Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, that dam's miss sure as Welcome back
to Then and Now, the show we do every week
with Jim Jattress, author of I Try to Warn You,
available on Amazon and all fine booksellers, and of course
this week we have a very special guest, mister J. Dyer,
author himself of a few books, Meta Narratives, essays on
philosophy and symbolism and Esoteric Hollywood one and two and
number three is coming out very very soon. Welcome gentlemen,
good to see you. Nice to have you on preparing
for this talk about the new American Pope. I was
doing some research into your latest talks. Of course, listen
to Jay Dyer over on Tim Poole. This is almost
what could be an intervention for you, Jay, Like we
want to know why you had to melt poor poor
Timmy Poole's head so much. I thought that Beanie was
popping off his head. This is your first time on
the show. You may not know this, sir, but I'm
a bit of a logic professor myself, and I've got
the documentation to prove it right here. If you want
me to prove it to the stream, well you have
to hit those goals. We have a thousand dollars left
on our monthly griff goal for June. Someone's already sent
one hundred and fifty dollars in before the stream even started.
So I will activate my own pay pigs and please
help support the show anyway, which any which way you can,
and I'm glad to have you. So, mister J. Dyer,
thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2: Thanks glad to be here. Were you joking on being
serious about being a logic professor?
Speaker 1: No, well self proclaimed sir. I'm from my own from
my own university, crayon Eater University. Uh, prager you, prager
you exactly. I've been studying very hard with uh, with
our with the with the fine bagels. I'm I'm fluent
in all the logics, flu in all the logics, all
the fallacies, I am I I have them all somewhere.
Stuff is on my head.
Speaker 2: Where anything can be true and false at once.
Speaker 1: I think this is just you know, it's a singular
we all worship the same logic. So at the end
of the day. But you know, one of the interesting
things that came out of that debate over in Tim Poole, uh,
which I think people are sleeping on. Is this sort
of smuggling in of monatism and materialism into into classic theology.
I mean, I think it's been around for a little bit,
but I think it's getting more and more revealed as
we as we go, so we can examine I don't
know where we want to start with this exactly, because
we can start from like post Vatican two to Pope
John Paul the Second to Pope Francis and then Pope
Leo and somewhere in there we get some liberation theory
theology kind of smuggled in, which I think gets us
to the big question of the day is is this
new pope going to be a maga pope? It's going
to be a liberation theology pope. What kind of pope
is he? Is Pope Leo going to be? So? Any
initial thoughts on and what does it mean for us?
And what does it mean for us as as Orthodox Christians.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of influences on Vatican two. Certainly
some of the popes post Vatican two, uh, you know,
pioneered going in new directions. I remember when I was
Roman Catholic, I did have a phase where I tried
to give John Paul a second benefit of the doubt.
I read his Theology of the Body book. It was
a lot of phenomenology. I read a lot of the
theologians of Vatican two, like von Balthazar, and I think
Dave lou Bach was one the pre et So there's
a lot of different strains and influences. We know that
Protestants were involved in drawing up and creating the New Mass,
along with even Freemasons like Animal Bonini, and as you mentioned,
there were definitely quite a few Jesuit and Liberation theological
influences pre en post Vatican Two for sure, even to
the point that they had to issue some sort of
condemnation I think in the nineteen eighties when Ratzinger was
at the CDF at the exact date maybe eighty four
or five six, somewhere in there. But that doesn't mean
that it's not still kind of part of the ethos
of the Vatican. And I think the American deep state
plays a huge role in the theology of Vatican Two.
You even had Jews that were bragging in Look magazine
that they had a role in helping to craft nos Trett,
the famous document about the world religions so quite a
wide expanse of influences at Vatican two. And we haven't
really seen any of the popes back, you know, walk
any of it back, And I don't think you can.
It just wouldn't make any sense anyway to say, can
they walk it back? Can we get a trad pope. No,
it's dogmatic. Every document is signed off on with basically
the same authority and universality. It is about faith and morals,
so it pretty much meets the requirements for all of
the levels of Roman Catholic dogma. Even though some trads
kind of have a game they play where they've telled
themselves they don't have to follow it. But every Romancolic
church I've ever been to, every catechism I've ever seen,
mandates to believe it. So no, we're not gonna get
a trad pope. France is stacked the cardinals, the deck
of cardinals pretty well. So even had they not been stacked,
even if you got a try, it would be a
pseudo trad pope. Because he was, he's still bound to
he's still going to expose it. Everything in Vatican two.
And this is the real elephant in the room, is
that it's the documents of Vatican too themselves that have
the problem. It's not a pope, it's not a person.
It's not the misinterpretation, it's the documents. And that's that's
eventually what took me out of it. But yeah, as
to that's that's my initial thoughts is that there's no
there's no way, there's no way to walk it back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's it. That's gets into the question
of like how powerful is the pope because I think
a lot of people start to think, is is this
a paper pope? Obviously the pope can do things like
stack the stack the doctor cardinals can set certain uh
certain directions for the Vatican in terms of in terms
of dogma or let's say political uh involvements. But as
you as you're saying, once you's once you set us
in a dogma, it kind of just carries over like
there's there's very little that even if even if Pope
Leo is the most basist pope in the world, which
I don't think there's a a whole lot of evidence
for that, and is it in his previous pre popeness
or whatever you want to call it, there's there's certainly
his inability to actually change any kind of fundamental Catholic dogma.
And if you watch any of the apologetics out there,
they're extremely porous. This idea like there are inability to
even confront Hinduism or or Islam head on is pretty alarming.
And I mean I was just sleeping on it, like
I I've fallen into that whole trap of like, Okay,
you know what, maybe right now isn't the right time
for these theological debates. Maybe we should just like concentrate
on the more political sphere and we should all get
together as as Christians on some level and you know,
hold hands seeing kumbaya, you know, you know, don't pay
any attention to the charismatics or the smoke mashe sure,
but like let's get you know, let's get this political
thing figured out first before we before we start arguing
with each other. And now I'm becoming more convinced that
this is the exact right time to have these these debates,
because as more and more young men are being onboard
into religion in general, especially Christianity, they drop off or
the failure points even within Orthodoxy. And we'll get to
to Bartholomew. I'm sure at some point is severe and
it's not just leading people away in the wrong political sense,
but this is about people's souls. So we do have
to be very very careful and very precise and clear
about these things. And I mean, as Father Sarah from
Rose predicted, this is the coming of that mush Christianity monism,
one new future religion of the future, and we're starting
to see that take take.
Speaker 2: Root absolutely agenda. I don't want to kind of.
Speaker 3: Quick no, no, I just want to ask a question
that relates to this. You know, I can't help but
think that the selection of a Polish pope back during
the Cold War was obviously something that had political ramifications
for the then the Soviet Bloc. I can't help but
wonder if an American pope is part of the larger
geopolitical strategy, given as Jay has documented a very tight
deep state of the American deep state influence on not
only the Vatican but on the fun Are and that
you know, clearly Leo has made a strong focus towards
the East, clear very early on and within days of
his taking the papal office that there's some kind of
a larger geopolitical play here that involves the selection of
an American pope. You know one that obviously you Cardinal
Soupicch and James Martin s Jay were high five when
he was named Taylor Marshall looked like he was about
to have a stroke. But now then all the tradcats
seemed to be it's just fallen all over themselves because
you know, they called himself leon Ward the thing. So
I don't know, I just it just seems to me
that there's something deep we're going on here on the
geopolitical ideological front that is involved with not only the
selection of Wells as provost as the vote, but also
what his agenda is frankly with respect to us.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: In fact, there's it's not an accident that the recent
Vatican statements on the East, the Chiady Document and then
the Alexandria Document, both of which can see tremendous amounts
of ground to what Orthodox have been criticizing for a millennium.
Both of those documents are on senidality. At the same
time as there's a push in the Orthodox world as
well for us to accept via many jurisdictions, patriarchates, unfortunately
and pre especially in America and throughout the West, to
push for this idea of either the pentarchy being some
form of quasi papacy that's unilateral and its actions, or
the ep being a kind of pseudo papal actor that's
autocratic as well. Both of these are happening at the
same time on purpose by the same forces in the background,
most likely for a future reunion, which ironically providentially echoes
so much of the Council of Florence and its geopolitical motivations,
although that was at the time when it was Islam
supposedly was a massive threat. Now Islam's cool. We don't
have to have Jews and Muslims wearing different garb, as
the Fourth Latteran Council said, because of course we're all
worshiping the same deity as Vatican two says. So remember
the fourth Latter in Council in twelve fifteen Roman Catholicism
wanted a crusade against Islam to protect the Holy Land.
That's the last canon of the Council. The fourth Latteran
Council Council of the ends very similar. The wording is
the abominable sect of Mohammed. According to the popes at
that time, it is an insult to the Holy Name,
a disgrace to the faith that the followers of Islam
in their mosque meet to adore the Infidel Mohammed's quite
a bit of a change from now we can go
pray in the mosque towards Mecca. So the selection of
an American pope is absolutely a huge geopolitical move, just
like it was massively significant that elp Deafos suddenly became
a fan of Trump. That was very bizarre. We saw
that recently. All this, I think is connected, and I
don't mean that in some overly conspiratorial way. I literally
mean it in the sense that there is a move
that will affect the Orthodox world, as Gym has pointed out,
to push us towards a future union. And just because
they didn't get it in twenty twenty five, where it
kind of got quiet in the last couple of years,
doesn't mean that the same forces aren't working for this.
And one last note, multiple Catholic writers, both from the
normal sphere of John Taylor, CIA writer, You've got not
a conspiracy theorist, pro cold warrior guy. You've got Paul
Williams romancalviolc historian who's much more critical of the papacy
and its actions, admitting both of them, admitting that the
CIA played a huge role, not just in the elections
recently but in all of the post Vatican two elections
because it was seen as something very crucial for the
Cold War. As Jim noted, you know, you have this
election of John Paul the second Voitia, huge geopolitical significations
there with lack of a less the connections.
Speaker 1: To the.
Speaker 2: The the operations that basically were being run there by
the CIA, as well a lot of symbolic stuff. I
can go into that later. Maybe we don't want to
go into that, but the point being is that Williams
even thinks that basically Kissinger in the CIA had a
huge role in making sure that it was Paul the
sixth that was elected to essentially finish Vatican to the
way it needed to go, because there was somewhat of
a concern over John the twenty third being the Pink
Pope as he was called for his overtures towards the
Soviets and his encyclical pachaminaras being basically some form of
new World order, one world currency. It's famous in cyclical right.
So we've been having these problems with the Vatican for
a long time. And it's the same problems as Jim
is saying that they will have that that they're pushing
in the Orthodox world as well, and it's for this grand,
great convergence. So what better explanation for all of the
syncretism and the perennialism in the Vatican two documents than
that right there.
Speaker 3: In terms of liberation theology that Jason mentioned, I mean,
the conventional wisdom back to the Cold War times was that, well,
that's the Communists and we're against that. But wasn't there
something didn't the CIA have its thumb in that too?
I mean that there was some there's again we you know,
we we run these fallse flag operations that we can say, oh, yeah,
we got liberation theologies the Communist but who's really standing
that up? I mean, I do wonder about some of
the movements within not only the Roman Catholic Church, but
also I find in the elements of the Orthodox Church
that are in favor of this new kind of quasi
Florentine union. That are you know, it's not just us
us and the Catholics talking, it's whoever both both of
the mans or to.
Speaker 2: Absolutely uh I mean, I'm not an expert on, you know,
the history of liberation theology. I did pick up some
of the books of the liberation theologians even back when
I was a Roman Catholic, and it's definitely coming out
of the Latin South America sphere. But what's interesting is
I found an old, uh sort of an NGO study.
You can look I forget the exact you can look
it up. I think it's Nelson Rockefeller commissioned to study
of the effects of liberation theology in Latin South America
for the Rockefeller Foundation. He actually says this is not
bad in fact, because liberation theology is pushing the Romancalllic
Church to accept contraception and abortion. There's no reason why
we would not accept this for our depopulation agenda. And
in the excellent Necessary Book by John Cortney Excuse Me
by David Wimhoff on John Courtney Murray and the History
of the CIS doctrinal warfare program written by a traditional
Catholic effect, the chapter on the Rockefellers was really just
about their main interest in the Romancalllic Church was getting
it to accept abortion and contraception. They weren't totally successful
in that, but they were able to move it in
a certain directions at the time of Vatican two and
have some caving on certain moral issues. I think eventually
we're going to get more caving. And to to Jim's
point about liberation theology, Paolo Freira, the guy that wrote
Pedagogy of the Press is the He's an influence and
I'm buddies with he was the mentor to Francis and
Klaus Schwab's mentor. There's an archbishop who is a famous
liberation theologian, Kamara. Archbishop Kamara, and Kamara believed in Paolo
Freira's Pedagogy of the Pressed philosophy and that influenced both
Klaus and Pope Francis. So absolutely there's liberation theology.
Speaker 1: In the Vatican. How far does that go back? Because
you mentioned that John Paul the second was sort of
allergic to the idea and passed and passed some proclamations
directly against liberation and theology, you know by name. Does
it get more porous after that? Because I'm just trying
to trace back the sort of lineage and for people
maybe give it, give everyone a really brief breakdown of
what liberation theology is all about, because I mean, I
was relatively new to the terms as of like this week,
where I had heard something about it, but wasn't really
paying attention to it because I'm not really paying attention
to the Roman Catholic world. And then when you start
digging into you're like, oh, my goodness, dear Lord, what
do you mean there's Marxism inside the church?
Speaker 2: Like well, if you read the Rockefeller's biography, if you
read the like the Collier of Horror, it's the big, fat,
seven hundred page biography. He details how the family was
instrumental in not just founding the ecumenist movement and putting
massive amounts of money into the original Chicago World's Fair
ecumenist ideas that first came about in the eighteen nineties,
but also the later World Council Churches and National Council churches.
That was all a lot of rock fire money going
into that on record, And at the same time, Rockefeller Senior,
according to his own testimony, was very he was impressed
by the idea of social gospel, so prior to liberation
theology of this older movement in the Protestant world and
he comes out of a Baptist tradition to being kind
of a Baptist Pietist, and they were very teetotal or
sort of puritanical and moral people at least early on
supposedly in their ethics. But then what happened was they
switched into a kind of attitude where they understood that
churches could be used as projections of soft power, and
so they had the intention of utilizing and changing American
the American religious landscape. If you don't doubt this, go
look at the Riverside Cathedral that they built, which itself
has within it statues to Hegel, to Darwin, to Muhammad,
and to Jesus. So they were way aheut of the
curve when it came to this idea of a sort
of universal syncretist, you know, kind of a humanist religion ideology.
This is their project, that's their baby. Proud they're proud
of it now. So there's a confluence of forces. You've
got also the idea of like a social Gospel, as
an earlier Protestant movement, that we need to de mythologize
the story of the Gospel from these supernatural elements. And
when we do that, what do we really get. We
get the idea basically, the purpose of Christianity is to
make society better in some sort of me you know,
generic social sense, so kind of a social justice warrior
Christianity the same idea. You've got Marxists also, you know,
who find this idea appealing. The Marxists believe that religion
can be de mythologized. If they don't, if not, they're
not super radical, thinking that it needs to be destroyed
like a Bolshevik. You've got strands of Marxism and think
that it could be co opted and used and turned
into what's called liberation theology. One of the most famous
liberation theolis as far as I could tell, is Martin
Luther King Junior, because he doesn't seem to believe in
any of the actual stories or the superstitions. But it's
just a it's an allegory for oppressed peoples. And so
you can see that, you know, Marxist could latch onto
this with the bougeoisie pressing you know, the working class
or the poor, or the minorities, or however you want
to construe it. This took hold in Latin South America
and the Soviets did. The Communists did try to utilize
and make connections through liberation theology, networks, spheres and organizations,
but I would not like. I don't think it's totally
and wholly a Communist Soviet thing. I think again, you
have even American wealthy, oligarchical elite families that think it's
a good thing too.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's I don't know if there's a
Muslim analogue to this, but certainly there's a Jewish one
with tikun olam and repairing the world. It's very similar
to these concepts. And you know, you mentioned contraception, abortion,
and I don't think they've really gotten much ground in
the Roman Catholic Church. But the one that has, if
you been looking at population control is the Skittles agenda,
and that's exactly to me that's going to be the
real interesting litmus test for what kind of trad Leo
is if he moves forcefully against this, and my guess
is he probably won't. I don't think James Martin would
have been all that thrilled in his election if he
thought that Leo was going to go after, you know,
the sacred mission of the lat mafia. And of course
that's a huge element of subversion that they're aiming at
us too. I mean, look the way the whole world
and the whole world media crowed when the Mitsutaki's government
Greeks pushed through a same sex so called marriage law.
First Orthodox country approved same sex marriage, you know, even
though that's of course almost universal now in Roman Catholic
or formerly and Catholic protest in Europe. I think that's
gonna be the real lidmus test of which way the
wind is blowing on this, at least with this pontificate.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Also the uh.
Speaker 2: As, I'm sure everyone here is aware, and even Tim
Gordon has done a lot of really good episodes of
his podcast on this idea of uh two steps forward,
one step back, and also that you can you can
edge these ideas in in a kind of easy or
sort of sideways way by something like, well, we're not
gonna go for full on female ordination. What we're gonna
do is we're going to create a new kind of
office that's never existed before. That's kind of a it's
like in between a priest, uh, you know, deacon, and
then this other kind of thing that we'll we'll just
create out of nowhere. You get the same idea of well,
we're not gonna gay marriage yet in you know, Francis's
last and cyclical or whatever it was about the blessing
of the gay unions, We're not going to have gay marriage.
It's going to be a sort of sub recognition status
that's blessed because you're going to get a priestly blessing
after the service. There's not a full on sacrament, so
they can sort of bring these things in. And as
Father John Whiteford said when we did an interview on this,
he said, look, it begins with deacon s then it's
why not have a female priest? Well, why not have
you know, a full on female bishop. So that's the
slippery slope, but you have to gradually do it. It's
a very common tactic of this sort of slow kill.
But I think Tim Gordon is actually right that it's
not just the issue of Francis's last thing talking about
the blessing of the gay unions, not gay marriage, but
the blessing of a gay couple. It's also the change
in the ability to receive communions. So in other words,
if you're a divorce store, if you're presumably gay as well.
These these irregular relationships can now also allow a person
to come community that might seem small in terms of change,
but the point Tim's making is that those small changes
prepare the way and soften people up for the real
change that they want. And that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm, yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the smuggling of feminism is almost guaranteed to
this point because it's again when she create this sort
of porous non traditional when do you start abandoning any
forms of tradition, then the next the next abandonment becomes
easier and easier and easier. And we've seen this course
in politics all over the place, but it's I think
becoming more and more alarming within the within the church.
To tie it back to Orthodoxy, of course, when I
had Jimbob on uh in January, he asked me the question,
you know, as we're starting to see this sort of
onboarding of more more certain sort of celebrity Christians, you know,
with Russell Brand and all the rest of it, Jim
asked me if if I thought we would start to
see the same thing in Orthodoxy, and my initial response
would be no, because of the sort of the the
strenuousness of Orthodoxy, you know, just becoming a Catechmism, just
becoming a Canic human, you have to go pass through
certain gates to kind of, uh, to kind of achieve
status within the Orthodox Church. That being said, however, I
don't know if that I had kind of thought about
what had happened already in Ukraine with the with the
new church that we've seen in Ukraine, which has been disastrous. Certainly,
we if we're relying on Constantinople to make to defend
the church and its integrity and its traditions, I think
we're maybe asking the wrong people. We certainly we've talked
about CIA involvement within within the Vatican. There's certainly CIA
involvement within or within the Orthodox Church, specifically within Consantinople.
And I think this bodes ill ill omens, especially for
ro Corp or anything attached to let's say, the Russian churches.
The countdowns on until we all start becoming proclaimed as
some sort of spy or subversive element in the West
because you know, we we send prayers to the Russian
military or something like that. Maybe you can speak on that, Jay.
I know this is sort of a it's a touchy subject.
Speaker 2: Well, there was a guy that wrote a piece, what
a year ago, maybe eight months ago, Feller Whiteford I think,
talked about it too, and it was in one of
the Foreign policy magazines, basically saying that that the Russian
churches in America are essentially putin networks. And I think
they called out Bishop Irena in that article, if I
remember correctly. But yeah, they're already sort of kind of
trying to make these loose associations. So I think that's
definitely a danger. And to be more precise on kind
of the inside info that really going on, as you
guys probably know, I mean, there's already going to be
a move that's kind of in the in the back,
in the works, in the background now for that very
thing where maybe not so much persecution, but they're going
to begin to unite jurisdictions and they're going to do
it kind of in the background, and the purpose of
doing this is to marginalize and sort of weed out
anyone that's not going to go along with the push
within the Orthodox world for the same women in the priesthood,
gay stuff, all the same stuff, even trends priests and
accepting the trend stuff. That's the long term goal. So
they're going to push for the union of the jurisdictions.
They're going to push that the Greeks ACCEPTCA. They're going
to try to get Romanians and Serbians and all these
different jurisdictions in America to join on with this one big,
mega jurisdiction plan which has really been in the world
works for a long time. I remember when I first
started looking at Orthodoxy in two thousand and seven eight
I've I first heard about this idea, Oh, let's join
all the jurisdictions and we won't have so much chaos.
And I was much more naive back then about what
was really going on in the background and how you know, dangerous.
A lot of this stuff was in terms of being
tied to geopolitical agendas of you know, the neo cons
and the deep state and all that. So it's a
bad idea, it's a terrible idea, and but it's actually
also could be a good thing because all the people
that want to go to Rome down the road, that
want to go be gay, go do it.
Speaker 1: Just go leave.
Speaker 2: Please don't let the you know, royal doors hit you
on the way out, because it's a winning it's a
sort of a it's sort of a winnowing fan, right,
it's like sort of the wheat from the chaff, the
winnowing fan that gets rid of these horrible people that,
you know, if you want to go be a papist,
go do it. You know what, I mean to go
and experience all that I've been there, I know what
it's like. It's it's not fun. And to the people
who really want to go that way, it seems like,
you know, you can just go do it. But then
what's going to happen is a lot of the laity
are not going to accept that because they converted for
real reasons, they converted to not have that. They left
that kind of Christianity. They don't want to go into
that after converting out of you know, some kind of
goofy Protestant thing. So a lot of the lady are
going to come over into the Russian and Serbian churches,
and then you've got the groundwork for oh, these are
all the schismatics that work for Putin and they're you know,
they're gonna that's what they're going to say about us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's kind of a paradox in American orthodoxy,
that a lot of the you know, for want of
a better word, that a lot of the converts are
more based because they're focusing the spectrum of American religious
experience and they've seen it, they've been there, whereas a
lot of the ethnics, he'll call them that cradle people,
or at least people with any pedigree like me, would
tend to look at it much more naively than just
in terms of our Greek church. Were many in church,
Serbian church and so forth, and really not see the
deeper currents that are going through there because some of
them still have this really odd kind of aspiring immigrant
mentality where they just want to be like the regular
white folks, you know, they just want to be like
everybody else is messed up, as all of those people are.
And you know, I think so many people for the
same reason say well, why don't we have just one
American jurisdiction? You know, hey, as we saw during COVID,
it was a great bed with it that we didn't
have a single jurisdiction. I mean, if you were and
listen to be honest, a lot of the churches in
the old world did not handle that very well. And
if you were in the say, the Greek Church or
the Russian Church in Greece or in Russia, you had
no choice. The government cracked down, the church crackdown. There
was no other church under another northern jurisdiction you.
Speaker 1: Could go to.
Speaker 3: In America you could do that. And I think, you know,
as irregular it as it is, and given this point
in our development as a confession here in America, it's
it's it's a mixed blessing that we have this confusion
of jurisdictions. But it's not all bad.
Speaker 1: To to that point, though, Jim, an excellent point. But
to that point, I don't think. I didn't see any
videos of any Orthodox priests baptizing children with a with
a squirt gun. That seemed to be more of a
Roman Catholic thing. I didn't see that. But if anyone
in the chat can appoint me in the right directions.
Speaker 2: For but what's the problem, Well, yeah, I mean it
sounds like you have a problem with those, So what's
the problem.
Speaker 1: I you know, I just it was more like the
super soaker. I wanted to see more of an action. Yeah, yeah,
because I bid.
Speaker 2: If you're saying that's invalid, I just thought.
Speaker 1: It was kind of rinky dinky. The videos I saw
were just more like a little tiny squirt gun. I
thought we could get the full shotgun in there, you know,
like get get the spirit completely. You know, Spray with
the spirit is more, I think is a more appropriate action.
Speaker 3: What splay to the spirit, slay in the spirit of
sprayed in the.
Speaker 1: Spare Uh, it's it's I mean, it's wild. Man. You
get into some of this, some of these talks, and
you know, in the Orthodox world there's more debate over
like do you dunk three times or not? And then
you get into the Protestant world where it's like what
is it? What does even baptism?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: What do you need to even use water? Can you
just like wave your hands somewhere maybe a moist tallette,
you know, along with the along with the skittles and
and the grape juice for confession?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: What do you what are you so concerned about? Really,
it's it's it's all Holy Spirit, It's all the same thing.
Let's bring this back to to Leo uh and spysically
around sort of the American involvement. You know. Of course
we talked about the significance of American pope now, just
as it was with a Polish pope, you know, speaking
just for my own family, coming from a Ukrainian background
and having coming from a Ukrainian Orthodox family, a Russian
Orthodox family. I remember pictures of of the of of
the pope and when I was in you know, in
the eighties, because he's Polish, so he he's he's part
of the family in some ways. So I do think
there is significant I also think the significance of of
of JD. Vance being a Catholic Vice president and I
think most likely going to be the next president United States.
We'll see how the how this term works out. And
then of course we go from J. D. Evans to
Peter Field. So now you have made the question, isn't
even a liberation theology pope or a Maga pope made
the question as a PayPal pope and how and where
that leads us? So I don't know if you have
any thoughts.
Speaker 3: Or oral palateer.
Speaker 1: Pope, palenteer pope. Yeah, well, yeah, a I Pope, We're
we're we're we're getting closer to that every day. Any
thoughts on that, Jay with the sort of the connection
to JD. Evans Peter Field and now of course a
new American pope.
Speaker 2: Well, I've looked into Taitel and I've kind of watched
that whole domain for a long time. Being a conspiracy
theorist even before as orthodox, I was aware of in
q tel and Volunteer and what that was all about
as a sort of a CIA cutout for creating and
venture you know, venture tax funding mechanism. This is essentially
where we get you know, other things like Facebook. I
think even Twitter came out of something similar if I recall,
and you know, these are kind of chosen companies because
we like to think of it being a free market situation,
and to a degree the system utilizes the free market
and the energy and creativity the people. But a lot
of times the companies are sort of chosen and blast
again by the establishment because they get tax breaks, they
get this sort of secret funding and so forth, they
have special deals with the government, and those become the
sort of anointed you know, techolague companies, as we know Facebook,
classic example. So I think, you know, Teel has been
in the background as a transhumanist, with this transhumanist ideology
for a long time. He also as openly gay as
I understand. And that's relevant because you know, we we
we know the kind of ideology in the tendency, We
know the profile of a person like that in terms
of what they're going to prefer, what they're going to choose,
what they're going to want, And he seems to have
this sort of Nietzsche and Ubermensch ideology that goes along
well with transhumanism. And I remember in his book, I've
got his twenty fourteen book here where he talks about
what he's all about. In many ways, it's a lot
of transhumanism, it's a lot of you know, we're going
to create centrally human cyborg hybrids in the future. But
the Valenteer section is really enlightening because he basically just says,
we're creating the tracking and tracing for the CIA of
the NSA and the future tech pent opticon basically is
what he says. So that's his ideology, that's what he thinks.
And you know, you can look at other people too
in his circles, like Curtis Jarvin, Mensius Moldboog, the guy
who wrote about neo reaction, and they're very influenced by Tolkien.
The other guy that's h. Palmer Lucky or whatever his
name is, the endurial that's also a Tolkien terminology. The
reason they're using the Tolkien terms is because Jarvin is
a critic of democracy, and I would agree with that.
But the problem is that their answer to the problems
of equalitarianism and democracy and feminism and all this kind
of nonsense is, oh, let's just have a tech you know,
fuel system were ruled over by tech lords, and I
don't think we want that. So good criticisms, bad answers,
As is often the case, it's coming from a place
of you know, not being divinely iluine from the Orthodox faith.
It's coming from a place of technocracy and being ruled
by base passions with the gay stuff, and you know,
it's just all the same stuff, but maybe not as
not all the platitudes of you know, the former twenty
thirty years of It's not the Steve Jobs idea of
equalitarianism and democracy. It's no, no, it's all bullshit. Let's
go just full on you know, tech oligarchy, where the
overlord's idea. That's the vibe I get from these guys.
That's the danger. But it connects into the papacy too, because,
as you said, I forgot that, didn't he prevost he
had some sort of naval special operations things going, which
to me could suggest probably some intelligence connections. I mean,
I'm sure everybody at that level has some degree of that,
But participating in a sort of what was the operation
called Operation Dragoon that he thought that was kind of odd.
Excuse me. That's his father, so excuse me. He comes
from a a father who was a sort of naval
intelligence and Navy black ops, so that again could suggest,
you know, other allegiances. But I don't get any impression
that he's in any way some sort of conservative In fact,
the public stories about him, or that he was a
reader of Carl Rauner, who's one of the most extreme,
you know, liberal Roman Catholic writers out there. So anyway,
I'm rambling, but I'll stop there, Jim.
Speaker 3: You know, I can't help thinking too that, you know,
among the other you know, there are many defineds of
how people relate to other people. Obviously, their religious affiliation
is well, their family connects, uh, you know, father, mother,
having children and all that. Another one is nationality. How
do ID identify myself as an American or whatever else?
I happen to be. And I can't help but wondering
if we're seeing a kind of a flip of the
script in this country from what it had been under,
say the Biden administration, where you know, open the borders,
let everybody in multiculturalism, et cetera, et cetera, and now
we have, for example, then you see these these riots
in Los Angeles and then a lot of the you know,
the real Americans saying, oh, we got to stop that.
That's why we need palateer, that's why we need universal sovey,
it's universal identification, the same agenda, except you you play
the tribes against each other, you know, you you you,
you play the multi culti tribe card on the one hand,
and then you play the real American tribe card on
the other. But neither one is what the the agenda is.
They're just simply tools that are being used.
Speaker 4: And again, you know, it does relate back to us
in an Orthodox context, because we are in this kind
of transitional phase from an ethnic church founded by immigrants
to an increasingly an American church because we have so
many converts coming into it now, and it's something that
is picking up the.
Speaker 3: Notice of the media. We have more and more of
these stories. You know, why are young men turning to
Orthodoxy and so on and so forth? That uh, you
know it. I was. I'm not sure how all these
threads tie together, but I think they do in some
way where we have a kind of manipulation of the
consciousness of people, not only their religious consciousness, their social
conscious their moral preferences, but also their national identity.
Speaker 1: Let me sorry, I thought you're going to respond. Let
me throw this and we throw this idea into the
ring and see what you see, what you do with it.
One of the concepts I talk about on the show
quite often as naming this spirit of the of the
New Age is the spirit spirit of the vengeful son.
It's almost a reaction to this red pilling movement where
people are especially young men in the West, are becoming
more and more aware of a sort of generational betrayals,
and as they become more aware of it, they're getting angry.
We're starting to see these outbreakings in the left. Of course,
we've had the Luigi Emangione stories and the sort of
almost canonization of him as a sort of this rebel
figure using violence and using total violence as a reaction
to the state and to this awareness of being betrayed,
of being misled, of being lied to. As that increases,
I think you're going to start seeing this age of
total violence start to take take place. And that includes
the response. And this is directly to your idea of
this sort of a digital panopticon. This gets us into
almost a h an ai or technic techno theocracy, where
they're using technology to do the to do the job
of what the church used to be able to teach,
which is to be like the prodigal son, to return redeemed,
to use humility, to have discernment, to be able to
have some sort of hierarchy of not just of not
just worship, but also of discernment, and let's say, uh,
social cohesion. As that's been taken away or dissolved now,
the response is going to be much more technocratic, which
will involve volunteer you know, digital IDs, all the rest
of it. I've been warning people, warning or advising people
at least that if you want to deport thirty million
people in a year, you're gonna use They're going to
use technological solutions like that's that's what that is. You know,
doge and all the rest of it. Everyone's championing it
and celebrating it. It's like, yeah, well now you have
Polunteer and Grock inside your government, which is a countdown
to getting AI Congress and all the rest of it.
And people have their own thoughts about it. Maybe it's
and maybe it's gonna be good, Maybe it's gonna be great,
maybe it's gonna be fantastic. I don't know, or you know,
you might be able to find it beneficial. But of course, nothing,
nothing ever, bad, ever happens. Jim, come on, now, come
on please, so, uh, maybe you can speak on that,
because that's that seems to me, and we'll bring it
back to the Pope or the new Pope. The American
Pope America is going to be front and center on this. Uh,
they're they're they're certainly taking lead, not just in terms
of politics, but sort of let's say, this new global
morality system that seems to be being onboarded. And that's
where I think the connection to vance and to feel
and to all these other people becomes very very interesting
because regardless of whatever his politics were before becoming pope,
I think we might be starting to see some some
changes or some new directions from from the papacy. So
I don't know if you can any thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: Well, Francis went really far in the in that regard
in terms of sort of openly advocating for the World
Economic Forums agenda, which is heavily technocratic. And my wife
just finished a book by Jason Lannier, who was the
guy who was a big whistleblower back in twenty eighteen
from Silicon Valley, and the book was way ahead of
its time because the whole last section was about warning
about AI and what Silicon Value was planning to do
when they rolled out AI. So we're right now at
the point where it's rolling out. It's certainly not where
they want it to be. It's basically just a glorified
audio search engine at this point, but the idea is
and Lannie actually says that Silicon Valley is a cult.
They are a cult of people who worship and believe
in the technocracy, and what they're going to do is
foist the idea of AI being a kind of deuseex monket,
a kind of a god from the machine that will
regulate society, will give society ethics. They think they're going
to figure out some kind of the libertarian utility and ethics.
And the people like Bentham who came up with moral calculus,
they actually think that algorithms can give you right and wrong.
As stupid as that sounds, that sounds crazy. Sam Bankman
Freed was a member of the Society for Effective Altruism,
which is one of these Silicon Valley quasi cults where
they believe that AI and tech and algorithms will will
literally be able to tell you on the basis of
pleasure points and what gives you the most pleasure points
for the most people. That's utilitarianism how the society can
be run. So it's going to be the idea. It's
so crazy, but in only a crazy sort of spurgy.
You know, tech dork could actually believe this, but they
actually do.
Speaker 1: I live in Australia, Mate, I live in Australia, Mate,
Like they're that they're trying to do trying to do
that about the analog version for at least one hundred
years as far as I can tell, it's.
Speaker 2: Uh Vervaiki has this idea of the Silicon sages. No
yval Harari has this idea very similar to that, where
the AI will kind of be this moral and sort
of policing authority and guide.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And he almost describes it like there's going to be
these AI bots walking around and they're kind of like
a Jesus. I'm not being blasphemous with like a Jesus
bot that like is the AI and it will. If
you've ever seen THX one one, three eight, you know
when he's doing his confession to the Jesus bought in
the technocracy, something akin to this. This is how crazy
it is. So that's what they're saying is where they
want to go. I don't know Leo himself what to
what degree he's into all that or not, but he
has praised Francis's papacy, which is a terrible sign for
the Roman Catholics. And he's also said recently, I think
I posted on Twitter's one of the last things I
read from him him was him being interviewed or giving
a speech or somebody said, we all worship the same deity.
Whatever your religion is the same reference, it's the same God.
So he's essentially reaffirming all the very questionable stuff pretty clearly.
That's signifying to me that there is no reversal or
change of the agenda.
Speaker 3: The other thing he's apparently double down on is his
use of this term Patriarch of the West, which would
imply this kind of acceptance of a first among equal,
you know, neo pentarchy approach to church structure, which either
elevates to the fun ar to like, you know, assistant
pope or you know, he gets to be the Pope
of the East on the Pope of the West, and
you know, and I think that's why I think the
Coming the coming Union, if we want to call it
that is, is not going to just be in an
instant replay of Florence. I mean, they do learn. I
mean Leon was a lot more in how much we
had to submit to the papacy that Florence was. And
Florence said, okay, at least you don't have to say
the Filio pay in the creed, whereas that Leon we
had to. This time around, I think they will package
it as a victory for Orthodoxy or we're going to
accept your constant sentidelity Philiok way, you don't have to
agree with the philioquay, because after all, we know with
polemism and other things inside the Roman Communion, they already
accept different theological views exactly. So what we'll do is sure,
if you want to reject the philio play, you don't
have to agree with it. You don't have you don't
have to agree that the Pope is infallible. He's just
the first mong equals, just like you guys want. And
of course then that would allow Bartholomew or whoever his
successor is, to say, hey, it's a trim of Orthodoxy.
The Pope has agreed to all our terms. Now, of course,
within his communion everything will remain as it was. And
of course he's the big fish where the little fish,
comparatively speaking, we'll be in union with it. Look, look,
from their point of view, we're already in union. I mean,
you go to a Catholic church and you look at
the missile. It said that if we are Orthodox, we
can receive communion there as long as it's consistent with
the discipline of our own church, which of course it
is not. But from their point of view, intercommunion is
a means to unity, not the culmination of it. So
from their point of view, we're already in union. It's
just that we don't accept that union. That's all they
really need from us for us to say, look, we
don't accept any of those things in the papacy, but
we can agree to be in communion with you, and
that's that's it from their point of view. I was
talking to Orthodox and I think there are people I'm sorry,
go ahead and go ahead, and I'm sorry, No, I'm
just saying I think there are a lot of people
in the church who will be fooled by that. They'll say,
I look, you already see it on Twitter. But me
x and so forth saying, well, if the popes agree
to all our terms, what's the problem. Well, I think
that's what they'll package it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a well, first of all, he's not agreeing
to Orthodox terms, because who's deciding what the Orthodox terms
are might not themselves be actually very Orthodox. So it's
the Orthodox term of people that are not in terms
of people that are not really that Orthodox. But yeah,
I was talking to an Orthodox priest a few days
ago and he was arguing that very point that Jim
just made, which is that from their vantage point, the
ep many of go arch and Rome, they're already in union.
Because he said, if you looked at the placement at
the funeral of Francis. It signified that he was arguing
the Orthodox priest I was talking to was saying this, so,
and that's somebody from the OCA, by the way, not
some crazy rogue warpers. So yeah, I mean I think
that they're already acting as if it is the case,
pretending as if the union has already ocurred, and then
they're just sort of waiting for everybody to kind of
come on, now, don't be a schismatic, don't be a
bad boy, you know, come on and go along with this.
But again, it's pretty obviously a false union. I mean,
it's like, so to me, it's obvious. But I think
not I think a lot of people are not going
to go. I think it'll probably split down the middle.
I mean, isn't this what the State Department and this
is what they do. They split things down the middle,
split these Eastern European countries right down the middle with
creating fake Orthodox churches and just create a big schism.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And of course the downside for them is that,
at least in the approximate terms, with the war in
Ukraine going very badly for the Western side, the fake
church they created in Ukraine may not survive much longer,
and it looks like there's even elements within the the
Ecumenical Patriarchate that are trying to distance themselves from that
to blame the whole thing on a manual of Chalcedon.
And I think that's also partly trying to set ups
to succeed of Bartholomew. Evidently he's the Turkish government's preference
in that job. So you know, again there's there's so
many there's so many spoons in this pot. But you know,
they they you know, when we talked about Leo, we
talked about Bartholomew. I think we have to assume that
they're not the primary actors. They're they're basically the tools
and used for all sorts of people, and sometimes I
think the same people. A lot of them are located
in the American government, but not exclusively there.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, if you ever want to actually divide the
Russian Church from from the rest of them and make
sure they're ruled by a Turk, that would something a
Turk becomes first among many, or it becomes like, you know,
the new uh pope like figure within the Orthodox Church.
It's gonna be an open rebellion within the with the
with with the Russians in the and the rest of them.
Speaker 3: I mean, by by law, the patriarch has to be
a Turkish citizen, and so that's that's true of both
potos and and in manual. But uh, they're going to
be preferences among them. You know, maybe candidate's more favored
by the Americans, by the Turkish government about the Greek government,
who knows.
Speaker 2: Well, we know that's the plan too. If you've read
Chi eighty and Chi eighty only give a little bit
of ground towards the end. I mean, it was pretty
strong ground to admit at the end of eighty that
the pope did not unilaterally have authority over the churches
of the East canonically. That's pretty wild mission. I mean,
that's pretty much denying Vatican One. But I mean, yeah,
the Alexander document is like goes ninety miles further, admitting
so much that that the they have to be doing
that for this reunion purpose. I can't see any other
reason why they would admit so much. It's not about
what Yeah, by the way, because it's true.
Speaker 3: But I wanted to ask you a question, Jay, I
thought I saw a reference that you'd say thing you'd
written recently that Rome doesn't stand by the temporal authority
of unam sank them anymore. Did they actually recind that
or are you just inferring that from the documents of Vatican.
Speaker 2: Two just I mean, I don't see how you could
square it with the documents of Vatican two. And you
also have actions that act against that. I mean, rat
Singer said something he was writing in his books, you know,
it's time to de christianize these Catholic states. I think
the strongest contradiction would be the all the statements on
religious liberty and Vatican two, of which they are never meant.
There's an entire document on it, and I mean you
can go all the way up into the early even
the early nineteen hundreds, multiple people and cyclicals Syllabus of
Errors explicitly condemned dechristianizing the state religious liberty, you know,
not having Christian states Catholic states, that's condemned. In fact,
syllabus of errors even includes the temporal supremacy the Roman
bishop even up into the eighteen nineties.
Speaker 1: So kind of puts a kaibash on the on the
on the Vatican making a play for Israel, right, because
one thing that this never allowed. And when we're allowed
to only talk about two possible outcomes, which is either
you know, an Islamic state in Israel or a Jewish
run state in Israel, we never talked about the third party,
who has at least historical claims to the region, where
we could you know, inject a third third position here,
and that seems to me never we never allowed to
talk about that, or even consider that no one's ever
floated that out in the mainstream considerations of what to
do with our best friend in alle.
Speaker 3: In the Middle. Well, hey, we were we were those first.
I mean, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Orthodox patriarchs, the land
on which the Kinestan sits. I mean, you know, we've
got we've got squatters rights over the last.
Speaker 1: We should apply it.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: We're coming up on the hour, Jay, and thank you
so much for giving us your time. Any last thoughts
on this new American pope. Uh, any ideas of what
we might be We will see in the coming least
in the in the coming year. As you mentioned, Jim,
the war in Ukraine, which usually we talked quite a
bit about on the show, is starting the nearest end.
I believe we're starting to see now moves on open
moves on povosk Uh and Sumi. Many of the south
towns in the South are being gobbled up as well.
Russia is now steamrolling across Ukraine. At this rate, I
don't think it would be unlikely to see Russian troops
in Kiev by September. So that's wrapping up very rapidly.
And as that wraps up, questions of what comes afterwards
in terms of relationships with the West. And it's basically,
you know, religious connotations as well for the Orthodox Church,
and many of us who are ro corps puts that
on the it will be putting that in the front
and center. So any last thoughts on that, gentleman, as
we round.
Speaker 5: Out Denzinger seventeen twenty two, all the way to seventeen twenty,
say thirty all express all the way up into the
late eighteen hundreds. The necessity of believing in the temporal supremacy,
dominion and power of the Roman pontiff that is no longer.
I've never even heard it mentioned in a Roma Gaellic Church,
and I don't see how you can square that with.
Speaker 2: Any of the stuff back in too. And I don't
think it's just gonna be business as usual with the
with Leo would not expect anything different.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wonder if that's an actually, you know, for example,
when the Francis changed the teacher the death penalty, that
was clearly reversal. I wonder if this is just one
of those two things are true at the same time.
That like again, you can accept the essence and energy
and distinction where you don't have to accept it. They
can both be true at the same time. You know.
It's like Schrodinger's theology where they yes, we believe in
confessional states, Yes, we believe in religious liberty. How do
those two square? Uh, they're both.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean well I'm looking here at Vatican too.
So you've got you've got so many things, not just
still deservers, You've got immortal day, You've got vehement or knows.
These are all papal documents prior to Vatican two. I'll
read for example, Religious Liberty Document Chapter one says the
Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right
to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind is that everyone
has is immune from all coercion of individual, social groups
and every human power so that nothing should be I'm
going to skip a little bit, so that nothing in
religious matters should be constrained because it violates the dignity
of the human person. What's funny is that in the
Syllabus of Errors seventy seven, seventy eight, and fifty five,
those are almost all identically condemned propositions in the Syllabus
of Errors that are identically worded in Dignitatis or I
think Dingnitatis Humani is the religious liberty document. So if
you did want to read a little papal reading, just
read the first couple sections of Vatican Two's Dignatatis Humani
and then look at Immortal Day and Marauri Vos and
the Syllabus of Errors, and I would say those are
pretty strong contradictions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, back back to the geopolitics a bit. I'm not
sure it's going to go quite that smoothly, Jason. You know,
I don't think the Trump administration is ready yet to
walk away from the project of American global hegemony. They
are trying to shore up things and obviously in the
Middle East, the ceasefire, this peace in our time between
Iran and Israel. Will see how long that holds. They're
trying to push for a ceasefire in Ukraine. That's not
going to work. On the other hands, the Russians, I
don't think they want to press for a military victory
as much as it becomes obvious that that is really
the only solution. So I think there are a lot
of places where this could go south. On has to
become extremely dangerous. On the religious front. I'm hopeful, actually
uncharacteristically optimistic, that all this project for a new union
may go the way of the so called Ethnic and
Medical Council Create twenty sixteen, where they labored mightily and
brought forth a mouse. It just seems to me that
even with all of their shenanigans and their deceptions and
so forth, how many of the autoscephalist churches will actually
sign onto this thing. And I don't think there's going
to be a whole lot of it'll be. I think
it'll look actually a lot like what happened with the
church in Ukraine. You'll get Conceptinople, you'll get the Primates,
if not even the whole sentence of Greece and Cyprus,
and you'll get Alexandria because somehow they've been terribly compromised.
I don't think anybody else will go along with it,
and the thing might just sort of die an ignominious death.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the interesting thing will be once Russia
takes Odessa, whether they take it physically or through other means.
And they are definitely going to take Odessa. That puts
them into into a huge confrontation with the Turks, because
the Turks are moving on the Black Sea. There was
just a report not too long ago that Turkey discovered
a whole bunch of natural gas in the Black Sea.
They're going to make a move. And if we if
we bring into the the orthodox premonitions of out World
War three or the global conflict, we know that it's
it's just a matter of time until Russian and Turkey
get involved over Greece. So I wouldn't be surprised, especially now.
The Poland is still is still in play, right, so
as as Project Ukraine goes goes south, Project Poland they're
they're talking pretty openly now with the Europeans and how
great Poland is. Poland's in New Germany circa two thousand
and two. It's Poland's amazing. Look at look how those
those plucky little Poles.
Speaker 3: We're crushed out of Ukrainians. We need some Poles.
Speaker 1: We're just crushing it over there. Oh and they just
happen to have the new the new the new border
probably and yeah, maybe give them live off and see
what they do with it. So, uh, I don't think
this is over. And whether and whether Putin or let's
say the the Russian deep state want to admit it
or not, a military solution is going to have to
come and play at some point, because whether they move
the borders between to Novorossia or beyond, it's it's gonna
be the same old game. The city of London, uh,
is I think deeply reacting to Bitcoin and a whole
bunch of other all the markets changing on them, and
they're not happy, and they're making they're still making some
definite moves. So any last thoughts, gentlemen, and we'll say, well,
bit of do Thank you again, thanks again Jay for
doing this, Thanks thanks for having me, thanks for un
blocking me. Now I need a new bit. This has
been going on for a few years now.
Speaker 2: Why maybe I miss block you or I thought misunders
Sometimes I misunderstand people too. I think they're they're maybe
they're joking. I think they're just being absolute butttheads.
Speaker 1: But I was probably being an absolute butt head. I
mean there was there was that time in about you know,
four or five, four or five years ago, I was
very much that ortho bro coming into the church and
going what everything everyone's wrong? And everything's I was picking
fights all the left for the bright and the center.
I've calmed down since then, so so, but I was
probably just beginn asshole. Gentlemen. Thank you so much. Thank
you for everyone in the chat. Thank you for everyone
who's been liking subscribing. Let the people know where to
find us. Of course, go buy Jim's book I try
to warn you, available on Amazon, Kindle and all the
nice fine places out there. Links in the description below.
And of course, Jay Dyer, we have a new book
coming up. Would you want to give us any announcements
on the new book?
Speaker 2: Maybe another three weeks and we'll have s call. I
went three out a lot of the films that I
never got to that people requested and wanted to see
deep dives on, So we've gone a lot deeper again
in part three. It's different than the first two, little
a little more concise. So we have actually more movies
covered in the third one than we covered in one
and two. But yeah, that'll be out in a couple
of weeks or maybe three weeks, and you can get
pre orders at the website. All the copies of the
website are signed, so be sure and get it from me.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You put THHX back my head.
Speaker 2: Have you talked about in part three?
Speaker 1: By the way, Yeah, because it used to put that
back in my head. I'm like, oh, I need to
revisit that movie.
Speaker 3: V for Vendetta. Have you talked about that one? Vendetta the.
Speaker 2: Second one?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: Great, Okay, I did an analysis in the second one.
Speaker 1: Do you have a ve?
Speaker 3: Yeah? No, I just sort of wonder why they would
pull strings on a popular revolt, which is of course
the last thing they want. But again I think there's
there's some clever play on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think the revolution and that is essentially controlled opposition that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm good, gentlemen, Thank you so much. Thank
everyone in the stream. We'll talk to you again soon.
I am Jason Merrinchook. And it's lated a new thing.