Speaker 1: Jay Dire Jaysons, Jay Dires Day Smells, Jade Ires Days Analysis,
Jade Ires Days Nells, J Dier's Days Analysis. US It's
Jay Dier, Jason Alison, J Diers Day Smells, Jade Diers
Today's Analysis, Jay Dires Days Analysis, Jay Diers Days Analysis.
Speaker 2: All Right, welcome, welcome, welcome. You're listening to Jay Dyer.
Let's make sure we have good audio. Can everybody hear me?
Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? M hmm?
Speaker 2: Are we having all right? Yep? Good, I can be her.
There we go. Yes, we're going to talk to true
dil Tom. For one hundred times, I've had endless requests,
So yeah, we'll talk to him. And I messaged him
today and he said, yeah, we'll do it. We'll do
a talk.
Speaker 4: Oh, oh, philosophy. Oh these questions anyway, So I thought,
in the wake of.
Speaker 2: The many recent discussions and debates, it would be pertinent
to have a stream that dealt with objections and questions
because naturally debates they just lead to a whole lot
of questioning, which is a good thing. That's a good thing.
So the topics today we're going to specifically stick trying
to stick to you know, philosophy, metaphysics, the branches of
philosophy and defending them. But we're not just going to
stay I mean, if you want to ask theological questions,
that's fine, because anytime I talk about philosophy, everybody comes
in they want to talk about theology. Anytime I talk
about theology, everybody comes in they want to talk about
conspiracy and some other topics. So you know, I understand
they're not disconnected, but please let's stay on the topic roughly,
and let's talk first about this issue of cucks into
the shadows. What are you talking about, Matt, by the way, Yeah,
if somebody wants to come on and debate, Matt, do
you want to come on in debate since you're calling
me a cuck, I tried to give the debate platform
openly today we had open debate day at Jays Analysis. Yeah.
I don't really care what ask Yourself did in terms
of his video Ask Yourself as a childish guy. He
needs to grow up a lot of bit a lot
before we have any more interactions. I'm not interested in
any more interactions with that guy. That's low IQ Spurg
level stuff. So I'm not gonna waste my time debating
twenty year olds. Although if this mac character wants to
come on, he's if he calls me a couck, he
can come on debate if he wants to. Nobody ever
wants to come on debate. Oh he said, I'm a cook,
cuts himself into the shadows. No, I just waited for
him to hang himself, and when he did, I left
the debate, and you can read everybody in the comments
at Primal Edge Health. They got the point. Everybody in
the comments center my copy of the debate at my
channel got the point, and everybody saw how silly what
he was saying was. So he and his cult can
do whatever they want, but I'm done with him. Stefan
MALINEU will never debate because, as we point that out
many times, a big name person has nothing to gain
from debating lesser known people. They have everything to lose.
Should they lose the debate, it would look really bad
for them. So why would they There's no incentive for
a Molineux or a Peterson or anybody of that stature,
of that caliber in terms of popularity to debate somebody
with you know, ten or one hundred times smaller audience.
So no, they're never going to debate. Now, maybe if
I got a million followers one day, which probably won't
ever happen, but if that ever did happen, maybe then
they might debate. But I doubt it because it's a
it's a much safer territory to stay in, you know,
acceptable modernist discourse. And you'll notice that none of the
people allowed into the big scale discussion ever step outside
of the classical liberal framework. Nobody outside of the classical
liberal dialectic is even allowed into the debate or the discussion.
So I mean even the alt right, who many of
whom are basically still within the liberal framework, they're not
even allowed into the into the discussion. I mean JF
is still within the liberal framework in terms of his worldview,
aside from some sort of you know, race view in IQVUW.
Same with stuff on stuff on Molineu. They're still liberals, uh,
and they're not really allowed into the mainstream discourse. Molineux
maybe to a degree because of the size of his audience,
but he's only he's only allowed to do that because
he's still champions the market god, and we're going to
see that when you when you abandon philosophy with other
things step into to take the place of the god
of the system. We're also going to see that people
have a system, whether they want it or not, whether
they believe in systems or not. They have a system.
They have a worldview, they have a philosophy, they have
a paradigm. When I speak of the liberal paradigm, I
don't just mean empiricism. We decided a debate yesterday with
an atheistic materialist on this very question. When I speak
of liberalism, I'm talking about the classical liberal paradigm, and yes,
empiricism is part of that tradition. The Enlightenment gives birth
to the classical liberal paradigm. Renaissance humanism gives birth to it,
Nominalism gives birth to it, the Protestant Reformation gives birth
to it. Then comes right this Enlightenment so called, which
is not a turn towards science strictly speaking. People that
have actually delved deeply into the history of the Enlightenment
know that it comes out of hermeticism. They know that
it comes out of hermetic, neoplatonic, esoteric, Rosicrucian secret societies
and orders. You can read Dame Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment,
which proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Now
I know that I've known that since undergrad because I
was studying all the secret societies at the same time
as I was taking on my Enlightenment classes. It's not
hard to figure that out. But who has read Dame
Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Not many people, even though
it's a very famous book. Anyway, So when I talk
about the liberal tradition, I don't mean modern American liberalism.
I don't just mean empiricism. I mean the entire tradition
of the Enlightenment, because it is a move towards liberalism. Now,
some of those people would not necessarily be called quote liberal,
because maybe, like Hobbes, they believed in a giant Leviathan
monolithic state. Right, Hegel is a statist, so uh, you
know Hegel's philosophy of the right. That's not liberal. However,
all of these figures after the Enlightenment come out of
revolutionary traditions, except for you know, here and there, every
now and then, there's a there's a gem in the
midst of the the Maelstrom. Here the confusion that critiques it, right,
you get you get writings about monarchy, you get writings
against liberalism, you know, in the West, even after the revolutions.
So again our stance here is not that science is bad,
all right. We believe that science has its place. And
in fact, you know, as Happa argues right and his
points about democracy, the God that failed, we're always told
this mantra of this, which is actually a revolutionary propaganda slogan,
that the Middle Ages was the Dark Ages, monarchy represents
dark Ages, and only because we have republican democracies do
we have advancement and progress. And in fact Hoppa makes
I think, very good consistent arguments that we could actually
probably have been far more advanced had we not adopted
the entire revolutionary ethos in the West. And of course,
as you know, we've covered in countless articles, countless talks,
and even in my book, the fact that the entire
world has been infected with revolutionary thought. All of the
revolutions are the same, as Aldus Huxley says, they all
have the same point, they're all directed by the same people,
and they're all taking man towards technocracy. That's why the
entire world is under the spell of democracy. That's why
Hoppa is correct to call it a god that has failed.
But it actually didn't fail, because if you accept Huxley's thesis,
it actually achieved its very purpose. The revolutions were there
to bulldoze all of the previous paradigms and to set
up the moneyed oligarchy that we have now today that
runs the world. If you don't understand this, then you
don't know what you're talking about, and don't try to
debate me. Go listen to my Tragy and Hope talks.
Because we know that the twentieth century represents the rise
of the Fiat banking power to rule the world. Now
we're living in the mopping up stages, and the goal
was always to bring into technocracy anyway, So when I
talk about liberalism, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking
about rejecting the ideology of the last several hundred years
of the West. I'm not talking about rejecting science, not
talking about rejecting scientific discoveries. Because as we've talked about
many times, paradigms can be wrong. People can have erroneous,
faulty paradigms or belief systems and make correct discoveries that
can make correct advancements. And even atheists who don't agree
with me have to admit this because they all know
that there are theists who make advances in science and technology.
Of course they do right, but they think those theists
are wrong and have the wrong paradigm. Yet they are
still able to make advances. Yeah, and that's because people
aren't always as consistent as they should be. Right, People
are better than their belief systems and paradigms most of
the time, Thank god, Right, because if everybody was completely consistent,
we would have chaos in terms of the atheistic materialistic
world views I'm saying. Anyway, so we want to talk
about the fact that, again, this is something that has
been missed. I've noticed some patterns in the last few
discussions and debates and talks that people are missing and
they're missing issues that relate to what they think are semantics,
what they think are are games, or like talking around
a problem or trying to like doe, what did he do?
What did that one guy say? The kids said, you're
being shady, right when you talk about the fact that
logic presupposes that you should follow through you know, the
to the conclusion through a syllogism, to the conclusion that
you should right, that there's some binding imperative force behind logic.
That's being shady. You're being shady. No, I mean, this
is just retarded. Okay, so, oh god, here we go.
Science in terms of the scientific principle is a new development.
It is a creature of the Enlightenment. Previously, there were
ways to seek truth, but they weren't science. This is
just retarded and in fact, the ancient Greeks practice science,
many of the Christian theologians of the Middle Aged practice science.
So you really have no idea what you're talking about, Vodka.
You are just repeating, essentially the propaganda of the Enlightenment, right,
I mean, look at how many inventions and discoveries come
out of the Middle Ages with something that you're not taught,
of course, in the modern university. So I actually think
I'm go'n just delete this guy, because we're not here
to have like basic bitch level debates here. The scientific
method is not new to the Enlightenment period. The scientific
method as a means by which this is the only
way to have reliable knowledge is new to the to
the period of the Enlightenment, that's true, but countless people
back to the ancient world utilized the principles of the
scientific method. Aristotle, you can go back to the ancient Greeks.
Aristotle was a scientist. Aristotle practiced the scientific method right now.
So again, my grad work in part was in terms
of science, a philosophy of science. So the questions that
philosophy of science asks are different than the questions that
normative science involves itself with. And the problem is that
most people who study science and hard sciences don't know philosophies,
that they don't know what's being said or what's being asked.
When people as bring these kinds of questions to bear,
they think that it's semantics, they think that it's word games,
and it's not asking basic questions about metaphysics, about ethics
and about epistemology. Is just classic philosophy. And because scientism
especially has a problem and has actually presuppositions and an
agenda behind the rejecting of these branches of philosophy and
ultimately philosophy itself. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, philosophy is
essentially worthless. It's no longer needed anymore now that we
have science. I mean, this is so laughable and so
absurd that and by the way, he was actually law.
He was actually made fun of Mike not a few
philosophers when he made that statement. It's really just speaks
from ignorance, I mean extreme ignorance. Because you can the
idea that you can master, say, some branch of hard sciences,
and that therefore this gives you some pre eminent insight
into all of reality is itself a fraudulent, stupid assumption. Right, So,
for example, a lot of biologists will assume, right, JF
does this. He assumes that because he studied biology at
a gradual level, that therefore this is some sort of
all encompassing paradigm answer to everything. Right, we can approach
grand mythological narratives from the questions of the life sciences
and biology. But of course that just assumes that biology
is the lens by which everything should be read. And
what philosophy does is that it asks the questions about presuppositions.
It asks questions about is that really the case? Can
we know that? Can we demonstrate that? Now every atheist,
rational scientific materialists, blah blah blah, reduction. They claim to
be to be logical, they claim to be rational, they
claim to be the guardians of reason and science over
against superstition. However, when we begin to start asking questions
about what logic is, how logic functions in the world,
we are immediately met with nothing but derision and the
accusation that those are essentially stupid questions, the relics of
an old age. But of course they're not, and that's
because modern scientism has no answer to these questions. And
that's why we're here today to defend traditional philosophy metaphysics.
So again, so let's talk about Okay, so we got
to the questions are coming in quicker than I can,
then I can respond if I if I no, this
is same simply not true. I mean, you obviously haven't
read Aristotle vodka. If you've read Aristol, you know that
he proceeds from an empirical scientific method. That's why he's
the father of taxonomy. He's the father of all of
these branches of science that involve empirical investigation. So, in fact,
all of the Enlightenment thinkers who talked about returning to
the scientific method were part of the classicist tradition. They
were part of the Renaissance tradition that wants it to
go back to the Greeks and specifically the empirical approach
to science that Aristotle embodied. So you haven't read Aristotle,
oh now, so he's the one guy who did that
at a time when everyone disagreed with him. No, that's
simply not true. In fact, many of the Church fathers
were influenced by Aristotle, So you don't know what you're
talking about. Aristotl had an entire school, right Lysium that
he taught. So the idea that this is only Aristotle,
I think it's about time to delete this dude. I've
had enough of his retardation. So you're out here, So
we're not gonna deal with that. He thinks Aristol was
the one guy, And here's Aerostol has a tremendous influence
on the history of the Church. Again, how many times
have we recommended Saint John Damascus's Fount of Knowledge, which
has a lot of good things to say about Aristotle.
That does not mean they were Aristilians. Again, mistake. All right,
So let's before we get into the stuff is coming in.
So quick. I can't keep up with these questions. But
let's get in first to the question of the theological
question that was asked earlier about Saint John christystem, which
was that how is it that Jesus says to the
Serophenician woman in Marks that it's not proper to give
to the dogs what is for the children. So now
there's two errors that people make that I've seen over
the years in my The Gentile Woman that Believes, and
this is Mark seven twenty four through thirty. Now, the
two errors that people make on this is that, on
the one hand, there's the Christian so called Zionist heresy,
which usually is tied of course to dispensationalism. And they
think that there's like these plans that went into effect
and changed when man failed, right, so like there was
a dispensation to Noah, and then when man failed, God
instituted a new plan. And what that does is essentially
divides up and destroys the continuity of the scriptures, destroys
the fact that there's one church from Able all the
way to the New Testament. We are all members of
the same at church. Right, Abraham is a saint in
our church. Moses is a saint in our church. Okay,
this is crucial to understanding the continuity of the Old
and New Testament. They are members of the body of Christ.
They're pictured in the Apocalypse as worshiping alongside the saints
of the New Testament. So they were not saved in
a different way. They were not saved by keeping the
law or any of the nonsense that many of these
stupid evangelical secx believe. They were saved by their faith
in Christ. Paul reiterates this point many times in the
New Testament Romans Foor, Galatians three. So they didn't have
a different pathway to God. There's never been a different
pathway to God. It's always through faith in either the
coming Messiah looking forward to him, or faith in the
Messiah who has come us. Now in the Church era,
they're not saved in a different way. There was no
way to keep the law. But even in the period
that we're talking about, when God established the nation of Israel,
there were still converts. We read about converts in the Exodus.
There were people who in Egypt who had converted to
the worship of the True God. When Ezra went out
and established the synagogue system, we read about the converts.
There were converts to the worship of the True God
of Israel, mentioned even in the Book of Acts. And
there was the dispersion, that is, the Jews that were
outside of Israel, that had been set up in other
cities where they again they had synagogues, and there were
many converts in those cities. So the Judaism of this
period accepted converts. In fact, Abraham was a convert, the
founder of so called Judaism, well in the sense of
the nation of Israel, right, Abraham was himself a convert
out of paganism. Now a lot of people get confused
with this, and then they think that so what happens
is that in the New Testament Jesus came, and because
these verses said that he came first to his own
to the Jews, then there must have been some sort
of new dispensation that was invented. This is what the
Christian Zionist heretics say. There was a new dispensation that
came about after the Jews rejected Christ, and then it
went to the Gentiles. This is so stupid that it's
almost unfathomable that anyone believes it. For one, how many
times the New Testament, the latter chapters of Romans right.
Many times in the Gospels there are quotations from the
Psalms and the major and minor prophets that I've covered
in my talks about the Gentiles converting. So if the
prophet's prophesied the Gentiles converting, that was always the plan.
It wasn't an accident, it wasn't planned. B according to
these idiot evangelicals. No, the Gentile Church was always the plan,
because it's the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that
in his seed all of the nations would be into
the worship of the True God. His seed is Jesus.
Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the covenants of
the past, every one of the covenants again from Adam
to Noah to Moses, or to Abraham to Moses to David,
they all are foreshadowing Jesus, the awaiting prophet, priest and
king to come, who fulfills all these predictions and in
his death ground resurrection, which is an amazing mystery that
God worked. In terms of his providence, God it foreknew
that the Jews would reject him. In fact, it was
predicted that the Jews would reject him all throughout their prophets.
They rejected him, and so the salvation that they thought
they were destroying went to the nations. And this is
how the promises are fulfilled. It's a no brainer, really,
I mean this is again, nobody ever taught any of
this dispensational Judaized nonsense in the history of the Church.
That's why it's promoted by the royals, the Rothchilds and Oxford,
who printed the Schofield Study Bible that popularized it prior
to the established right, prior to the Balfour Declaration. By
the way, no accident there now. So on the one hand,
we have the Judaized error, which believes that there's some
and some guy was messaging me yesterday saying that I
don't accept Orthodoxy because you don't keep all the Jewish
feasts and fasts, and I was like, I'm like, well,
have you read Galatians in Hebrews? And he's like, yes,
I have, But Paul's wrong, And so I go to
the guy's profile and his profile is all a bunch
of Masonic stuff. So yeah, exactly, that's why we ended
up blocking that guy. But yeah, so on the one hand,
there is the error of trying to think that salvation
can be had through the keeping of the ceremonies of
the law. And again, this was the chief battle of
the first century Church. This is the chief battle of
the Book of Acts. Is this question. They have to
have a council in Acts fifteen to settle this question.
What does the council in Acts fifteen say. Well, basically,
it looks back to the noah Hyde laws, to the
laws of Noah. It says, essentially, in reaffirming the covenant
with Noah, that the Church, under the direction of the
Holy Spirit, the apostles, in the direction of Christ and
the Holy Spirit, make a decision, that make a determination
in a synod, in a snudal decree, that it is
not necessary for gentiles to keep the ceremonial laws of
Moses and to receive circumcision, because again, there are plenty
of righteous men prior to the giving of the ceremonial law,
and therefore ceremonial law cannot be necessary to be saved.
All right, This is Paul's argument. Paul says Abraham was
accounted righteous prior to ceremonial laws being given, prior to
the establishment of national Israel prior to the giving of circumcision.
Circumcision it was a sign and seal for in it's
into the national Covenant of Israel of that time, and
it was proper and good at that time. But it
was a type that looked forward, looked forward to fulfillment
in baptism, which is something easily that can easily accessible,
water that can be given to everybody, not just young males. Now,
part of the reason that there was circumcision too was
because of the transmission of ancestral sin. Right, ancestral sin
comes from all the children of Adam, because of Adam's fall,
So there was also that aspect to it as well.
Circumcision was supposed to signify at tearing away of the
old Man, as Paul says, as Jeremiah says. Even in
the Old Testament, Jeremiah says that circumcisions signified repentance and
rending of the heart. Circumcise your hearts, Jeremiah says, that
was the whole point of it, looking forward to baptism.
So now that the Messiah has come, now that Christ's
instituted as Church, the New Testament essentially settles all of
these disputes. Again, you don't even have to go to
church father's you have to go outside of the New
Testament to see all of these disputes settled. So let's
go to the let's look at the other opposite error,
which is kind of being popularized by some blogs sort
of selectively takes certain church fathers out of context, and
it says, oh, Judaism basically stopped existing at some undefined
point and there were no Jews. Jews do not exist
in the New Testament. This is an invention. This is
nonsense too, all right. And so this kind of a
perspective goes to the opposite extreme and doesn't understand and
it borders basically on a kind of Martianism. Doesn't understand
the importance of the place of the Old Testament, of
the conus to the Old Testament, of the law, and
even the ceremonies in preparation for the coming of Christ.
And so Jesus when he talks to the woman at
the well and John four is very clear, and what
he says to her is base. This is this is interesting,
it's it's a it's a great exemplary test case because
what happens is the woman at the well and she's
a Samaritan.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Now, Samaritans were schismatics. That goes that go back to
the time of the split of the Northern and Southern
Kingdom of Israel and Judah Rea Boem and Jereboam right,
and we have basically Jeroboam's setting up his own state
controlled pagan sex cult religion. This is the origin of Samaritanism.
So the Samaritans had this kind of schismatic idea that
they had come up with, that that the temple is
not where you worship God. You know what does she say?
It says, oh, it's Jacob's well. You know, we worship
at Jacob's well or something. Now, what does Jesus say?
Does Jesus say nothing in the Old Testament matters. I
came to destroy all that. No, no, no, no, he
doesn't say that. Does he say there were no Jews,
Jews didn't exist. That is an invention of Talmwood Epharises. No, no, no,
he doesn't say that. He says woman, He says, you
know not what you worship. He says you are a Samaritan.
So Jesus doesn't wipe away all the religious distinctions. He
essentially affirms you are a heretic. All right, you are
a schismatic. You do think that you're worshiping the true God,
but you do only you do not know what you worship. Okay,
so she was in error, she was in schism. Jesus then,
of course, demonstrates that he has omniscience by talking about
her many husbands or lovers because she's not married. And
the woman is then of course convicted. She says, oh,
I perceive that you're a prophet, and she right. She
had tried to steer the conversation into religious controversy, and
Jesus brings it back to the question of moral problem.
He's like, no, your issue is moral. It's not an
issue of abstract theological questions. You have a moral issue.
So then Jesus goes on to say that truly, I
say to you that the time is coming, and now
is when the worshipers of God will worship God in
spirit and in truth, not just on not just in
the temple, but in all places. So, in other words,
the worship of God is not going to be restricted
to the Temple, which it previously had been, which was
by God's design on purpose. It is then to extend
into all of the nations in the Church. But the
key point to remember here is that Jesus is stressing
that salvation is of the Jews. There was no salvation
in any other place. You could not find the true
worship of God in some other nation. Now, before the
establishment of the Nation of Israel, it's possible plausible that
there were in some way priests like Melchizedic or people
like Job right who were righteous men outside of the
Nation of Israel, who had in some way maintained the
true tradition from able right. So this is mo most
likely how and why Job or jeth Row or Melchizedek,
who are not levitical priests, still had knowledge of and
understanding of Him, belief of in the One True God right,
and presumably also belief in a coming Messiah. In fact,
Job predicts Christ. There are multiple Messianic prophecies in the
Book of Job, and Job was not written by Jew.
It's written by gentile. So Job himself, by the way,
that shows us that there were true gentile believers even
in the Old Testament. So now let's look at this
passage then, when Jesus says to the Seraphenician woman that
gentiles are dogs, He is not making this up out
of nowhere. He is reaffirming what is in the Old Testament.
Right now, a lot of people who take this opposite view,
they think that it's somehow wrong to talk about the
fact that the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms, right in
many places. It's not just a Talmudic invention that the
Law and the prophets and the Psalms speak of the
nations in this way. They do because they were that way,
they were dogs, because they acted that way. Right, they
were into some seriously degenerate stuff. And yes, it eventually
infected Israel too, and it Israel fell into the worship
of serious degenerate stuff. So it's not like I mean,
this is the point is that both of these things
are true. It's not either or right. There were periods
when Israel was faithful to God in some instances, and
when that was the case, God would subdue their enemies.
And David can write Psalms talking about in the nations
being heathens, being degenerate and deserving of divine justice. Right,
how many times does David say this in the Psalm?
How many times the prophets say that multiple times? Yet
at the same time It's also true that the same
accusations are turned back on Israel itself. When Israel starts
to act like the nations, the prophets say, you are
a whore. Israel is Sodom, Israel is Gomorrah. Okay, So
these things can all be true at the same time.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: So Jesus is being consistent when he affirms the fact
that it was true that the nations were doglike and heathen.
The gift of the covenant was not given to all nations.
It was given only to the nation of Israel. I'm
speaking after Abraham, of course, right. So that is the norm,
and that is true, and that is correct. Paul does
not say that Moses was not a legitimate covenant from God.
Is Jesus who made the covenant with Moses. This is crucial,
and every Orthodox person makes this very apologetic argument. So
they even the people who don't understand this already agree
with me. When they look at the burning bush and
they say, that's Jesus speaking in the burning bush. Jesus says,
I am that I am multiple signs in John seven,
Jesus says, I am that I am. I am right.
So it's Jesus in the Burning Bush, and it's Jesus
making the covenant with Moses. Again, it's not that difficult
when you understand basic continuity between the Old and New Testament. Now,
when we understand that, we see then that it is
in fact true. Just think of Israel as the Church
of the Old Covenant, and so just as in the
New Covenant, the Church can pray and precatory prayers and
pray against her enemies, which she does and has for
two thousand years. So likewise, did they do the same
thing in the Church of Israel in the Old Testament?
It was no different. Now there are differences in the
sense of uh modus operandi, Like you know, we don't
principally try to go to war against Canaanites, although at
times the Church, well I should say Orthodox nations and
kings have gone to war. Everybody knows this basic church history, right. So,
even though there's there's a shift in emphasis between the
Old Testament period focusing on a more external battle related
scenario of the conquest of Cana et cetera, that was
a type, Paul says. The conquest of cana was a
type of the Church conquering the world. Paul makes this
this analogy very clear in the New Testament. So the
typology of Cana's land is a is the is the
spiritual is fulfilled in the spiritual approach of the Church
going out and conquering the nations to the preaching of
the Gospel, essentially pulling down the demons that the nations worship.
That's the true battle, the true conquest of Canaan, that
is happening now in our very day, in the last
two thousand years. Does that mean that in the Old
Testament there were no demons? No, of course not. Demons
are mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament. Does that
mean the Old Testament wasn't spiritual?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Right, Think about how many times prophets see into the
spiritual realm and they see chariots fighting with the armies
of Israel. They see into Isaiah sees into heaven and
he sees, you know, in Isaiah six he sees he
sees God. In fact, and by the way, John says
in his Gospel that when Isaiah looked into heaven, he
saw Christ by the way. So anyway, when we understand that,
we understand that Jesus's mission it was appropriate. Paula firms
us too, by the way that in Realm, as he
says that to the Jews were given the Covenant, they
were given the Law, they were given the promises fought,
they were given the fathers, et cetera, et cetera. So
naturally Jesus had to come to the Jews first, who
were his people, and salvation was offered first to the
jew Right. This is why pulse is to the jew
first and then to the gentile. This is why in
the Book of Acts the apostles go and preach the
Gospel first to the Jews. Salvation is offered first to
the Jews. And what happens, well, many many accept it,
many also reject it. Right, and so we think of
the section and Acts where Paul says, since you reject it,
we now go to the Gentiles. And if you read
through the Book of Actual see that you know it's
the Holy Spirit essentially directing this process. Okay, So, for example,
at one point, the Spirit forbids the church to spread
the Gospel into an area of Asia. We don't know why,
we're not told why the Spirit forbade the Gospel going
into that region, We don't know. Apparently it would be
some other time right, that's the counsels of God. We
don't fully understand all the counsels of God, but what
we do have in Revelation is a lot of information about,
you know, the kinds of things that I'm saying. We
do have information about how to make sense of these texts.
Jesus not being inconsistent when he says that this woman
is a gentile, and she is, and that was important
for in the history of redemption. That was important for
that phase in history. Now that the Church has been established, right,
and by the way, Jesus grants the woman's wish, So
even though she was a gentile, even though she did
have this affiliation with pagan culture, Jesus still grants her
her supplication. And in fact, multiple times in the Gospels
Jesus preaches to gentiles, he preaches to schismatics, right, And
this is the story of the Good Samaritan, right. And
that's because, as many of the church fathers point out,
the Gospel examples of like the Roman Centurion and so
forth believing in Christ. These are prefigurations of the fact
that the gentiles will enlarge accept the message of the Gospel,
and many, many of the Jews will not and as
a nation, the Jewish nation falls under God's judgment precisely
because they reject their Messiah. So, long story short, both
of those positions are incorrect. There's the extreme of thinking
that I don't know where they get this, this idea
that the word jew was not in the Bible. It
was invented by Talmudic persons, like hundreds of years after
the coming of Christ. It's very retarded. If you read
Zechariah eight, there's a prediction that thus says the Lord Almighty,
in those days, ten men from all the nations around
excuse me, ten men from all the tongues of the
nations will stop you and ask you, and grab a
hold of you, and they will say to a Jewish man,
we will go with you, for we have heard God
is with you. Well, this is Pentecost. This is what
happens on Pentegost. This is what happens when Jesus sends
the Jewish apostles out into the world. Right many, many,
many nations cling on to these apostles and they say,
we have heard God is with you. Tell us about
your God. This is a prediction of Pentecost and the
apostles and the New Testament, and they were all Jews. Okay.
And by the way, Zachariah Ate is using the word Jew.
So jew is not a post New Testament Talmudic invention.
It's completely retarded. All Right, we went, I've already gone
fifty minutes on just that one question. So hopefully that
is illustrative people can benefit from that. But beyond that,
I'm not really seeing what action Jackson or whatever that
dude's name was, I don't really see the problem and
what he asked. I think he was tripped up by
the fact that Jesus affirmed that gentiles were dogs. Well,
this is in the Psalms, right, this is in the prophets,
and it's not because they weren't humans, because they acted
like dogs. And so, by the way, this is important.
For example, this is something a lot of people misunderstand.
I had a debate one time on the street with
a Hasidic Jew who started a conversation with me. Interestingly,
he started talking about the Old Testament. I think he
thought I was Jewish. I don't know, but he was like,
are you a Jew? And I was like, well in
the true sense, yeah, He's like what. So we got
in this debate and he said, he said, his view
was that the law didn't apply to Tiles, it was
only for Israel. And I was like, well, okay, the
law giving him Mount Sinai was for Israel. But God
still held nations accountable for their sins. In other words,
for example, if you read Joshua, the reason that God
sends Joshua into Canaan's land for the conquest is because
of the wickedness of those nations. That means they're held
accountable for their wickedness. How many times in the prophets
do the prophets talk about the nations being wicked violating
God's law? Well, what law were they violating? If they
weren't under God's law, they were under the law moral law,
what laws were they violating? When Nebec Andeser, you know,
was arrogant and prideful and blasphemed the God of the Jews,
the true God, Well he gets struck with madness and
acts like a damn fool out in the wood for
seven years like an animal. So he offended some kind
of moral law. Right, So, and it wasn't by the way,
it's not just no hide laws. Okay. So the noea
covenant was a covenant and it wasn't an effect. And again,
if you understand Acts fifteen, they are referring back to
the Noa Noah Hyde laws in Acts fifteen. That's what
the first Council of the Church in Acts fifteen in
Jerusalem looked back to to determine the normative statues for
receiving gentiles into the predominantly Jewish Church of that time. Right,
Jewish converts to Christianity, the entire early Church is Jewish. Okay,
the whole thing. It's founded by Jews, predominantly Jews. Right,
the first ten chapters of Acts and this if you
read Acts ten, right when we get to the story
of Cornelius, this is why Peter is so confused. Peter
has such a hard time with this question because of
his grounding in, you know, the Jewish law and prophets.
So he's very confused. And in fact, Peter's so confused
that it actually requires visions directly from God. Right, he
sees the vision of the sheet with the unclean animals.
And again in the Old Testament, unclean animals represented the
unclean nations, the gentiles and demons. If you doubt the
favorites that represent demons read at Isaiah thirty four, where
Lilith is mentioned and other demons are pictured in Isaiah
thirty four under the imagery of unclean birds, storks, owls,
et cetera. It even mentions satyrs there by the way,
goat demons. So that was even present in the Old Testament. Anyway,
where were we we were talking about Cornelius. So the
sheet comes down right in Peter's vision and it's got
unclean animals in it, and God says eat. Peter says, no,
By the way, that's not a vegan command, is it.
The biblical God is not vegan. By the way, Peter says, no,
I can't eat those, those are unclean. So this vision
happens three times, and God says, what I've called clean,
don't call unclean. So that's what it took for Peter
to finally be convinced. And even after that, Peter was
still had doubts because Paul had to get in Peter's
face over it. Remember this is mentioned in the beginning
of Galatians. Paul and Peter have a big falling out
over it because Peter still keeps falling back into the
temptations of thinking that Gentiles are not fully inheritors of
the promises with Jews, but they are. However, for the
period of the Old Covenant, it was true that there
was supposed to be a separation. For example, the Temple
itself worship itself during the Old Covenant period did not
allow gentiles into the Temple. You could come to as
a worshiper of the true out of Israel to the
outer portico that was allowed for converts. All right, this
is gentiles who had converted to the God of Israel.
But you couldn't go into the temple. Now who set
that up? God did? Okay, So this wasn't something that
Moses made up. It wasn't something that the evil God
of the Old Testament made up. It was put into
place for a time period until, as Hebrews said, the
time of Reformation came. What's the time of Reformation? The
New Covenant, the New Covenant is not something that just
happens when Jesus dies. The New Covenant is established from
the entire period of the first century, from the incarnation
birth of Christ all the way up to the destruction
of the Temple in seventy eighty. That is the establishment
of the New Covenant. That whole period and all of
the events of that period are crucial to fulfilling all
of these Old Testament prophecies and ushering in the last days.
This is also important because consistently in the Old Testament,
for example, the prophecy of Joel says that the last
days are instituted when Pentecost happens. Right, Joel's not talking
about the end of the world. It might have a
reference to the end of the world, but Joel says
that the last days begin when the spirit is poured
out on all flesh. Peter says, Joel was talking about Pentecost.
Pentecost happened in Acts two. Okay, can you read? Can
you make the connection between the fact that Peter in
Acts two is quoting Joel. Joel is not talking about
some garbage on TBN what John Hagy says. Joel's talking
about Pentecost, which happens in Acts two. By the way,
that refutes basically the entirety of dispensationalism. So the spirit
being poured out on all flesh equally also shows that
there's no longer the distinction in the ritual ceremonial sense
that was necessarily important for the Old Testament period. Now, okay,
it's no longer important. Now there's no longer June or
Greek slave, nor free male nor female. By the way,
Paul's not a transgender advocate. Paul's not saying that that
means there's no such thing as Jews and Greeks anymore. No,
of course, they still exist, and it's only the idiot
retards that quote that verse to try to prove stupid
egalitarian presuppositions. That verse has nothing to do with that.
Paul elsewhere says slaves submit to your masters, women submit
to your husbands. Right, Jews and Greeks are still Jews
and Greeks. They don't erase all their heritage. This is
all the liberal presupposition, the modernist presupposition that tries to
wrest Christianity from its historical contexts and lie and take
verses out of context. Paul is saying that salvation comes
to all people of any status in life. Paul is
not saying that Christianity is a revolutionary force to overthrow
structures and governments and to set up some trainy egalitarian
global homo world system as these idiots try to make it.
Nobody could honestly read the rest of the New Testament
and actually think that. So it's only lying, deceiving people
who take those verses out to try to prove that
they don't know what they're talking about. So anyway, Paul,
even in Romans ninth or eleven, seems to also uphold
the fact that Jews will continue to even be Jews
until the time of their conversion, right. And I do
think many of the fathers, by the way, I just
found a whole bunch more verses where the Fathers actually
back this up. Cereal of Alexandria, by the way, it
appears to have been very convinced that many of these
texts predict a future conversion of the Jews. The Orthodox
Study Bible in fact mentions this in many places. I
think that that's true. I think Romans eleven just very
clearly is making again, as I pointed out many times,
the claim that eventually Jews will convert. I don't know
when that is. We don't know when that is, but
I think that that's the obvious meaning of what Paul's saying. Now,
do I think that necessarily has anything to do with
the founding of the state of Israel. No, I do not.
I don't see where that necessarily fits into any of this.
I'm going by what's in revelation. I'm not interested in reading,
you know, headlines into scripture. That's what how lindsay and John, Hey,
you know all those retards do. We don't do that.
We don't read news headlines into the Bible. We don't
look at the fact that, you know, the anti Christ is,
you know, mentioned in a bunch of movies and then
try to read that into the Bible and say we're
in the last days the I mean people, somebody with
somebody was making that comment on one of my videos.
They were like, you have a mental illness because you
think that these Hollywood movies are saying that the Antichrist
is coming. No, if you've listened to what I said,
you know that I actually make fun of that. I
make fun of the the argument like the Croleians had,
that that you could invoke the Antichrist by doing a
bunch of rituals, and that John's Book of Revelation is
a gnostic ritual text. I talk about how stupid that is.
And the only reason Crowley thought that was because he was,
guess what, raised in a retarded dispensationalist sect. The Plymouth
Brethren is where dispensationalism comes from. Did you know that? Yep,
John Nelson Darby all right, Plymouth Brethren. Oh, they also
happened to produce Aleister Crowley. So the only only reason
Crowley and his stupidity and ignorance, thought that he could
turn the Book of Revelation into a magical text for
invoking the Antichrist and bringing it into fruition and having
sex with the horror Babylon and all this nonsense. John's
not talking about Crowley, dude. So I constantly talk about
how stupid this is. Uh So the guy who assumed
that I was like reading movies and headlines into the
Bible had no idea what I was talking about. So anyway,
let's keep in mind too that in Mark seven, before
I end on this topic, Jesus says that Jesus rebukes
the scribes and the Pharisees. So it's in the context
of this. The story of calling the woman a dog
is in the context of of rebuking the scribes and
the Pharisees. Now that's important because it shows us that
Jesus there's not a there's not like a catchphrase by
which we can, you know, lift these verses out of context. Right,
Like a lot of times, like a Baptist will try
to say something like, you will leave the traditions of
men in your Orthodox church. You follow the traditions of men.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, don't follow the traditions of men. Well,
he also in other places does say follow the traditions.
So right, this is a different question. Right, The question
of whether there's an oral tradition is a different question
from whether or not there's the traditions of men. Now,
the scribes and the Pharisees had invented and put into
place a bunch of traditions of men, which, if you
listen to the Jeremiah lectures, Jeremiah talked about. Jeremiah said
in his day that the scribes and Pharisees had done
this and it was a problem, and that they were
circumventing the law itself. Jesus reaffirms Jeremiah, and in fact,
there are whole chapters in Jeremiah that mirror the ministry
of Jesus. We've pointed that out in the Jeremiah talk,
which shows continuity, by the way, but The reason I
bring that up is because Jesus can, at the on
the one hand, talk about the hypocrisy of the scribes
and Pharisees and the fact that they had invented traditions
of men, and at the same time in Matthew twenty
three he says, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in
the seat of Moses. Therefore do as they say, but
not as they do because they're hypocrites. But they were
the established religious authority. Notice he does not mention the
Sadducees why, because they were the liberals. They were not
the established authority. There was a hierarchical established authority and
it was the scribal Pharisaic system that Ezra set up.
Ezra set up the synagogue system. Moses talked about the
need for a synagogue system. Ezra then set it up
later on. There's no such thing in the Old Testament
as a seat of Moses, right, There's no moses dolic
succession mentioned. However, Jesus says that this is true. They
do sit in the seat of Moses. They are the
legitimate authoritative expounders, expositors and judges of the law. Yes,
they're hypocrites. However, they still retain a position of authority.
Jesus says that they are much more liable to condemnation
than the rest of the people that role of authority,
and we see this in the Old Testament as well. Right,
God judges David or the rulers, or the kings or
the heads of things far more severely than he judges
the normal the normies. I mean, he judged at him
pretty severely, because Adam was the head of the human race.
How severely does God judge David pretty severely?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: When David? What happens to the offspring that David has
with Bathsheba? Yeah, exactly. So, in the same way, we
have to understand that there is at the same time
traditions of men as there is legitimate oral tradition. Right,
both of those things are true. Jesus can rebuke the
Pharisees and call them hypocrites while at the same time
recognizing that they have a legitimate authority. So it's that simple. Really,
I'll read a couple of super chaps before we move
back to philosophy, because I kind of went for an
hour on that one theology question, and really, really what
we were coming to talk about was the philosophy. That's okay,
you know, we want to go with whatever anybody's interested in.
That's what we'll talk about. I did say we could
talk theology today. So we're taking challenges and questions today.
The first question Evan Schultz, thank you for that. You've
been killing it.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 2: I found a challenging discussion. I found it challenge discussing
Orthodoxy with women as they find it sexist. Any tips, well,
I mean, modern women are of course bathed in the
idea that patriarchy or religions that have only male authorities
and priests are sexist. There's not much you can do
about it, because you know, Jesus set it up. So
their problem ultimately is with Jesus. Too bad. I mean,
I wouldn't worry if people I mean, in other words,
you can't water down these facts to like, you know,
appease some some feminists. I wouldn't worry about it, just
move on. My tip would be to move on to
somebody else. By the way, this is why you have
to watch out for feminists, is because people like Angela
Dahl Carlson, who hopes and praise for women's ordination to
the priesthood. These people want to change the church, right
this mirriam Usuf woman, all right, she's blogging about all
this of this microaggressions and social justice warriors. These people
want to change the church. Sorry, but you don't have
the right to do that. And you're working from a
spirit of wickedness. What does what does scriptures say that
the spirit of rebellion is like the spirit of rebellion
is like witchcraft. The sin of rebellion is as the
sin of witchcraft. So get out of here, witches. Any
significance to old baptism being for men only, that is
not true. I don't know what you mean old baptism.
You mean circumcision. If you mean circumcision, then yes, as
I pointed out, circumcisions signified ancestral sin. On the one hand,
the sense of the transition, the transmission of ancestral sin
through all the descendants of Adam, and that transmission has
had through the male member. It's the semen that creates
a new human being. That doesn't mean that women didn't
have ancestral sin. All human beings did. But the transmission
occurs through the sexual copulation act from one generation to
the next, and By the way, that doesn't mean that
ancestral sin is a thing, a substance that somehow meant
that humans were tainted. Corruption and sin are not things
that are They're not things. As the fathers say, evil
is only located in the turn of the will away
from the good. However, all of Adam's descendants have these
same propensities because they have his fallen nature. When we
talk about fallen or corupted nature, we don't mean that
the nature itself is inherently evil. This is the error
of Manicheans, of Calvinists, Lutherans, and Protestants. Many times they
conceive of original sin as somehow being something connected to
man's nature itself, which is to then give sin substance
or being or ontological existence, which is the Manichean heresy.
Sin does not have ontological being or existence. It's not
a thing. It's a move of the will away from
the good. So baptism, so the significance of circumcision was
only to be a type of baptism. And what it
was supposed to teach, as we said, according to Jeremiah,
was to throw off the foreskin of your hearts. In
other words, you have hard hearts you need to cut
away the outer hard heartedness that you have, right, and
the reason that you have this is because you are
a son of Adam. That's wine, dan Mann. What do
you think are the problems with praxeology? Go listen to
the debates with Robert Taylor. We had multiple debates one
to three debates with Robert Taylor on theism and capitalism,
and the problems are all outlined there. It's a retarded
system based in Marxism and anarchism, based on the idea
of calculating human actions as if you're some sort of computer.
It's a completely autistic, retarded thing. Yeah, and all three
of the debates with Robert Taylor, pre eminent proponent of praxeology,
shows how retarded it is. Paul Albert, thank you fifty dollars.
Thank you for all you do. Jake up the good work. Well,
thank you, Paul. Thank you for supporting my work.
Speaker 3: And I will.
Speaker 2: Continue to put this stuff out as long as we
have support and the freedom to talk about these things.
Robert Taylor not the same Robert Taylor. By the way,
what's a good elevator pitch for orthodoxy for Protestants and Catholics?
My wife and I get a lot of what is orthodoxy.
I wouldn't try to do quick elevator pitches. I was
just just send people the documentary on the Icon, which
is a popular YouTube documentary. I think it's it's like
three hours. But if the person's not willing to invest
three hours in the documentary, then they're not that interested anyway.
And so anybody who is willing to invest three three
hours in the Icon documentary, I would say is worth
talking to. So that Icon documentary is really good. Jim
Strange five dollars, best apologetics on YouTube, Thank you, Jay, Well,
thank you Jim. There's not a lot of apologetics going
on on YouTube, really, I mean, that's that good, So
thank you. In other words, I don't think it's necessarily
that I'm that good, but there's not a lot of
apologetics out there anyway. That's any good, right, I mean,
all these Protestant presubpositionalists, they're terrible, good grief. They give
transcendental arguments a bad name, by the way. So so
thank you there, Jim Strange. Randy Churchill twenty dollars, Thank you, Randy.
Appreciate that. White Top two dollars, thank you, White top.
All right, excellent, to really appreciate you guys. All right,
we do want to get to some philosophy here. I
don't want to mind or everyone in the theological minutia,
although it was important. Again, people are confused over two extremes.
On the one hand of judaizing heresy of the Evangelicals,
and then they go to the other extreme of some
sort of weird gnostic thing where Marcianism type thing where
like the idea of jew with some later invention, and
I don't know, people don't know what they're talking about.
That's because they don't know the Bible. That's the problem
here is that people are not actually familiar with what's
in scripture. So they read these blogs and these websites
and these they come up with these weird views. And
trust me, I know, I've spent twenty years wandering through
all of these different views, you know. I mean I
went from being a Baptist that grew up Baptists into
reading the Church Father's Church history, right, Calvinism, and then Catholicism.
And this is before I even knew about Orthodoxy. Right,
So Orthodoxy is kind of a hidden thing in America.
You really have to seek it out. Uh, and Orthodoxy
doesn't have It's not like all there's no more problems, right,
I mean, any church, any place you go, there's gonna
be problems. But I find the Orthodoxy, historically speaking, traditional
Orthodox theology really has the answers to to all of
these these difficulties, you know. So okay, we're gonna get
to the philosophy now, defense of traditional philosophy and metaphysics.
I'm gonna recommend a bunch of good books and essays
here because I think we probably will have a lot
of inquirers or challengers or people curious in regard to atheism,
in regard to evolution, in regard to scientism, in regard
to to anti metaphysical, deontologist, deconstructionist type views. So we
want to get to all that. Okay, So he did,
and he did mean circumcision as old baptism. Yeah, okay,
that's a good way to put it. Uh. You could
look at Israel is old church. Circumcision is old baptism. Yeah,
it's a good way to put it. So we're gonna
play the song real quick, just because I need to
pour more coffee. And after an entire pot of coffee,
I gotta have some I gotta have some some pee
pee time. I gotta go whizz, gotta drain the lizard.
Speaker 3: As the kids say, it's Jay di.
Speaker 1: Er, Jason Allison, jay Iyer's day smells it, Jay Dier's
to Day's analysis, Jay diers Day's analysis.
Speaker 2: Alright, so let's remind ourselves that the two branches, the
three branches of philosophy are ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. This
is traditionally, historically how it's been divided up. Divisions in
topics does not mean that they are necessarily divided in reality.
This is a problem that the vegans were falling into,
which is really kind of a basic philosophical error, the
idea that because you can speak of something distinct, that
they are in fact distinct in reality. I don't believe that.
I don't think so. I think that if you've read
my essay on the fact that epistemology, for example, presupposes
ethics and metaphysics, and vice versa, ethics presupposes metaphysics and epistemology,
then you know that the school of thought that I
come from, the worldview that I promote sees all those
things as integrally connected. Now, how do we know that?
How do we show that? Well, I wrote a whole
essay on it which everybody can go read. Then want
to see the fuller treatment of it. But quite simply,
it should be obvious that these things are connected. For example,
if I make a claim to know that, for example,
I know that it is wrong to kill someone, Okay,
that is, or if I believe that it's wrong to
kill someone, or I think that it is ethically it's
a violation of ethics to kill someone. That assumes that
I have some knowledge right that it's wrong to do that.
When we talk about killing someone, we're talking about actions
that take place in the external world. That immediately involves metaphysics. So,
in other words, generally speaking, unless I believe that everything
in my mind is a projection of some phantasm, or
if everything is a syllipsistic sort of surrealist world in
my mind, then I assume that the people are are
other entities, right, they're beings other than me. Unless I
believe in Maya or I believe in surrealism, those are
other people who have dignity and rights. Correct, And so,
in other words, immediately you begin to see when you
ask just a few questions about the assumptions that go
into talking about any ethical question or dilemma, you start
to realize that they don't operate apart from other branches
of philosophy or other questions of philosophy. When I say
I believe it's wrong to kill, that assumes that I'm
a subject, that I'm a person, That I'm a being
who can choose, who wills this or that, who can
commit actions in a world, in an external world that
affects other beings. Again, unless I adopt some view that
you know, all of reality is just a simulation of
my mind, or something right, some bizarre for our Eastern view,
or something thing. You know, we tend to operate on
the basis of the assumptions of Western or Christian metaphysics
and philosophy. Even having divorced our worldviews from the theology
a long time ago, we still act like beings out
there in the world are separate beings that have some
sort of choice or dignity. Even though we might construct
physical metaphysical systems or anti metaphysical systems where those beings
have no rights, we still in practice continue to operate
like they are right. I mean, nobody consistently lives out
a completely will to power, you know, predatory social Darwinian worldview,
unless you're like, you know, the top globalists or something.
Most people don't consistently day to day live that way.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: They act as if it's wrong for people to steal
their money, to cheat them. Right, it's not wrong, you know,
unless there's some force or truth behind ethical or metaphysical norms,
unless there's some kind of absolutist wrong and right, unless
there's some sort of objectivity in regard to knowledge claims,
truth claims, etcetera, etcetera. Right. So, when we understand that
presubsitionalism is not a shady word game, but in fact
a host of real philosophical questions that can be asked
and should be asked, we start to see how many
things we assume. And this is kind of a basic
point in philosophy. So the point I'm getting out with
that is that when we look at the modern world,
when we look at the anti philosophical stance of much
of the modern world, why so many of the purveyors
of scientism actually just come out and say philosophy is worthless.
It's precisely because of this issue. It's precisely because when
we start to nail them on points, they have to
resort to the denial of philosophy. But no, wait a minute,
Logic is part of philosophy. It's absolutely part of philosophy.
Nobody can deny this right, And so the denial of
philosophy just sort of out of hand, like we see
with somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson, is so absurd that
it denies the very things that he claims to have
full control of, like the scientific crowd, the scientistic crowd,
they alone are the purveyors of reason and logic, and
yet they turn around and we'll talk about philosophy being worthless. Well,
I'm sorry, but nobody can deny logic is a function
of philosophy. So it really amounts to endless, countless absurdities
when we start to ask very basic questions. And part
of this is due to the fact that people don't
know philosophy. They have not studied it. They have not
read Plato, they have not read They've not read any
of these major figures. They've not read Hume. They don't
know the major debates, major discourses, they don't know the
course of ideas, in Western thought, how ideas lead to
other ideas, And yes they do if you don't know that.
They don't know any of this stuff, but they're more
than willing to get in your face, lose their shit,
and become unhinged with a little bit of philosophy. Right,
there's nothing more dangerous than a twenty two year old
who's had a little bit of philosophy let loose on YouTube.
This is like the worst thing in the world. And yes,
we can all sympathize with this somewhat. I mean, I'm
sure that at age twenty two when I was taking
my philosophy classes, I was completely insufferable, I'm sure, but
maybe not as bad as some of these guys, because
I was already a pretty committed, grounded presuppositionalist and proponent
of transcendental augmentation at age twenty two. I think I
first came into contact with us about age twenty or
twenty one. Was my first exposure to that school of thought.
I read Van Til's Apologetic in Toto. I bought it
right away, and I read all eight hundred pages right
away at about age twenty or twenty one, and that
was my introduction to transcendent augmentation and thought. And I
was impressed. I was really taken with the force of
the argumentation, the force of the logic, the power of
the arguments. The basically, as Bonson once said, nuclear strength apologetics.
You know, I think that's true. And that's because we
have to always we have to always make these qualifications
because people get get confused. It's not because those Kant
was the greatest thinker. Okay. So people who don't know
these this realm or this stuff, they hear this, these
terms and they mean, oh, you're talking about cont Okay,
So Jay is a kantient. No no, no, no, no,
I don't know. Now, transcendent arguments have a long, much
longer heritage and pedigree than em manual Kant. As we
pointed out, we see transcendent arguments in Ariostole in the
Metaphysics against the Sophist. As we pointed out, in terms
of Orthodoxy, we see Saint John Damascus and his Fount
of Knowledge use a transcendent argument at the very beginning,
echoing Ariostol. So transcendent arguments have had an interesting history.
They popped up here and there. We see inklings of
it in certain apologetic approaches. I mean, the ontological argument
is not a good argument, but it's a little more
down the road of an a priori transcendental argument for
God than the so called classical arguments. So there's been
some interesting inklings of it here and there. But and
we might even look at the Descartes ontological argument. It's interesting,
but it still is flawed. It's still not a full
fledged transnit argument. Okay. So, but the reason we're talking
about this is just a stress that that, in my mind,
philosophy has always been about asking questions. That's at least
one big part of it, right, And the irony about
modern scientism, which is so sort of shocking to me,
like an ultimate level double think here, is that science
is grounded on the idea of asking questions, and yet
they turn around and they will dogmatically tell you the
questions that you cannot ask. Okay, So what they essentially
mean is you can only ask questions within the paradigm
or presuppositions of what I find and acceptable questions to be.
If you ask a question about the status of logic,
if you ask a question about the nature of concepts,
if you ask a question about how is it that
claims can be true over time. These kinds of philosophical questions,
those are illegal questions, Those are retard questions. Those are
the questions that are not allowed in so called science.
Why is that, Well, because science investigates the natural world,
we're told, Well, that just assumes that the questions that
I'm asking have nothing to do with the natural world,
and I think that they do. In other words, they
do not want any investigation of the scientific method itself
in terms of how it functions via logic, and yes,
the scientific method follows logical patterns and principles, whether they
know it or not. They do not want questions revolving
around the ethicality of science. Generally speaking, they do not
want questions involving the metaphysics of science and scientific methodology
and all of this you will learn when you take
a philosophy of science class. You will be introduced to
a host of questions that are assumed in the philosophic
method of science or in the natural sciences. Right now.
They also are never aware nine a nine point nine
percent of the time. They're not aware of powerful influences
in the history of science and the natural sciences scientific method.
Royal Society. Right, I could count on my hand the
number of times I've talked to academics or people from
that world. I know of three off the top of
my head who are very familiar with the power that,
for example, the Royal Society has had in influencing the
methodology of science throughout the world of academia. And this
is why, for example, we had the Lancet, or the
famous magazine Medical Journal of Oxford. A couple of years ago,
the editor of the Lancet put out a startling admission
in the journal. It's still public, by the way, that
half of the world's scientific peer review papers are fraudulent. Yes,
you heard me right, Half of the world's scientific papers
peer reviewed are fraudulent. Well that's pretty devastating to the
assumptions of scientistm isn't it. And yes, they will go
ape shit when you mentioned this. But now, wait a minute.
This comes from the top of the scientific establishment, doesn't it.
Let's see if I can pull it up. Half of
scientific papers are frauds. Yeah, I think I've got it
right here. Now. The Lancet is, of course, the world's
premiere science journal. And guess what you're gonna notice something
here in this little beautiful admission here, you're gonna see
something to do with the Royal Society, aren't you. You're
gonna see something to do with what's called Chatham House Rules.
What Chatham House Rules? What would that have to do
with science? Well, it has nothing to do with science,
because science is a purely neutral framework, isn't it. And
I will I'm gonna go ahead right now and put
the link to this because this is very important and
not many people know about this. Now I talked about
it endlessly. Notice there's your Chatham House Rules picture there.
You don't know what Chatham House is. You don't know
what you're talking about. You don't even need to be
trying to debate me. It's very difficult to get this paper,
this journal here like to fit on this screen. The
case against science is straightforward. Much of the scientific literature,
perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Now, by the way,
there's countless studies and people have done countless test cases
where they get gibberish published in peer review, where they
have papers written by AI that are that are nonsense
and get published in peer review. This there have been
multiple examples of this. Let me add this while I'm
doing so here in the in the show description, I'm
gonna have this just right now at the very top.
This is from the Lancet uh And again I can't
fit the whole thing on the screen because it's like
a journal thing. And this is by the editor of
the Lanses. So again one of the top medical journals,
most prestigious in the world, and the very beginning of
it says a lot of what is published is incorrect.
I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because
we are asked to observe Chatham House rules. What is
this doing in a scientific journal?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: I thought we had academic freedom to ask any questions
that we wanted. I thought I thought science told us
how the world works. And yet here at this top
prestigious academic medical scientific journal from Oxford, he's not allowed
to say what's going on because of Chatham House rules. Well,
guess what, Jason Alysis knows what's going on because we've
been telling you about it for years. I've been telling
you about the Rural Society and it's scientific scammery and
how they have promoted Darwinism for the last several centuries
by design, because they have a definite agenda and worldview,
which is to dehumanize you and to kill you. They
are all committed. That's Chathamhow's rules, right, don't tell the
truth to the slaves that are destined to be killed.
And again, who else has done tragian hope telling you this?
Who else has done? The same people that run the
system in tragian hope, the Anglo American establishment, right, it's
the people at the top of the royal society. They're
the same people. It's the same groups, the role in
supernational affairs, the CFR right, the Rockefellers, they're roth Child's.
It's the same people. They write journals, their top journals
tell you science is fraudulent, and what do you do?
You believe it because you believe in the fallacy of authority.
So much for logic. Now, I'm not saying this means
that all science is false, of course, not that would
be retarded saying this means that scientists don't make discoveries.
I'm saying it's very naive to assume that you know
how science works. By the way, I'm published in peer review.
I have a peer review published paper, so I know
how this work process works. It's not a scientific paper.
It's in an economic journal, but it is nevertheless peer review.
So the people who naively act like the way that
this happens is just everybody being neutral, and then they
just you just whoever's got the best arguments and whoever's
got the best data and research. They just put their
time in and they've put their paper in, and if
if you've got the goods, you're gonna get published. Is
utterly retarded. What could be more naive than this? Have
you ever actually been in academia? Have you been in
the grid world?
Speaker 3: I have?
Speaker 2: It doesn't work like that. You know how it really works.
It's run by clicks of extreme leftists, extreme ideologues, extreme feminists,
extreme weirdos, creepers, quite literally all over academia, just freakin degenerates.
They are in clicks, they're in secret societies, they're in
their own little networks. Many of them are bought and
paid for by big foundations and even the CIA. They
know that it's a racket. Again, the whole university system
is a giant tax and debt racket. So why do
you think they're all going to be telling you the truth?
They're not. They're liars and The way academia works is
that people aren't interested in truth. They are interested in
making a name for themselves in academia to get funding.
That's number one. And the way that you do that
is that you have to come up with interesting, weird theories.
You have to come up with Shakespeare was actually a tranny.
Let me give you the most technical analysis, trying to
prove something completely retarded, and because it fits in with
the overall agenda, you get shot up the ladder. That's
how academia works. Right, when you publish your paper proving
Shakespeare was a training, that's academia, dum dumbs. It's not
this noble pursuit of truth and virtue. Far from it,
read kun right. Structures of scientific revolution. Scientific revolutions don't
come because everybody's nobly seeking the truth. Scientific revolutions come
because somebody puts out something true and the entire establishment
attacks it because they don't want to be wrong.
Speaker 3: That's why.
Speaker 2: Now, if you have not heard all the old shows
that I did with Hoaxtbusters, you can go back and
listen to all those because we covered this ad nauseum.
I'm not going through rehash two years worth of podcast
discussing scientism when you can go listen to all those
where we endlessly cover the many, many, many examples of
scientific peer review being fraudulent, scientific peer review being busted
as fraudulent on a mass scale. Did you hear me
a mass scale of scientific research being fraudulent? And I
can tell you from personal example that my mom was
an editor for science journals for the biggest publisher in
America at one time. I know how this works. And
all these dumb dums that try to talk about it,
they don't even know that scientific publishing is private. Do
you think that billionaire companies might have a say in
what gets published in scientific journals? Of course they do.
It would be naive and stupid to think that they don't.
But how many of these naive scientism promoters have ever
even talked about this. They don't know who read l
Cvier is. They don't know that read el Sevier publishes
the biggest science journals in America and that they're a
private billion dollar company. They don't know what Harcourt brace
Yovanovich was in the eighties. They don't know about Harcourt Publishing.
They don't know about the fact that Harcourt owned Sea World. Now,
as you say, why does that matter, Well, because that
shows you that the entities that are publishing the biggest
science journals in the world are private entities that buy
theme parks, so they're for profit. They're not noble pursuers
of truth. Dummy, right, So again naivety, idiocy, People don't
know what they're talking about, and people don't make connections
across disciplines. This is another problem with education. Right. So
one of the reasons that we the philosophy has been
discarded is that guess what philosophy teaches you to make connections.
Philosophy teaches you to think about the relationship between one
thing and another thing and their connections. And the entirety
of modern education is built on tearing down actions, excuse me,
tearing down these relationships. So, for example, we all know,
hopefully we're familiar with the idea of the Prussian education
model and the idea of extreme compartmentalization. It was not
accidental that that's the educational model that the West accepted
and adopted because the goal was to create socialized individuals,
not educated individuals. And all you have to do is
read John Dewey, Horace Mann and all the founders of
American education, public education, they talk about that. They talk
about creating the socialized idiot individual, not the thinker, not
the philosopher, not the person who makes connections, the person
who only sticks to some minutia, some stupid detail, worthless thing.
Publishing your paper about the length of Shakespeare's strap on
that he wore as a trainee, that's all you're supposed
to know about in your academic I'm not joking by that.
You think that that's literally what the academic study. They
will study their lives into proving Shakespeare was a trainee
and how long the dong was?
Speaker 3: It?
Speaker 2: Is that retarded. I am not exaggerating. I am not exaggerating.
I am not exaggerating. I'm telling you it's that retarded.
I was there. That's what academia is. Okay, Now you
said when I wait a minute, Jay, this sounds like
you're saying you're an obscurantist. Science doesn't exist. No, no, no,
Real science doesn't happen in those areas. Real science happens
in engineering, Real science happens in computer science. Real science
happens in disciplines that actually have to apply the theory
to the real world. It doesn't happen in biology class
or astronomy class. Okay, those are propaganda classes. But people
that do engineering, they do real hard science absolutely all
the time. And that's who develops things. That's why Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon and Boeing don't call up Richard Dawkins. They don't
call up JF to figure out how to advance their technology. No,
they call it people from engineering. Okay, I'm not saying
that Jeff's not smart guy. I'm not dissing Jeff. I'm
just making the point that biology, life sciences, et cetera.
Cent unless you're working in like biometrics and stuff like that,
you're not advancing the cause of so called applied science
generally speaking, generally speaking, Okay, and again I'm not saying
this is true for every single biologist. I'm just saying
that this is the way the system works in terms
of academia. Of sure, plenty of biologists, plant of palaeontologists.
They go when they study things and they make discoveries.
And again we already talked about this in the beginning.
You can make discoveries and be correct about things within
your niche and still have the wrong paradigm. Your whole
worldview can be wrong and you still make discoveries. The
fact that you make correct discoveries does not prove that
your whole world view of paradigm is correct. And that's true.
I think would say that's self evident. It's obviously true
because even the atheists again will admit that there are
plenty of theists in mathematics, plenty of theists and engineering
who make discoveries and advances, and they believe that those
people are wrong in their paradigms of theism, and yet
they still make advances. Likewise, atheists can make advances, Atheists
can make discoveries. Sure, absolutely, that does not prove their paradigm.
Now we got a couple of super chats here before
I continue going on, Alex Parker or Alex Parror, you
make me want to be a better man. Well good, hopefully,
that's uh, that's what we're here to promote. Not in
the Masonic sense, right, Freemasonry says they make good men better.
That's not what we're here to do. We want to
make men into gods. Okay, so theosis is what we're
talking about here, not some gay free Masonic thing. But
thank you Alex Justin Stan ten dollars, thank you for
going through the explanation of salvations of the Jews. Obviously
it isn't from the Jews themselves, but what was given
to them from God. Now, of course, I mean, I
don't think anybody was trying to say that there's some
sort of mystical power to Judaism itself or to the
biology or DNA. And this is sort of the mysticism
of later Talmudism that says that, and the prophets of
course rebuked that that idea many times over. David seeing
five dollars Fantils Apologetic you mentioned can you link it?
It's called Vantil's Apologetic by Greg Bnson. Not the most
successful book though. This is a difficult text. You know,
it's not going to be easy reading unless you have
a pretty a fairly unless you're fairly fluent in philosophy,
you're not going to be able to read the book.
And I'm not trying to be mean, but I mean
it's a very long, very technical book. There's other easier
books that could be could be accessible. Boonnson has a
what's his Let me find his other book real quick here.
That's more accessible. Actually, the guy who Jason doctor Lyle,
who I do think is pretty good. Actually, he has
a really good introduction to this. So if you want
an easy introduction, you know, unless you have like a
master's degree in philosophy, you're not gonna be able to
read Mental's Apologetic. I'm gonna put it right here real quick,
underneath the PDF of the Lancets. So there's one Bonson book.
I will add Vntil's Apologetic here, but you're not going
to be able to read it unless you are advanced
in philosophy. You're going to find it very difficult. I'm
not saying you can't do it. If you want to
do it, go for it. Let's see what's that. What's
that Jason Lyle book?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: I think it's ultimate proof for creation is that it.
He's got an introduction to to trance no arguments, that's
pretty good. I think it's this one. So i'll put
it down below. Okay, so all those books, by the way,
have been added there to the to the link in
the description. And yeah they're Protestants, so they get some
things wrong. But for an orthodox approach to presubsitionalism, I'm
going to add this book as well by Father Shuping
which is called Iran Aus and Orthodox apologetic methodology where
we can correct the errors of Calvinists via this book.
Damn it, here we go.