Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome. This is do you postage profit
together Life with as announced. I'm not thirty eight minutes late.
What are you talking about? I deleted this? Yeah, anyway,
Life with David Wood and Jane Dy are together for
the very first time. M Hello, everybody, what's up? And
how is everybody doing?
Speaker 2: David? What's up?
Speaker 1: And Jay? How are you doing?
Speaker 2: David?
Speaker 1: Nobody, guys, you're always Yeah, Jay, how are you doing?
Speaker 3: I'm doing good. I've had a good time kind of
collecting some sources together. And I'll go ahead and tell
you that I only have two sources for the day,
because you guys are convinced I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist.
It's the Illuminati card game. I mean, it's just those
two cards. So that's my proof that everything is a
new world order Illuminati conspiracy. And I have the Savings
Alone card, which is the key to everything, and then
the science fiction fans who are the tool of the Illuminati.
So there's my proofs and do it.
Speaker 1: Well with that, we can already call it. Yeah, that's awesome.
That's awesome. So here's the thing. Oh, David, how are
you doing?
Speaker 2: Oh good? I'm still sending out the link. I just
had to look up good Fantastic.
Speaker 1: So the funny thing is everybody has been waiting for
this live stream, and everybody wants us to go live,
and I guess they want to they want us to
start fighting or something. So I was originally planning on
or just having a peaceful conversation and making peace with
each other and be nice and all that. But since
people are expecting a fight, I think we need to.
Speaker 2: Fight or or a pay you could you could be
the nice guy and then I'll just you give me
a signal when you want me to set things off.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll do I'll do this, I'll do this.
Speaker 2: We'll call that the drama twirl.
Speaker 3: Mustache.
Speaker 2: So it is.
Speaker 1: So to be very honest, I don't even know what
we're what we're supposed to talk, but we're supposed to
be talking about. But so what what actually happened in
the in the background, behind the scenes after we did
that live stream and you know, we talked here, I
messaged No, you messaged me actually, and I mean we
message each other and we kind of, uh behind the
scenes in few words, made peace and yeah, go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 3: Well yeah, first thing, I think, yeah, I did get
impatient with you publicly on Twitter tweets back and forth,
So I do apologize for that. I think I could
have been a lot better in terms of how I
handled that situation. So, and you know, we both were
kind of interacting with Father Michael lill or Lily Uh.
So you know, he had some words to say about
trying to seek for peace. So I appreciate that from him,
and I think he's right. So you are listed as
the most humble guy, So I think you've got some
humility awards this last year from the Jesus Committee of
the Internet. Right, Okay, So I'm gonna go ahead and
just say that I'm being serious. I was. I was impatient.
I don't disagree with any of the takes that I had,
but I do think that I shouldn't have been as
impatient with you because you and I have always pretty
much had a good back and forth. We've never really
had DM disagreements or public disagreements, but maybe on some
of these geopolitical or historical issues we might come to
some loggerheads. But I would just say, you know, if
if I say something that sounds outlandish or crazy, you know,
at least lest I at least have some reason why
I think so I could be wrong about that, and
I will say too that I respect both of you guys.
Is breath of information and knowledge that you have in
regards to Islam, the Quran, history of Islam, you guys
are way beyond me in that field. So I defer
to you guys on that topic. I think there's other
areas that I've put a lot of time and effort into,
particularly with my grad work with you, politics and psychological warfare,
that I think could inform some of that. But I
also have a pretty you know, interest, pretty deep interest
in Orthodox theology too, So if it's history of Islam,
you guys are probably going to know a lot more
than me. But I think on some of these other
topics I think I could speak to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I I came to you to
ask you questions, to learn stuff from you in private
about about about Orthodoxy, about Christianity. So it's it's quite
clear that I will also publicly express this that I
have that I have respect for your knowledge and respect
for the stuff that you have studied and and all that,
So I I similarly have respect in that in that
regard I know David is smirking right now because he's
trying to fight or something. I don't know, but uh,
but I I have had that respect for you as well,
and and I did apologize to you in private. And
I also want to publicly state that I think I
handle the situation in a very wrong way because I
also easily got carried away and started saying nasty stuff
when I saw some hostility from your side. I guess
I kind of easily went down a very bad path
and started getting nasty as well, and then start later
regretted that and that that's why I actually contacted Father H.
Lilly and and and and asked him to basically ask
him if he could jump in and fix this, you know,
help fix this. And he he, he was so kind
to actually immediately respond to me and to immediately do that.
So very thankful to him. And he did and and
the results were very nice. So I did I did
act wrongfully as well, and I want to apologize for that.
I also over the last I have to say, over
the last months, over the last weeks, there were times
with me going through different changes and uh, you know,
religiosity and my perspective on things where I guess I'm
starting a new perspective, I'm going down a new path,
and I'm I'm suddenly encountering lots of people who have
who have huge difficulties with stuff that I say, and
I have huge difficulties with things that they say. And
I started fighting with lots of people that I didn't
think I would be fighting with in the Orthodox sphere
and the Christian spheres and all that. So I have
to say much of that was a was a very
very big mistake. And if I could go back now,
I would tell myself to just be quiet and you know,
not comment on everything.
Speaker 3: I took on MATS today, So I won't be Yeah,
So I want to say it's not all the time,
It's okay.
Speaker 1: So I also want to say that I have been
acting arrogantly about things, but I've recently kind of come
to this whole conclusion that I just that I don't
really that that I can that I need to stop.
I said a lot and I just up and just
start listening a little bit more. But yeah, so sorry
to you about all that. And I think we don't
need to we need all that fight because I've always
had respect for you. We always had had friendly interactions
and although although you say things that I disagree with,
where you are clearly wrong and I'm clearly right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, anyway, end of argument.
Speaker 1: Right, anyway, thanks for watching everybody, Well.
Speaker 3: I would say so, yeah, I mean I appreciate that,
and I mean I've I've got a lot of books
and sources out. I'm ready to go to any topic
that you think is controversial if you want to cover it.
I've got the whole history of the Rothschild family ready
to go. If you want to talk about modern lecu
geopolitical stances, I'm ready to talk about that. As you know,
I don't agree with the trend online to default into
following or loving tiny mustache man. I think that's becoming
a dangerous and I don't think that anything in the
philosophy of fascism in general is very amenable to Christianity
at all. So I don't take that position of, you know,
wanting to defend the Reich or something like that. I
think all that's kind of silly. I had a pretty
extensive five hour debate with a bunch of those people
the other day, and it was very similar to what
I found in a lot of other domains. When you
debate this stuff is a lot of people just don't
really know the history in general, and so they're kind
of being propagandized. And that's happening with people I guess
you could say far right. I kind of think it
might be engineered and people are pushing this idea. So
I don't agree with tiny mustache man. I don't agree
with a Malthusianism or eugenics or social Darwinism or any
of those positions that you think.
Speaker 1: But he was a good speaker, wasn't he.
Speaker 3: I guess, I mean, I don't if you find optics
like that, you know, convincing, maybe.
Speaker 1: But yeah, ye. So this has come out come up
a lot over the last months, and I kind of
fought with lots of people over that. That's one of
those things like where we have a disagreement. Like you said,
you said, you think it's an op, the whole Hitler thing,
and well, I was where I was kind of responding
to it. I also commented on Live and I said,
it's it's not an op. It's just a very popular thing.
So but you think that there was a push off.
Speaker 3: Well, to be clear, what I argued, what we What
we opened up in that debate was whether or not
it is. So I'm asking the question. I don't have
direct proof for evidence that there is some entity that
funds that or pushes that. It's possible. I think that,
for example, Yay Kanye Like, his actions and his approach
is very questionable. He has been visited by FEDS, he
has been investigated at certain levels. That doesn't mean that
he's an asset or that he's pushing things per se.
He could just be capitalizing on it for his brand
being edgy. He may really be committed to these views,
or he may actually I mean, and I don't mean
this in a derogatory way, he may actually have, you know,
some mental issues, mental pin So I think that all
those things are possible. But I have put a lot
of time into studying the way that power blocks can
utilize radical movements. And I don't believe that every radical
movement is controlled or that everything is a conspiracy, but
I do think that there is the reality of controlled opposition.
There is the reality of groups being manufactured and created
for many purposes, for honey pods, honey traps, to make
people look bad, and there's a lot of different reasons
why those things can be created. You know, co Intel
pro is a very famous example of that. And I'm
not saying that the sixties counterculture stuff is all good.
A lot of that I think had a lot of
people who were propped up, but there's a reality to it,
and I think, you know, if you want to talk
about Islam, a good example of this is the Muslim
Ohood its earliest proponents, like alf Ghani, he was pretty
pretty clearly a British agent. He was very into pushing
the British Imperial Mandate of what they called it. That
so I'm a Pan Arab alliance and the idea was
to create an Islam that Britain could control. So I
don't believe that like radical Islam is an invention of
the British Empire. I think that Islam has always been radical,
and that's a position that I think.
Speaker 2: Very much.
Speaker 3: I've learned more about, Like ten years ago, I probably
wouldn't have I didn't know much about that, but I've
gotten deeper into that. But I think alf Ghani and
his coterie underneath him were all very suspicious, and it
makes perfect sense why the British Empire wanted to do that,
and it had to do with the Ottoman Empire and
the challenge that they had. And as the Ottoman Empire waned,
you had the Sykes Peako Agreement where they divide the
Middle East up according to British and French plans. So
the idea was if you could control Mecca and Medina.
And this is why I think I'm mention this. Maybe
you in passing on Twitter or something. Maybe it was
a year or so ago. It might not have been you,
I don't remember, but I said something about al Husseini,
the guy that was the Grand Mouftip, that was the
British imperial creation. And the reason that I said he
worked for British intelligence was because even after he had
gotten in trouble and fled to Germany and ended up back,
I think in the UK he was openly working for
British intelligence five and I can give you all the
sources for this stuff. Now, whether that means that he
was always in that capacity, I don't know, but I
think he ended up being a useful agitation tool that
the British eventually had a handle on. And again that
makes sense with what the British wanted to do in
these regions. So I'm not saying that everybody's a spy
or everybody's controlled, but there are key figures that are
Like Saint John Philby, he becomes Solafi. That's a suspicious conversion.
Did he really believe that stuff or was he just
working on behalf of the British Empire? You know T Lawrence,
he's gay, He goes in, he does all these operations,
He helps set up you know, the Salads as basically
controlling Saudi Arabia. Gertrude Bell, she's another British spy. She
goes in, she sets up Iraq basically.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the Mufti Husseini, he was, he was brought to
his position under the guise of or under the pretense
or the reasoning that the Brits had to had to
jump in and fix something because something with the succession
of the of the next move he went wrong. So
they appointed him to kind of to fix that, but
it wasn't really a good solution. Eventually they had to
supposedly on the surface, punish him for his extreme attitudes
and his association with the radical Islamic violence against Jews
and all that, and then they had to kick him
out of there, and then he ended up becoming a
friend of Mussolini and of Hitler, who then promised him
that that he would be Hitler's number one guy and
they would together once they're done with the Soviets and
the Brits, they would then together take out the Jews
and he would be the number one representative of the
Arabs and Muslims and all that. So there are some
really really crazy stuff going on if you want to
go into that.
Speaker 3: My source on this is the Royal and Supernational Affairs.
They have a researcher who I think is just a
good geopolitical researcher. You can take issue with his politics.
I don't agree with all his politics, but it's a
really important book called Secret Affairs Britain's Collusion with Radical
is on. It's very well sourced and his argument is
that towards the end in nineteen forty six, Husseini began
to work for the British once again after all of
the bff with Himler. Sources suggests that he was employed
by the Arab news agency originally set up by six
as a front in Cairo to spread British propaganda in
the region. This is what becomes Al Jazeera, so I
six actually set up Arab News, which becomes Alda zero.
So this is also the shady origins of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Halsong albuma Na was again like another one of these
figures who didn't seem to take Islam that seriously.
Speaker 1: He was a secular But would you agree that it
was basically like the British. It was more like instead
of playing a long game by the British, it was
rather just a tool, as you just really mentioned, to
kind of mess with the Ottoman Empire and to take
it down and then to kind of assert control in
the region through these through these means. But they only
used what was already available, so they didn't really create
the whole you know, Islamic radicalism.
Speaker 3: So I'm just saying that the organization called Muslim Brotherhood
utilized the ideology of a radical Islamic sort of cover veneer,
even if the Ali Ghani and Albanah themselves didn't actually
believe it. So yes, there was already radical Islam for sure,
I mean you know today, I mean this book even
has a really good critique of like the billions of Dollars,
So he wrote this book for the Royal Society back
and even back then he was talking about how just
Saudi Arabia, for example, has put I think like fifty
billion dollars up to twenty ten into promoting Islam in
the West, so that would include schools, radical mosques. So
this is not a person pro Islam. He's very critical
of the establishments usage and attempt to sort of steer it.
But his argument at the very beginning, and it's the
same argument that Dreyfus makes in his book Doubles Game.
He argues that the idea was the British Empire early
on that if you could create a Mecca and a
Medina underneath British control as the Ottomans waned, the British
Empire could control Islam and then you would have massive,
you know power. And I went very well, yeah, I
think this also explains why you have even today, you know,
Prince Charles, King Charles, you know, he has this ongoing
fascination not just with all religions, and he's kind of
a perennialist.
Speaker 1: But did people say he says he's secretly a Muslim.
Speaker 3: I looked into that and all I could find was
that he's been given awards from different Sufi groups and orders,
and he's given money to Sufi orders. But I couldn't
find any hard evidence that he actually was inducted into
any Sufi orders, or he could be a secret you know,
Muslim convert or something. But he definitely favors the perennialism
of Sufism and to some degree, Islam. But I'm just
saying he's a reflection of this, you know, split amongst
the British aristocracy going back one hundred plus years, where
even quickly admits that they were split between you had
half of them, like the Astors were anti Zionist, and
then you had half of the elite in Britain. Rodshaw's
were eventually pro Zionists. But I will concede to you
there is one point you're correct about. The Rochels were
not you and latterly Zionists in fact were split only one. Well,
I didn't disagree with that one. But I've got biography
over here.
Speaker 1: Uh no, none of them. I'm saying only one point
that I'm right on.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm said to date, that's what so far. Yeah,
there's a great book that I came across some years back.
It's called the Rothchilds about John Roberts, and it's just
a mainline biography of the family.
Speaker 1: That's all very good. But the thing is people are
asking why we do not why we don't screaming at
each other and David, why are you smiling the insurren
what is?
Speaker 3: What is? David got the secret? Like he's going to
bring the nukes on me here in a minute, he's
just waking.
Speaker 2: I came here for a proper mubaha, and then we're
just we're the best buddies in the world.
Speaker 1: Does you even know what I'm about?
Speaker 3: Is? Do you know? What?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: What you see? That's where we state our positions and
we call on God to well, we call on Allah
to curse whoever wrong and then that person will be
destroyed over the next year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what That's what Muhammad did when he was
told that he's wrong, he said, uh, let us, let
us uh, let's gather and then invoke a law to
punish whoever is wrong. So that's what they do. It's
kind of like a it's kind of like an Islamic
like an Arab version of a duel, like uh oh
a duel, Yeah, like a duel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, prayer if you just come up, it will be
prayer duel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, how do you do in his duel?
Speaker 2: You just do it?
Speaker 3: But with guns or sumpters? Like, what do we use there?
Speaker 2: No, it's a law. A law will a law will
take care of that. Yeah, you had then, Yeah, you say,
here's here's my position, and then you write down what
your position is, and that we say and we agree.
We agree that God is going to curse the person
who is wrong in such and such ways within the
next such and such time.
Speaker 1: So but back to back to the guy with the
little mustache. I know that when you when you made
a post about about how this is not acceptable, and
you even said, uh, I found this very impressive, and
I actually did comment on it when I when I
first saw it, you said we were supposed to love,
love juice and love everyone or or not hate anybody,
or something like that. And then uh, I saw people
coming after you, people coming at you and saying that
you got the call, or that you are that you
have gone woke, or something like that. But it is
kind of weird because I have been under attack by
many people who claim to be on kind of on
your side of things. But but I also don't see
you as like as somebody who is anti Jewish or
anti Semitic, or or or pro pro pro mustache guy.
So it does make me wonder where in the world
that all of that comes from. And I see, like
when I went through your responses on that post, and
it was like one of the most active comment sections
on your page that I've ever seen. People were going
nuts about how the h men is actually good and
you misunderstanding things and you are lying and all that.
Speaker 3: Well. I think that from the Orthodox Christian perspective, we
have a unique take on the state and politics. So
it's not our primary focus. It shouldn't be, but I
think we do have a traditional perspective that's been outlined
by a lot of you know, famous Russian statesmen or
famous theologians or historians. You've got Yvon Illen, You've got
Pabinaziev who wrote Reflections of a Russian Statesman, and you
don't find anything to do with fascism. Again, I think
it's pretty I mean, I attend the Russian Orthodox Church,
so nobody in the Russian Orthodox Church is gonna like
tiny mustache men, because they still Celebratectory Day where they
where the Nazis didn't win. And my Priests has a
lot of interesting stories about when the Nazis came into
Russia and they would loot the churches and they're actually
their excuse was, well, we're preserving it, so you know,
we don't trust you to preserve your wealth. We're going
to loot it, We're going to take it. So it's
actually the alternative versions of history in the twentieth century
that got me to where I never thought fascism or
communism where that appealing. I just found other alternative approaches
more convincing. Again, and now I admit that my position
is an outlier, but I think the traditional Orthodox position
is monarchy, a Christian monarch. It doesn't mean that an
Orthodox person has the goal of trying to create an
Orthodox monarchy. That's not very relevant, it's not very pragmatic.
But I think that's the traditional position. And you know,
if you look at the rise of mosse Selini and
people like, you know, the fascists, they didn't like the monarchy.
They hated the monarchy. They wanted to get rid of
anything that's smacked of the traditional regime. In the Mussolini's case,
because he was originally just a straight up socialist who
then became a fascist. So to me, it seems odd
that people would want to defend that. I think it's
a lot more just lat point, it's a lot more
amenable to the traditional Catholic world, where I think you're
going to find a lot of people who who feel
that various Vatican concordotts and whatnot, you know, Vindicator back
up fascism. You know, we have even an Orthodox Church.
It's Stepanoch that Rome considers a saint or a blessed
and he, you know, is guilty of murdering a whole
lot of Orthodox Christians. So nobody in Serbia is going
to ever agree to that guy being a saint. But
that's still the official Roman Catholic position. So so I
think that fascism has a tendency amongst tradcats for sure,
and it has a tendency of angst maybe some sectors
of young disaffected Orthodox guys. But I've never been a
fan of that, never never promoted I always thought it
was kind of silly.
Speaker 1: You have already upset the growers. Now they're going to
be completely mad about what Ages said.
Speaker 3: So well, I mean, I've spent five hours arguing with
their whole position and ropers. Well, one of the reasons
I don't agree with that is that there's pretty substantial
evidence that even in mainline history, that World War One
and World War Two had multiple objectives for why they
were done. One of those objectives World War One was
the League of Nations, and so you need these big
wars to have the justification for global policing entities like
the League of Nations. And when that failed, there was
World War Two, which was supposed to justify the United Nations.
And that's Quickly's overall thesis. You can agree or disagree.
Quickly is not a conspiracy writer. He's a cfr archivist historian.
He's the mentor to Bill Clinton. I'm not saying he's
a good guy. I'm saying that he's kind of an
established smid sort of ad mission type of person. And
that's his take. That's also Stratford's take. Stratford argues that
World War One or World War Two and the Cold
War really about kind of exhausting challenges to the Atlantis's
power block. So for me, that kind of just diffuses
dispels the sort of mythologies that people want when it
comes to adopting radical political action, whether communist or fascist, well.
Speaker 1: It also doesn't make sense considering just a religious aspect
of it. What drew me into the Orthodox Church as
I was approaching it, So as I was looking at it,
I was first going toward Catholicism and was kind of
exploring that, and the last thing that I was actually
considering was was the Orthodox Church. But then what what
kind of changed my mind on things and gave me
the idea that I have a big misunderstanding about it
and then drew me closer to it was actually, uh,
you know certain saints that were that are that are
canon in the Orthodox Church who are saints because they
fought against the Nazis and they were murdered by the
Nazis or they they helped Holocaust victims and were murdered
as a result. Alexanderch Morale, you have Saint Marie of Paris,
Dmitry Klippini, and you have others in Bulgaria and so on.
So and then I see official statements made by the
Russian Orthodox Church, among the others, that are quite explicitly
opposed to the Nazi ideology, to the Nazi history, and
anything that has anything to do to do with that.
And then you have the aspect of Hitler that he
was very explicitly, very clearly against Christianity according to his closest, closest,
most trusted people, according to to Gebbels himself. He says,
the fear Or is deeply, deeply religious, but he hates Christianity.
H he sees it as a as a as a
branch of the Jewish race, he says, which is directly
from his diary.
Speaker 3: So I have the m K over there, the dreaded
m K book. I won't get it out, but there's
a you know, pretty significant sections where he says that
Christianity was always too radical in terms of being against paganism,
and he said that what he would have preferred was
if Christianity could be a vehicle for Germanic paganism to
synthesize with what he considered Christianity. There's other speeches I
read to where Hitler talks about the the God of
the Old Testament being essentially a different God and he
could never accept that which is in the Christian christ theology.
That's Martianism. So there's no way to have Marsianism in Christianity.
So yeah, And also in in m K he says
that it's his his job. His plan is to continue
the eugenics and steriles policies that the Kaiser already had
in place, and there's no way that a Christian could
adopt those kinds of positions. So yeah, I've always thought
those you know, those are.
Speaker 1: Started rounding people up and putting them into invents and
casting them to death, considering them not worthy of life
and all that, which is pretty messed up. You can't
possibly make peace with such an idea with a Christian worldview.
That's that's really really it really goes beyond anything that
is acceptable.
Speaker 3: Well that's in Alphusianism. And so to agree with the
position of Malthus, the Anglican minister who believed that it
was necessary to depopulate because he looked at some flies
in a jar and he said, well, if the flies
are limited with their resources, it's the same with humans.
Limited resources requires us to depopulate. So those are famous
essays out of England, and he was, you know, a
hardcore social Darwinist type proponent. Those ideas influenced people not
just in the UK, but also in Germany and the
Kaiser's policies were already the around eugenics. That's why in
America you had a flip side version of that where
the rock Fillers set up the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and
they named it after him because it was all about
population control and eugenics. So yeah, the fundamentals there I
certainly don't work with Christianity, but I also agree that
the fundamentals of communism, socialism, vultualism, none of those work
with Christianity either.
Speaker 1: And they were both enemies. I mean, the Soviet Union
was very very clear in there. This is actually a
funny thing, a funny anecdote. When I was in Turkey
and I was kind of in my late youth being
in rebellion, there was a time where I was I
was a big fan of hardcore revolutionary communism. But the
funny thing is I also learned Islamic belief from my parents,
and despite not being like practicing very much, I had
deep respect for it and I wasn't ever like strictly
opposed to it. But I was kind of trying to
reconcile my respect for Islam with communism and it didn't
work out. Eventually, I came across a little back and
forth that was constructed by taking a quote directly from Lenin,
and one of those quotes was in response to how
the question of religion should be solved, considering that so
much of the population is clearly religious, and you can't
just outright attack religion. So his solution to that was
to ease the population into it and to give them
good things in order to then replace their need for religion,
and to eventually then fulfill the goal of shutting down
the useless, you know, churches and places of worship, and
then altogether getting rid of it because it's just a
poison and so on. So I thought, this is that.
That's when when I saw it explicitly, I thought, okay,
you know what, I just have to admit that I
can't really reconcile these things. And they were also very
clear and hunting down and directly torturing, locking up and
executing clergy, making up nonsensical excuses and torturing people, torturing priests,
killing them and then dumping them at night in random
places and burying them to prevent people from knowing where
they are buried, and venerating them and so on. The
Soviets were pretty pretty messed up in pretty brutal towards religion,
and the Nazis had a similar idea. According to Gibbels's diaries,
the Hitler was trying to keep him in the Catholic
Church and was himself trying to appease the Christian population
with the intention to once the war is over, to
directly take over the church and to subvert it and
then suppress it from within directly and turn it towards
a tool of arianism, for example, because even according to
the Hitler's book, mind come, sorry, we're directed saying it,
but uh, there's also one of one of his critiques
of Christianity or of the Christian churches is that they
spend too much time with doctrine instead of uh, instead
of interfering in the racial bastardization and and and trying
to separate the blacks from the whites, because.
Speaker 3: The original sin in this world is to taint the blood. Yeah,
which isn't what original sin is. But I think he's,
like you're saying, he's appropriating concepts that are Christian theological
concepts and saying, let's put this into you know, my system.
I'll use some of the same terminology. But yeah, I
mean I've got it over there. I don't know if
that would be don't want to get your channel in
trouble by pulling that out, but I've got to I've
got it all mark that with all that pretty sure.
Speaker 1: I've shown it several times here, so it has become
a joke here as well.
Speaker 3: Can I one thing I would like to touch on
that we were kind of disagreeing on earlier in the
Roberts book on the history of the family of the Rothschilds,
there is back in the late eighteen hundreds, it was
actually Edmund, and I'm not saying Walter didn't have a
role later on with the declaration, but it was Edmund
who was the main benefactor, who was not himself Zionist.
In fact, he wanted to simply buy land from the
Ottoman Sultan in Palestine. Wait.
Speaker 1: Edmund was the one who was directly in the field
and who helped build stuff.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he went and was a lot of time there,
and yeah he bought he revitalized the land with massive
purchases back in the eighteen hundreds. So this is prior
to political Zionism, prior to the passon Hertzel and he
went under the name at the time of Nadev Hayuta
because he didn't want to be publicly known, but eventually
it was known, and then you can also so if
you go to the Rothchild's archive, the family archive, if
you read his bio, the first few pages just talks
about the millions of dollars that he had put into
revitalizing and what's interesting to your point, Partially Hurtzel and
Weizmann and other others wanted him to be committed to
political Zionism, but he was not ready to make that
commitment yet. However, later members of the family did have
a political commitment. So I think the truth is kind
of somewhere in between that the family wasn't completely unified
on a political expansion. They were not forcibly taking land.
They were purchasing it from the Ottoman Sultan. So if
people want to have or lay blame it's you could well,
why is the automn in sultan sultan selling the land? Right?
I think that peacefully, right, go ahead.
Speaker 1: The thing with the Rocheld is also that just like
most Jews in the beginnings, when the whole idea of
political Zionism was proposed, they didn't really take it seriously
and they didn't think it was actually viable, so they
didn't want to They didn't take it seriously and didn't
want to jump into it and explicitly support it because
they thought it was a ridiculously ridiculous idea that will
fail anyway. So which kind of explains why, especially these
two members later on jumped in and started becoming so
you know, having favorable views of it and working with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, by the twentieth century, the this biography notes and
then also the entry under Walter at the Rothchild's archives
does concede that eventually they became very committed Zionus, even
to the point of the Rothchild family donated the Knesset
building and created in the nineteen thirties, twenties and thirties,
excuse me, the JCA or the Pika, which was the
billit the organizations in Palestine and in France that would
help to foster various Aliahs to come to Israel. So
I think that's the reality is somewhere in between. It's
not on either or, but I think eventually it does
become clearly a project of the British Empire.
Speaker 1: The funny thing is, now we're talking about this because
this is where we had a disagreement on where we
started fighting. But in the end, it's not even that
big of a matter, honestly, Like I don't even care
that much about it, especially.
Speaker 3: Especially for some reason committed to this. I don't know, no,
especially right now.
Speaker 1: At that time, I just I saw something that you
posted and I thought, Okay, this is wrong. I want
to correct this. So that's all that's all I wanted
to do. And then we started fighting and it escalated,
and I took it very very seriously, and we went
very hard at it. But thinking about it in the aftermath,
it was just like one issue that I wanted to
correct in the moment or say something about in the moment,
and it's not It's not something that I really cared
that much about, you know. So this is the problem
as well, that when we are online and when we
are in this hole in the public spaces having these exchanges,
there is a lot of there are lots of emotions,
lots of elements that get into it, and that kind
of you know, blind us and blind me personally. I
would say, where there's some public disagreement and some public
perceptions in response to things we say, and that we
feel the need to really push hard and all that
in the aftermath. It doesn't really, it really doesn't matter
who cares, you know, seriously, who cares? I have more
of I told you this privately as well, but I
kind of want to. I kind of I feel like
even the debate that I had with Andrew Wilson, where
he still kind of suspects me of being of being
very hostile towards him, which is why he takes anything
that I say with it with great with with great
care about this. But even the debate that I had
with him, I kind of went ahead with it because
we agreed to it, you know, a long time ago.
But I think as I, you know, you know, when
I you know, when I started becoming a categ tuman,
you know, as I, as I started progressing in that,
the more I went into it, and especially over the
last few weeks, I have been less and less interested
in having, you know, strong disagreements on political matters or
worldly matters as you might want to call it, and
have been more interested in just trying to make peace.
And it's very difficult when you are online, and when
you talk politics online, I understand that, which is why
I'm trying to do that less and less at the
moment at least.
Speaker 3: And also I think Islam is kind of wait wait, wait.
Speaker 1: Politics, something just happened. David suddenly wanted to say something
despite being quite the entire time.
Speaker 2: Well, it's finally, it's finally a I was slightly interested in.
But no, no, this goes back to when you guys
were first talking at the very beginning, and you were saying, well,
I you know, uh, we went after each other on
this and so on. But uh, that's pretty darn normal
given certain personality types. It's something that before, before, before
anything you're talking back in like two thousand, two thousand
and seven, two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine,
I was rolling with various uh I'm not going to
name any names, but uh, you know, counter counter g hotties.
But behind the scenes, people were concerned about jihad and
responding to the jihad threat. And it's a mixer. There's
a there were Christians of all kinds, some atheists, Jews,
and so on, and they would work to people would
work together and have conferences and so on. I was
there behind the scene. There they're they're like at war
behind the scenes over over various things. And I just
I kind of realized over time, Wait, the people who
are going to speak out and stand their ground on
an issue like gihad or something like that, even though
politicians and journalists and everyone's just gonna blast them, just
gonna and Muslims and raining down threats and threats on
their lives and threats to their families and so on.
So you kind of catch it from every direction if
you're a Christian. If you're a Christian you started going
after jihad and tying it to ISLAMP back in two
thousand and eight, you got blasted from every single direction.
Politicians were calling you in islamophobes. Journalists are writing articles
about you, calling you islamophobes. They're putting you on hate
group lists and so on, beside Nazis and so on,
just for criticizing jihad. If you're a Christian, even Christians
are blasting you. They're saying you're too mean, you shouldn't criticize,
and so on. So you're catching it from every single direction.
And like the person who's going to stand his ground
in those situations and keep pushing Generally, people who don't
like to put up with a lot of crap. Right
It's look, once I've made up my mind on something,
I'm not backing down under any circumstances. So those are
the people who are going to last and continue going
after jihad, even when there's an on slite. So just
so everyone knows that if you weren't around in two
thousand and eight two, you have no idea how much
it sucked back then. It is much much better right
now if you're criticizing jihad than it was back then.
Back then everyone attacked you. But anyway, the people who
are being attacked by everyone and are still going to
just keep pushing forward generally have a pretty aggressive, pretty confrontational,
don't back down type attitude. The thing is, you put
a bunch of people like that together, eventually there's something
they disagree on and it's just instant it's just instant war.
Just personality wise, I'm the sort of person who doesn't
back down. You're the sort of person who doesn't back down.
We're both really aggressive. Oh now we disagree and it's
a war. And by the way, the people back then
who even like publicly they were doing conferences together, but
privately we're having problems. They don't even work together now.
They couldn't they couldn't keep it up, they couldn't keep
it up long term. So I'm just looking at that going, oh, well,
that's that's kind of a that's kind of a side
feature of people who are willing to stand their ground
against jihad is they're not probably not going to be
the sort of people who work well in groups together
because they eventually disagree on something, they go and they
fight over it. So when you guys are saying, when
you guys are saying, oh, we had this disagreement, we
you know, we fought over it, I'm thinking, of course,
that's what you that's what you guys do. That's what
guys with you with these personality types do. So that's
kind of that's kind of a that's kind of normal.
The issue for me is, you know, what what do
you do afterwards? But also what happens when you have
entire groups that are like this, Right, my entire group
is aggressive and confrontational and doesn't back down, and your
entire group is aggressive and confrontational, doesn't back down, and
then you end up with all these groups and now
it's not just an individual who you know. Now, it's
not just two individuals who can have a beef and
then squash it. It's you got entire groups. And even
if two people, a person from each one of those
groups squashes the beef, you still got the groups that
are going after each other. And just the way groups are.
If an entire group is really aggressive towards another group
and a person within that group says, hey, let's make peace,
well the group is just going to pick someone else.
They're just gonna Okay, you get it. Okay, you're if
you're trying to make peace with these guys, you get
out of the way. We're going after We're going after
the guy we'll pick. We'll pick someone else. So anyway,
that's that's kind of never never bothers me too much
when when someone goes after each other, it's it's kind
of it's kind of the cost of admission to people
who are engaging with the kinds of things that all
of us have to engage with right now. The bigger,
the bigger concern is that in the age of the Internet,
very very easy for group to form and then go
to war with everyone else on the on the drop
of a diamond.
Speaker 1: So it's a rough situation, I thought you and then
we're going to stop talking. Man, Well, Jay, you were saying.
Speaker 3: So you know, as you guys know, you know, Islam
doesn't really see a distinction really between religion and politics
or kind of wedded I think Christianity sees a relationship.
Maybe it's maybe sometimes in certain sectors it's emphasize in
terms of the division. And I don't mean to criticize
your point about not wanting to get into political debates.
But one of the reasons that I think you guys
might agree maybe not that it is relevant to talk
about the geopolitical side of this is that there's a
lot of people in power in the West who, either
out of ignorance about Islam or because they see it
as an ally or a useful tool, they're open to
in pro Islam. Even you know, especially on the left,
there's definitely a tendency to have this alliance between you know,
the left and various versions of or factions of Islam,
not understanding that Islam will pretend to be friendly, as
the Quran says, and then once you're in power, you
can flip on the flip the script. You don't have
to be friendly anymore.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah. I just want to point it because while
you guys were talking about all the various, uh the
various things in different parts of the world, that's normally
how I'm interpreting these things is like, like, take Iran
right now, if a bigger threat in the area emerged
than Iran, and Iran could be used by the United
States to deal with that problem, the United States would
suddenly be like pro Iran. Yeah, Iran, you're our buddies
now because we want you to help us. Well, I
mean that this this thing happens, like you know, if
you have communists and you're trying to stop halt the
spread of communism and you're talking like uh Afghanistan or
something like that, who do you want you want people
who are gonna have to who are gonna like stand
and not back down and fight to the death. Who
do you want you want a bunch of Jihatis on
your side? And so you'd say, hey, let' let's let's like,
let's align with the Jihatis in this situation. Problem is
eventually the communists go away and it's just the jihadis
that you helped, and now the Jihatis take over and
you've got this other problem. You've got another problem, and
I think, uh yeah, we're ap mentioned it like like
short sighted thinking. It's so in other words, you can
always find you can always there can always be conspiracy,
and I know there are conspiracies and so on. I
normally interpret things like that. It's just people leaders just
tend to always think, Okay, here's the threat we're concerned with.
Here's a group that can help us with that threat,
and therefore, let's support this group. And then the threat
eventually is dealt with. And then all you've got this
group is that you helped rise to power or you
funded them with money or something like this, and they
and then they grow out of control and then you
can't control them anymore. And as Jay was just pointing out,
you've got if you're talking about Gihatis, they'll say whatever,
of course, great Britain, of course we'll be on your side. Yeah,
just support us against our rivals because you don't like
those rivals. Yeah, we don't like them either. We don't
like them for completely different reasons. We don't like them
for this reason. You don't like them for that reason,
but yeah, go ahead and support us. And then so anyway,
I think that that happens all the times. A that's
a it's a sad feature of yallo super sort of superficial.
That's just a short term thinking that we're creating monsters
all over the place. It's just when you create a monster.
You can always view that in two ways that Aha,
they were trying to create a monster or no more,
yeah we were trying to create a You could say, hey,
they're trying to create a monster. They're they're they're they
were plotting to make this monster here. Or they were
worried about something else and they created a monster because
they're stupid and they didn't realize what they were what
they were doing. Uh again, there can be situations where
people are trying to create monsters. Uh. I normally just
interpret those things. Is because I have a low view
of like people's thinking ability on a lot of these issues,
especially on Islam, just seeing too much of it. People
are too stupid. They're thinking, hey, this is they've just
been bombarded all their lives with all religions, have their
radicals and stuff, and haven't you had that in Christianity?
So that's all that. That's all the Jihatis are over there,
so long term, long term, if we keep buddying up
with them and helping them in various ways, the Jihati's
hearts will melt. And everyone's done that. Europe's done that,
United States done that. Israel does that. Israel. Israel's fine
with like Hamas leaders becoming billionaires and stuff, because in
the in they're thinking, it's hey, these guys are going
to become rich. You're not going to want to attack anymore.
They'll have too much to lose. They'll be billionaires, they'll
be good to go, man. And it doesn't just doesn't
doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Very stupid idea. Yeah, so that would be one of
those things. I mean, if if you, for example, if
you j were a defender of Islam, or you know,
we're one of those people who says, oh, Islam is
not a problem, we should be we should subcort. I mean,
that's I guess where I would have a have a
big need to disagree and possibly even fight with you,
But I know that you are not like that.
Speaker 3: So well, so I think we're agreed on the tendency
of a lot of incapable politicians and bureaucrats. They don't
understand these world views. And definitely you guys were ahead
of the curve when it comes to, you know, critiquing
and warning about Islam. I just tend to go a
little bit further when it comes to certain operatives or
people in power positions that the Brazienski, the Kissingers, because
they seem to be aware of also utilizing this, you know,
ring of power of T E R R O R.
And I'll give you a couple examples. One of the
great books that I read on this was the CI
operative Miles Copeland, Miles Copeland of the Copeland Stewart family.
Speaker 1: Like, by the way, we've already said the worst things,
you don't have to send or anything anymore.
Speaker 3: So so in Game of Nations Miles Copeland is everybody
should read this because he was CI's liaison to Egypt
under Nasser and Syria under I think Asad's dad prior
to that. But he talks a lot about how the
West wanted to utilize the T, the Big T, and
he talks about them, particularly on page two of four,
as being really useful idiots. And I'm not saying that
the West is always behind Big T. But that by
admission in many cases, he says, it's very you So,
I think it's just the reality politic that goes on
that all governments will at times resort to these kinds
of things. They'll resort to fake flag events, shall we say,
They'll resort to arming, you know, operations cyclone is arming
of the the the Taliban, right, the Afghani freedom fighters.
Brazinski goes on CBS and says that God is vigual,
you know, telling them to go and essentially fight Soviets,
and that plan actually worked, right, that exhausted the Soviets
during the Cold War, and then you had this creation
of this entity, this army that the CIA and the
Saudis had put billions of dollars into, that then was
able to you know, to whatever degree we think they're
allowed or I tend to think that they were a problem,
allowed to be an arc of crisis model is what
Razenski talked about after the Cold War. And I think
that narrative explains a lot of what happened both Cold
War better than the narrative that you know, the mainstream
media promoted, for example, weapons of mass destruction, all of that.
I think that was a lie, and so I think
there's a there's a power block usage of a lot
of these radical Islamic groups. And exactly which groups and
exactly how far I think can be debated. But maybe
that's what you've and I'm not trying to be argumentative,
but I think that's another issue that you felt was
too far.
Speaker 1: I had only an issue with when it comes to,
for example, arguing that that Western intelligence or Israeli intelligence
was directly involved in the creation of of certain terrorist
organizations that we have today in the most direct form,
I would agree. For example, we know very well that
that during the Cold War, the US unfortunately utilized Islamic
terrorism to use them to fight against the Soviet Union.
We know that the other siding and similar things as well.
We know that this was a big game that was
being used before the world became more familiar with with
Islamic Islamic terrorism. And I would agree, for example, that
as a result of certain as a result of these
idiotic games, two of the major Islamic terrorist organizations developed
just because of this, As a direct consequence of this,
I would only disagree when if we are then going
to argue that that the that the intelligence organizations in
question were directly involved in creating these modern terrorist organizations
such as Alcado or ISIS. So I would say Alkata
and ISIS were directly a direct consequence of these idiotic
and pretty vile games. But were they directly involved in
creating and upholding and funding these organizations?
Speaker 3: I would dispute that, Well, maybe they're. The question becomes
what do we mean by direct because I would agree
that you didn't necessarily have you know, brazilskiar Kissinger flying
over there and literally telling Osama bin Lauden what to do.
But you had essentially an alliance of Western friendly groups
and intelligence operations, including CIA, Saudi's, Pakistani, Egypt, all working
together to arm and to train militarily some of these outfits.
So maybe Ben Lauden is It would be too far
to say, oh, Ben Laden is a CIA operative, but
he's definitely somebody who had a close relationship with the CIA.
And even after the Taliban had in the nineteen nineties
bombed the coal they had done the Yemen bombings that
Bin Lauden was taking credit for, you had meetings in
Texas with certain oil entities like Unkow to ensure that
there would be a pipeline set up. So I think
that even these things that we think of as like
terror events, they can actually be useful for certain certain milita,
very industrial complex profit motives, like the establishment of a pipeline.
And you might take issue with this as well. It's fine,
but you see a very similar thing with a lot
of what's going on with Turkey and Syria and Russia,
and we saw, for example, the nord Stream pipeline event.
A lot of that Ukraine warfare has to do with
who's going to bring energy into these sectors. So if you,
for example, I mean, I'm not going to keep gapping,
but if you if you look at the covert war
in Bosnia chapter and the covert war against Melozavik that
the CIA did. He cites quite a few pretty extensive
proofs that in the case of the coast of a
liberation army, you had this mix of organized crime, been
Laden ideology, and the bringing in of trained Pakistani Afghani
fighters that were still being used even after bin laden
His has been said in my early nineties to be
associated with al Qaeda and wanted due to the nineteen
ninety three World Trade Center event. They're still the CIA
is still using the Taliman basically in this region for
the purpose of subverting and undermining Melosevic. So I think
that in that case, I could point to that that's
dealt with pretty well in Secret Affairs Chapter.
Speaker 1: I would definitely agree with one aspect of it, which
is what you briefly mentioned, which is that bin Laden
himself had most likely had a certain familiarity and interactions
with the CIA. I think it's pretty well established that he,
at least to a certain degree, was involved, or that
the CIA was involved with groups that also included him,
and he was a significant figure in the movement early on,
and I think there is no clear evidence that there
is no clear evidence that he directly interacted and engaged
with CIA representatives, but it is critically that he was
part of operations with the CIA, was involved, so correct,
it's it's not very hard to conclude from there that
he had some ties to Western intelligence.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but what I say, David, But one last point,
just that the point I'm making about Kosovo Bosnia and
that situation just demonstrates even though ban himself is not involved,
it's the same networks that were already part of the
Afghani training is basically al KaiA, right, So Alkaia develops
in the nineties out of that network of the base
as it was called, which was the original base where
I think it was Hakamatyar I think was his one
of his allies that he trained at this base with
Binlan himself, I'm saying in Afghanistan. So it's it's the
networks and the trained fighters, not beIN Alan himself. In
terms of Kosovo and the KLA, but that was a
created thing that the West wanted to use to undermine Melosevitch.
And that doesn't mean Melisavitch is a hero or good guy,
just means that that's the real politics.
Speaker 1: That Actually that is pretty much proven, right, I mean
we know for a fact, I think that that that, uh,
that certain cells were directly used in the in in
Bosnia and in other conflicts. Yeah, so it's undeniable that
that the West, that the United States of America and
Western Nations and Western intelligence have been involved in some
really really messed up things. And I mean it shouldn't
be very far fetched to say, uh, this kind of
stuff considering that in the very Syria Civil War that
we are that we have been, that we have seen
go on for so long, the US made some incredibly
questionable decisions, such as backing the like the Kurdish led
factions for a while and then just just leaving them
there to themselves and being massacred to others. So we
we clearly see that the that that that that that,
the that the world powers, including the US, depending on
whatever government or whatever agency is at work, engages in
some really questionable behavior.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and so as far as like you could
have you could have a thousand hours of video footage
of the CIA meeting with various terrorist leaders, that would
not it wouldn't surprise me at all. It's kind of
like when horrible, horrible things, when things go horribly wrong,
and you say, what's behind this? Hey, look at look
at this group that this Western nation supported this or
this Western agency helped that group, and so on, it's like,
what do you think is really kind of behind the outcome?
It seems some people go in the direction of well,
they're idiots involved and they don't always understand, they can't
think three moves ahead as far as what they're doing,
and so they're idiots versus the kind of like mastermind interpretation. No,
they're really smart people at work. They're analyzing all these things,
they're figuring out what they want, and uh, they're they're
orchestra they're pulling the strings and orchestrating these things behind
the scenes. Now, guess what. Both things happen. Both things
indisputably happen. But it seems that like some people, some
people tend like I tend towards the people are stupid
and yeah, you you planned this, and here was thed
here were the real consequences of this dumb thing you
did that you didn't anticipate. Uh, But it seems other
people are Other people lean towards oh this was this
was planned, and here's what the goal was and so on.
And I mean, guess what. The the evidence is usually
consistent with with either one. So it's kind of like
a it seems like a personality. It seems like a
personality thing as far as which which side you favor
something like that.
Speaker 3: So well, and maybe more of a localized, uh like
immediate context. It's a lot of I'm sure government idiocy
and ignorance and and competence, but there can be from
a more of a maybe a meta political perspective, a
bigger game planner, a bigger picture at work. I'll give
you one example, a couplet pretty well known Likud policy papers.
One was the nineteen eighty two odd Ya non Plan,
which was written i think under Ariel Sharon. And when
he wrote this, what he outlines is a logical strategy
for Israel. So a lot of people talk about this.
I don't think many people have actually read it, but
if you actually read, it's only about seven or eight pages.
It actually is logically what Israel would do in the
region two maintained power, and a lot of people don't
know that. One of the things that talks about is
the establishment of a Coptic Christian state in Egypt, which
is surprising to me, but that's what Israel thought would
be a good a good plan for that border.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be surprising. Coptic sentiments are actually on the
on the on the rather good side in the Middle
East when it comes to yeah.
Speaker 3: I'm saying, there's a logic to that makes sense. And
then it talks about, particularly for Syria, what they would
like to do is a micro state divide in conqueror
strategy and with Iraq. So the main two concerns. In
nineteen eighty two, under I think Ero Sharon's right hand
man advisor, the Kissinger of Israel, basically was to do
like micro states in Syria, micro states in Iraq, give
Jordan to the Hashemites, excuse me, give Jordan to the Palestinians,
which is odd and I'm not sure why they wanted
to do that, but this might have been at a
time when they thought that the PLO might be better
than Hashamites. I'm not sure, because that changes. According to
Victor Ostrovsky, you may take issue with his views, but
I think his books are pretty insightful. They're pretty enlightening,
even if they're not all one percent accurate, Like he's
laying out pretty much the way the structure of that
system works. The Masad. And then in nineteen nineteen ninety
six you have what's called the clean break strategy, which
is after he getsuck Rabin, when Yahoo comes in, they
lay out his policy which is very similar to know,
it's not identical, but it was very intent on the
removal of Saddam. So both I mean Saddam was a
CIA trained Baptist going back to the seventies. According to Marls,
Copeland and other other texts. But the only reason I'm
saying all this is that there does seem to be
a pretty consistent pattern from the Lekud mindset throughout the
seventies and eighties and nineties to to undermine Syria not
being moralistic. I understand the attitude of why they would
do that from a strategic standpoint. They also talked about
funding the Christian Philangists in Lebanon, and.
Speaker 1: They actively they they actively supported them and fought with him,
which is it later ended up kind of in the
middle of the war, leaving them to their destiny.
Speaker 3: And the only thing I would issue with that you
you might disagree with is Instrovsky. At the end of
his first book, By Way of Deception, he talks quite
a bit about at first they kind of liked Arafat,
and then they didn't like Arafat for various reasons. They
wanted to get rid of Arafat. Arafat got more and
more radical, And I'm not pro PLO, but I'm just
saying that the PLO was beginning to be influenced by Soviets.
They were getting to get into very radical Black September
type ideology, and then Ostrovsky's second book, Other Side of Deception,
he argues that at this time we felt like it
was necessary to arm Egyptian fundamentalists Muslim Brotherhood and what
become Tomas.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing, this is actually so you could you
could dive into that and you could understand that as
a very very you know, unsettling conspiracy that was going on,
or you could understand that as a as a strategic
move because the strategy until that point, it was like
Israel was fighting with the PLO and with allied organizations
that were pretty harsh and pretty awful. And until that,
during the entire time, Israel actually had this gravely mistaken
view that compared to these secularist or socialist movements, and
Islamic movement would be more manageable and would be more
more reasonable. So so they did get directly involved in
funding Islamist organizations and Islami Islamist movements in the in
the Palestinian territories and in Egypt. So they did directly
get involved in in funding the Muslim Brotherhood. And it
is very well recorded and admitted by you know, Israeli
officials that they were involved in supporting the pre Hammas
Muslim brotherhood charity movement that then later on became Hamas.
But the idea there was, we're dealing with the PLO.
These guys are obviously unreasonable terrorists. We can't reason with
these guys. We need to have we need to support
organization that will be they will pacify people. And then, however,
then in the nineties or eighties, late eighties, PLO starts
sitting at the table and becoming more diplomatic and openly
expressing the desire to actually agree to a two state solution.
Israel still mistrusts them, but because they express these sentiments,
the movement that is Hamas is then flooded by the
radical sentiment that is already already established and that Israel
fostered and is clearly then opposes this whole sentiment of
becoming diplomatic and making compromises with Israel and then becomes
the real problem and they start becoming an active terrorist
organization that then directly fi and becomes worse in whatever
the PLO ever has been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and a path. So the PLO that kind of
with Arafat, that's like setting the stage for future interactions,
and that an Arafat was aware of it, and Israel
was aware of what it was doing with Arafat. But
Arafat's like, hey, we can have a terrorist attack next week,
and oh, you give me a bunch of money and
I'll keep these guys under control. Okay, we'll give you
a bunch of money. And okay, so eventually the guy's
a billionaire. Okay, well, your your welfare and livelihood in
this world depend on you getting along with us. And
he's keeping his people under control. So if this guy
becomes the richest man in the world, what do we
care as long as he's keeping his people under control.
Not realizing, well, as you're as as everyone's funding this
guy with money, sending this guy with money, he's becoming
richer and richer and richer, and then okay, yeah, he
doesn't want to he doesn't want to want to lose that,
and therefore, let me be on. Let me try to
get everyone on better terms with Israel. Okay, now you've
got a popular that, well, we don't like you anymore.
Then if you're if you're gonna if you're gonna normalize
relations with Israel, then we're gonna pick someone else. And
so it's kind of like all that was for nothing,
and then you have to pick a different group and oh,
let's yeah, let's be cool with this group being showered
with money and stuff like that. That'll fix that. And
guess what if if Hamas tomorrow said, you know what,
we got all these billionaires, let's just get along with them.
Guess what Hamas is gone. Hamas is gonna be gone.
The people are gonna the people are gonna pick someone
and pick someone else, uh to represent what they actually want.
Speaker 1: So yes is also the PLO was directly involved in
basically educating the people in Gaza and in the Palestinian
territories on this whole new idea that was kind of
emerging in the in the nineteen sixties that that this
is all uh direct the Palestinian land and Palestinian identity,
and you know, this is what makes us the the
the the oxides directly our identity. It don't all belongs
to us, and we will all take it back one
day and this is a flag and so on. So
they they brought up these ideas, but then just a
few decades later they started compromising and saying, Okay, we
don't actually want the entire land, We just want to
make a have a two state solution, but they taught
the population something different just decades before.
Speaker 3: And well, it would be that during the Cold War
Stalin tried to court Israel and Israel switched its allegiance
originally sort of interested in Stalinism towards the West. Yeah uh.
And so what happened then was the Soviets saw a
way to influence through the PLO in Israel. So he
gets very hairy with big power blocks influencing, especially in
the Cold War. But yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 1: There's there's one thing, which is that there's an article
that people bring up very often and which we say,
I actually misunderstand, where it is said that Netnyah secretly
supported Hamas for years or propped up Hamas for years,
and it is a fact he did. He did prop
Uphama in a way. But so what actually happened there
is that met Nyahu was one of the few people
or one of those people in the liquid government who
was still off the idea that if you just allow
the Islamic terrorists to receive funds, they will be pacified
and we can control them and we can just continuously
move ahead with our security plans and so on. And
many people within the government of Israel were disagreeing with that,
and he was basically shutting them out down and telling them, look,
all we need to do is so allow them to
receive the money. Once they have enough money, they will
no longer, they will not try.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you might be talking about a
different one, but I mean, I've got the Wall Street
Journal article right here, and it goes into the critique.
Speaker 1: Basically, there is one quote which is which is attributed
to him, which is only a claim with only one
single anonymous source, which says that he told people that
the best way to prevent a Tuesdays solution is to
support Hamas. That goes to one one person. But that's
very very questionable. But it is where I also talked
with this. I also talked about this with politicians directly
in Israel that are that are that are part of
the Lequid government. It is very well known in the
government that net Niya who had this, and they also
because of this, have kept great resentment and anger toward
Netnia because October seven happened, and according to that Nya
with logic, it was never supposed to happen as long
as Hamas receives money. So yeah, lots of really really
really bad stuff. That's geopolitics. Anything else. Let's see trend
To went a great video on how the Base go
to Hell? Good? Does Jay still think Protestants are heretics? Dude,
I thought we weren't supposed to fight here today.
Speaker 3: Man. Protestantism is a heresy in our view, But we
don't individually judge people in terms of their destinies. So
I can't tell individuals you're going to Hell. I don't
think we have the right to do that, but we
do have the duty to tell people that they should
be Orthodox.
Speaker 1: David, what do you think about that coffee I's dialogue, APJ.
I've been considering becoming a Cateicuman, so I have been
wondering what normal differences are they between Antioch and the Os.
Don't ask me, ask j Jay. What differences are they
between Antioch and O.
Speaker 3: Well, OCA comes out of the Russian Church, essentially out
of Rocres, so there's going to be a lot more
just depending on where you are in America, a lot
more American converts probably in the OCA. The Antiochians are
technically Arab for the most part, so you're gonna find, like,
if you go to Florida to an Antiochian church, you're
gonna be the only white dude there. If you're a
white dude, if you go to an Antiochian church in
the Bible Belt, it's going to be all Protestant Catholic converts.
So it just kind of depends on where you are.
But theology wise, there's not huge differences.
Speaker 1: They also have a there is a famous Western riote
Antiochian thing in America, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are not a lot of those, but that
does exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw one of the one of their liturgies,
and I thought it was kind of nice. Book shelf
bigger you see, lool. Glad to see you guys together, yep,
sony Erickson. Love isn't the Yeah, it's pretty gay. A
good way to start the fight is to ask ja
about the twenty one No, I'm not going to do that,
how much the twenty one Martyr's topic where we had
a oh that okay, we didn't even fight about that.
I just asked you a clarifying question. Then, because I
asked you a clarifying question, and do you give an
answer to it, that all hell broke clues, and then.
Speaker 3: Well, I do have a tendency to be skeptical about
those kinds of videos and claims when they come out.
That doesn't mean that I know for sure what happened,
but I do believe that there are fake flag of
it and there are stage things. I'm not saying that
I know that that one was, but there were people
at the time questioning it.
Speaker 2: Once again, Yeah, so I wasn't when you said they
weren't martyrs or something like that. Did you mean because
they're not Christians, or because you don't you think it
was staged, or because it was for some other reason
and it had nothing to do with them.
Speaker 3: Two separate issues. So one thing that maybe when I
was I was saying that even if they are dying
for the name of Christ in the Orthodox Church, they
can't be martyrs in the calendar saint martyrs. So it
doesn't mean that I know their destiny. For all I know,
they could be in heaven with God, I hope. So.
But in the Orthodox Church, we can't, for example, make
Thomas Aquinas you know, a saint in the Orthodox calendar
because he wasn't a person who died in the Orthodox Church.
So we couldn't say in good conscience are good faith
that they're Orthodox Saints. But separate from that, there were
a lot of public news articles and people doubt the
footage when the footage first dropped. So that's why I
had doubt on it was people analyzing the videos, and
also I think the source is somewhat dubious. I don't
trust side intelligence or rita cats. So I just simply
had questions and doubts, but I don't know for sure
what happened.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with the with the statement that is
kind of famous? Uh, we know where the church is,
but we we do, but we don't say we don't
dare say where it is not.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's liable to being misused. It
can kind of give the impression that everybody's in the
church or something like that. So, uh, if it's kind
of misused in that way, I would disagree with it.
But it can also kind of express the same point
I'm making that we don't say where God's grace isn't
working or is. We don't know that. All we know
is that you know. It's like Paul says in the Epistles,
he says, we don't judge those that are without, we
judge those that are within, because that's you know, our communion.
So yeah, we just I just don't know people's destinies.
I don't know anyone's destiny.
Speaker 1: So nice, nice except destiny. Uh, those avery, stupid and
creations is definitely going to look down on this. Memb
pen be apologizing and call you both little weaklings.
Speaker 3: Muhammedan Job didn't he didn't he run from a debating
you two?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, did he debate you?
Speaker 2: David?
Speaker 3: Did you all ever debate?
Speaker 2: Yeah? A long time ago. Okay, that was that was back.
That was back when no one had any clue who
he was.
Speaker 1: No he credits David Wood was making him famous because
of that debate.
Speaker 3: I have a question for you guys, your opinion. Do
you think that it's plausible or have you seen any
evidence that the popularization and push for online Islam maybe
perhaps three people like the job or the tastes. Definitely
it's plausible that this is being funded by Saudi's or
you know, big big money.
Speaker 1: I would say that there were most definitely in the
early days was an attempt, probably from Saudi sources. I think, uh,
it might have switched to Qatar into Qatari interference. But
it was pretty well known. I mean, every single every
single Western university, all the big Western universities had had
Islamic institutes UH established through Middle Eastern funding, through Saudi
Arabian or or Qatari funding. Iran tried to do a lot,
but they didn't really they they never really accomplished anything
because of their Shia stuff. But I would say it's
it's pretty clear that there is big Middle Eastern money involved.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it doesn't have to Yeah, it doesn't have
to be like like a government. It can be, of course,
I mean, but it can always be. Yeah, it can
always be. It can always be like individuals like funny,
like like we know that. I mean, Tristan Tate admitted
that when he was in where was he Ap and
he was saying he was offered he was offered.
Speaker 1: Sadi king here as I think he was mentioning he
was talking with Dubai. But then he he basically said
that there were people who offered him benefits.
Speaker 2: Itby yeah, he did all kinds of benefits if he
converted to Islam. And then conveniently his brother converts to Islam,
and so we know these things go on behind matter
of fact, we know for a fact these things go
on behind the scenes because I know two I know
two Arab Christian pastors who completely different countries, both told
me the same thing, just with different amounts. One this
was in the UK and he said a group of
I think he either said Saudis or Egyptians or something
like that. He said they came to him. They said, hey,
we want you to to convert to Islam and write
a book saying that you examine and the evidence for
the scientific miracles and stuff, and this converted you to Islam.
And they said, they told him, name your price, and
so that's what he was told. And then I know
another Arab Christian pastor. He's in California, and he said
it was after some event and he went to like
the gas station and they came up to him and
they handed him a karan at the gas station, like
inside was a letter saying two million dollars if you
convert to Islam and announce and announced that you've converted
to Islam and so and so that's I mean, those
are people I actually know, and so this is happening
to them. So who knows what's going on behind the
scenes with you know, sneak O and the Tates and
Lily J and all these I would say it's probably
it's probably a mix of like just direct people, hey,
we'll give you this amount if you do this, and
just and just kind of grifters who are looking around
going hey, if I jump in this community and I
start praising Islam, then they just they shower me with
money and attention and views and so on. But yeah,
that the big the big shift in Dawa has been
it's awesome and it's it's destroying. It's destroying, it's lot.
I don't know. It may not look that way, but
it's destroying Islam from within. But back in the day
when it was ah Meddi dot and Zacher Night, there's
actual like Muslim organizations like choosing people, who choosing someone
who's gonna be like most impactful to a Western audience
or to a non Muslim audience, and they're they're they're
carefully choosing these people and like crafting them. Here's how
you can be most compelling to a non Muslim American
or European audience or something like that. And they're handpicking
these guys. And if you go back to the early
two thousands. Those are the people that Muslims are watching
back then, and I'm I'm watching them and I'm interacting
with Muslims online in like two thousand and three, two
thousand and four, two thousand and five. I'm like, these
guys do not sound like the guys I interact with online.
The guys I interact with online, they're way more aggressive,
They're way more hostile. They're extremely quick to threaten you
with death or anything, anything, anything you disagree with them on.
Whereas these guys are out there, Islam's are RELIGIONI of
peace and tolerance. And it's like, how do you how
do you get the actual people who represent what Islam
really is? How do you get them to be the
popular representatives? And so unfortunately that's happened because the people
now it's it's like it's polar opposite of what twenty
years ago. Twenty years ago, if you said Mohammed had
sex with a nine year old girl, you were called
a liar. You're making that up. You're a liar. If
you said there's a death penalty in Islam for leaving Islam,
they say you're you're a liar. That's that you're making
that up. And the population they didn't know any better,
they don't know what's in the Muslim sources. They've got
some islamophobe saying one thing, and they've got this lovely
Islamic speaker saying no, this is all these these these
people take things out of context and so on. So
who are you gonna believe talking about Islam? You're gonna
listen to the Muslim And so this is actually a
huge problem. But now that Dawa guys shout from the
rooftops that they support child marriage because their prophet did it.
They all acknowledge it, that Muhammad did it, They acknowledge
there's a death penalty. They send messages to AP saying, yeah,
once we get our Islamic state, we're gonna we're gonna
we're gonna chop your head off and so on. So
it's it's a situation where lots of Christians would prefer
interacting with the nice Muslims from twenty years ago, but
it's like, do you really want that because it was
a massive misrepresentation. Yeah, these guys are way more hostile,
way angrier, way more aggressive, way more insulting, defending, like
the worst things you can imagine. It makes you uncomfortable
because you're like, ah, my goodness, what is this mess?
I would rather have those nice guys. But as far
as like destroying Islam, wouldn't you rather have people understanding
what it's really about? And therefore don't you want like
muhammedd jab and Ali Dawa and Daniel Haikikachu and all
these guys on the front line. So it's actually it's
a it's it's much better, much better.
Speaker 3: What what's your What do you think is the reason
that the the sort of Salafi mind mindset kind of
came to the forefront funding aulogetics, just funding.
Speaker 2: No, I'd say what I'd say, uh, funding plus plus
it's it's it's way easier to defend it from the
Islamic sources like you get that sort of idea from
if you just go as straightforward Karan and Spooney Hadith collections,
it's way easier to defend some sort of like slif
if not necessarily Sulafi Islam something Sulafie like and so
if you in other words, if you get an argument
with hey, no, I believe Islam is a religion to
peace and Muhammed would never do anything like this. And
these guys, we can quote our sources saying you're you're wrong,
and you've got an audience watching these guys win. The guys,
the guys, the hardliners win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well played his clip here quickly, which is off.
Tristan chate as far as I remember, this should be
a section. Uh yeah, no sense, very good.
Speaker 2: Safety a professional everyone.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he said, Tristan, you ever gonna revert to Islam?
It's by a Muslim scholars on Islam since getting out
of jim and I was actually quizzed by a Muslim
scholar who lives in the United Bearer memorates. He said,
trist you ever gonna revert to Islam? And I said
to him, I said, reversion or conversion to any religion.
I don't believe it's something that you do. I believe
it's something that happens to you if you look into it,
you read about, you read the Bible, you read about
you know Christianity, you read about the life of Jesus Christ.
You don't think you know what.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm a Christian.
Speaker 4: I feel like it's something that would have to happen
to me, not something i'd choose to do. And I've
even had people say, oh, you know, your life would
be better if you revert to Islam, because you know
there'd benefits of you living in the Middle East, etcetera.
And I said, no, no, no, how disingenuous would that be
to my Muslim friends and colleagues, of which I have many,
to revert for any beneficial reason other than me genuinely
feeling it within my soul.
Speaker 3: So that's the.
Speaker 4: Reason I haven't, not because I haven't chosen to, but
because it hasn't happened.
Speaker 3: To me, right, So that means it could.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing. He says, he has been given this,
this whole reasoning of having certain benefits in the Middle
East if he converts to Islam. But it would be,
of course, very disingenuous to convert to Islam after he
was told by these rich men in the Middle East,
you know, to convert to Islam just because of benefits.
But here's the question that I have. Who else converted
to Islam?
Speaker 2: All his brother that's your thing I'm thinking about. I'm
thinking about how disingenuous of it, how disingenuous of me
would it be if I converted to a religion for
all these benefits when I could get all that money
from sex trafficking. Come on, people.
Speaker 1: That's true, that's true. That is that is very very true. Jay,
What do you think what happened to the one eighty eight?
I don't want to make this a whole piling on
Jay live stream here. This is not what we're for.
Speaker 3: So uh is fine. I don't care.
Speaker 1: So the one actually thousands of Christians living in Israel,
including about twenty to thirty thousand Orthodox, if Israel fails.
But this is actually kind of a question that we
didn't get into that I would be curious talking about
at some point why. I kind of briefly did talk
about this with you in spaces several months ago. But
I guess, like if you are opposed to to Israel,
and what you think would happen if the if Israel
had got destroyed and the Christians there were affected by this?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there is no easy answer to what
would happen if Israel weren't there. I don't know exactly
what would happen. There's arguments that there would be, you know,
various Islamic states taking over. That's very possible. I don't
think it's likely that Israel would fail with the power
and the you know, the structure that Israel has in place,
and you know, the Demona program, all that stuff. I
don't think that's very likely. So I'm not I think
that the reality is that Israel's there. It's not very
likely to think, oh, let's get rid of it. It's
going to go away. It's not going to happen. So,
you know, there has to be some kind of attempt
to deal with the reality as it is. I think
that Western powers, the CIA, many entities, presidents have been
trying to solve that issue for many years. Uh. You know,
the Camp David Accords were not very popular with the
Israeli right, and that's the precise of the reason for
the the both the you non plan and the clean
Break plan. So I don't have any easy answers to
that question. I am aware of the Orthodox Christians that
are there, but I don't know. I don't have any
easy answers to.
Speaker 2: That because because there because there isn't one, you don't
you don't, we don't actually know, So like like a
couple couple different directions you go. So lots of people
would point out Ah, But there were Christians and Muslims
and Jews living there before, so why wouldn't it continue
on like that? Well, there's a different situations. Back then,
it was part of the empire. Yeah, back then it's
under the Ottoman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire generally generally
wants people not getting out of line, so there's something
to main kain maintain control. But that's kind of the
real issue, Like what would Israel be replaced by, because
if it's if it's if it's some group that will
control the jihadis then okay. As matter of fact, since
we were talking about this earlier, like like Western nations
doing things and then not foreseeing the consequences or for
seeing the consequences and you know, doing messed up things.
But like with Saddam Hussein, in the minds of lots
of Westerners, like what worked for us, We'll get rid
of the get rid of the tyrant, and then freedom
and democracy will flourish, because that's what human beings want.
And so in the minds of lots of Americans, Oh,
it's this great idea, get rid of Saddam Hussein. Hey,
guess what evil tyrant? Yeah, do not I do not
like that guy, but he's also the guy who is
controlling the jihatis in his population, and so we think, hey,
get rid of get rid of the evil dictator, and
get rid of him, and then freedom and democracy will flourish.
And so we get rid of him, and then people
start bombing each other's mosques, and we're going, what's going
on here? Well, well, you had you already had the
people who wanted to bomb the other people's mosques there.
They were just terrified of a guy who would come
and like send tanks into their town if they did so,
they were there were more concerned about that. And then
you take that guy out of the way, and oh,
let's put a Western friendly guy in that. They're not
scared of that guy. They're not scared of him, and
so they can start they can start destroying, destroying each other,
and eventually you get something like isis. You get something
like isis. So the situation is like, if Israel failed,
who's going to be in charge? Is it going to
be some brutal guy that we would look at and go,
this guy was just just an evil tyrant, but he's
able to maintain some level of control. Or is it
going to be chaos and everyone's just slaughtering each other,
in which case the most brutal jihadis are are around.
And so so anyway, it's a we don't we don't
know what would replace it, So you don't know.
Speaker 1: On the on the Saddam issue. We're talking about this
briefly earlier. But one thing that is very difficult about
the whole Saddam problem is that while it is true
that that there have been lots of of that, there's
that there have been lots of you know, operations and
you know attempts to somehow use Saddam or or use
his downfall or make him fall in order to achieve
some strategic goals in them at least so them himself
was a really really messed up guy, and with more,
more and more power, he really got out of hand
and did some really horribly atrocious things like massacring entire
populations under his control, uh gassing the Jews, not the
gassing the Kurdish population there and uh and actually committing
a genocide against him the sea, the Halapa massacre. He
used actually weapons of mass destruction chemical weapons are described
as uh turning a turning a river completely red by
you know, bombing them, killing them, poisoning them and so there.
So there is some really really the messed up stuff
that came with with Saddam. This also makes the whole
thing complicated, the whole Iraq War complicated, because when we
talk about the Iraq War nowadays, we talked about how
there was the the lie that that that that Saddam
had weapons of mass destruction. The issue is that Saddam
did use weapons of mass destruction in the past and.
Speaker 3: Well, but that those those chemical weapons were from the
CIA because he was originally put in hey with the
Bathists were the older CI plan for the Middle East
called pan Arabism.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, before the war started, he also
several times openly openly bragged about supposedly developing weapons of
mass destruction and having weapons of mass destruction. Now here's
the issue. Here's of course, where I agree and where
I where I see a problem. The US and Israel
and the others would have had the capabilities to know
that he was just bluffing so that he didn't actually
have weapons of mass destruction, or that he wasn't actually
close to developing weapons of mass destruction. So I think
things get a little bit blurry when the war starts
because of the suspicion that he has weapons of mass destruction,
because with also this justification that he openly brags that
he has weapons of mass destruction, but Western intelligence and
Israeli intelligence should have been aware at the point that
he was just bluffing that he actually didn't have anything
at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because he did have at
one point chemical weapons, as you said, that were used,
and those were provided by the CIA. But then the
intelligence that came about him having the WMDs in two
thousand and three, when Colin Powell presents that the UN
Security Council, what's funny is that I was just reading this.
But this is my third book, by the way, so
this is the official historian of British intelligence, the names
Christopher Andrew. But he wrote a separate book on movies
and intelligence, which is just curiously what my books are about.
But he says, I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but he
says that what was funny about the intelligence relating to
the WMD's. I don't mean to make light of it,
but this part actually is kind of funny, is that
when Colin Powell presented this It came from an anonymous
source that British intelligence was providing to the CIA, and
this anonymous source was quote fabricating the intelligence. And one
of the ways that they figured out that it was
fabricated in two thousand and three was because the messages
that were being sent were just so happy, just so
happened to be identical to the type of gas balls
that Nicholas Cage had in The Rock. And so this
isn't admission from official British intelligence historian. There they're talking
about how the Rock, if you remember, in the Rock,
Nick Cage has these those green balls of gas that
are going to destroy San Francisco, and he's saying that
we realized that this intel was fake because he wait
a minute, that's from the Rock.
Speaker 1: That's not definitely that's yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. So something
was obviously, So we would agree that that the nations
in question basically took advantage of just hints of intelligence
or hints of supposed information, you know, to start the war,
which they thought would be would be very beneficial in
order to achieve certain goals in the Middle East. Right,
since your flashing books, I also want to flash this
book here, which is the Damascus Events. Not sure if
you have if you have heard of it or read it.
It's about events in the in the mid or late
eighteen hundreds were since we were talking about the piece
under the Ottoman Empire. It's a very very interesting book.
It starts with a dispute between the Jewish population and
the Christian population on Lebanon and then quickly unfolds into
a whole massacre of Christians in at Mount Lebanon first,
and then throw out Damascus in Syria, where Muslims then
start jumping in and basically just picking Christians off this
off the street and killing them, raping them and so on,
where they start seeking refuge and the few who help them.
The Ottomans come in try to initially stop it, but
then don't actually bother and just start watching what happens,
until eventually the Western forces land and come in and
put an end to it and kind of with pressure
forced the Ottoman Empire to stop the massacres from happening.
It also kind of displays how the Ottoman Empire was,
how the populations, the Middle Eastern populations, the other populations,
including the Muslims and the others really didn't like the Ottomans,
and they all had They all shared the opinion that
these are just a bunch of oppressive bastards who are
just keeping us all in line for their own pleasure
and taking advantage of us and exploiting us. So nobody
liked the Automance and they were all just uh, they
all had big resentment and hostility to work the elements.
Speaker 3: The hobby Salafi and those groups would fight the Ottomans
m hm. And that's why the British thought that they
would be a good ally against the Ottomans.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to show that, just to show that
I also have books.
Speaker 3: So yeah.
Speaker 2: I always think though, like if it was really important,
people would put it in videos.
Speaker 1: So good point, uh, Ap and j D. Can you
find a fun and genial topic to debate on like
David Wood and Robert Spencer did on skyprofits existence that
was awesome? I don't think so.
Speaker 3: Uh. It probably to be pretty niche because we have
to get nished to figure out an area of disagreement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're uh, they're that specifically because they brought up
me and Robert. That sounds like they're looking for something
where people are happy who ever wins. So me and
Robert debated whether Muhammad existed. Robert argued that he didn't.
I said he did because who would have written? Who
would have made up a profit? This embarrassing? So people
are happy either, I think I think they're thinking something
like that, like if you guys disagreed on something, but
they'd be happy whoever whichever side won well.
Speaker 3: And that when I was debating all the tiny mustachemen people,
A lot of people's issue with me saying that the
Bank of England funded tiny mustache man. So Ap might
take issue with to what degree I don't know world
War two was desired by certain elites versus not. Maybe
he would take issue with specifics what we kind of
agreed on al Qaeda. I don't know how far he
would disagree with ISIS or something.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Hey, if you guys debated, if you
guys debated, if you guys debated, fura ap should do
the entire thing with a little mustache and in uniform
and that would make it like really hilarious and he
could just be flipping out. But do it in with
a heavy German accent.
Speaker 3: The entire tack.
Speaker 1: That'd be very nice, very nice. Hats on death says,
we can all agree that your cub is controlling everyone.
This is true, Uh, Jay, I heard, I hear that
you're also a very big friend of your cub.
Speaker 3: I'm a secret Society proponent. I mean I believe in
secret society is and the real Illuminati control is your cube.
That's the big reveal that I was waiting to tell
you guys. So I started with the Illuminati card deck,
and I don't have my Yakub card because it's too
secret to actually have a card for it. So it
has to be taught orally. It's an oral gnostic secret.
Speaker 1: I see, I see, I actually have a song about Yakub.
Speaker 2: Of course you controlled everything. He's got two brains.
Speaker 1: From the black kim Mold mine like the furnace prophetic
Necker clue patent or fifty nine k fowl stilled the
lab nation true dud Bold crafted genes like a cryptic hymn.
Click the melanin limb by limb, flip the script on
a godly whim.
Speaker 4: Six hundred years that the graft begin from Jeff blackmous to.
Speaker 1: A tip so yeah, this is how it goes. Yakuba
himself instructed me to write this last spicy Rahman, look
at this too, so orthodox? Now look at David's such
a cookie. Loving one another through disagreements is how we
are christ like all eyes on Christ yep, yep. And
as an Orthodox, this makes me happy. We need to
be united against all those who hate Jesus and bring
over as many commerce as we can. Love you, brothers, Okay,
maybe you can find a place to fight.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So here's Jay.
Speaker 3: So you know that I am.
Speaker 1: You know that I'm a big fan of Israel and
of Jews. Uh, what is your position on whether Israel
has a right to exist?
Speaker 3: I don't think anyone. I've not hurt anyone who thinks
that they shouldn't exist.
Speaker 2: Is that Zionist case closed?
Speaker 3: Before there was Zionism, Jews existed and had a right
to exist, He.
Speaker 2: Said, Israel.
Speaker 1: No, I mean the nation of Israel.
Speaker 3: The nation Israel is prior to Zionism.
Speaker 2: It means Israel. Now does Israel have a right to exist?
Speaker 1: Wait, wait a minute, are you saying that that the
that the that the nation of Israel has a like?
Are you are you talking about the past ancient Israel,
or are you just talking about the people of or
the Jews as a collective as Israel.
Speaker 3: I'm speaking of the Jews as a collective known as
the Israelites. They have a right to exist. I think
that the nation state of Israel is a real politic
that is there. It's not going anywhere, so there's not
really any point in talking about it quote not existing.
I don't think that makes any sense. I do think
you could debate to what degree the US has a
duty to use tax money, you know, to support Israel.
I agree, and even the Liqud party actually was arguing
very early on that in order to become self sufficient,
Israel would need to separate itself from US tax money.
Speaker 1: This is a very very important thing, which I was
kind of surprised to find out that that it was
actually very early on part of the Liqud government's policy
and is today still among the conservative right winger wants,
the more nationalist types in Israel, it is a very
big thing to be insisted on to completely sever themselves
from any foreign funding. And the idea is basically so
that the hardline conservative right in Israel doesn't want any
US funding and whenever Israel asks for anything, there is
a huge opposition that comes from that camp because they
say any kind of funding coming from a foreign nation,
no matter if there are allies or not, simply makes
us more dependent, and we don't want any more dependence.
We want to get rid of foreign funding.
Speaker 3: Yeah, labor Zionism is the thing that's critiqued in Natanyahu's
Clean Break strategy in nineteen ninety six, and that's socialism.
And I'm not socialist. I'm not pro socialist. I've never
thought that's a wise idea. But yeah, both that on
the non plan talk about trying to get to economic independence.
So yeah, I mean, I think it also mentions that
it's a tough sell. I think it's the Clean Break paper.
It mentions that it's a tough sell in the US
to the US population if Israel constantly relies on US
tax money. So it's it's a complex issue. But you know,
the US also uses that money for influence everywhere. So
money is given to every country in varying degrees, whether
it's Ukraine, whether it's Columbia, or whether it's Egypt. You know,
a lot of soft power is exercised through the US
giving aid money, and I would be for kind of
scaling back all of that to everybody. I don't think
we need to try to have a US empire. So
I'm much more of a non interventionist in terms of
how I would argue this foreign policy stuff.
Speaker 1: Here's one genuine, actual thing this time I'm not bringing
up to fight, but just out of curiosity, because this
is something that often is brought up to me as
somebody who goes into the Orthodox Church. So I talked
about this very very much with my own spiritual father,
who knows about my position. He even watched my debate
with Andrew Wilson and told me what he thought about it,
which is kind of funny because he's just like old
guy and apparently sat there and watched that debate. And
once I found out that he watched it, I was like,
I'm very sorry that I lost my patience during that.
But so people, many people have this tendency to because
of my decision to go into the Orthodox Church, to
tell me that my position of supporting, you know, Israel's
right to exist as we speak, and by Israel, I
mean I'm specifically bring up to the nation state of
Israel as it is a secular state of Israel as
it exists right now. So they say that that my
idea of supporting or actively supporting that state's right to
exist and to defend itself is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.
And as I look at that question and and talk
about it with my spiritual father and with others, you
know that I trust in terms of Orthodoxy, they say
that this is a big misunderstanding, that there is no
actual contradiction here, that there would be only a contradiction
if I held a theological Zionis position.
Speaker 3: So well, I think the Orthodox Church is the third
third largest land own in Israel. It would be a
huge mess if everything suddenly changed and there was no
more Israeli government, there was no government at all. It
became a sort of a chaotic war zone. I don't
think the Patriarch of Jerusalem would want that. So I
think even if the Holy Separical Sepulcher Church, if the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, you know, if these different entities rely
on the existing structure to a degree, I think most
people probably would not want some sort of uh collapse
or you know, any kind of Islamic regime. That said,
I don't think that precludes criticism of the existing government decisions,
which I do think many Orthodox leaders do engage in.
I would not call Nozraela a martyr. I don't know
why people would say that. Maybe there's maybe there's some
broader use of the term martyr that that is common
amongst Arabs. I don't know, but I've always understood morder
to be in a religious context, so I wouldn't use
that language. But at the same time, I have seen
the Patriarch of Jerusalem be critical of the decisions of
the Knesset at times, and I don't think there's a
problem with that. So I would assume that your spiritual
father is correct that the difference between Jews having a
right to exist, which I think even the old the
old Catholic position was that you have to believe that
Jews have a right to exist. But that's not the
equivalent to I must support as you said.
Speaker 1: That's what Saint Augustine says. Yeah, that's that's fat.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that's always been I think the position,
whether Latin or Eastern Catholic.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I don't fun fact, even the Knesset, the Israeli
uh in Parliament building is directly on land owned by
the Orthodox Church, so, which is very very funny, and
I think it has a I think it is leased
until like for for for ninety nine years, since the
fifties or something like that. So, and this is why
there has been also internal political struggles in the Orthodox
in the Jerusalem patriarchy, right from the more Arab anti
Zionist side to kind of have more influence and to
take control of the situation, whereas the more Hellenistic side
or the more Hellenic site.
Speaker 3: It was a huge, huge issue. Yeah. In fact, the
Russian the MP also is interested in stronger alliances with
Jerusalem because in the wake of what happened in twenty
fourteen Ukraine and the decisions of the EP and the
State Department there, there was a sort of forced flipping
of many of the patriarch its between MP or EP
and the Alexander patriarch, which was previously very pro MP,
flipped towards pro US maybe four or five years ago.
And then I think everybody's sort of trying to want
to court Jerusalem patriarch it mm hmmmm.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, so we've established that jade Hyer's a Zionist.
Speaker 2: Okay, good. Uh oh, little little little side note, it is, uh,
it is lots of people agree on more than they
think they agree on when they're they're arguing, like when
when like I'm a I'm a Zionist in pretty much
the same sense Sam Harris says that he's a Zionist,
He's just like, yep, a ton of people want to
kill these guys, so it's good that they have a
spot where they can actually not be killed if things
if things head south. And so I'm like, yeah, I
agree with that. So yeah, I'm on board with the Zionism.
And then I you know, if I not know, I'm
it got this from the Schofield Bible and I'm trying
to bring about the Antichrist and stuff like. It was
like but I don't believe. I didn't say I'm leaving
any of that stuff. So anyway, but you know, you
you sit down and you find out, oh do we
we agree that they have a right to exist? Yeah, okay, okay,
that's kind of It's kind of all I was saying
there anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well again it's Harry because Ionism is, you know,
historically a political movement, and even the Rothschilds themselves didn't
want to support initially Zionism. They don't want to get
involved in the politics. But by the time of you know,
Hertzel Beingurian, Beingurian basically pronounces, you know, the Zionist project
underneath the giant banner of Hertzel. I don't see how
any Christian could support that ideology because it's an atheistic,
socialistic ideology, and even the LACUD wanted to move away
from the labor socialist ideology that undergirded that. I mean,
if I don't have the book yet, it's going to
be here tomorrow, but I bought Hesse's Roman Jerusalem, which
will be here tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Well, the idea is that like there's like Zionism means
a bunch of different things, right Like in the past,
it would have been hey, yeah, heay, we need to
get this and you can have different Hey, we believe
that this belongs to us from God and that we
need to take it for that and other people, know,
we just need a place where we can uh not
be at the mercy of other people. And then you
could have like a Christian a Christian Zionism, uh, and
then you could you could just yeah, you could just
be of that. So anyway, the point is that things
that have happened in the past, like we need to
get this land, those are two different things. Like even
Christopher Hitchins said, I wouldn't supported Christopher Hitchens once you
said I didn't, I wouldn't support what they did to
to get it. But this is the reality of the
of the situation we're in right now that they have
this place, and yeah, it's really good that they that
they have that. So any you can have a ton
of different positions in there, but a bunch of those
would all be there would be a bunch of positions
that are all some form of Zionism. And it's like
when you say when you say the word, when you
say the word, people think you mean one of these
other things and not always like what you mean.
Speaker 1: Here is a super chance which says Jake makes grandios
claims about Judaism, but he doesn't even read Hebrew to
read the tact That is arrogance and English.
Speaker 2: I think this is about Jake Shields or Jake the
Muslim metaphysician.
Speaker 1: Yeah, possibly based Jay. Pretty pretty much the whole thing
with Zionism, with the terminology is what's actually very interesting.
Is so there are religious Jews who are very much
anti Zionist, who are kind of the minority of religious Jews,
but then there is also the religious Zionist section and
religious Jews who actively support the policies and the existence
of the of the nation state of Israel. But even
among the religious Zionists people or those who don't call
themselves directly Zionists, but who are who are kind of,
you know, proud and supportive of the State of Israel,
they generally have a big problem and kind of a
little bit of hostility toward historic Zionism, which they will
also often often bring up, so they specific call themselves
religious Zionists or just uh, you know, Israel or just
israelis because they associate the Zionism specifically with the socialist,
secularist Zionist at the beginning, where they say that that
that while it is good to establish the modern state
of Israel, Zionism is basically in its original form a
curse and one of the main reasons why we're in
all this trouble and so on. So the it gets
really really complicated with the terminology.
Speaker 3: You've got these the Torah true Torah Jews that are
you know, anti Zionists, and they point that they're not
supposed to that. Their argument is a no, Jews should
be there until the Messiah is here. Yeah, and then
you've got I want to ask you what is the
general Hasidic position, because I know you had looked into
some of their theology. What's their position on political Zionism.
Speaker 1: So that it's it's kind of complicated. If you have,
for example, the Habbard movement that are very much generally
pro Israel politically seen, but what they do, for example,
is they usually align with the others in that they
don't officially or publicly associate themselves with political things. And
Habbard centers, for example, you will see that they generally
view Israel favorably, but they have a policy of not
allowing Israel flags for example inside.
Speaker 3: But what's the reasoning for the because and some of
them won't fight in the war, right like they won't
do the idea of service.
Speaker 1: Right because they think that think they think that that
basically the so they think that as people who devote
themselves to following the commandments of God, they have a
responsibility of continuing the heritage and commandments of God. Properly
and to simply devote themselves to a religious existence of
upholding the Jewish culture and its continue continuity, while leaving
the fighting to others. For example, politically, they think that
while they can support the nation state of Israel because
now it is already there, they wouldn't have probably supported
the Zionist movement, but now that it is there, they
support its existence, but they don't want to be political
about it and don't want to weigh flags, for example.
But then you also have other Hasidic groups that are
very explicitly anti anti Zionism, anti Israel directly, so it
is rather complicated. But so those that are generally they're
generally described as the Haredi, the ultra orthodox section, those
will usually be vary between anti Zionism and indifference to Zionism.
But the funny thing about this is that I talked
to doctor Annadwelf. She's a pretty good historic, very good,
very solid historian. Much respect to her. She mentions this
funny thing, which is that even the anti Zionist jew
eventually one zion isn't they just want it later, not now.
So that's kind of funny all about it. In one
book does e does not equal fact other sources. Also,
we have to stop acting like Muslims have zero agency
and like they only react, never act. They don't have agency.
If they have no agency, they shouldn't have countries, or
they shouldn't have countries. Just kidding.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I've got a lot of books. I don't
have one book. I wouldn't think that one book is
a proof of anything. It's just an evidence.
Speaker 2: And again, you don't need books if the important stuff
is all put in videos.
Speaker 1: Quay one question for ap and the Wood Doctor, the
Wood Doctor. Can Israel become wicked like in the scriptures?
I'm glad you showed Jay Dyer. Tell Jim Bobs up
for me? All one under Christ?
Speaker 2: Oh, anything involving human beings can't pick I'm really wicked
really quick.
Speaker 1: But I wonder if I wonder if the question here
is more about, you know, like wickedness and a biblical
sense as a or is it just about randomly becoming
becoming a wicked I don't really know, but yeah, of
course there are different theories with there are different ideas
with the role of the Jewish people and Israel and
their role. Until things are wrapped up in the end right,
such as that they still kind of play a role
in a sense and go through things eventually to them
be reconciled, and and all that, and much of it
is a mystery to us, as you must.
Speaker 3: Most of the Eastern Church fathers are pretty adamant that eventually,
at some point the Jews will convert, and how that
will come about, we don't know. But basing it on
Romans eleven, you know John Damasca, Saints Earl of Alexandria,
most church fathers talk about that can future conversion. When
they leave unbelief, they are able to be grafted back in.
So it's entirely possible that today's nation state of Israel
could play a future role in that. But we don't
know how that will be. But that is the Orthodox
position generally speaking.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask a theoretical question, but I'm not
sure if I'm supposed to speculate on this. Even so,
the thing is, I guess, in my preparation for the
debate with Andrew Wilson, I kind of read through the
Romans nine through eleven like so many times that I
kind of burned a certain part of it into my head,
which is that that this is a that a certain
part of it is a mystery, as Saint Paul calls it,
that there is a partial blindness until the fullness of
the Gentiles has been grafted in, and then the remainder
will be grafted in. But he calls it a mystery.
And then if it is a mystery, to what extent
can we then really speculate about it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Anyway, But I just.
Speaker 1: Want to say it anyway. So I read this one position,
which also comes from certain certain Greek patriarchs, which is
that that it could be possible that from a purely
Christian perspective, while the while the Jews are expecting a Messiah,
and while the expectation then traditionally associated with that would
be that an Antichrist would come forth, it would it
could be entirely possible that in the end there is
an expectation of a Messiah by the Jews, but then
it turns out that the Messiah that is coming is
actually Christ himself who comes and reconciles everybody, or something
like that. But I think two understanding, this is just
one of the many speculations, and not sure what you
think about it.
Speaker 3: It's a good little book put out by jordan Bilt
Monastery called Apostasy and Antichrist, And it just basically as
quotes from Orthodox saints and elders and church fathers on
this point. And it's pretty unanimous that some of the
signs towards the end would be the rebuilding of a
new temple. It is, in the Orthodox tradition generally speaking,
believed to be an Antichrist temple. So we're not dispensationless,
but there are certain points where we would agree with
that aschaetological position of the anti Christ the new Temple.
But again it's pretty clear. I'm not seeing any church
of others that comment on it that don't believe in
a future conversion of the Jews, so they will be
grafted back in. And in Rome's eleven Pole describes that
as life from the dead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Saint John Chris Astmen says, if it hasn't
happened yet, it definitely will happen.
Speaker 2: So well, even even with the even with saying that
it will be Jesus, you know you've got Jesus saying
you won't. You won't see me again until you say
blessed to see who comes in the name of the Lord.
You have things that actually can occasionally sound like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the text from Zechariah where they appierce me, you
know those who look upon me, those that appears to
me to look upon me. Saint Cryle Alexandria says, that's
also a text of the future conversion of Jews, which
is interesting because I don't think most of the other
church fathers said that.
Speaker 1: Uh, this is an authoral stream now, yes it is,
uh elite Chris ade Jay refute the Yakoub fallacy.
Speaker 3: There is no fallacy because there's only one Yakub and
we are underneath him.
Speaker 1: So happy to be a fallacy, Uh, sanch Japan's As
a loyal Jewish friend, I'm disappointed to see my friends
Ap and David giving a platform to j who Jay,
who is revealing all of our genocidal satanic secrets to
the world. We have nowhere left to hide now but
behind the gargage tree. I'm sorry to hear that, but
that's what's supposed to happen in the end.
Speaker 3: Sancho doesn't sound like a Jewish name. That sounds like
a name, so I don't know about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Fishermen's Corner Western what what something happened to you, David.
We can hear you listening something.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, Oh, I don't know. I was just saying
that that sounds like something that you would do.
Speaker 1: He's a Sancho name Fisherman's corner. Western Catholics regained their
Pope kingship from Mussolini. The Third Reich means the third
Holy Roman Empire.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, Hitler might have thought that he was going
to create a new Byzantine Empire. That doesn't mean that
it's Christian because he called it that. And I don't
know what pope kingship means. I'm no idea.
Speaker 1: Jay won the debate. He has more books behind him.
I'm not sure if well.
Speaker 3: We ended up agreeing on quite a bit. So when
really a.
Speaker 1: Debate, we're actually fighting but nobody's realizing it. And then
this is going so well. David's going to send Jay
an artsa box for his birthday. Nice orthor Joe. I
owe a lot to Jay. He's the reason I left
Protestantism and converted to Orthodoxy, and it's the greatest thing
in my life. And when I saw your first posts
about Orthodoxy, API gave deep thanks to the to our
Lord for giving me a wonderful brother.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that David is getting really angry about this
right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm I'm about to explode.
Speaker 1: See thank you, Thank you, Orthodore. Appreciate that David says
I heard that Bronze Age Mindset is a good book.
Speaker 3: Thoughts, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 1: Powerful elies. Thanks for having mister Dier and he's the
reason I've returned to church and I'm converting to Orthodoxy.
Very nice, very nice, uh tadrum. Jay won the debate.
H I already read this. Jay's gonna crush you guys
with his Yacoobian cringe core magic. Love all the three
of you. You've all had a big and positive impact
throughout my life. God, bless you. Chance called bless you
to thank you. Appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Is there a reason more that yakub stuff comes up?
Speaker 3: Now? It's a meme. But I guess a lot of
my audience really likes that. Joe is that?
Speaker 2: But is that the same as like the five Percenters,
the Nation of Islamia Cube, the two Brain Okay, okay, yeah,
I didn't know if that was a different, different different
I don't know if there were multiple Yah cubs we're
We're on the same yakub page.
Speaker 1: There's only one year cub. What are you talking about? Uh?
Saw him twenty two sixteen eighteen says shot fired. He's fuming,
you see, yeah, David, He's David just fuming or tick.
So ye enough friendly conversations start to fight. Also, Jay
and Chad, do we do have any papers books on
tag apart from me Vis and deconductor as work.
Speaker 2: That's transcendental argument ap I mean, I had no idea.
Speaker 3: There's Bonson's Always Ready, There's John Frame's books, there's Van
Hill's Apologetic. I mean, those are all all Protestant books.
But that's the only ones I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: So just because I said I set stuff about this
very very briefly in past live streams, I know that
there is a that there was a disagreement on using
theological arguments, uh or in logical arguments in an Orthodox
Christian framework, And kind of as I'm looking into into
into orthodoxy and the history of Orthodoxy with with theology,
with theology and with using you know, logical arguments for
God and all that, I see that there's kind of
a kind of a divide between how Eastern theology is
one in the Western theology is one, and there is
a general then there is a a sentiment expressed by
certain you know, fathers and others, and later on Orthodox
scholars in the East that that the whole rationalism is
kind of a Western mindset of trying to put God
and all that into into into words and positives and
all that, whereas the East is more uh more about
my mystic, mystical and mystery. I also find found that
Callistus were for example, that brings us up in one
of his books on the Introduction to Orthodoxy. I think
it's in the Orthodox way. So when I see, for example,
your approach with the transcendental arguments, it strikes me as
not fitting into what I like how I perceive Orthodox theology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say that it's a little bit of
a misunderstanding, because it's true that there have been many
church fathers and saints and elders who weren't interested or
that adept with that stuff, and that's fine, but there's
a whole host of Orthodox Church fathers, saints and theologians
who were. So for example, the Cappadocians were very philosophical
in their approach. Saint Gregor Nissa has a gigantic you know,
in our page refutation of Eunomius, that's probably the most
technical philosophical book you'll ever read, Say with Saint Maximus.
He uses a lot of arguments from geometry, arguments from
you know, even like Pythagoreanism to kind of get into
ways to demonstrate the trinity. If you go to you know,
Saint John Damascus's classic book, Fount of Knowledge, this is
a really important text which the very beginning page has
a transcendent argument on it, the very first page, and
he gets that from Aristotle. So transcendent arguments or retortion
is actually in metaphysics. So it's it's something that all
the church fathers that were very adept in Greek philosophy,
not all of them were, but the ones that were,
like John Damascus or Sat Maximus a confessor, they have
a tendency to utilize these these points and these principles. Likewise,
Saint Photius was the most learned man Byzantheum, very philosophical.
Even Gregor Palamas, Saint Gregor Palamus, who's the most mystical theologian.
His treat Us against the Philioque is called the apdict
that treat Us and Apidicti refers to Aristotian logic, so
he uses a Oristilian logic to prove that the Latin
conception of the philioquay is wrong. So I would say
that the Orthox tradition is just broad than the idea
of being purely mystical. And also it's a misnomer to
say that that being scholastic is not the same thing
as scholasticism and rationalism. So using reason is necessary, it's
part of the Patristic heritage, and apologetic. It has its limitations,
but that's not the same thing as rationalism from like
Kant or you know, any of the Enlightenment philosophers, And
scholasticism from a Quinas or any of those characters is
not the same thing as being scholastic like St.
Speaker 1: Photius was, which you think it would be that it
would be completely natural or reasonable or understandable to go
into a rather to kind of reject that direction of
theology and to go more into the like for a
person out of personal preferences when exploring religion, exploring Orthodoxy,
to go rather into the mysticism like I've recently been
interested very much still trying to explore and still have
very limited knowledge off and want to kind of get
into reading more of Saint Maximus the Confessor, who seems
to be very who appeals.
Speaker 3: To me a lot with Yeah, the ambigua are again
kind of like NISA's against you unomias if you get
Maximus's too Ambiguou. They're probably some of the most difficult
advanced texts that you can get from a philosophical perspective.
They're they're very hard to deal with. So I'm not
saying that you shouldn't read them. You definitely should. I
would start with Cosmic Mystery the Little Blue Saint Latimer
Seminary book first, because I think ambiguous is going to
be very, very challenging. It's challenging for me, and you know,
I studied philosophy at at graduate level, so yeah, you're
going to find the richness of the Orthox tradition has
all of that.
Speaker 1: I just did something very basic and just decided to
because I came across it. There was a book that
is basically a compilation of quotes by him, so I thought,
I just I'll just start out with that. It's as
basic as rudimentary as as it can get that's exactly
what I need right now. Jordan Floor's great point, David,
I agree, See there was a good point. Yeah, moomoo,
Joe can so one some what so one some Jewia
family had money and power and they used it.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: So now Jews need to be genuine. The moments should
be free with rex and massive greers. Really, yeah, I
wouldn't say that. Anybody here would argue that. It's not
even Jay Dire. That's that's sound a pretty I don't.
I don't mean not even Jaydyer, but uh so out
of us, nobody would argue that, except maybe j DR.
But yeah, yeah, whatever, I don't know what to say.
Do you do you have anything to say about that, Jane?
Speaker 3: I mean the argument was not, well, the Ros shows
had a lot of money and power and so that
makes everyone bad and they're for everybody today should be
you know, got rid of I'm never say anything as
silly as that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if I had lots of power, and
if I had it from lot lots of power, I
would probably want to get involved into influencing certain politics.
Speaker 3: Into with money and power.
Speaker 2: Does so.
Speaker 1: Javier said, this is cool, but everyone is here to
hear about the twenty one martyrs. So here's the thing earlier, Yeah,
we did pretty much. Here here's the thing. When I
first heard about the twenty one martyrs, I had lots
of respect for them. As I go into the Orthodox Church,
I still a very much respect for them. And as
I'm looking into iconography and kind of enriching my my home,
our home, and my our prayer space with ic iconography,
I came across the icons on the off the twenty
one martyrs, and I saw that some of them are
even sold on very prominent etern Orthodox marketplaces and all that.
So what I initially immediately did was I asked my
spiritual father and said, so, since these people were not
from the Eastern Orthodox Church but from the Oriental, can
we consider them martyrs? And what he said is, of
course that there are different opinions and different views on this,
but while we don't include them into our official list
or calendar of martyrs, there is nothing wrong with regarding
them as martyrs and considering that they were specifically killed
because of their belief in Christ, and that they have
been even in the worst case, we would consider that
they have been baptized in blood. So he said, there
is nothing wrong with going ahead and considering them the martyrs.
But he also pointed out that there are of course
different opinions on this stuff. So to my understanding, I
wouldn't have a big problem with with you, for example,
stating that that we that we don't officially consider them
martyrs in the strict ecclesiastic sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it was, And I didn't when I mentioned
the Hezbola guy that was killed and that Hinkle was
calling a martyr. I wouldn't use that term for either
Coptics or for Shia from the orthodox theological position. But
that doesn't mean that I know anyone's destiny. I don't
know that. So that's the only sense that I've ever
even heard martyr use. But maybe there is this colloquial
sense where people use it, and just in the sense
of anyone dying for a cause. I mean, I guess
in that sense you could have Buddhist martyrs. I guess it.
Just it's an odd usage to me because I think
of it in terms of the calendar. But I don't
know the Coptic people's destiny. I mean, I would didn't.
I wouldn't have a Coptic I would not honor the
Coptic Martyrs just because of the the theology of it,
the same way I wouldn't like I have, for example,
I have some of my old Roman Catholic stuff around,
Like I have an Aquinas icon up there, and I
kept it because it's, you know, part of my past.
It's my history being really into Tonism my twenties and whatnot.
But I'm not Roman Catholic anymore, and it's not it's
not on my icon wall. But personally I wouldn't put, say,
the Coptic Martyrs on my icon wall. But if a person,
you know it's Phil's drawn to that and they you know,
feel like that they did give their life for that,
I can't judge.
Speaker 2: You for that. Yeah, yeah, I have.
Speaker 1: I have an example of this one which uh so
Maximilian Colby. Yeah yeah, and kind of the same mindset.
I guess where I wouldn't put this into my into
my my prayer corner. But I haven't just because I
have respect respect for him and all that.
Speaker 3: I remember one time some of the extreme extreme Ortho bros.
Uh they saw my icon of Aquinas and they were
arguing that I was like still secretly a Roman Catholic,
and I was like, it's not on my icon. Well, man,
it's it's on my it's on my bookshelf. What are
you talking about?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess, to be very honest, I also fell
into this very same thing when we started getting more
and more bitter toward each other. Uh before we ended
up kind of fighting the response that you gave when
I asked you about the twenty one about the Coptic Martyrs,
which was kind of comparing them to his Bola leader.
I I understand the context of what you were saying.
Speaker 3: I wasn't saying that, yeah, they're equivalent.
Speaker 1: Like, but I was understanding somebody who doesn't know the context,
that response seems really really bad. So I understand, and
I think I played into that as well, to be
very honest. You know, so we do things sometimes that
are pretty bad. Even I do things that are bad. Yeah, yeah, moomoo.
Speaker 3: Joe.
Speaker 1: Palestine is a project, Jordan is as well. USA is
a project as well. Should USA be removed because of
all the manipulations and games used in creating it?
Speaker 2: Yes? No?
Speaker 3: Yeah no, Well, I think the first time you came
out of space, I pointed out that, you know, Jews
that are in Israel today had nothing to do with
what their great grandparents or great great grandparents decided anymore
than you know, me living in Tennessee, you know, as
being Indian Land. You know, I can't control what my
great great grandparents did. So it's silly to do this
sort of social justice where you're blaming, where you blame
people for where they can't control where they were born.
But also I think that a lot of the history
of Israel has been not told or covered up, or
people gloss over it. So I try to be as
fair and as nuanced as possible, you know, looking at
the reality of history. So and and like we said earlier,
like I didn't argue that everybody should be gotten rid
of or that everybody should move, or that everything should
change or there should be I don't. There is no
easy answer. And that's why, you know, politicians and bureaucrats
and power leads have been trying to trying to settle
this for for decades.
Speaker 1: Teddy, says Pastor Randy Ball.
Speaker 2: Do you still do that bit? I do?
Speaker 3: Uh. And in fact, if you find an orthodoxy unconvinced thing,
I'm sure Pastor Randy would love to have you with
his church, ap.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can arrange a meeting between him shake.
Speaker 3: By versus pastor, or they could have a Krislam alliance.
Speaker 1: Good idea fishermen's corner. Batman claiming because you have known
the setting of world history or what an I mean?
I guess there's a discussion here.
Speaker 2: That is being response to Batman Man.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Batman is not here among us, so he probably
has important stuff to do right now.
Speaker 2: MT.
Speaker 1: There are between seventy and one hundred radical islam Bic
terrorist groups today. America is powerful, but we're not responsible
for all those Mooslimbs have agency, they use that agency
to follow their book. True, true, true. I would say
for most terrorist organizations, ISLAMI terists organizations, I would say
the forces we talked about earlier on are not even
indirectly responsible for some day pretty much.
Speaker 3: Well in Islam, they don't have agency, do They aren't
there directly in an occasional sense, directly caused by Allah.
Speaker 1: Allah even determined this whole thing here right now that
we're doing so this was meant to. Allah even decided
that I will call myself a posted profit and talk
with trash about Islam. So hey, ap.
Speaker 2: So now discussion the other day with a group, but
l L pointed out, you know, l L I s
O Lohim, But she was pointing out, and I'm gonna
make a video it and I'm of course going to
steal it, but she was pointing out. So you have
this issue in the Quran that that they interpret as
Allah won't punish one person for the sins of another.
Each each person will bear his own burden. No one
shall shall bear the burden of another, says that repeatedly
in the Koran. But in the Hadith you have Mohammed
saying that Allah will punish Jews and Christians in hell
for the sins of Muslim So you have that there
and then so how do you reconcile those well, even
in the Qur'an, interestingly, you have the idea that Allah
will punish people who cause other people to go astray.
So in other words, if you're the leader of a
cult and you lead someone astray, then you're going to
bear part of that person's punishment because you led that
person astray. And so l L was in a discussion
during the live stream, and the Muslims first was flipping
out about the idea that Allah would punish one person
for the sins of another. Then they're pointing it out, Wait,
according to the Koran. According to the Koran, Allah will
punish people for the sins of others if they led
them astray. And so the Muslim finally agreed to that, Yes,
if someone leads someone else astray, then that person deserves
to be punished. And then LL pointed out, Wait a minute,
what about all these verses where Allah says that he's
the one who leads people astray? Yep, And then and
then a funny little I don't know how. It seems
like something I would have picked up on at some point,
and I never picked up on it that according to
the Koran, Allah is the one who leads everyone astray,
who goes astray, and therefore a law, Yeah, he has
to punish himself. How would he do that? Hey, Allah,
I got an idea. You could enter creation and accept
your punishment.
Speaker 1: A lot does not enter creation except when he comes
down to listen to the prayers at a part of tonight.
Speaker 2: Well, one of these days, when he's down here listening
to prayers, he needs to taking medicine.
Speaker 1: He always comes down when it's a specific time off
the night. It's considering that it's always uh a specific
time of the night somewhere. He's always here. So logic
ignatio larios Yakoob's big head equal smart. This is indeed true.
Speaker 2: Hey, APay, we need a we need some graphics computer
guy to make like a video, a video of Allah
going back and forth as you know, like have his
thrown up here and have the earth spinning and have
him like going up and down as the earth spins
and stuff like that, and following his following his trajectory
and stuff like that. Yeah, we look like he's bouncing.
He's going like this all the way around. Someone got
to do that.
Speaker 1: Songs of relief. The real was the friends we made
along the way. Speaking of God. Logic with Aidawa was
a great example of the ministry of reconciliation.
Speaker 2: Oh man, I gotta yeah, I was gonna make a
video on the on Ali Dawa whining about people ripping
the Kuran and stuff. When this guy like it's it's
a reaction to his behavior and his job's behavior that's
causing things like that. So he was gonna make a
video of that about that. But then I finished watching
his debate with God logic. That was the most insane
massacre in the history of forever based on what Ali
Dawa did. Ali Dawa brings a toy to explain how
a square can't be a triangle, and he brings him
this little kid. Did you see it? Ap Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah,
I think so, the square, the square and the triangle.
Speaker 1: Yeah no, maybe maybe, I don't know.
Speaker 2: No, I think you would. You would remember it if
you did. So they had a two part They had
it one night and then Ali Dawa came back to
ye Oh.
Speaker 1: He gave him a gift. He gave him those things toy.
Speaker 2: Did you see that?
Speaker 1: I didn't see them on the package. I just saw them.
Speaker 2: Give it legendary. So Ali Dawa brings God Logic things.
He said, oh, try to explain to you the different shapes. Yeah,
and he said, look, this one got a triangle in
it and this one got a square in it. The
square did not fit in the triangle and the triangle
don't fit in the square. You see, that's like Jesus,
divine nature is human nature can't go it's a contradiction, right,
And God logic goes, hey, Ali Dawa, what's the shape
of this toy? And he goes a square and he
goes and this is a triangle inside the square, right,
and it was just and the whole crowd goes, oh,
but he brought the toy to anyway, It's just it's
it's hilarious, diamanto stupidity, it's it's ridiculous. And the rest
of it was Ali Dawa just posturing and trying to recover.
Speaker 1: Sancha Panza said, Jay spend so much money buying all
the volumes with the tumuel that now you can't afford
a decent light. It's with her life to.
Speaker 3: So I'm at my other place and I have a
new camera on the way. I thought I was gonna
be here today, but it's gonna be here tomorrow and
then yeah, so that'll all be fixed this week.
Speaker 1: And then it also says am israel Hi, I think this,
says Yeshua. Okay, so I guess this is a Christian person, Okay,
says like now people are going to say, look, how
can you read the smith? He the secret? You like
Patti Lupun that went on the view and said American
Christianity is no different from the Taliban. Smart, I don't
even know who that is MTJ. A book is the
equivalent of a blog. There is no barrier for entry
vanity publishing, other sources.
Speaker 3: Okay, so I guess every book is a blog equivalent.
I mean, there's a really good book everybody should read
if you get time. People should work through Tragy how
it's a really important book. He was CFR archivist. He
was mentored Bill Clinton. That book was written for people
going into international relations and foreign service. It's kind of
a CIA section chief book. That's not the equivalent of
a blog.
Speaker 2: He can do that, he said, really long blog.
Speaker 1: Okay, I have to explain to the chat there are
publishing houses that don't even read your material. You pay
them and they publish it. It's called vanity publishing, not
like textbooks. I'm glad you explained it because nobody else
understood what you were saying.
Speaker 2: But saying, wait, people can self publish.
Speaker 3: Then see, I have both, so I'm aware of that.
I have books that are self published and I have
a publisher, so I'm aware of it.
Speaker 1: Nice, you just scared, not, says David, sitting looking like
the cat that swallowed the canary.
Speaker 3: Lo ol.
Speaker 1: This was very early on. Meanwhile, David started talking did you.
Speaker 2: Say Cannery can't How do you say it? Canary?
Speaker 1: Don't make fun of me just because I can say.
Speaker 2: Canary is a place back in the day where they
like put soup and jars and stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to learn.
Speaker 2: We'll learn to speak English man. What the heck you
been here from?
Speaker 1: We're trying to learn speaking English man. I mean it's
pro immigrant. I have privileges bright and rise, ap fautiful
peace come and protecting Christians from jihadiest way so hostile
to all Palestinian Christians online and won't talk to them.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about Palistanian Christians? Put together some
group of Palistanian Christians.
Speaker 1: Who am I askedar against How many Palestinian Christians are
there that I haven't talked to, or that I refuse
to talk to, that they are offered talking to me
that I haven't talked to. I don't know of any
such case. I don't have anything against them all the country.
I think I support them. I just think that they
are very often used in very very bad ways in
this whole conflict. For certain narratives, there are pretty much
no Christians in Gaza. There are Christians in the in
the in the West Bank. There are more Christians within
the borders of Israel. Most of them are supportive of
the Israeli state and so on, and I think it
would be in their best interest to dissociate themselves completely
from the Islamic terrorist movements and to to work for peace.
That's also what I said in my debate. But I'm
happy to talk to them as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as far as Palasinian Christians, yet, there are lots
of Palaesinian Christians who would disagree with AP on Israel
and so on, And you can understand completely different perspectives.
I mean, when Hamas does something and Israel, you know,
sends a missile that way that can sometimes impact impact
Christians and you're looking around, what the heck, man, these
guys just bomb this place and so on. So understand, understand,
at the end of the day, we just think there's
no real future with Hamas in charge. So I would
still I would root for whoever's wrecking Hamas and so on.
But guess what, there are going to be people who
are caught in that crossfire. But there's no there's no
good situation, there's no good state of affairs that's going
to emerge with a terrorist group controlling the entire area.
It's just that, and that has to change or there's
no hope for anyone there.
Speaker 1: I mean, I brought this up in my debate and
also before or one example, speaking of Christians and Orthodoxy,
Archbishop Alexios, he's in Gaza and he is directly responsible
for the for the oldest church in the region, the
same porphibious church there which which suffered damage during the
current war. He in twenty fourteen gave an interview to
I think CBN and said right there that that that
Hamas is as an Islamist group directly in charge, and
we have to do whatever they say. But he complained
and said that Hamas comes and uses the the church,
the church, the church compound to directly fire rockets at
Israel from there, and he knows that as a result
of that, Israel will have to fire back at some point.
So during the current ongoing war it happened, indeed Israel
didire Israel I think, didn't fire directly at the church compound,
but close by, and that as a result of that,
a building in the church compound collapsed and eighteen people
that were hiding there were sheltering there died. But as
a result of that, lots of Christians stood up and said,
and you know, lamented and said this war must and
what is this and so on. And I understand that,
and I just thind what's going on. But here is
the issue. You have the archbishop who said years before
that this was going to happen because Hamas was using
the site to fire at Israel. And Hamas is deliberately
doing that. So this is not just Israeli propaganda. It's
the archbishop himself, the Orthodox Christian archbishop in Gaza, saying
that Hamas is doing this and that this will happen.
When it then happens, everyone forgets about why it happened.
This is why it's in the best interest of the
Christians as well that this Islamist problem is dealt with
and peace is found. And I personally think that that
there is no peace to be found as long as
you have groups like Hamas or the the terrorists running around.
It would be it would be better for all of
it to be absorbed into one Israeli state that will
take care of the peace situation there, because with the
other side, it's it doesn't work. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Yeah, My my concern as far as like Christians in
the area is h I don't want Christians or the
Church to be pawns in the game of terrorists or
of anyone else, not of not of the not of
the jihadis, not of Israel or anything else. So but right,
I mean as far as how what's going on in
in Gaza, Yeah, Hamas has been using using Christians to
sway to sway global public opinion.
Speaker 1: You see, Jee, I don't know if you know the reference,
but this is a reference to this clip that I'm
just going to play quickly because I love it so much.
Speaker 3: You sick in the mind?
Speaker 4: Are you that mentally enslaved and intellectual?
Speaker 1: He's observient and intellectually molested in the ideologically molested.
Speaker 3: Good point, by the way, I just realized he is
the Arab Yakub his head.
Speaker 2: He's worse is he needs to go back, go back,
go back, go back.
Speaker 3: He's Yakub for Arabs. You sick in the mind?
Speaker 4: Are you that mentally?
Speaker 3: You're right hiding two Brains's Mohammed Yakub, Mohammed Yakub, marky skipping?
Speaker 1: Why can't I ask Jay about R? O. C.
Speaker 3: Was that the Rusianodox Church. I don't care.
Speaker 1: I mean, was there a super chat that I skipped?
Speaker 3: Maybe I did.
Speaker 1: I think I do remember skipping one super chat because
I thought it was laboratory super chat about the Russian
Orthodox Church. Maybe I did that.
Speaker 3: I don't know that Is it about the KGB and
all that, if people are interested. I did a pretty
lengthy interview with Met Fulton Jonah.
Speaker 1: I think it was about the Russian Orthodox Church's history
with the KGPN es.
Speaker 3: Well, the rok War, which is I go to a
Russian Wrthdox church outside Russia. For those that don't know,
ro Corps exists because of the sovietization of the church.
Ro Corps is the churches that are the people that
left Russia to flee the Soviets. And so what happened
is Western intelligence aided British Intelligence CIA. They helped to
bring those people over and so when they got out
of the Soviet Union, they set up the Russian Orthodox
Church outside of Russia. So it's not it's the opposite.
It's the people who were fleeing Soviets. That's the origin
of the church. And if you listen to that interview
that I did, with Metropolitan Jonah, who is a really
well read historian of the Russian Church. He talks about
how even in Russia during the Soviet period, KGB had
these tears of people that ranged from uncompromisable amongst the
bishops and priests all the way down to fully compromised.
So there is not an all or nothing thing. There's
people who were kind of even in the middle of
we might can compromise them, we might not. So it's
not a black or white issue.
Speaker 1: How much do you think I don't know, if I
don't know if you want me to ask you this question,
or if I'm supposed to ask you this question just
about the current patriarchate and how much do you think
the history of yeah, certain involvements in certain things continues
into today.
Speaker 2: If you don't want to ask.
Speaker 3: I know, I don't mind answering. I mean, I generally
am I have criticisms of the MP. I think that
Metropolitan Hilarian, who was the right hand man, I think
he there was a big scandal with him. I'm not
talking about Metropolitan Hilarian of the of rocarn't about the
Metropolitan in Russia. There was a big scandal involving that
individual who many people were critics sizing for a long time,
saying that there was something shady there. I think that
Kuril is involved in a lot of politics by necessity
of the Russian Church has always been very close to
the state. They've always had a very tempestuous symphonia relationship
between church and state. There there's pros and cons to
a close relationship between church and state. I don't think
that the Russian Church is any more Soviet, but I
do think that there is a lot of influence obviously
that Putin has. It's not all bad, but there can
also be the attempt to make the church more of
a political entity than it should be. I'm not for
the West. In the Ukraine. We talked about Tiny mustache
Man earlier. It's NATO that supports the old Galen organization
networks throughout Ukraine. Who are all the tiny mustache Men supporters.
So the canonical Russian Orthodox Church I do believe is
the right one. It is been persecuted. They have even
criticized the MP as well, so there's no easy answers.
It's a very it's a very hairy situation.
Speaker 1: Hm Uh Pelagonian Pelagonian Lion says, has David ever checked
out an Orthodox Church service? Would love to see him
become Orthodox. David is going to become Orthodox by force soon.
Uh now, I've also invited data.
Speaker 3: That's your old Ottoman background, right, your your Turkish right,
So you're going to be the Orthodox Sultan Caliphate. Yeah,
that will convert forcibly everyone Orthodox.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is I promised before basically that once
I'm done with my Catechism and I get baptized, I
will say I will retake Constantinople and dedicated to the
Orthodox Church. And also, you know, do whatever comes with it.
Speaker 2: He thinks they're going to make them the like they're
going to give him the patriarchy there.
Speaker 3: He thinks, yeah, okay, so you're angling for this concept.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm not intending to give it to Greece.
I'm going to take it for myself. So the mythical
elliptical ap and j I'm a christened Catholic and getting
back into the church after being raced Protestant. I'm curious
what drove both of you away from Catholicism and into
Orthodox He thank you both.
Speaker 3: Jay, He put you first. It's your show. So how
come you didn't go into in the realm of Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 1: I mean, the funny thing is, when I first went
to the Orthodox Church, I was still doing a I
was praying the Rosary. And when I when I asked
my priest about entering the church and becoming a catechuym,
and I was still doing the Rosary, And I asked
him if that's okay, and he said, there's nothing wrong
with it, except for a few caveats here and there
about you know, imagining and things like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But so I I have lots of respect and have
had lots of interest in the Catholic Church, and still
kind of have this romantic idea of the of the
Catholic Church and kind of have this this this would
love to at some point see a proper, proper traditional
way of union. That said, I just have I think
I expressed this to you in in messages before, but
I kind of have some issues with the with the
authority of the pope and certain things that popes over
the last few decades have said that I find a
little bit problematic. And I also think that looking at
the the the for example, the the the change of
the of the creed by the Church in Rome, and
then the assertion of the pope as supreme authority over
the entire church, and things like these. I think I'm
only speaking from a very very very lowly positioned but
from from my from what I see there, it seems
to me that the that the that the Orthodox position
on both of those things, for example, is the more
valid position, and that, in my humble opinion, it would
have been more suitable for the West to eventually go
with what the the other seats decided and not to
make decisions on its own. So that's kind of what
drives me toward Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: I would say, I got well, I'll go ahead and
admit that I'm here's my proof. I'm still secretly I'm
not a Jesuit agent. I'm a Dominican Thomas agent. Because
I still have an Aquinas icon.
Speaker 1: Because is that one of those monastery icon things?
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know where I got the that
looks like one of those you know what it is
it actually is. Yeah, So I bought this when I
was a Roman Catholic, not even realizing that that's like
some crazy dude, he's not even Orthodox that makes these yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So just real simply, I mean I was Roman Catholic.
I converted out of Calvinism in two thousand and three
to Roman Catholicism, and throughout most of my twenties and
the two thousands, I was a pretty devoted, hardcore traditional Catholic.
Got very into Thomas Aquinas I got old at Suma
and all that over there, and eventually as I got
into Catholic dogma, I had real issues with the pre
Vatican two post Vatican two teachings, some of what AP mentioned,
like lumin Gentum sixteen that was for Tate three, the
way it speaks of Islam and Christianity worshiping the same God.
I never found that to be acceptable. Even when I
was a Catholic, I really struggled to try to make
it all work. Had a period where I wasn't an atheist,
but I got tired of tradcatism and just kind of
I read a bunch of stuff, everything from cabalistic Judaic stuff.
I read neoplatonic stuff, I read perennialists, I read Sufi stuff.
I wasn't into Islam, but I was interested in like
mystical SOUPI theology and stuff. I never adopted those, but
I was just interested. And then I started reading my
Bible again around twenty thirteen fourteen, started reading Saint Maximus
the Confessor quite a bit, and his philosophical approach was
actually what I was really finding more and more convincing
at the same time as getting back into reading the
Old Testament many times through because I found when I
was a Calvinist, I was a Reconstructionist, so I liked
the Old Testament a lot anyway, And eventually I just
found that if it wasn't going to be Rome, I
wasn't going to be prossling anymore. A lot of the
Tomistic baggage that I had I had to kind of
shed that, and then I eventually just went with Orthodoxy
in twenty fifteen sixteen.
Speaker 1: Nice.
Speaker 2: Nice, Here, here's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing ap sa Hey,
I was a Muslim, then I was an atheist, then
an agnostic, then cat human, becoming an becoming Orthodox, and
then with Jay I hear I was Calvinist, then Catholic,
then interested in some weird stuff, then Orthodox. What I'm
hearing is, you guys have a pretty pretty big track
record of being wrong.
Speaker 3: No, I was right every time. I just had to
make myself more right. Good point, I was right, be
getting more right?
Speaker 1: Good point, very good point. See, Uh, contemporary companions got
to see you through United by one thing being late. Yeah,
I had. I had to reschedule it by like thirty
minutes because I realized that I have to be somewhere.
So yeah, where the has told me I was honorary
Black and I could be late.
Speaker 3: That's what I know. You guys covered it. But they
told me I was honorary Black and I have the
ability to be late.
Speaker 2: So that they don't talk like that though they talk
like hillbillies. Y'all know why we're here, right, They talk
like my cousins from like Preston County and stuff and anyway,
except when they and then they switch it and go yeah.
Speaker 1: Test, But do you think Europe largely Islamic migration crisis?
Islamization is by design and possibly duty to collaboration of
East and Western powers or just circumstance and ignorance. You
believe what design? So I think that, uh, there is
an aspect of designing it. But I also think that
there is that a certain other aspect which is a
great naivety and stupidity by the average population has a
lot to do with it.
Speaker 3: So I believe that's happening too. But there's a good
campaign if you do reach Tragian hope and Anglo Americans. Elis.
There's a good book that came out by Romanian guy
who's a British Romanian guy. It's called Milner Fabian Conspiracy,
and he argues pretty forcefully through here that it was
by design, particularly by the Fabian socialist deletes in the UK.
Kure Starmer, very famous open Fabian socialists, which is why
he's so pro Islam.
Speaker 1: The thing is, there are also pretty big Christian organizations
involved in the whole uh, and the whole move moves
off immigrant populations through the West, notably certain Catholic.
Speaker 3: Roman Catholic institutions. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, So look at what you have here. Uh,
do you think it's this or that?
Speaker 1: It's both?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can you can have you can have both.
And I would attribute it mostly mostly to ignorance and stupidity.
And just if you if you program a population, if
you program a population, hey, you're bad, and you're bad
if you don't want this entire group coming in, And
you're bad if you object to anything they say and
so on. And if you just program people to believe
that all their lives and so on from the time
they're young. You just based on that by itself, you
get a lot of what you see. But I mean,
just think about the groups that align, right, You got
Communists and Islam and they'll all be united on You
got multiple groups that all want like the West to collapse,
all kind of working together and so on. So you
know that's you know that right. You know there are
tons of people, tons of people who want the West
to be destroyed. The question is like how many of those?
How many? Like how many people in actual positions of
power are there that are on board with that whole project?
Speaker 1: Uh? We search for public Baptist housing in Ai Karma,
in Al Karma, Iraq. They went across the order to
war it for us to live in. They became IS's leadership.
Karamasaus does AP still agree with the replacement of the
Ukrainian Canonical Church by the OCU. So here's the thing.
This was one of the main issues where I think
I got most of the most of the maybe justified
angry reactions from Orthodox circles on social media, and one
of the issues for which I actually retracted some of
the stuff that I said, and I think I was
wrong because at some point, for example, I argued that
oppressive actions by the Ukrainian government against the Orthodox Church
did not happen. This is a statement that I made,
and that was a wrong statement, because I think it's
it's clear that there have been oppressive interventions by the
Ukrainian government against the Orthodox Church. So I can I
can correct and admit that I was completely wrong there.
And this is also something that that Father Lily called
me out on. Actually I didn't respond to him, although
I asked him to clarify that, and then I went
with his UH with his response and looked further into
it and realized that I'm kind of wrong about that.
I have to say. So, I don't want to get
involved in church politics, but I see that there is
a in my in my opinion, a somewhat justified intervention
by the by Constantinople, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to
interfere in Ukraine and to give autonomy to a different
body within Ukraine, UH, to kind of sever the Russia's
control over Ukraine. But this is all politics and I
would say I would at this point purely and strictly
go with whatever Uh the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople decreased
to be the right thing to do. I'm just obedient.
At this point, I don't have any further political or
opinions on this.
Speaker 3: I would say that that's probably so that we do
disagree on in our position. There's a book on this
called the Ecclesial Crisis on Ukraine, and it's written by
a metropolitan from our perspective, criticizing the EP and that.
So that's that's all I'll say that.
Speaker 1: But again, for some reason, I thought it would be uh,
it's okay for me to get involved in that kind
of stuff early on. At this point, I don't think
that I am in any position to comment on that
or even have discussions about that. So, yeah, Jordan says,
do you still hold that we ought to support Israel?
Or was it also just reactionary? I never really held
that we ought to support Israel. This is actually a
distinction that I kind of.
Speaker 2: Tried to make. But then, yeah, there is a distinction
between should and art. I think the topic was should right,
which should you can interpret as art, but you can
also like should I do this or should?
Speaker 1: I think my understanding so should can be considered equal
in such discussions too ought to unless you clarify what
you mean by should and that you don't mean ought
to when you say should. And my original plan was
to actually clarify that, and I think I did, but
I probably kind of failed to deliver that because later
on it kept on being about ought to, which I
never really asserted. But I think I kind of slipped
up there, you know, in clarifying that I don't think
Christians are under an obligation to support Israel. I think
it's only better for Christians to support Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there are there are two kind of ambiguous
words there which I think we're a little bit confusion.
So one is should are you interpreting that as ought
or just like, hey, this is this is a good
idea or this is a good thing to do. Uh?
And then support What does that mean? Because a lot
of people are like saying, oh, this means support it militarily,
or this means you have to send money or something
like this. But you can if you support Zion. If
you say I agree with zionisn't they your sporting Zionism.
So it's like, uh, yeah, I don't know. Would have
been clarification what you mean you could have You probably
could have worded the the topic in in terms that
would be less easy to go, less likely to cause confusion.
Speaker 5: Well, it comes down to the meaning of the hierarchical
archetype of uh should and ought to. And I think
you have to make a distinction between ought to enshould.
It's bloody difficult. But yeah, so I don't think that
Christians are under an obligation to or that they are
that they ought to in the strictest sense support Israel.
I think it would be I still think it would
be the right thing to do. So yeah, and Jay
thinks this is very wrong.
Speaker 3: Well, I thought the way the debate was framed in
the sense of moral art usually you know, in ethics,
in terms of philosophy, that has some sort of force
behind it, Like the way to the debate becomes you
need to demonstrate the justification for the aught. So in
that regard, no, I don't think that that was demonstrated
in the debate. So from an epistemic standpoint, but in
terms of the practical argument that you're making that okay,
So is it a worse off situation if there's not
the existing government and power. That's another issue, Separate from
when you say, do you support the existence of Jews
or Jews to have a homeland or Jews to be
self determining as a people. I think that's yes. I
don't know that. Again, I would equate that with Zionism
per se, just because Zionism is a historical movement that
is politically and you know, it's politically atheistic in its origins.
Granted maybe nowadays it means something different. So with all
those nuances is what I would say.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, so actually, yeah, there were three. There were
three ambiguous terms in the debate topic. So should are
you interpreted that as like a moral moral? You interpret
that in like language of moral obligation? Then support what
do you mean by support, like hey, I support your meaning,
I support your idea, or I'm going to send you
support or something like that. And then Zionism itself, that's
the most ambiguous because there are a bunch of different
versions of it.
Speaker 1: So I think I clarified that one. But yeah, right, Rachel,
good to see you here. But ap and ate with
Andrew that's exactly what you argued. You said that Christians
specifically had an obligation to support Israel, So I don't
I don't believe. I'm pretty sure that I didn't say
that they have an obligation because I would be very
clear in making better.
Speaker 2: Will be right. Otherwise this will be clipped tomorrow. That's
what you flip it.
Speaker 1: Clip it lying. But I wouldn't say that that. I
wouldn't have said that that Christians have such an obligation
because I was actually preparing various specifically to make the
distinction between between the should without an ought to. But
here that's the thing, and that is my shortcoming. I
admit that that I, despite preparing for that, failed to
actually establish that first, which is where the misunderstanding did
come into into existence. So that is that is one
issue that I even wanted to clarify later on as
we weren't in the heated debate, but then it was
kind of too late to ever get back to it.
So I didn't argue that. My position would still be
that it's in the best interest of Christians and that's
that's that's what they should be doing. I didn't say
obligation though, if I did say obligation. Show it to
me and I will publicly flagellate or something. Jordan apduced
no searching deeper Gentile time closing, Jesus Is said twenty four.
They will fall by the sword and will be taken
as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled
on by the tiles until the times of the Gentile
is awful filled LK twenty one Independence.
Speaker 3: I believe that's talking about what happened primarily in seventy
a d. So I'm a partial preadtist. A lot of
church fathers, especially Eastern Church fathers, were partial preadists. Chris
system Cyril of Alexandria. There's some really good books on
this if you don't, if you know, you could reach
Christism on Matthew twenty four, but it's a good Protestant
text on this by Ken Gentry Call Before Jerusalem Fell,
and there's a classic commentary on the book Revelation he
was about to be Orthodox right before he died by
David Chilton. So that's my view on Matthew twenty four
and Luke twenty one.
Speaker 1: Oh look, wait a minute, I think I just I
wanted to look this up before I mess it up here,
I think if I'm let me see here has a
problem with in my opening statement, I never ever argue
that it is an obligation for Christians to support Israel.
I did say Christians should I would. I did say
it would be the right thing. I did say it
would be morally right. I never ever made it look
like it is an obligation for Christians or it is
within their religion that they that they must support the
state of Israel. I argued that with so, yeah, I
think I might die it very Clearel.
Speaker 2: Wilson, I was. I wasn't even sure, but Rachel Rachel
Wilson has been exposed for misrepresenting, by the way, by
the yeah, by the way, it would actually be easy
to if you say this is uh, it's morally right
to do this. That is even that's that's still different
as you just use it right there. That's different from
moral obligation. So you were saying, because lot lots of
people would be confused on that fact. If I say,
should I give that that homeless person this amount of money,
I could say that morally right, I'm doing the right thing.
I it's different. It's different to say I have a
moral obligation to do that particular thing or something like that.
So anyway, Yeah, it's a I guess it's just too
for people to understand that like term, we're used terms
in different ways, and so it is good to seriously
clar as much as possible.
Speaker 1: In the opening, I think you're dying. Well, we were dying.
It were just cutting oft. Yeah, but yeah, I still
I still do think to be very fair. As I
just said that, it could have been more filmly and
better established the distinction there. So yeah, yep, but hey,
good to see Rachel uh Ac. If the West police
is Islam then opens a new can of worms. How
can we sustain this with over one hundred dollars destruction
and thirty plus trillion lion in debt. In many cases
it's already too late, But in some cases there is
a thing called remigration, which is a big term right
now going around in Europe.
Speaker 2: So, and what do you mean by polices Islam? You
mean like in the Western nations? You mean like in
Western nations, or you mean like around the world, because
you could be saying, hey, we don't have the money
to be policing Islam around the world. Or you could say, hey,
why are we doing this in our countries when you
bring in all these guys and then they want you
hod and then you have to spend the rest of
their lives policing them.
Speaker 1: Uh. In if Orthodoxy can say we know where the
church is but not where it isn't we can't say.
We can't say is why can't Islam say we know
the in Ngel is true but don't know where it is.
That's interesting, David, what's your response to this?
Speaker 2: That's true?
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Basios says, will there be a discussion
on the Russian and Ukraine issue? It seems to me
that it'd be denies the persecution of a Urine Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Fact, stop doing that, Stop doing that, ap.
Speaker 1: Glad we just argued that. So I do think that
there is a that there is that there are very
problematic things that happened with the Orthodox, with the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church. But there's also a thing, right if I'm
not wrong, Jay, the branch of the so, the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church MP as it was known, I think, officially
severed ties with Russia right after. So they're officially kind
of cut off right now. While Russia still considers them
part but they are kind of well.
Speaker 3: I know that Mats Bolton and made statements critical of
the MP. I'm not sure about being cut off, but
I mean, as far as I know, they're still in communion,
and it's still from most of the Orthodox world except
for perhaps the EP and perhaps the Patriarch of Alexandria,
who seems to have flipped. The EP previously recognized a
new free as the canonical Church, so I think that's
probably one of the most damning issues with that. Also,
Dumenko was previously not accepted as a legitimate cleric because
of problems with his past by the EP, and I
think that's the reason this gets Harry is is the
State Department that put a lot of pressure on Constantinople
to make this change. So it might not even be
valid if it's an external influence from the state on
the church, even if the EP's actions are quote valid
from his perspective of canon law. But anyway, that's a
different issue from I mean, you can go look up
like the Pompeo and the State Department champion the creation
of the Church of Ukraine, the National Church of Ukraine,
so it's it's literally a state department's CIA creation by
their own Twitter timeline.
Speaker 1: So I know that even one of the one of
the recent Orthodox UH teachers higher archs that I respect
a lot Metropolitan Calistas where had had disagreements with or
had openly criticized Constantinople for their for their their their
their interference in Ukraine and all that. I know that
this is a very very contentious topic. Anyway, don't want
to talk about any for UH Patius. Will there be
a discussion, yes, j K Fuerte. Does any country have
a right to exist if it can solely defend itself?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: Really depends, But I think that Israel fully has the
ability to defend itself, So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think I've seen this pop up that
any nation that can't defend itself can't be called a nation.
I saw that. I've seen that like dozens of times,
and that's just If you want to object on other grounds,
that's fine, But that particular claim that that's stupid. If
the United States wanted to take Mexico right now, Mexico
could stop US unless Mexico had helped. So what Mexico
is not a nation? That doesn't make any sense. So anyway,
when those kinds of when those kinds of arguments are used,
I don't know, I don't I don't trust your position.
If that's what, if that's that.
Speaker 3: Of Syke speaker, wouldn't be countries if France and Britain
hadn't divided them up and created them as countries. And
so that would mean that all countries basically failed to
be countries.
Speaker 1: They turned them into countries. Even with the thing very
interesting with Jordan. We talked about Jordan earlier and how
and how Israel had this vision of absorbing Jordan into
a Palestinian state or something like that. This is still
it's still a popular thing today, often pointed out by
Israelis jokingly that there already is a Palestinian state and
it's called Jordan. But they were actually behind the scenes
discussions between the Zionists movement and the and the and
the and the hushma, the of the the the Jordanian
family to somehow come to an arrangement and to basically
give them the right to govern the Palestinian Arab population
and to somehow find peace in that way, and Jordan
was fine with it. Jordan was kind of an interesting
two sides player during this entire country.
Speaker 3: Why do you think that didn't come about?
Speaker 1: There's so many reasons to it. But I mean Jordan
did after the initial war, after nineteen forty eight, Jordan
did directly occupy the West Bank and also annex it.
Actually they went as far as annexing it. So the
Arab League was outraged about this. They said, you can't
do this, this is not the plan. But they said, sorry,
we don't care, but this is what we're going to do.
So they did go ahead and try and try to
and annex the West Bank and give the Palestinian Arabs
in the West Bank citizenship and all that. Later on,
it didn't really come to fruition because Jordan couldn't figure
things out with Israel and flipped sides and started fighting.
So it all got a little bit bitter, very complicated. H. BROSSI,
as a chief diary, I appreciate the hospitalitality of our boy,
but I'd like a clarification of your reasoning for calling
him a skitzer or a retraction.
Speaker 3: Well, I told him at the beginning, I took my meds,
so today I'm not.
Speaker 1: I think I think what I actually said was that
that you were making skitso arguments or something like saying
schizophrenic things. I think those are my words. But yeah,
as I said, I said nasty things in that whole exchange,
and I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 3: It's okay. I don't I get called skits every day.
A little side note, The Kings of Jordan, by the way,
have for many years been also on the CIA payroll,
and I think that ended under Carter for whatever reason.
But they were basically see I would just give them
a million dollars a year and then that's declassified, by
the way. But just a little interesting side note.
Speaker 1: Nice, nice, Well, the King when he recently went to
meet Donald Trump was acting like a really really good boy.
It's pretty cool. Must be a little bit embarrassing. See,
it does Romans nine and eleven a god special plan
for Jews mean a special second covenant they cannot be
opposed in our politics. And yes, spreads of heresy so
very quickly before Jay comments on this, I don't think
that that it implies a second special government covenant. I
don't think that there is any understanding of any separate covenant,
but that there is a continued relationship that eventually leads
to reconciliation between God and the Jews. And but yeah,
what do you think.
Speaker 3: Well, I agree that any kind of notion of a
second covenant or separate covenant, dual covenant would be kind
of dispensationalism, and we would disagree with that. But I
agree with you that there does seem to be a
future conversion. I don't think that that reconciliation can happen
without it being some kind of belief. You know, Paul
says that grafted out because of unbelief, but through faith
can be grafted back in. And it mirrors what he
says ins Corinthians three about the veil eventually being removed,
and then the Jews sees Christ in the law in Moses,
basically inside Crintian's three. So that's right.
Speaker 1: And once again, the most fascinating aspect about all of
this to me, which makes it even kind of sweet,
if that's the word to me, is that is that
Paul calls it a mystery. So you know, we don't
really we don't really know how it comes about. It's
just that's what it is. Avery Hallwelt says, I'd also
like to publicly apologize to Die for calling him hypocrite
because I said he ran from a debate. My hand
is orthocatholic. By the way, shame shame on you.
Speaker 3: Orthocatholic ran from a debate from who I don't a
lot of times, a lot of times, you know, really
small accounts. Well, if you don't, kind of I'm not,
I don't know this person. But like, if you don't reply,
they'll say that you ran. It's like, I'm not, I
don't know what what did I run from?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have a similar thing. I see probably like
maybe between one and five percent of messages like on
Twitter and stuff. But yeah, if I ever do not
do not respond to something, I find that I'm running
no matter.
Speaker 1: Kis just got here ten twenty seven ets. So jay
is asignis? Can I get a recap?
Speaker 3: Yes, well again we have to as we've seen tonight.
I guess nuance is necessary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it would be kind of a bare minimum secular
concept of uh a right of a people to exist
and defend themselves. But I find that that is why
I'm called a Zionists, and therefore I'm taking that as
like one definition.
Speaker 1: So jokes aside, I would say that so Zionists in
the sense like I would I which for example, considered
David in a sense of Zionist because he's actively in
support of the of of of Israel in a in
a way, whereas with with Jay Dyer he acknowledges that
they have a right to exist. But that's that's as
far as it goes. So you don't have uh, you
don't have any active support or I.
Speaker 3: Think there's a real politic that Israel is there. There's
no point in pretending that we could remove the nation
state of Israel something like, it's just not reality. Perhaps
a person could make an argument that due to you know,
from my perspective of Orthodox the situation could be worse
if it wasn't the way it is. I don't know
that there's a necessity or a moral ought in terms
of tax payer money. I can't see the argument for that,
and even the the Coud party seems to publicly disagree
with that. So so so I disagree with a with
a religious support of Zionism as a position. I do
believe that Israel has a right to exist as a
people group, to have self defense, to have to be
a self determining people. There's no point in thinking that
the existing pragmatic, real politics going to change. Uh So
that's that's as far as I can I can.
Speaker 1: Say, I love the ar This is actually a This
is actually the logo of the Channel of Harmony, which
is an Orthodox Christian film channel. So that's what this
actually is.
Speaker 3: I'm just uh, I thought maybe it's like a bitcoin
QR code.
Speaker 1: No, you know, right, you probably know about them. I'm
not sure you should know about them. This channel here.
They do orthodox Christian production stuff. They do really really
good stuff. And I'm just shouting them out and wearing
their stuff for free right now because because I love them,
because because they recently made some really really good films.
I first they got my attention by making something about
Alexanders Morrell, which was very amazing, and then about Saint
Marie of Paris, and I followed it and became a
member and loved what they do and messaged with them
as well to thank them. They were very very nice.
So yeah, that's what that's what that's what I'm wearing.
That's what I'm shouting out here. Harmony, Go subscribe to Harmony. Harmony.
They didn't pay me to say this, Yeah. Rachel Rachel,
Rachel Rachel Andrew is very chill and super nice when
he's not debating. It was extremely kind into Ap when
we were at the debate in person, ask Ap, he
will tell you guys are nuts. Yeah, I would just
recommend not not not responding, not interacting with the with
the people here. But some people are some people in
the chat say stuff about about Andrew Wilson. I have
I said my part about Andrew Wilson publicly before as well.
I made a postpot about it after the debate. He
has been nothing but nice, nothing but kind and good
to me during the debate, immediately after the debate, long
after the debate, and so on.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we all went we all went out and
had barbecue after after the debate. We all went to
a barbecue place, and I like, like like one hundred
and eighty barbecue wings and so on.
Speaker 1: I have nothing but respect. I think that he's a
he's a very very good guy. And probably I have
had my reservations about him before I met him in person,
I think that he's a he's a good guy, as
much as he might still be like have some skepticism
about me. I have no problem with him at all,
And I would just uh, ask people who want to
attack him not to do that. He's a he's a
good guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'll say, uh, I'll say yeah, just who
everyone knows after post debate, we all get along very well.
Andrew's a brutal debater, but that's you know, that's uh,
that's debate. I operate on kind of a cool point system, meaning, hey,
if you do enough cool stuff over here, I'll let
you slide on other things. And as far as I'm concerned,
Andrew's Andrew's argument that if Muslims are right and Muhammed
didn't hurt Aisha when they had sex, Mohammed's member must
have been uh one one point eight inches or less.
As far as I'm concerned, based on that alone, based
on that contribution to apologetics and polemics, Andrew Wilson could
act murder fifty people and I would not complain, just
because you know he because of that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, back to Rachel, Wait a minute, I do have
a question.
Speaker 2: Why is Andrew sending his wife to fight his battles
for him?
Speaker 1: Rachel? If you want to, if you want to hop on,
totally cool, by.
Speaker 2: The way you want Andrew Andrew, He's like Andrew is
Andrew there and he's like, Rachel, say this, now, sh
ask him this, ask.
Speaker 1: Him this, or if Andrew wants to hop on, he
should as well. We we're having a good time right now.
So I'm totally open to that. Jay stated that he
has the same position that Andrew took in the debate.
Andrew never said Israel had no right to exist, correct,
only that America had no obligation to support it with
tax money. Addressed this, This is correct. I completely agree
with it. I offer a fact that Andrew said during
the debate that he uh that he doesn't have any
issue with with Israel's right to exist, that he just
thinks that we don't need to have an active tax
support or anything like that for Israel. And you also
later are clarified in on Twitter they made a post
about how he believes Israel has the right to exist
because of which the broypers started attacking him. By the way,
so I completely agree with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, by the way, this is what I meant earlier
when I said, you know, people are people are arguing
and then they don't they don't realize they actually agree
on a lot of things, Like I wouldn't even say
that this nation has a moral obligation to support that
nation with tax money. I would say it's good if
you can, because just given the given the sheer volume
of people in the world who would want to wipe
them out, if you're in a position where he can
help them, I think it's a I think it's a
good thing to do because even if they're even if
they're okay right now, doesn't mean they're gonna be okay
ten or fifteen years from now.
Speaker 1: So noise, noise, noise running, it's good. Jeuz searching deeper
Israel that many kings my many bad. It didn't make
Israel stop being from God except for exile. The fact
they returned now, by definition, is from God.
Speaker 2: Hey, now, Jay suddenly went to perfect lighting.
Speaker 3: Well, I forgot to plug my little thing in here,
and so it died, and it was getting all blurry
and dark and foreboding. But I would disagree with this
comment because I think Matthew twenty one in the parable,
we have the notion of the flesh nation of Israel
as a political entity being divorced. I believe that the
penal sanctions and the covenantal enforcement of the law in
terms of Deuteronomy and Leviticus was enforced due to not
believing in the Messiah. So Israel got a bill of
divorce that Hoseiah and other text in the Prophets talk about.
So it doesn't mean that God will not save Jews
or will not loved you use or ever bring them back,
but that as a political national entity, that divorce happened
in seventy eighty. So I think Matthew twenty one to
forty three is pretty clear noice.
Speaker 2: Hey, hey, hey, hang on, hang no, never mind, I see, yeah,
I wouldn't.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't make any I wouldn't make any claims about
the nation state of Israel being connected in any sense
to the biblical Israel or anything like that would be
far fetched in my opinion. But I understand why some
people do that because of their different theology. I personally
don't do that, and I would consider that.
Speaker 2: I would.
Speaker 1: I would think that in the Orthodox Church that is
considered heretical. So knows too much. US giving texts eight
dollars to Israel is a lot. US invests in Israel
for its own interests, with credit to buy arms from
the US, gets tech, intel, aircraft improvements, more in return
worth much more. Yeah, that's that's the thing. That's another issue.
People often look at how much money supposedly or how
much aid supposedly America gives to Israel. So there is
I think over seventy five percent of the eight that
Israel that America supposedly gives to Israel returns directed to
the US, not directed to the US government, but to
US businesses for example. And then I wouldn't be I
wouldn't consider myself competent enough to make any claims about
how much of it or whether whether the return exceeds
the investment or anything like that. But this is basically
how subsidizing works. For example, where the US gives Israel
credit to purchase this much from the US at Israel
then because they don't have a smaller industry, because they
have a much smaller population, purchases stuff from the US.
And thereby any aid that we give to Israel comes
returned to America in form of fostering or feeding US markets.
So it's actually a very very helpful business. We're not
just giving them free money. Nobody gives away free money.
Speaker 3: Okay, it's also not a lie if it's in it's
I mean it's explicitly mentioned as something in Odayan and
in the clean bag break strategy, so it's not it's
always in all.
Speaker 2: Why I do have to point out, going back to
Andrew Wilson has tied to the the the aid. Andrew
was actually the one making the strongest claim in the
debate because once I mean once Ap clarifies what he
means by support and stuff like that, it's it's not
terribly controversial. Andrew was saying, you have a moral obligation
not to I can't even say support Zionism or something
like that, because I know, like like all these all
these terms are ambiguous. But his was saying you have
an ought not because it could lead to the anti
a nuclear Antichrist. So but at the end of the day,
I'm still not I'm still not completely clear on everyone's
position until like you actually say, Okay, what do you
mean by should, what do you mean by this? What
you mean by that?
Speaker 1: I forgot that that was actually the most contentious aspect
of artibate. Too many people, including to Jay, actually the
implication of of me supporting or thinking that it's supporting
a nation despite the whole Antichrist story. But I don't
know if if you see where what my point there
actually was, which was that I don't actually believe that
there is a that there is a chance of thirty
percent of the population supporting directly the bringing about of
the Antichrist or anything like that. I would rather acknowledge,
for example, that thirty percent of the population supports the
idea of establishing a third Temple for different reasons. But
then whether that really entails the bringing about of an
Antichrist or anything like that would be very extremely speculative
and in my opinion, not really not really something that
you can really demonstrate. But even if there was a
chance that a certain part of the population supports such
a thing, I would say that it would really necessarily
get in the way of still supporting well the government,
because I would I would uh, I would consider this
support of the people that or of a of an
entity that protects those people as morally right, which is
why I wouldn't really look at the possible consequences of
something like that and make my decisions based on consequentialism.
Speaker 3: Well, from the Orthodox perspective, we'd have an obligation not
to because of the whole history with Julian the pasty.
So Julian wanted to rebuild the temple out of a
desire to spike Christianity and the patristic teaching when that
happened was that any temple that would be built as
the next temple would necessarily be Antichrist. So I think
from the from the Christian Patristic perspective, we would have
to say, no, you can't support a third temple.
Speaker 2: I see, I see.
Speaker 1: But so my point is never that, or has never
been that, that I know that this will lead to
an Antichrist or something like that, and that we should
still support it. So that'll be kind of a there'll
be an absurd thing to say, but I see how
people really really took that and ran.
Speaker 2: With it empty.
Speaker 1: Glad we agree there. Ja may don't seem to understand
that you should always use multiple sources. They think published
equals factual or published technically equals factual. So definitely, if
it's written somewhere in one book, it's true. Joji exemplifies
pride and is designed to cause confusion. Just talk about
asap and next time, and don't drag it out. Also,
that would become orthodox. You see. Yeah, David is actually
soon going to attend an Orthodox liturgy and then he
can tell us all what he thinks about it. Fisherman's Corner,
Thanks J Sorry limited the words available, but totally agree.
Pope kingship meant absolute monarch of the Vatican City State.
The letter entreaty made him soeign authority, effectively establishing a theocracy.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, that definitely happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, romology, You see, David Wood and Mike Winger are
the same person as a conspiracy by the CA to
force need culture of the Christian population.
Speaker 3: This is true.
Speaker 1: Look, it's even said. It says Wingling number one on
his tag here.
Speaker 2: Incredible. I'm gonna quit doing live streams with you. Keep
changing my name to ridiculous things of my mortal enemies.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Uh, By isn't
in warrior? The intellectual capital president here right now is
off the charts. Gentlemen, keep up the fight and above all,
states stay united. Many of us out here are inspired
when leadership an example like yours is so great. Uh
I'm not a leader, and it says right here that
I'm the most humble, So yeah, tes what ps? My
question seemed topical that time of sending, but then not
so much plus very late and sleep in UK. Sorry,
go to sleep. Also just wanted to say shout out
to a posted profit and again thanks to j for
bringing me out of Calvinism. By the way, know you
all missed my previous chant, but didn't miss anything. Stop
this in Calvinism. We're not huge fight with anybody, not
even with Calvinists.
Speaker 3: Well, I will say that before I got on here,
most of my friends and people that I respected, and
you know clergy as well, everyone counseled uh to seek
for peace. So that's that's what I came to do.
So I think a lot of people thought, oh, it's
going to be a you know, knock down, drag out battle.
Speaker 2: I came for war.
Speaker 3: I came, I figured yeah, but people think, oh, Dyer
doesn't listen to his spiritual you know, advisors, and he
just goes in debates and no. I was actually coming
thinking that we're going to have a huge fight. But
all the people that I respect, un lists do said
go easy, calm down, be peaceful, be a peacemaker. So
that's what I tried to do.
Speaker 2: I actually I actually planned for I thought AP was
going to be like Okay, well, I'm sorry about this
and this and this and this and that, and then
he was going to turn it over to Jay and
and go, uh, what do you think Jay, and Jay
was gonna be, Yeah, I regret this and this and that,
and I was I already had it playing in my head.
I was gonna I was like, no, it's gonna be
too boring. I'm just gonna set things off by uh
riling everybody up. And I was gonna say, you know,
and uh. In Second Kings, there's the story of Elisha
and he there's a famine in the land, and he
goes and meets with the sons of the prophets, and
he says, hey, why don't we gather up some stuff
to make a pot of stew? And they go out
there and they finds the guy finds a gourd, but
he doesn't know it's a poison goard. But anyway, they
make the stew and then they say, ah, there's death
in the pot. There's death in the pot. This is poison.
I was gonna say, the online Orthobro community is like
that pot of poisoned gord stew. I was just gonna
start from there. And I was gonna. I was gonna say,
I apologize for nothing, I regret for nothing. I was
just gonna sit back and see what happened there. And
that's why everyone, everyone who's watching, at the beginning you
saw me grinning. I was just I was like waiting
for an opportunity to to uh, to derail everything, but
then I didn't.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I really appreciate that, Jay, And I
also kind of I wanted to truly just go into
it making peace and had the very same experience. Consulted
several people, and yeah, it's good to go with what
wiser people say. Please read Zacharia eight twenty three. It's
eschatological amstra kai. What does Zacharia eight twenty three say, David,
you know it all by memory?
Speaker 2: What does it say not eight twenty three?
Speaker 1: What this is what the Lord Almighty says? In those
days ten people from all languages and nations will take
firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his
robe and say, let us go with you, because we
have heard that God is with.
Speaker 3: You well, or the arts view that one Jew is Jesus.
Speaker 1: So maybe this was the point of Arctic based here
as well. Nice those too much does JD acknowledge the
fact that the way too many people selectively apply in
sane double standards and lies half truth to attack Jews
and Israel.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, I'm willing to debate or be corrected
on any of the points that that people bring up.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think that because of our disagreements, lots
of people who are kind of like on my side
of things had the impression that that you Jay are
like much more so hostile toward Israel or even Jews
or Judaism. So I know from our past interactions that
that is not the case, but I think that many
people here at the have a different impression.
Speaker 3: So well, that happens on the internet, like in general,
I mean people assume if you say one thing about this,
they then assume that, for example, if I question an event,
or if I believe that there's a false flag, Oh
you think every thing is a conspiracy and everything is
a false No, that's that's not that doesn't follow. And
if I disagree with I don't know this policy that
Israel's doing or that policy or this thing, then that
must mean you hate all Jews. No, oh, you don't
criticize to the level I do, or whatever, then you're
a zion a stagent. Oh oh, you you know, it's
just everybody goes to these extremes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw early as somebody said that jaydy are
basically revealed hereby that he's a tool of the Freemasons
or something like that. I think, how did that happen?
Speaker 3: Well, I disagree with freemasonry, so I critique it all
the time. Have I have Albert Pike's Worlds and Dogmas
right down here, So I got many critiques of You.
Speaker 1: Know, what's interesting about freemasonry. It's so to my understanding
of the history of it. It's a very recent history
actually of how people understand freemasonry, and just less than
a one hundred years ago, many people who are now
stong unchly anti freemasonry would have just considered it something
interesting or possibly good or positive. It's because it had
a very different impression on people than it has today.
The perception of it very very much changed dramatically in
one hundred years. So when people look at past figures
whoa a one hundred years ago were Freemasons, they say, oh, look,
obviously very evil person. But one hundred years ago, being
a Freemason was perceived completely differently from how it is today.
Speaker 3: So here's Morals and Dogma Albert Pike. And here is
pages five, seventy six and seventy seven where Albert Pike
affirms that the secrets of Freemasonry are basically just neoplatonism.
Every Orthodox Christian that I know that's serious about orthodoxy
rejects neoplatonism because it's the basis for why people deny
the essence entergy sinction. Also, mainline history has some good
takes on British imperial use of Freemasonry for espionage. So
I'm not a Freemason either.
Speaker 1: The disturbing thing about this is it is also that
it basically kind of replaces Christianity when you go into it,
and establishes a very perennialist theology.
Speaker 3: And actually, yeah, the morals in Dogma chapter on Christianity
the Trinity, he says, just reinterpret as perennialism.
Speaker 1: Why is the Christian history of Palestine ignored? Palestinian Orthodox
Christians are ancient communities forgotten the crossfire by both sides. True.
There is even genetic studies show that show that show
that Palestinian Christians in general are significantly closer to the
ancient populations than Palestinian Muslims on average, because the Palestinian
Muslims on every are much more likely to have influence
from or you know, history of being associated or related
to the invading Arab forces and all that. The Palestinian
Christians have a much more, much deeper and older history.
But the thing is also that they by now have
endured a thousand years of one thousand and four hundred
years of Islamic rule and thereby become completely quiet and tamed.
So this is just what happens.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was a good there was a periods in
the Middle Ages when it was a Byzantine imperial protectorate,
and eventually Byzantium got weaker and weaker and weaker, and
they just couldn't help or do anything against the Caliphate
in Middle East.
Speaker 1: Yep, very very much. Arocotta as a former atheist, if
what is your opinion on tag? They usually use this
sort of an atheist so your opinion interesting? Do you
have any questions about it? For Jay, It's not an
argument that I'm terribly well informed on, but I've also
generally in the past expressed that I am not really
greatly interested in arguments for the existence of God or
against even in my atheist phases, I kind of thought
considered it all a little bit irrelevant to my reasons
for believing it or not believing. That's side. From what
I understand of it, it is a little bit of
a presuppositionist perspective, and I don't really know what to
say about it, what to ask about it, if anything
at all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it is a pretty obscure philosophical argument
for God's existence, So I think the challenge is that
it kind of requires a good bit of philosophical interest
and proclivities for people to to even get into it.
So that's probably the biggest weakness or challenge for TAG.
But I think it's it's a logically useful argument, you know,
maybe touching on the point that you made earlier about
reason and philosophy and scholasticism. I think that in orthodoxy
we would agree that reason and logic and apologetics are
useful and they have a key role, but they're really
just kind of sign pointers pointing to the Church. They
can't they can't do much more than that. So it
definitely has a place we have to do apologetics, but
the summation of orthodoxyology is definitely not rationalized apologetics per se.
But I think I think it's a solid argument.
Speaker 1: Isn't it kind of historically more associated with Calvinist.
Speaker 3: Well, like I said, I mean, you can and found
the Knowledge Chapter one, John Damascus uses Aristotle's transcendental argument
for why you can't deny logic or you can't deny
world views. So I would say there's precedent for it
prior to John Calvin, or I mean prior to Monson
or Van until they did versions of it. But I
don't think that. I that'd be like saying, well, Aristotle
did a first cause argument, so if you use a
first cause argument, you're a univers Ittilian. Well, not necessarily.
Many church fathers have used cosmological arguments, different arguments, so
it'd be a genetic fallacy to say that if that
the person making the argument determines whether it's good or bad,
well the argument stands on his own.
Speaker 1: So Aristotle was at most of them anyway.
Speaker 3: So I just read that a lot of is I
didn't realize a lot of Islamic stuff. I mean, I've
heard this, but I didn't really think that much about it.
But there's a good there's a little book on the
business impart by Runsaman. There's also the Norwich Trilogy, which
is a big, fat, really long Byzantine history book. But
he talks about a lot of Islamic culture was getting
its education from Byzantine philosophers and theologians, so they didn't
even have like an innate academic, you know, rigor. It's
all kind of borrowed from Hellenic culture and Byzantine culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a will William Lane Craig, I remember years ago.
So William Lane Craig, he uses the Klam cosmological argument.
And then there was an Australian Muslim who was complaining,
Wait a minute, it's called the Kalam cosmological argument because
it was a Muslim argument. You're stealing arguments, you're stealing arguments.
And then I was reading about it one day and
I was, no, Muslim's got it. Muslims got at least
part of it from a heretical Christian who came before
and so on. So but and so what Muslims can't
use it. No, it's like the argument at the end
of the day, the argument stands our falls based on
whether it's a good argument, not on whether not on
who who used it in the past or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Freemason, he's just glorified, is not. Like, So this
is also the thing. I was a little bit surprised
that in the in the in the in the nineteenth
century and the twentieth century, early early twentieth century, there
were quite some respected Christian religious leaders, including Orthodox Catholic
and others not sure what Catholic anes, but I don't know,
have Orthodox religious figures that were that were early on
Freemasons and part of freemasonry. And I was kind of
a little bit puzzled and surprised to find that out.
But I guess there was kind of an interest at
that time in freemasonry without fully going into how and
why it is in contradiction with Christianity. But then the
objections and disagreements, especially to the whole the ceremonial aspects
of it, the ritualistic aspects, and the theological problems within
it invited more and more objections in scrutiny, and churches
openly started condemning it, upon which it became incredibly unpopular.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, both Orthodox and Catholics are technically not supposed
to be members of the lodges. So if it happens,
it happens contrary to the normal canon law, and it
does happen. But you know, there's people have free will.
There's many reasons why people choose to do things. So
it could be there could have been espionage, there could
have been infiltration, there could have been just people don't
care what can of law says. They do what they want.
So a lot of different motivations.
Speaker 2: Big Lee. So far as freemasonry being a glorified club,
I mentioned you once before ap that I was locked
up with a guy whose dad was a higher up
guy who initiated the higher ups and so on. But
he said, he said, yeah, up to a certain level,
it's a club. But once you get up to a
certain level, then they start. Then they start telling you
some other things. The way of verifying that it's a guy.
It's a guy in prison telling me this stuff.
Speaker 1: But it sounds a little bit like cap as the
wee lads say, Uh, to my understanding, much of much
of what's actually just happening there, it's just that they
have weird, weird, weird beliefs and rituals and all that.
That's it. Nothing really shady and messed up involved, but
people like to speculate about powerful clubs. Nowadays it has
very much become irrelevant in the world it used. It
used to be very big.
Speaker 3: It was it was a real tool of the British Empire,
and it was used by a lot of different groups
and different you know, power blocks for revolution. So I
think that's pretty well to demonstrate. You can you can
demonstrate the fact I had a mainline history class on
modern Europe and the French Revolution, and my my professor
was a French revolutionary specialist. And you know, you can
read our R. Palmer's book. There's a lot of texts
that will just be mainline histories on the key role
of Freemasonry and the jacob and Revolution in France. So
it has been used.
Speaker 1: Noisee noice. I'm getting very, very tired. But there's like
there's like an endless flow of superchazzia. For some reason,
everybody loves this. Everybody came for a fight and now
everybody just wants to have a conversation. Quiet, gentlemen, I
would like your thoughts on the book. Philokealia Saint Nicodemos
ever read it in good seminary suggestions.
Speaker 2: This is you.
Speaker 3: I've looked at the Philocalia. It's a very long you know,
usually people in the Orthodox Church don't recommend it for
people that are new or converts or anything. It's more
of an advanced kind of monastic text. So, but a
lot of the philo Colia's selections of church fathers and
other spiritual writings, nice.
Speaker 1: Nice noice atism. Jay, If you ever at some point
get board, you can just.
Speaker 2: Let me know and then, yeah, we're not We're not
easily offended by saying, hey, I'm tired, I gotta go.
Speaker 1: You do we have a problem with your eyes. By
the way, I notice that you do this thing a
lot with like when when there's light or something.
Speaker 3: I do have sensitive eyes. I also have really bad
allergies too, so I water and burn a lot.
Speaker 2: I see, why are you attacking this man for his eyes?
Speaker 1: I have to find a reason to fight, Jay. How
do you study the books you personally pick up for
reads with sticky notes, highlighting, writing, in et cetera. I've
been looking to ask this. Notice you use a crap
ton of sticky notes. How do you analyze?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think a lot of times people expect there
to be some you know, really worked out answer about studying,
and there's not. Basically, I just underline a lot and
I don't care about the price of the books or
anything like. This is an old copy of Morals and Dogma.
It's very marked up, and really all the sticky notes
are are summaries of what's on an important page. That's it.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I really admire that, But I personally never believe that
I could ever do that, because I have the most
chaotic way of studying things, which is just getting a
book that I am personally interested in because I think, oh,
there is this one one thing in that book that
I want to read. So I get the book and
I open the page and I read it, and I
read a section of it and I think, well, this
is really really good. I'm going to keep this in
memory that on a market and I put it away
never never pick it up again. And then I look
up the same book online to market online as well
on a kindle or something, but then I never get
back to it, and then I have it somewhere in
my memory and I can't remember where it is. And
this is just what I do with everything.
Speaker 3: Well, some of the pages are basically just all underlined.
So but I think that that's actually useful because for me,
I'm kind of a visual tac tall person. So if
I'm seeing it and underlining it, I'm kind of, you know,
just soaking it in more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Christ entrusted doctor alex Doavrijano Duck. He says, Christ
entrusted truth to our church. There can be no compromise
when it comes to the understanding of the faith. Truth
is truth, it never changes. The same mark of Ephesis
defended his faith when others planned to compromise truth. What's
What's what's interesting to me is also, however, that Saint
Mark himself did express right that he has respect full
respect for the seat of the of the Bishop of Rome.
Speaker 3: Well said that before before Florence, but he didn't say
that after.
Speaker 1: But didn't he say that he he does believe in unity,
but that it is done under the right circumstances instead
of rushing it into it and doing it for pragmatic
reasons or something like that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, yeah, after Florence, he said that he
realized that the Roman See is way worse than he thought,
and he calls them a para synagogue. So he says
they're not even really a church. So the after ephesis
is mark of ephsis is way more extreme than the before.
He was very hopeful for union.
Speaker 1: Fisherman's corner. David excellent point. Covenisn't believes the same thing
the Bible explicit is as false. He just originators of
sin will be punished accordingly. And in calviy daily quote
saying that God creates evil as sin, et cetera. Why
is everyone attacking Colonism?
Speaker 2: Oh? I think that was That was when I said
earlier about the point el was making about about allaw
deserving the most punishment because he's the one who leads
people astract. Yeah, that would be a that would be
a uh, that would certainly be one of the main
objections for Calvinism.
Speaker 1: Power gonna make uh Anthony Rogers angry?
Speaker 2: Now Anthony Anthony will Anthony will try to respond? So
Anthony's Anthony's.
Speaker 1: Cool, Anthony's watching infuming as we speak, uh rctly jadap
Why do they run the media Hollywood news music? Most
of the Ivory colleagues are colleges are politicians, APAK donors,
think tanks, ADL social media from the small hats Now,
my initial talk about the Irish, My initial urge when
I see this stuff is to just click it away.
But here's the thing. If I take it away, then
the truth because it works for the Jews. Let's see
what's what's listed to here. The media, Hollywood, news, music,
most of the Ivy League, colleges, our politicians, APAC donors,
think tanks idea. I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention banks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's all about the shekels and the banks.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of surprised that it doesn't mention banks because
normally they go for the banks as well, which is
the dumbest argument because the banks are not owned by
any of them. Uh So, my kind of question to
this is why do the Irish control our government?
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 1: Kirol Matthi says, no one wanted JA to call our
martyrs martyrs of his church or honor them. Comparing them
with his bolar martyrs, as rich One said, was indeed offensive.
They were Islam's victims. Also, doubling down on the mainstream
media did it too was a bad excuse.
Speaker 3: It wasn't an excuse. It was the reasoning why I
was skeptical of the event and the source of the event,
and I didn't say that they were equivalent. That was
the misunderstanding people thought I was saying that there's no
difference between dying for Christ if you're a Coptic and
Nozrilaar or whatever his name was. That's not what I
was saying.
Speaker 1: Ietism, Jay, how do you study the books you personally
pick up for How How often are we ask this question? Continued?
Thank God, the conscience of the Church, the people of God,
supported Saint Mark of emphasis efforts to maintain the truth
and trusted to us. Also, thanks for live feats like this. Jay,
You're awesome. Completely ignore ap and David, would you, uh know,
it's too much. It's one thing to criticize an aspect
of Judaism, but way too many don't do it in
good faith, and worst, criticize Jews as an ethnic group collectively,
which is nothing more than anti Hebrew racism. Yeah, it's
it's what lots of people do. Gladly, nobody here does it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's uh, that's my real objective. We've only we've
only explained this like twenty thousand times. It's like, if
you want to criticize the Talmut then say here's what
the Talmut says. And if you're if you're a Jew
who agrees with that rabbi in the Talmud, then here's
why it's messed up. Or if you wanted to say, hey,
here's a here's a group that spits in the direction
of Christians in Israel, like condemn that. But it's there's
just this overwhelming tendency with when it comes to Jews
that you see, that's what Jews do, and uh, or
this is what Jews believe and yeah, it's just it's
just not true. There's like point to the point to
the actual people who believe in the thing or do
the thing, and then criticize that. Uh. Anyway, I'm pointing
out people. We don't like it when people do. We
don't like it when people do it to us, Like
look at this guy, you see that's what Christians do.
Speaker 1: Damn this still, this dream is still going. What did
you think We're going to continue for another five hours
or so? I did a lot come down during Mohammed's
visit with big sexual group of men at night in
the desert. That's the most hilarious adith I've ever heard.
Speaker 2: He did right there.
Speaker 1: He was watching.
Speaker 2: No, it was it was Ibn Masud who was watching
behind the diddy line. Do you even know what we're
talking about? Jay? This is really weird.
Speaker 3: I mean, but I don't know about that other thing.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of semi joking. There's this weird there's this
weird there's this weird passage in the hadith about Muhammad
and he brings his companion Abdullah Ibn Masoud out into
the desert and says, stand behind this line. If you
cross this line, you are you are gone, buddy. It's
Abdullah Ud stands behind the line. And then it says
and all these guys who looked like they were from
the al Zut, which was like the what is now
the Pakistan India region, that they're like they're They're described
as dark skin and uh strong, with a huge sexual
appetites and large penises and so on. But it says
that that a group of the al Zut rode him
all night long until he came back in pain and
fell asleep on Abdullah's lap and so on. So anyway,
there's a weird source. Anyway we've got of been I
say semi joking because it's it's actually it's there, and
it sounds really weird and creepy, but we're semi joking
when it was When we go with the most obvious interpretations,
it's like Mohammed got it sounds like you got gang
banged by a budget. Yeah, that's what it sounds like.
And so anyway or a.
Speaker 1: Mohammed party, uh is Orthodo party?
Speaker 2: Wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, even if there is a possibility that David might
give an unacceptable answer, it is not allowed here. So
I'm just skip this. I do agree ap and David
would with Hamas being banned for Palestinian Christians. Good. I'm
glad we have that established and any reasonable person needs
to agree with that. But thank you, thank you, Brandon David.
What do you think about Orthodoxy?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: I don't know, never studied it, but it seems weird.
Speaker 3: It is totally base.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: One shot Ace seventeen. I'll join in retaking Constantinople. Good
knows too much? What does jd think of the Orthodox
priest at Lahna doing to Yasir Arafat what moment did
to the black I think that I talked with Jay
Dyer about that. Dude, that bishop before that was the
one guy who. I guess this was one of the
big This is one of the big difficulties I still
don't know how to handle if it ever comes up
that one bishop and under the Jerusalem PATRIARCHID who called
Hassan Australia a martyr, and who also walked around with
a sign saying my father and my mother be sacrificed
to you or messenger of a lah referring to Muhammad,
and it's kind of wild that he, an Orthodox bishop,
would do that kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: Well again, I mean, there have been Orthodox bishops and
priests who have adopted freemasonry and who have adopted perennialist
type views. So it's entirely possible that you could have
somebody who believes that Islam and Christianity do worship the
same gun. In fact, I think even the MP has
said that in the past, and I would totally disagree
with that. I mean, it's not the same as like
the papacy, because you know, the papacy and Vatican two
teach something you you don't get the liberty of saying
I disagree. You know, Orthodoxy is decentralized, and so there's
plenty of things that bishops or MPs can do that
are that are fallible and wrong. So so anybody would
call Mohammed, you know, God's messenger as a Christian, it
just seems completely You're you're either totally ignorant or you're
a Freemason.
Speaker 1: Or I don't know, isn't Isn't that just direct heresy?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Uh, how about you guys touch on Christian Zionism. So
we talked about this before, but I'm not sure why
anyone would touch on this here considering that, Uh, I'm
not a single person on this panel here is a
Christian Zionist. I have been very open about my thoughts
in Christian Zionism.
Speaker 3: David has been many streams on this recently, so people
can go check that from my views.
Speaker 1: So I'm not a Christian Zionist. Christian Zionism is a
very specific is a very specific theological viewpoint on Zionism,
and I personally don't agree with it. David, as far
as I understand your stance, is also that you don't
that you don't have a Christian Zionist theological perspective. Yeah,
all the position on Zionism is totally independent from theology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would be a Christian who is a Zionist
in a sense, but an adherent of Christian Zionism. I've
never studied the position the passages that have been brought
up to me to support it. I can always look
at that and say, well, I can think of multiple
other interpretations of that passage other than the one you're given.
But it's not something I would comment on because I
never really, never really studied it.
Speaker 1: Noise one state solution Israel for Jewish Christians, andsane Muslims.
Good luck with that, Holy Joe. David Dawood rebuked you
for reading my Rushdie joke, since he hates everything Rushdi,
just like how Ape hates everything Turkish, Turk sock eric vigilant.
I also apologize to ap for calling him a runner
and a track star because he was scared of the
jad diarity. But I'm still scared of the Jediary Byzantine warrior.
I approve of APCV on the liberation of Constantinople.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Searching deeper, I will become like a Roman Catholic or
Eastern Orthodox. Neither ever, I will never become a Roman
Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Neither ever focuses on Jesus millions
of other things. This is one of those very very
weird things that I don't really understand that people have,
or misconceptions that people have about Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I mean,
when I go to a Divine Liturgy, it's literally all
about Jesus. Literally the whole thing is about Jesus. So
it's a very very strange thing to say. Atism Jaye,
how do you study the books? How many times are
you going to ask the same thing? Jerry Art, Hello, E, Pete,
David jay learning more about the objective, but hey, thank
you for the super chats. How learning more about the
objective meaning off the Bible and decided to read the
Early Church father study Hittory and the Cultures. How best
can I do this book? Saints, et cetera.
Speaker 3: If I was first reading the Church Fathers, I would
read the Apostolic Fathers. I'd read Ignacious Clement. Cyril Richardson
has a little book that kind of summarizes that stuff.
I would read on the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius. I
would read five Theological Orations of Saint Gregor Naciana Zeus
Basils on the Holy Spirit, and then I would read
something like just get an Orthodox study Bible something like that.
Speaker 1: M hm, noice, David, what do you think? One word answer?
Speaker 2: Thanks?
Speaker 1: Wiscon says, it's literally all Orthodox speaks about exactly. It's
a really really weird thing to say. Jerry Art No,
he h Brossey, thisn' ap has a better Peterson impression
than Jim Bob. I know, I challenged Jimbob to uh
to a to a mobile?
Speaker 3: Are pretty good. You surprised me with that, so.
Speaker 1: I heard. I heard Jim Bob's Jordan Peterson impression, and
I wasn't impressed.
Speaker 3: So really, you think both of you guys are pretty good.
I mean, I'm more impressed with myself, most humble.
Speaker 1: I wonder if he's still here. He was earlier here.
I know he recently started attacking me, and it came
at a very very good time because I saw that
he made us, that he talked about me in a stream,
and I had this this, this this urge to react
and go through it. And then I thought to myself, Okay,
what why.
Speaker 2: Point.
Speaker 3: I don't know what he said about you, but usually
he makes fun of everybody in his dreams, so he
may have just been I don't know. He makes fun
of me on his dreams.
Speaker 1: So that's that's nice. But yeah, yeah, no reason to
find H. David pleasance totally fake name. W. David Pleasant
says Israel is a new crusader state. I support safe
access to the Holy Site. So I support Israel. Not
an end time imperative, just practical wisdom, a new crusader state.
That's an interesting statement here. The funny thing about Israel
is that it was so the Theodore Hertzel did explicitly
basically instruct the Zionist movement to make it a goal
to safeguard Christian sites in the in the land. That
is actually a core idea in the zion in the
in the in the Jewish state leaflet missed again. You
guys should get together more often. Your depth of knowledge
and humor are great despite disagreements. Anyway, I love you guys,
But right now we are just in a very peaceful
more The next time we get together we will start fighting.
So uh, squad rag. Anyone who thinks the modern nation
state of Israel is synonymous with the Israel mentioned in
scripture is very misinformed. Well, this is the funny thing
when sometimes when we talk about Israel, there are people
that come and say, no, this is not the Israel
or the Bible.
Speaker 2: I know it's not the Israel who's saying that. Though
I know it's not.
Speaker 1: That's not the point the one state solution, Hi, risco
da Wood, being that your critic Islam for having a
deterministic God. Do you point out to your Calvinist friends
that they commit the same error. Yeah, David was wrong.
Speaker 2: One I didn't even the criticism wasn't even determinist that God.
It was that the Quran says that those who lead
others astray deserve the punishment of those they lead astray,
And I point out, but the Crown also says that
a law allows the one who leads everyone astray, therefore
pointing out a problem. Uh. With that said, it is
it is an issue if you're saying God determines all
every all of our actions and all of our sins.
I do think that's an issue for Calvinism. But even
then us, I don't know if you guys have noticed,
I don't don't. I don't defend a lot of positions
because it's always in my head. I might be wrong.
I might be wrong about this. There may be some
brilliant defense of this that I'm not aware of, and
I kind of I can say, hey, I don't believe that.
I don't believe that, but still kind of withhold any
sort of final waiting for you guys to come up
with some brilliant defense of the position or something like that.
Speaker 1: Good, good, good. Most presidents were irish, power to us
in Charlat.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even even Barack Obama was blirish.
Speaker 2: H JDA.
Speaker 1: What makes Orthodox Christianity stand out as a more complete
or faithful expression of the Early Church compared to other
Christian traditions? Oxy has piqued my interest lately, Wingling gain Jay,
what would be your response to this.
Speaker 3: Most of the practices that you see in the Early
Church in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth century are
pretty much still normal practices of Orthodox today. So the
way the calendar is celebrated, the way the liturgy celebrated, fasting,
et cetera, all of those practices that are that are there,
even the prayer and the devotions are are still pretty
normal and normative. So those are key key things. And
also would argue that even something like church law, which
is kind of boring, but the way the Orthodox Church
keeps and treats church law is the same way that
the church fathers of the Ecumenical councils kept the church law,
and Rome is Rome is different. Rome has a different
canon law. They don't really care about the Apostolic canons
and things of the Worthodox church does care about nice noice.
Speaker 1: Jaco live after.
Speaker 3: Yeah, should be a little too tired. I'm starting to
wear down, so.
Speaker 2: You should make maybe tomorrow's running.
Speaker 1: I'm scared you should make a live to me after
this attack on.
Speaker 3: Everything I said.
Speaker 1: Bruce George, the anti Grant's religion in Temple, I already
jose them. They're working in Europe nation powerful.
Speaker 2: I think you're talking about Islam.
Speaker 1: Islam it is. When will you take your new Christian
name Martin?
Speaker 2: And why?
Speaker 3: And why?
Speaker 1: See how much of an influence that David would have
on your conversion? A HI JD. So yes, I'm going
to take the church name Martin H. But now that
I'm hearing this, I also think I think I also
should take your koop as an addition to it. But
David did have an influence in many different ways. But
I don't want to talk about it any further right now,
because he's here, and that's kind of okay. Squad Drug,
the Desionists and Chid believe we should financially support Israel.
If so, it seems you guys are naive when it
comes to modern tel Mudic Judaism. They believe some disgraceful
things support Christ. Well, here's the thing we said. David
said it before, I said it before. But if you
walk down the street and ask the average je about
what the Talmud says, they will have no idea what
the hell you're talking about, because you has never heard
a single not a single thing, but a few few
phrases from the from the Tumult. And then if you
ask rabbis about the Tumult, they will give you different
interpretations of what it actually says when it talks about
certain figures, including when it talks about Jesus, for example.
And then among all the people that you go down
the road and the list, you will find some that
actually agreed that the Talmut says something bad about about Jesus,
about Christ. And then you will when you have found
those people, you will have among those disagreements about to
what degree it is actually valid or descriptive or accurate
what it then says.
Speaker 2: Versus just versus just an insult or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And I'll go ahead and point out, now,
I've never encountered anyone who interprets the Talmud the way
like a groper meme wants you to interpret it like that.
You see, this is what they believe, and it's as
as you're putting it and and implying that they believe.
I've never I've never encountered or heard of anyone who
interprets that the way you guys say.
Speaker 3: I would say, there's a Peter Schaefer who has done
some interesting books that are useful for combating Islam because
admits that early Judaism was not monolithically unitarian. So it's
very useful, kind of in the way that the Two
Powers book and well Yarn's books are useful. He has
a book that's from an academic perspective called Jesus and
the Talmud put up by Princeton. So here's a Jewish
guy talking about what the Talmudic tradition is from an
academic perspective. So I think that's useful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so so I always I mean, so you have
you have the you have the group that like does
spit in the direction of Christians as they're walking by
and so on in the general direction. Yeah, tons of
people in Israel do not like those guys. That's what
That's what I mean. It's it's it's we just talked
about this. How you'll take something that some people do
and then they're say, therefore the nation. I mean, just
like understatement, you just think if someone does that in
every other direction. Look at what I mean, Look how
many creepy people you have in the United States and
Canada and the UK and so on you could point to,
You could point to messed up people who believe certain
things in in pretty much anywhere. And then to define
the whole, to define the whole by you know this
this part, you know this particular group in there so,
and then say, hey, the whole is the problem. That's
just I don't know, that's terrible reasoning.
Speaker 1: It's a logicalvality aracoda. I think in my position, the
one about thag used to be atheists and J used
to it's against atheists. What is your opinion on the argument?
I didn't miss it. Cut any questions for J about it.
I didn't miss it. But I've just in the past,
as I also expressed in the past, very very much,
despite having engaged with the arguments for God's existence or
against God's existence, with classical theism and all that, it
has never been very particularly interesting to me, and not
even doesn't even play a role in my eventual coming
to faith. So I would I would rather rather deal with,
for example, the Gospel and its relevance to me and
my life and to the and to the truth, then
with arguments for God's existence or against and in my
personal view, I also think, and I know that this
is that both David and j will start fuming now.
I also think that, uh, that arguments for or against
God's existence are largely ineffective in terms of changing changing
people's minds. And despite that, despite both change David disagreeing
with me on this, uh, everyone knows that I'm right.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I would say, I would say people are different,
different build different people, people are just people are just
wired differently, and different things have a different things impact
people differently normally. Normally, when I'm using arguments for the
existence of God, I'm trying to keep Theism and Christianity
as what William James would call a live hypothesis, meaning
something you're not just rejecting because you think it's it's
beyond ridiculous and something like that. It's something you could
take seriously, and then therefore you know it's you're you're
in a position where you can actually where you can
actually believe in it. If if, if you take a look.
So anyway, I'm trying to keep christian I'm trying to
make sure that Christianity remains apologetics. I'm trying to make
I'm trying to make Christianity a live hypothesis for people,
something to takes seriously, as opposed to something like because
things change over time. Like in the first century Roman
paganism was a live option for for people something to once.
Speaker 1: Ap is baptizing and it takes content. Will Jay and
Mike Winger over here, we'll ride with you a don yes, uh,
Father Deacon Eusinus, what's up? APJ and David many blessing blessings, guys.
AP's amazing to see your faith in the church. Girl.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Well. One thing I'd said about your apologetics comment, Uh,
if you think if you take somebody like Pago, who
you know is talking to the Peterson audience quite a
bit and is a very talented I cannographer. A lot
of people get interested in orthodoxy through esthetics, right, so
we wouldn't say that, well, either esthetics is good or
it's bad, or you should be or it shouldn't be,
or it's everything where it's nothing like it can be
a doorway and you know you have. My priest got
me an icon of Justin Martyr and his title is
just In the Philosopher because he spoke to and tried
to convert you know, philosophers to Christ. So christ as
we become all things to all men. I think that
there's a place for people that are philosophically inclined. I've
met a lot of people over the years who have
found the you know, the atheist debates that we've done convincing,
but not everybody does. Not everybody cares about philosophy. So
I think there's like like David, so there's different people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And even what you're pointing out right there that
you know different people, you know, different things can be
persuasive or have an impact on different people. Like even
in the realm of arguments for the existence of God,
you got people like, hey, I really like the design argument,
the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and tag and so on.
That's just that's just weird, weird nonsense. But then you'll
have people, You'll have philosophers who like love the ontological argument.
They think everything else is uh all the scientific arguments
are are stupid and so on. You talk to a
I just remember talking to a professor in biology and
it's like, hey, what what would you think non believer?
I soa, what would you think would be the best
case for for belief in a designer out DNA? But
it's so anyway, Yeah, different people are persuaded by different things.
Speaker 1: You know. The funny thing is that I often say
that that these things are largely and effective, but I
can't deny that I have been also greatly impressed at
the point with the with the teleological argument, for example,
which kind of left me a little bit without answers
and all that. So, yeah, Joseph really want to hear
David W's thoughts on orthodoxy. Who's David W.
Speaker 2: It would be kind of h it would be kind
of like what I just said about Calvinism, where I
don't I don't believe I don't believe what you're saying,
but I'm not. I'm kind of not ruling it out
until you know. So anyway, So, as a matter of fact,
AP and I have discussed all this, like like intercession
of saints and stuff like that. I'm not convinced that
that is actually happening or something like that. But I can't.
I can't rule it out because I get the idea.
It's like I can ask I can ask Jay to
pray for me right now. So if there's actually a
way to get a message to some saint to intercede
for like, I can't, I'm not. I'm not ruling it out.
I just i'm not. I've never seen a good reason
to think that it's actually happening. But anyway, so anyway,
so it's a situation where I don't accept that, but
I don't know. It could be it could be correct,
it could be entirely correct.
Speaker 1: Noise and finally, final super CHANSI and then I have
to go because I'm really really tired. Dennis, and they
say the Evanngers was the most ambitious collab of all time. Yeah, right,
this team is better. See and this comes in forms
of uh, Shickels. Thank you, Thank you, Dennis, appreciate that.
Joseph Jay, what do you make of Michael Jones's idea
of the Jewish revolutionary spirit?
Speaker 3: Mike Jones, I haven't read the book. I'm familiar with
the thesis. I've been on the same podcast, and you
know we've had some we never directly interacted. I tried
to set up a couple of debates, so I have,
you know, some significant disagreements with Michael Jones. It's difficult
to say that all Jews are necessarily revolutionary. I don't
think that's necessarily the case. But I think that the
religion of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple tends
to try to define itself in an in an anti
Christianity position, and that's where you get, for example, some
of those early statements in the rabbinical texts prior to
the codification of the Talmud that kind of set Judaism
on the path towards what eventually becomes kind of of
a miman IDEs strict unitarianism. So there's a tendency I
think in Judaism to be revolutionary and to be anti
Christian for sure, But I don't know that collectively we
get we got to sign like genetic guilt or anything
like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you, Michael Jones is also mentally ill, so that's
that's another issue. So very very severe.
Speaker 3: Are you joking Erbians?
Speaker 1: I don't really wanna send the question. No, it was
meant to be an insult, but yeah, that's it. Arctic
based ap Zechariah eight twenty three is not commonly read
typologically look it up, but it should be read in
relation to Jeremiah sixteen nineteen both eschatological passages. Okay, sevent
eleven says Jay, why want Jordan Peterson just admit that
he's gnostic and an occultist occultist that.
Speaker 3: You should ask Pago that he knows it a lot better.
I don't know Pierson at all, but I know Pagoe
fairly well.
Speaker 1: But what do you mean or cult it? Seven and
fifty donuts of doom? What would it sound like if
Nicholas Cage wasn't too tg but very confused by instant
incentiating coconuts?
Speaker 3: Well, I believe in coconuts, but I just don't know
how to instantiate them and what to do with them
like that. I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's a weird one, Doctor Alex tres Rundi strastravery, your
Staverydakis finally got it. Sorry, love to ap and David
would as well. Yes, thank you, thank you well. I
appreciate Oh t Genes, says Jay. Did you text Sam
that he was a balden word? I'm af and I
don't believe.
Speaker 2: It was you.
Speaker 1: I searched for clarification for me.
Speaker 3: Please let me know. I was life streaming when that happened,
So I wasn't simultaneously in his stream yard link. No,
that wasn't it.
Speaker 1: The only person that needs to be here for peacemaking
here is now same. And I know that you both
have problems with him. But respect to Sam. I learned
a lot from him as well Christ's life. I spent
like one hundred dollars today on Big John stealing god
logic here have some as well. Think you appreciate that
fisherman's corner. Love you guys, great job is always in
Jay's an author. But I would actually consider debating, but
we seem to agree on too many things. Got to
go a night good, by the way.
Speaker 3: When I was asking, I was, I was? It was
an honest question, like I didn't know if e Michael Jones,
like if you knew that he had some kind of
mental illness, or if you were just saying like in
the you know how in the colloquial sense we say,
oh that guy's crazy.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm just saying that he's a he's a
sick and uh, you know, messed up person. So that's it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well sometimes we say people are crazy in a
colloquial sense, but then sometimes people mean, no, he's actually
like crazy, Like.
Speaker 1: There's a I mean, to be very honest, I don't
know if he's actually crazy.
Speaker 2: It might be.
Speaker 1: It might explain a lot of things, honestly, Adam, Jay,
when are you going to accept Joseph Smith? Peace be
upon him as God's messenger? Just kidding, I'm ex Mormon
turned Orthodox. Please keep debating more mes nice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Mormons are. They're a whole wild bunch of their own.
Speaker 1: Oh you're debate them on spaces heat sucks, says Jay
could make you could you make a quick argument on
why you're specifically an Orthodox Christian over any other Christian denomination?
What's the one word argument that you could make here?
Speaker 3: I guess the strongest case would be if you look
at the structure of Christianity the first thousand years. If
we have the assumption that we want to be in
line with historic Christianity, I think that's really the only
one that matches up. I don't think Protestantism and I
don't think Rome match up to that.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 1: Uh, finally, final, super chet Hey, nice to see your teller, Ted.
Let me look, when Christians make peace, the devil is defeated.
Glad to see and also very glad to see you here.
Follow you on Twitter, Olsen on his X all right,
anything else? I think we had done with the super chess. Finally,
sick of reading all these messages. Uh, hey, it was
great to get together. Jay, really glad that we did this.
It was kind of bothering me this whole thing. So
I'm glad that we talked it out and uh made peace.
Speaker 2: Ape is trying to clean up all his beasts before
his baptism. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, if you have any questions, you know, feel free
to hit me up. And you know, if you if
you if I say something you disagree with, Uh, maybe
you and I should just chat one on one and
and talk it out. We'll do it that way. That's
a better route.
Speaker 1: There is a an ego problem that gets in the
way a lot, sometimes so most humble, although I'm more
of the most humble, of which I so I don't
have the ego problem, but sometimes even to me, even
to me, uh, anything else you guys want to say
before you head off.
Speaker 3: No, thanks for having me on, and I'm glad we
had a peaceful conversation. It was really cool.
Speaker 1: Awesome, awesome, and even David is happy as a result
of this.
Speaker 2: Just love me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, thanks everybody for watching, thanks for joining.
Sorry that we couldn't deliver a fights. Maybe next time
we'll have more energy and start fighting. Yeah, but thanks
for joining everybody, and thanks for listening, thanks for tuning in.
Hope to do more together in the future. Uh and
until then, as always, yeah powerful
Speaker 3: Stay away from a slab.