee. Oh, there is
Speaker 27: a little other group that tells Tennessee.
Speaker 4: Thought there were no authorities or apostles members opening statement.
Speaker 4: We don't have apostles, we don't have authorities, there's no popes.
Speaker 4: But there's the Supreme Grand Lodge of Tennessee that's the authority. Oops.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like I like how he frames it, Like I
Speaker 1: know you guys might not know, you know, not initiates.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we're profane, we're retarded. Yeah, we're profane.
Speaker 13: Do you believe that there.
Speaker 1: Is no authority? It's very essentialized.
Speaker 4: But yeah, exactly. The whole debate, the first this whole
Speaker 4: first hour is just this over and over and over.
Speaker 4: What can you said? Being to know authorities?
Speaker 15: Now, there's just did he make a face when he
Speaker 15: said that?
Speaker 6: Like there has to be a facial twitch that goes
Speaker 6: along with him dropping that grand authority of Tennessee line
Speaker 6: because it's so blatantly contradicting the point he's trying to make.
Speaker 4: Uh, he just kind of there's he kind of keeps
Speaker 4: the same phase throughout the whole thing. Supreme authority. I'm
Speaker 4: talking within our structure. So notice right here I said,
Speaker 4: wait a minute, I thought there were no authorities, But
Speaker 4: there's a supreme authority. So there we go.
Speaker 27: Only one other, Yeah, there's just one. We have what's
Speaker 27: called the ancient landmarks. Now the landmarks can differ among jurisdiction.
Speaker 27: If I can give a step back just to we
Speaker 27: use Masonic terms, and I have to realize that you
Speaker 27: guys may not know what what that means. Masony is
Speaker 27: very so Uh. In Tennessee, there's the Grand Lodge of Tennessee.
Speaker 27: That is the supreme Masonic authority for Tennessee. There is
Speaker 27: no other group that tells Tennessee what it can it
Speaker 27: can do.
Speaker 4: You said to begin to no authorities. Now there's a
Speaker 4: supreme authority I'm talking is eight. There we go within
Speaker 4: our structure with others. So of course we're talking about
Speaker 4: your structure. What are you what are you talking about?
Speaker 4: No authorities or are their authorities?
Speaker 27: I said, no one man is an authority on masonry
Speaker 27: really early there's no apostle.
Speaker 4: There's no authorities, is what you said? Yeah, I said,
Speaker 4: no one. No one man is Albert Packet. Well my
Speaker 4: hostles is were ol uh. And then authorities is plural.
Speaker 4: So there is a system of governments within Freemason. There
Speaker 4: are authorities, the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, and there an
Speaker 4: to See. So there's dogmas and authorities.
Speaker 20: You have to keep in mind that I think we're
Speaker 20: I think we're talking about authorities in two different senses.
Speaker 20: There's no there's no logical or philosophical authority in Masonry,
Speaker 20: but in terms of organization.
Speaker 4: But he probably sure have to believe in God that
Speaker 4: would be theological. So that's nonsense. I think that. I
Speaker 4: think that you're on the semantics run here. Yeah, I
Speaker 4: think we're going on circle. Are you serious? Yeah, I'm serious.
Speaker 4: How is that a semantics run? When he said you
Speaker 4: have to believe in God? Yes, of course you have
Speaker 4: to believe in God. And so there's a number, but
Speaker 4: there's no like human authority within the organization. There is
Speaker 4: who PAGs the cannon. There is a dogma, and then
Speaker 4: there are authorities that recognize and do not recognize certain lodges. Right,
Speaker 4: there's irregular lodges, you know, I think we've are there
Speaker 4: regular lodges.
Speaker 20: And it can rightly explicit in the claim that you
Speaker 20: have to believe in a supreme being or be a mason,
Speaker 20: because so I think a or we're disagreeing is on
Speaker 20: interpreting that and perceiving that as a dogma.
Speaker 4: Oh, you said a term you want to use. If
Speaker 4: you don't like the word dogma, it might be helpful.
Speaker 4: What is the orthodox do you want?
Speaker 1: Dogma?
Speaker 4: Dogma means that wells leave this in order to be orthodox.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Dogmas are beliefs that you cannot dispute or question. For example,
Speaker 4: the niceing creed for an orthoised Chrisian would be something
Speaker 4: that you can't be a Christian and say, well, I
Speaker 4: don't believe in the deed of crime, I'm believing, you know,
Speaker 4: the teachings of you know, Council, might I see or
Speaker 4: something like that. Those will be things that you couldn't
Speaker 4: question and still be a recognized member of the group.
Speaker 4: You would be seen as an area.
Speaker 20: In or certainly if you did not believe or cease
Speaker 20: to believe in God, you would not be able.
Speaker 4: To be a made So that's an as argeyment, which
Speaker 4: was that there are dogmas, whether you want to call
Speaker 4: them that term or not, because I can't be a
Speaker 4: Mason if I'm an atheist, right unless're grand orient loge direction. Okay,
Speaker 4: so there are dogmas, and that's theological right, I believe
Speaker 4: in godsteological. I believe your argument was that the words
Speaker 4: of Albert Pike or dogma. No, I didn't argue that
Speaker 4: I said in the book is called.
Speaker 15: The The kind of line of argumentation that ends up
Speaker 15: happening with.
Speaker 6: These Masons is pretty much the same as Protestants in
Speaker 6: general about order of authority, and that's.
Speaker 4: Rely that's exactly where the debate goes, Yep, they're.
Speaker 6: So spiritually united, and it's I mean, it's no surprise
Speaker 6: that Masonry and the kind of age of Enlightenment erupted
Speaker 6: after the kind of you know, the pest ones of
Speaker 6: direct the nation.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that's just that's how that comes to mine.
Speaker 4: Ears what kind of they're no, they They consistently throughout
Speaker 4: the debate will reference the Protestant principles of nobody can
Speaker 4: bind my conscience, and we're free to accept and reject,
Speaker 4: you know, all kinds of stuff that we want. And
Speaker 4: I'm like, well, then how does that square with the
Speaker 4: supreme jurisdictional authority of the Grand launch stuff.
Speaker 20: If you're a definite a dogain, you misundersto the argument
Speaker 20: when I brought up when I brought up, you said,
Speaker 20: there's no dog let us let us just concede that
Speaker 20: there is the dogma and freemasonry that you have to
Speaker 20: believe in a supreme being. But that that's not the
Speaker 20: beliefs of Hourpike or Albert Pike is irrelevant. I can
Speaker 20: go to another one of these guys and I'm just
Speaker 20: going to make the same argument and say, and I
Speaker 20: would make the same argument now that there is no
Speaker 20: less guys that are in the art ordin. It's a
Speaker 20: presuppositional argument about the claim that there's no dogmas. And
Speaker 20: I asked you, is it a dogma that there are
Speaker 20: no dogmas? That's a philosophical argument. Doesn't anything do with ourpike.
Speaker 20: Is it a dogma that there's no dogmas?
Speaker 4: I guess again, we're just arguing the words. You know,
Speaker 4: it's a philosophical argument. You don't understand it, I'll be mean.
Speaker 4: I'm saying, don't under say I understand it. I just
Speaker 4: what's the There is no there is.
Speaker 20: No dogma in freemasonry that individual members can I have
Speaker 20: their own dogma.
Speaker 4: So it's a subjectivist and relativist because if I can
Speaker 4: have my own dogma, can I have a dogma that
Speaker 4: I'm a Satanist and I'm a Mason? No, so, and
Speaker 4: then it's dogma I can get into the landmarks and
Speaker 4: some of the few like, yeah, that's actually, that's good,
Speaker 4: that's yeah, we kind of exist. I'm not trying to
Speaker 4: one to answer around you. I'm just trying to understand again,
Speaker 4: it's so, And I don't mean to cut you off, DJ,
Speaker 4: but like, I'm not trying to play a word game,
Speaker 4: right when I was if I'd dimitted an atheist, I
Speaker 4: would make the same line of argument to say, if
Speaker 4: a subjectivist or a relative says there are no absolute truths, right,
Speaker 4: and if I respond to that guy, I would say,
Speaker 4: is it an absolute truth that there are no absolute truth? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Only that is believe in absolutes, which is ever so
Speaker 4: and that. But that is not a word game. It's
Speaker 4: a philosophical argument where you're doing a critique of the
Speaker 4: person's paradigm and saying that that statement itself is a
Speaker 4: logical contradiction. So it's not a word game. It's not
Speaker 4: about semantics. It's a question of you can't say that
Speaker 4: there are no dogma. I see what you're trying, and
Speaker 4: you know it's dogmatic that you have to believe there's
Speaker 4: no dogmas. That was the question.
Speaker 20: Do you want to respond that I'll changehoppies if not?
Speaker 20: But you just said no, No, it's okay, I understand
Speaker 20: what you're trying to say. I would say that the
Speaker 20: organization of Freemasonry does not prohibit people from having their
Speaker 20: own dogma, just doesn't take a position on so many
Speaker 20: of them. Now it has its own dogmas. In the
Speaker 20: sense that you have to believe in a supreme being.
Speaker 20: There's ancient landmark kind of rules and requirements associating with differrinity.
Speaker 4: You can't be an atheist, right, can be a Satanist?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: No, well I thought, and so I thought you had
Speaker 4: to be a monotheist. Yeah, what if I'm a monotheistic Satanists? Yeah,
Speaker 4: so there's again no I'm serious.
Speaker 27: Yeah, yeah, there are people that I can I finish
Speaker 27: my thought on the more addictional and authority. So, so
Speaker 27: it's decentralized. Do you have in Tennessee the Grand Lodge
Speaker 27: of Tennessee? In America, every state has its own Grand Lodge.
Speaker 27: The rest of the world, it's usually every country has
Speaker 27: a Grand Lodge, but there is no overarching body. There's
Speaker 27: no Grand Lodge of America, no Grand Lodge of the world.
Speaker 27: It's decentralized, decentralized. So while it's mostly the same, you
Speaker 27: will see smaller jurisdictional differences. I can only speak to
Speaker 27: Tennessee and some of the ones that I'm familiar with.
Speaker 4: But yeah, sure, by the way, you guys feel free
Speaker 4: to break in at any point in me.
Speaker 24: Is is there a lot of kind of reactionary to
Speaker 24: papism or something, because yes, it seems like this keeps
Speaker 24: coming up.
Speaker 4: It is correct, absolutely, this.
Speaker 15: Kind of strong man that they're like attacking, Uh.
Speaker 1: The strong.
Speaker 4: No, I mean yeah, centuries of Freemasonry are positioned against
Speaker 4: the papacy. So absolutely, and that's why I think he
Speaker 4: immediately went to, oh, you must mean that Albert Pike
Speaker 4: is like the pope of Masonry. I didn't say that.
Speaker 4: I just said, is it a dogma? That there's no dogmas? Right?
Speaker 4: So what I'm doing in the debate is establishing first
Speaker 4: there are dogmas and there are authorities, and then I'm
Speaker 4: going to move into getting them to admit that it's
Speaker 4: a religious commitment and not just a secular civic commitment.
Speaker 4: And once they eventually admit all those three points, then
Speaker 4: they can't have the argument anymore that Masonry is neutral
Speaker 4: and doesn't commit you to anything theological. That's how That's
Speaker 4: where I'm going debate, And it takes a while, but
Speaker 4: I think I eventually do demonstrate that, and that means
Speaker 4: then that they try and take this line of argumentation
Speaker 4: that essentially it's the individual, it's the individual.
Speaker 1: That is the authority, Like can you realtimate authority of
Speaker 1: mainstry and every other Mason is is it. It almost
Speaker 1: seems like they try to.
Speaker 4: Make that no, that's what they do. In fact, they
Speaker 4: know that's what they do. And then they argue that
Speaker 4: because they personally are Trinitarian Christians, they can personally continue
Speaker 4: to maintain their turn Christian faith but be part of
Speaker 4: a brotherhood that doesn't require them to have religious commitments,
Speaker 4: at which point I say, yeah, but that itself is
Speaker 4: a denial of the trinity, because now you're saying that
Speaker 4: we can have a religious commitment to a non religious
Speaker 4: religious society, which is that's the argument.
Speaker 6: I mean, It's actually an interesting debate because it shows
Speaker 6: how these beliefs of like you know, the hyperindividualism of
Speaker 6: the Enlightenment yep. How the vehicle for the the enshrining
Speaker 6: of all these Enlightenment principles in the world was largely Freemasonry,
Speaker 6: right yep. But then also Protestantism being the midwife of
Speaker 6: the Age of Enlightenment and all of these kind of orders.
Speaker 6: But they all just kind of collapse into one thing
Speaker 6: that like the worldviews kind of collapse into each other
Speaker 6: and really just come down to almost the you know,
Speaker 6: the sollipsism of of like postmodernity.
Speaker 15: So it's like this, these are the forces right here
Speaker 15: that just that gave.
Speaker 6: You postmodernity and like just total relativism and complete you know,
Speaker 6: zero rudder, zero center, gravity of meaning in the world,
Speaker 6: and like this it really Protestantism itself is is just
Speaker 6: Pats pre masony in so many ways.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. In fact, the debate really even beyond the question
Speaker 4: of authorities, it actually ends up being a debate about
Speaker 4: neutrality because their whole argument rests on there being very
Speaker 4: neutral religious claims, right, like natural basically just natural theolo.
Speaker 4: They don't know that it's natural theology, but that's essentially
Speaker 4: what this debate ends up being about. And you guys
Speaker 4: might think, oh, this just ends up being stupid, it's
Speaker 4: not worth it. There's actually a few points where now
Speaker 4: I don't think they at all win. I think they
Speaker 4: get absolutely demolished, but they are. They do actually bring
Speaker 4: out a couple clever points. Actually, one of the more
Speaker 4: clever retorts that they have towards the end of the
Speaker 4: debate is from somebody in the audience asked the question,
Speaker 4: which I think was I'd give them one point for
Speaker 4: a clever retort, which was, Jay, if I followed your
Speaker 4: line of argument, then you also would be denying your
Speaker 4: own standards when you say the Pledge of Allegiance, because
Speaker 4: that was written by Francis Key, who was like a socialist.
Speaker 4: So if you say I believe in one nation under God,
Speaker 4: you would be violating your arguments throughout this debate. And
Speaker 4: for like one split second was that's actually pretty clever retort. However,
Speaker 4: it's not equivalent because it's not. Masonry is a religious initiation,
Speaker 4: and that's what I established in the first part of
Speaker 4: the debate, saying the Pledge of Allegiance and me interpreting
Speaker 4: the God there as the Trying God because that's my belief.
Speaker 4: That's not denying. I'm not required by saying the Pledge
Speaker 4: of Allegiance to believe in an acumenous principle to join Masonry.
Speaker 4: You are, and that's why the religious initiation oath aspect
Speaker 4: of Masonry is not equivalent to saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
Speaker 4: But I will give them for one one small point
Speaker 4: for that clever retort, and towards the end of the debate,
Speaker 4: Chase jumps onto that like you thaid, oh, we finally
Speaker 4: got dire, we got him. And then as I explain
Speaker 4: the difference, I think they realized that wasn't that good
Speaker 4: of an argument.
Speaker 27: Actually, as it's phrased in Tennessee and most jurisdictions will
Speaker 27: be pretty similar to this. It's you have to have
Speaker 27: a belief in a supreme being and the accountability excuse me,
Speaker 27: a supreme being to whom all men are accountable. Within
Speaker 27: that requirement, obviously we have our own teaching, so a
Speaker 27: supreme being under I think most Satanists definition do not
Speaker 27: consider Satan to be the supreme being.
Speaker 4: The whole part of this theistic Satan argument is to
Speaker 4: show that as they start making qualifiers to what type
Speaker 4: of supreme being is allowed, they're making all kinds of
Speaker 4: theological commitments. And that's what they didn't realize. And so
Speaker 4: that's why I start doing this, is I just start
Speaker 4: listing all these absurd quote supreme being beliefs, which shows
Speaker 4: that there's no such thing as a generic supreme being
Speaker 4: doesn't exist. And I prove that by every time I
Speaker 4: come up with a ridiculous example. Is to illustrate that, oh, actually,
Speaker 4: you guys have all kinds of disqualifiers and theological commitments
Speaker 4: that you didn't admit in your opening statement.
Speaker 27: He is, and you know, I'm not an authority on Satanism,
Speaker 27: but another Masonic teaching or dog line, if few old Jay,
Speaker 27: is that this supreme being is a creator God, that's
Speaker 27: the uh supreme architect of the universe.
Speaker 4: So uh Satan. They don't even realize that the word
Speaker 4: architect already has all kinds of baggage packed into it.
Speaker 14: I was just going to say that.
Speaker 24: Yeah, so in some sense it could be a deistic,
Speaker 24: impersonal god, but how can you be responsible to uh
Speaker 24: impersonal force?
Speaker 4: Exactly?
Speaker 1: I'm responsible to this rock.
Speaker 4: And it's all the same arguments that we have about
Speaker 4: natural theology.
Speaker 27: Yeah, as far as I know, no Satanist claims that
Speaker 27: Satan is a creator. Beyond that, again, it is a
Speaker 27: system of morality. There's just certain morals.
Speaker 4: By the way, there are theistic Satanant groups that could
Speaker 4: believe that sets the creator. Sure, why not Gnostics? Right,
Speaker 4: this world is created by a fallen.
Speaker 27: Being in values within Satanism that would not be compatible
Speaker 27: with them all and teachings of Freemasonryhead go ahead, Jay.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So first of all, the temple up set, as
Speaker 4: an example, is a theistic Satanic group of Michael Achino,
Speaker 4: who was the famous did you say deistic or theistic
Speaker 4: Satanistic group? Michael Akino was the famous army colonel who
Speaker 4: drew up the army's psychological warfare teachings in his writings
Speaker 4: about black magic and using that for pyops, and his
Speaker 4: is an example of a sect that has had prominent
Speaker 4: peoples as its members where they believe that the supreme
Speaker 4: being is in fact Satan. So my point here is
Speaker 4: to say that when you say that I can be
Speaker 4: a freemason, I just have to be quote a theist.
Speaker 4: The absurdity of this is obvious, and that there's no
Speaker 4: such thing as generic theism. There's such a thing as
Speaker 4: a well it's just a creator. Well, okay, what if
Speaker 4: I think Satan is the creator. That's the absurdity of this,
Speaker 4: And that's why your lodges allow Muslims, Hindus, Jews, people
Speaker 4: of all types of religious persuasions to be joined together
Speaker 4: in a fraternity under some agist that you say is
Speaker 4: just simply a philosophy. It's not simply a philosophy. When
Speaker 4: we have a whole bunch of people joining together in
Speaker 4: an idea that does include theological terminology, which you already admitted.
Speaker 4: So to say, so if you guys keep saying two
Speaker 4: things out of the different size of your mouth, it's like, Oh,
Speaker 4: it's just ahilosophers or turning it. Oh, but we actually
Speaker 4: have all these theological principles they have to hold too.
Speaker 4: So I mean, can I be Why can't I be
Speaker 4: a Satanist at a monotheist If you don't have dogmas
Speaker 4: beyond a higher power? Sounds like you're qualifying and tacking
Speaker 4: on more dogmas.
Speaker 1: Sure. Why.
Speaker 20: There's a couple of points that come to mind. The
Speaker 20: first point that comes to mind is in your introduction
Speaker 20: you mentioned the of course incompatibility of free mason with
Speaker 20: Christianity because of the philosophy and ethos of Freemasonry being
Speaker 20: just genuinely incompatible with the philosophy theology of Christianity. And
Speaker 20: I would say that the philosophy or theology of Satanism
Speaker 20: and almost all, if not all, of its manifestations is
Speaker 20: inherently incompatible with the principle's values of Masony.
Speaker 4: But the principles of values of Masonry are that you,
Speaker 4: as an individual determine what subjective reality and truth is,
Speaker 4: which is the essence of Satanism. That's exactly the argument
Speaker 4: that I make.
Speaker 20: The second thing that I would say is regardless of
Speaker 20: the technical acceptance of somebody of that persuasion into the
Speaker 20: fraternity and a practical manner would virtually never happen, because
Speaker 20: you have to have unanimous consent to have a new member.
Speaker 4: And they think I'm worried with the mechanics of a
Speaker 4: Satanist getting in. They don't even understand. I'm making a
Speaker 4: philosophical argument to show that you actually have a bunch
Speaker 4: of theological commitments. I don't care about satan Is sneaking
Speaker 4: into your lodge. That's not the point. The point is
Speaker 4: you're having all of these theological commitments at the same
Speaker 4: time as saying we don't have theological commitment chated into
Speaker 4: a lodge. And I can't.
Speaker 20: I mean, I'm sure you could find obscure examples. There's
Speaker 20: probably examples of people who are Satanists that have been
Speaker 20: members of clandestine lodges, which is a regular lodges not
Speaker 20: recognized by any of the official.
Speaker 4: Brand lodges of the world. But I don't, I don't,
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 20: I can't imagine a scenario in which a Satanist would
Speaker 20: be allowed into a lodge as explicitly admitting that he's
Speaker 20: a Satanist.
Speaker 4: Real quick, though, what exactly.
Speaker 20: Would a satanist if they were a monotheist, what requirement
Speaker 20: would they be breaking where they couldn't enter? Yeah, if
Speaker 20: they were a monotheist, So they got through that hurdle,
Speaker 20: But what would be stopping them specifically as a would
Speaker 20: it just be the other members accepting them in or
Speaker 20: would there actually be a principle in which they're violating exactly?
Speaker 4: No found on that.
Speaker 27: Yeah, at least here, like it's explicit that we say
Speaker 27: we don't allow Satanists. Oh, so that that actually is
Speaker 27: a okay, we've not allowed We've only had one ever
Speaker 27: applied for membership on the lodge and he denied this
Speaker 27: all these like base level requirements the way you join,
Speaker 27: this would.
Speaker 4: Be refuting all the points that he made in his
Speaker 4: opening statement. So you see that as they begin to
Speaker 4: actually explain things, they have quite a few dog mos.
Speaker 27: Don't they lodge you petition? It's simply an application. Uh,
Speaker 27: there's an interview process. A lot of times there's a
Speaker 27: group that will go to your home, meet with you
Speaker 27: and meet with your.
Speaker 4: Like their whole point in this was to sell masonry.
Speaker 4: Like they're like marketing masonry, And I'm like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 4: I get it that you like it. You have all
Speaker 4: these marketing sales pitches, but like, when are you going
Speaker 4: to address the arguments that are being made?
Speaker 27: Oh, so there's an investigation, there's a background check, there's
Speaker 27: an interview amongst in front of the lodging, and different
Speaker 27: lodges can have like slightly different processes in all of this,
Speaker 27: but but you have these you know, base level requirements,
Speaker 27: and then the lodge itself is doing its own investigation
Speaker 27: into your moral character and whether or not you're a
Speaker 27: fit essentially, and we're not supposed to be we are exclusive,
Speaker 27: what we're not exclusive?
Speaker 4: So what's the basis for the moral character? That's what
Speaker 4: I asked him a little bit later.
Speaker 27: It is based off of race, religion, or you know,
Speaker 27: socioeconomics or stuff like that, but it ultimately it does
Speaker 27: come down to character, and I would certainly argue that
Speaker 27: a Satanist is not of the character to be a Freemason.
Speaker 4: So the point was not are there Satanists getting into
Speaker 4: Massoni lodges. It was an example that was used to
Speaker 4: try to illustrate the ambiguity and the absurdity of saying
Speaker 4: that there's no dogmas and we're not theological. Oh, but
Speaker 4: you have to believe in theism. Oh but it's not
Speaker 4: the Satanist. So now we're beginning to see that their
Speaker 4: beginning opening statement was not true. Right, they started qualifying
Speaker 4: all the things that they really mean by the terms.
Speaker 4: And when Chase said that, you know, one reason that
Speaker 4: we wouldn't accept the Satanist is because of the teachings
Speaker 4: of Masonry are anthithetical to Satanism. Well, Courtney aberpoiecause we've
Speaker 4: already seen today as an example, not an authority, but
Speaker 4: an example, he says, And these people agreed that no
Speaker 4: one is over you, no one determines truth for you.
Speaker 4: Truth is something that you determine, and you can decide
Speaker 4: what the teachings are and still be a Mason. So
Speaker 4: that's a subjectivism and relativism that I do is absolutely
Speaker 4: think is the problem in maj Push back real quick,
Speaker 4: and I mean interrupt you. I want you to finish
Speaker 4: your thought. Yeah, when I hear the term, he didn't
Speaker 4: let me finish that, I was going to say, that's satanic.
Speaker 4: So the very principle that Pike lays out is the
Speaker 4: number one dogma of masonry. Is itself a satanic.
Speaker 20: Principle subjectivism to say that something is subjective. The way
Speaker 20: that I interpret that is like a subjectivist believes that
Speaker 20: everything is subjective. And I think there's a distinction between
Speaker 20: arguing for subjectivism and having a subjective philosophy. Right, So
Speaker 20: like Pike isn't arguing that whatever you believe is true
Speaker 20: for you in the sense of like a contemporary modern
Speaker 20: day subjective.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but he does say that you can determine the
Speaker 4: theology however you want. So it is relatives and subjectivist.
Speaker 4: Best says I can I quote him? You go ahead?
Speaker 4: Is our duty always the press forward? Though absolute truth
Speaker 4: is unattainable, the Masonry strives towards the light. Yeah, so
Speaker 4: there's no absolute truth.
Speaker 20: But apparently I think that's saying that something is unattainable
Speaker 20: is not the same thing as saying that it doesn't exist.
Speaker 20: I think it's attainable for us to go to Pluto today,
Speaker 20: but I believe that Pluto exists.
Speaker 4: How is it unattainable if it exists?
Speaker 1: That's a good question, is.
Speaker 4: If you argue with limitation that is the problem. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I think I think he's.
Speaker 20: Probably I haven't read that the context around that specific passage,
Speaker 20: so I can speak for Pike.
Speaker 4: What's that that's the.
Speaker 24: John Hicks perennialism fail. Yes, So when they say attainable,
Speaker 24: it's it's uh, I mean unattainable. That's what they're referring to.
Speaker 24: It's like, oh, the truth and God's behind the fail
Speaker 24: that's all John Hicks perennialism, which we all know that
Speaker 24: Masonry's perennial.
Speaker 20: Sure, but he's probably arguing that in our in our
Speaker 20: state as humans where we don't have the capacity to
Speaker 20: attain or understand absolute truth.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean three of the pillars of So this
Speaker 4: is where I highlight how antithetical it is to what
Speaker 4: they're supposed to believe as Christians. Right, as Christians, you
Speaker 4: believe Jesus is the way that you're in life. He
Speaker 4: is absolute truth incarnate. And I'm pointing out that you
Speaker 4: can't say that you believe John fourteen six and at
Speaker 4: the same time say there is no absolute truth. It's
Speaker 4: unattainable belief and truth that's not objective, like truth is
Speaker 4: a core value. What do you mean Jay, that that
Speaker 4: can't be said. Oh, and from a philosophical perspective critiquing
Speaker 4: this in terms of the argumentation, to say that there
Speaker 4: are no dogmas because there are no absolute truths, that's
Speaker 4: the context of where he's saying this. He says, for example,
Speaker 4: perfect perfect truth is not attainable anywhere. That's antithetical to
Speaker 4: Christian theology. When Jesus says I'm the way the truth
Speaker 4: in the life, and so certainly God and Jesus are
Speaker 4: perfection in terms of truth. So for Albert Pike to
Speaker 4: say that this, to say this, that's a subjectivist, relativist
Speaker 4: line of argumentation. And I'm arguing, let me finish this argument,
Speaker 4: because this was what I was try an argument ago
Speaker 4: when you said that Satanism is antithetical to Masonry. I'm
Speaker 4: saying that Albert Pike's subjectivism here, that there's no truth
Speaker 4: that's ultimate or absolute that we can't know and then
Speaker 4: we can't obtain it, and you can determine the philosophies.
Speaker 4: As you said a minute ago, he doesn't say that
Speaker 4: there's no absolute truth. He just says that the absolute
Speaker 4: truth is unattainable. Okay, well, then nobody's attained to it.
Speaker 4: So you can say theoretically that exists but nobody has it,
Speaker 4: it still doesn't defeat the point that nobody has perfect
Speaker 4: truth are absolute truth. So maybe it's out there, but
Speaker 4: it doesn't exist and we don't have it. Fine cast
Speaker 4: it however you want. That's still satanic and principle.
Speaker 20: So I mean even the fact that Albert Pike and
Speaker 20: that sentence is saying that absolute truth is unattainable, is
Speaker 20: implicitly stating that Freemasonry makes no claims to have absolute truth.
Speaker 4: Okay, is it absolutely true that absolute truth is unattainable?
Speaker 4: Let's go back to pre seb one oh one.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: They keep skirting the point that I'm making and trying
Speaker 4: to make this into some game, and it's not a game. Okay,
Speaker 4: So this is a good Bible, and I actually it's
Speaker 4: the l in the Bible and truth and Christ don't
Speaker 4: have absolute truth. Well know,