Speaker 1: All right, we are going live and I want to
know if you guys can hear me. Let me know
in the Jays Analysis YouTube channel, audience, if you can
hear our discussion before we start rambling and nobody's listening.
I just want to make sure it says we can here.
All Right, Dave talk a little bit, so can hear you?
Speaker 2: Jack one chick too?
Speaker 1: Everybody here, Dave? All right, it sounds like we're good. Okay, welcome.
We finally found a person who wants to finally step
up to the neo pagan heathen plate and play a
little bit of that a little bit of that heathen
baseball at the Heathen Diamond. We're gonna see if our
opponent has the stuff he says he wanted to do it.
So I'll tell you what so I don't I'm new
to you. Tell my audience who you are, what took
you down your path? Take as much time as you need.
I'm gonna let you say whatever you want to say.
So welcome to the show. Thank you for stepping up, Dave, absolutely,
thank you so much.
Speaker 2: And before I get started, like to thank you again
for letting me come on here and have the opportunity
to test my steel against a formidable opponent such as yourself.
You are a master of your craft and had quite
a few friends to tune into your content. Speak highly
of you, so, you know, thank you for having me on,
and thank you to everybody tuning in. You know, I
appreciate all you guys, and hopefully this is a fruitful
discussion and we walk away with this both learning something
and going away with with more wisdom than we had before.
But I'm big Dave Martel. I am a veteran of
the podcast circuit. I have been involved in you know,
all kinds of political nonsense. I ran madamericannetwork dot com.
I've a notorious troll. I've been around. I've been around
the block for quite a few years with all the stuff.
But I am also a folkas then I practiced the
faith of Aso true. I have been converted for you
know about you the better about a decade. I've been
practicing one. Before that, I was you know, researching, doing
my research and everything like that. I was elected as Goati,
which is like sort of like a like a priest
of my kindred about six years ago. And it's just
it's been a wonderful experience rediscovering my faith. However, as
a child, I was raised kind of half asked Catholic,
half asked Christian, kind of like you know how a
lot of us are growing up with the boomer parents
that you know, we don't really do. We go to
go to church a few times a year, and you know,
they you know, all the Golden Rule and they don't
really understand the theology. But I do have some family
that are very very well versed in the Catholic theology.
And I'm not one of the autistic pay gang folks
out there and that you know, go. I'll call people
Christus all the time. I will call people cucks if
they act like cucks or I think their position could
be cucked. But I don't go out there and start
war with Christians. I have so many wonderful Christian brothers
and friends and family members of my life that yeah,
I respect them. That is their path, that is what
is that is their perennial truth. And I even have
I have a few little statues to my my grandfather
who was a devout Catholic, that I still have, and
I regard them as sacred because it was It's not
my faith, but it was my grandfather's faith, and my
grandfather was a tremendous man. I have a statue of
Saint Jude, statue of Saint Thomas Aquinas so so that
I do certainly believe that there are good spiritual truths,
perennial truths within the Christian theology and the Christian doctrine.
But yeah, I converted to paganism focus also true about
ten years ago, and yeah, I've been practicing ever since.
And that that's about it. That's how I started.
Speaker 1: Okay, the first thing I would ask is, uh, what
are the the convincing things? What are the things that
convinced you that that was the path to go? I
mean like like why did you what was the Was
there like a series of steps that you went through
of like, oh, you know, our people are kind of
being warred against in the media and so forth, and therefore,
you know that should be expressed in my religious perspective,
and so therefore I need a kindred that I don't
really get at like a Novasordo church or a normany
Catholic type of situation. Was it like a series of
steps or did you have like a like a one
book that you read that just kind of changed your
mind or what was it that was really kind of
the defining points that made you go that route.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean those are all kind of material reasons,
and those are certainly positives when it comes to to Ostro,
like the tribe, the kindred kind of format, the folkish
for Matt, the uh, you know, just the idea of
of your your ancestry also being tied with your spirituality.
That's not what brought me to it. All of those
things actually came later when we started getting into the
more heated political climate and all of this stuff. And
I became more aware of it as I get older
into my adulthood and I had children and got married
and stuff like that. But my, my, what drove me
into my spirituality were spiritual experiences. I had spiritual experiences
that I could not explain that we were parallel with
a lot of what is talked about in our spiritual texts,
which are the Edis, and just I've I just you know,
I guess it was just revealed to me. I've found
things by I don't believe in coincidence, but I kind
of stumbled upon things and they resonated with me. And
it's just all kind of came together and I just
I just ended up here. I can't explain it one percent,
you know, in material terms, but it was just a
I feel that it was a path that I was
meant to be on, and the you know, the gods
revealed all of these wisdoms to me, and this is
this is how I ended up here. The stuff that
you're talking about, you know, those things are absolutely true,
and those things are very true for what draw people
in now. And I'm not saying anything bad about people
that get drawn in for because they have a yearning
or a cultural or ethnic yearning, or nationalist yearning, or
a family kind of thing that they're lacking before, as
you said, the Norman Catholic, and you know, so I'm
not saying that those things are necessarily bad. In my
experience was superior or anything of that nature. But my experience,
my path into my faith was purely based on spiritual experiences.
Speaker 1: Okay, So my first question would be, there's two points here,
if one would be and I'm not trying to offend
you or challenge the claim that you didn't have a
spiritual experience, but number one, how do you know that
those spiritual experiences are good or that they line up
with what is good in some objective sense. And number two,
I think the chief problem that I see in any
kind of pagan view or any kind of approach like
this is that it ultimately does kind of fall into relativism,
because there's not really any way to justify or know
that there is objective truth. There's really just everybody's kind
of competing claims, and your subjective experiences are just as
valid or or I mean, how could you measure your
subjective experiences as to why this religion is true for
you or why the spiritual experiences that you had were
necessarily good? Maybe they were from an evil spirit or
something like this? How do you adjudicate between the truth
and the false, and the good and the evil? If
it's if it's essentially a subjective type of system.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a subjective. I would say,
you know what, Now, Now, I'm not a biblical scholar
by any by any stretch, so correct me if if
I ever like paraphrase anything, that's incorrect. But uh, what
what did Christ say about knowing whether or not people
or divine teachers were actually divine. He said, look at
the look at the fruits of of their of their
words or something like that. Correct, you know I look
at go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say that's one thing that we look at. Yeah,
but he gave a lot of different, uh kind of
test cases, litmus tests for how we know that you're
in the falls. So just because in other words, I
might I mean, if I already believe that what I
am interested in is true, then I will I will
interpret the fruits too to vindicate that. I'll have a
kind of verification bias if I already believe something is true.
So in other words, you kind of already have to
have a system or a paradigm by which to judge
the true in the false, to know if they are
actually are quote fruits of that system.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's a that's an argument that a
lot of times atheists used in order to kind of
you know, beat up on on spiritual truths or perennial
truths or things like that. But uh, with the thing
that that Christ said, I measure the metric that I
used to know whether or not my path is true
is the fruit that came from it. You know, when
I when I converted. I was, you know, I come
from I mean, I caught poor, white trash. I came
for a single mother household. I had a really rough
early adulthood. I was really bad into drinking and partying
and doing drugs, and I was pretty much a huge,
just degenerate until I've you know, started feeling some kind
of way and I met my wonderful wife and I
started to, uh, you know, walk this path and practice
uh ceremony and and really put my faith in my
heart and my spirit and gave it to the gods.
And from then I've I've done a complete just turn around.
My life is completely turned around. I have a decent career,
I have two beautiful, wonderful boys. I have you know,
so many wonderful friends. My life is just the fruits
of what has come from walking this path or just
you know, immeasurable there. I've just been rewarded so much
the gifts that I've been given or are obje.
Speaker 1: But like so, I mean, similar things could be said
about somebody who has a moral reform or a change
of life that goes into any cult or religion. So
in other words, a person could conceivably say the same
things about going into scientology. A person could say the
same things about Oh, I was a you know, a
bad alcoholic and I got involved in AA and then
I joined a I don't know, a yoga cult and
it just completely changed my life. And so in other words,
even still, I think it kind of misses the point
that how do you know that the religion itself is
true on the basis of the fact that some good
things happen? When that same kind of litmus test could
be applied to any different kind of group where people
join it and they perhaps have positive effects in their
life later, that doesn't necessarily prove that the system of
belief itself is true.
Speaker 2: Well you know number one, Like, I understand why you're
using this argument, but this is essentially an atheist argument
to kind of bring spiritual truth back down down and
try to force it into material metrics and stuff. I mean,
that argument could be used against people that say they've
had spiritual experiences in Christianity, or how do we know
that the Word of God is true? How do we
know that the Bible is true? Well, you know this
is that?
Speaker 1: Well you say that, right, I use that argument a lot. Yeah,
as a Christian apologist, yeah. So, But the fact that
atheists use this argument doesn't mean that it's in quote
atheist argument. But yeah, I'm atheists will use logic. That
doesn't mean the logic comes from atheists.
Speaker 2: But it comes down to what is the metric of good?
How do we know that? What? How do we define good?
What is what is these things that happened in my life?
How are they good compared to somebody that joined scientology. Well,
the things that that good that have been happened in
my life are objectively good. They're objectively good. I mean
I I had a family, I had children, I started
to get financial success, I have a career, Like these
things are all just all you know easily you know,
they're just objectively good. Yea, somebody that's from that joins
the yoga class that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But how do you how do you determine what's objectively good?
And and now on what basis are there objective truths
and principles?
Speaker 2: Because well, how would you you define good? Define good?
Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, it's a transcetional category that applies to God.
So God is the ultimate absolute, and because he's omni
present and omniscient, eternal, et cetera. That's the grounding that
I have for any kind of a claim of that nature,
any kind of a universal, absolute claim kind of makes
sense with with belief in a single, universal personal God,
Whereas if there's not that, then it kind of seems
to be chaos and fate that that reigns, that rules
the universe and there's not really any universal principles at all.
Speaker 2: But you're saying that there is. You're a Unitarian obviously,
so you're saying that there is a universal, uh primordial
perennial truth.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I'm a monotheist, I'm not a Unitarian.
Speaker 2: I mean well, I mean we can get into that too.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that's a specific heresy that that's kind
of in was invented, you know, in the last few
centuries after the Puritans, with you know, people like Horace
Man and h. Thomas Jefferson. We're Unitarians, So that's a
specific kind of Jovah's witness style type of cult.
Speaker 2: My apologies, my apology.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it's monotheism is at unitarian But
so how how does that I don't understand the argument here, So,
so what if it's monotheists, how does.
Speaker 2: That Okay, Well, if you want to talk about monotheistic,
I actually disagree with the idea that European brands of
Christianity are monotheistic. I think you know, you talk about
you believe in the Trinity, correct, you believe in? Uh yeah,
the Trinity you believe in? Do you believe in angels
and saints and stuff like that? So how is that monotheism?
Speaker 1: Well, because the source of all life, the source of
all existence, the source of all those creative beings, as
God the Father.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you you would pay homage to the saints,
and pay homage to the angels, and pay homage to
these these manifestations of the divine correct.
Speaker 1: Right, because paying homage or reverence is different than worship.
Speaker 2: So you essentially are a polytheist.
Speaker 1: No, we consistently argue against polytheism because there's only one God,
one divine nature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have a very similar concept. We believe in
the overarching primordial divinity as you know, what Christians call God.
And then like Christians, we have you know, our gods,
which would be I guess sort of like you know,
in the Christian pantheon. I guess like angels or lesser
kind of entities and stuff like that, and then we
have heroes who are we believe to be divinely inspired
men like saints. So it's the exact same concept, but
with different semantics.
Speaker 1: No, it's actually very different concepts because we don't think
that any of the saints or any of the angels
actually possess the divine nature. So we have a very
specific reason why we believe in a distinction between created
and uncreated things. So the creative world has beginning in time,
it's held in existence by God, and it has a
certain te lose that God is determined for it. But
that's different than the kind of being that God, that
God is. And the reason that we are different from
what you're talking about is because if you begin to
blend the two and you kind of have these gradations
or what would be maybe a chain of being idea
amongst the Greeks, very similar to what you're talking about
with hino theism, or that there's these gradations of participation
in the divine nature and all this kind of stuff,
it's really incoherent. So once we've adopted an incoherency about
our starting point, the whole system kind of makes no
sense because If the divine nature is kind of this
beyond kind of great thing that everything participates in gradations,
then it's not truly one. It's not truly simple, and
we don't really know anything about it because every everything
kind of gets melded into molded into that great oneness.
This is the problem with all monistic religions. So what's
unique about Christianity. The reason why the Trinity is different
in this regard is that we don't believe in a complete, absolute,
unknowable oneness or monism. And we also don't believe in
a complete chaotic particularity where everything's crashing gets you, everything's
just ruled by chaos. There's actually both unity and multiplicity
are imperfect balance in God himself. It's not in perfect balance,
and a whole bunch of chaotic gods and and you know,
Zeus having sex with animals, turning into an animal, and
having sex with women, and it's just it's all chaos
and nonsense. That's another problem I think with that view.
I'm not trying to get too off course, but there's
not really any coherency to this, to the pagan conception.
We have a very worked out philosophical and theological perspective
that we believe comes from revelation, and what we get
in paganism is much more of a kind of sort
of primitive anti philosophic bias. And so that's why there's
naturally a rejection of ideas like objective truth. But the
problem is that we see that that I think those
religions still need and want objective truth just as much
as the atheist wants to have an objective universal principle
or truth, but he doesn't have any consistent way to
talk about it or justify such a thing or give
a coherent reason why there would be such a thing
in his worldview. The same criticism applies to the neopagan
or the or the Heathen or whatever, that if chaos
and fate rule these things, then you really don't even
know if all of reality has this great oneness of
divinity that all the other beings participate in by gradation,
it's just just something that you subjectively read somewhere or
made up or and then the next guy could come
along and say, no, I am actually the incarnation of Odin.
There is no you know, I mean, how on what
basis is one of these things true? And the others not.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I'd like to reject. You know,
sometimes there's people get used to using like weaponized language,
And one of the examples of weaponized language that you're
kind of rolling out here is saying, oh, well, you
believe in the oneness, but it gets convoluted and clogged
up because then you have all this chaotic stuff that
comes down down the And I reject the idea of
it being chaotic. In fact, it's very very orderly, the
understanding of our gods and the hierarchy of our gods
and the eschatology around all of it.
Speaker 1: So but but I mean, the whole history of various
mythologies and different cultures. Isn't the gods fighting with one
another and cheating with one another and stealing wives and
connecting humans and practicing vctiality. That's not in the history
of the gods.
Speaker 2: Well no, but you know it kind of you're boiling
it down. I mean, you're you're you're a spiritual guy.
You understand when you read scripture that you you're not
supposed to get hanged hung up on the details. Atheists
make this argument all the time. They'll read like the
story of I don't excuse me, let me finish, please.
But you know, the atheists use the They'll use the
example of the story of Job, and they say that,
you know how the story of Job happens, and you know,
God punishes Job and to prove to the devil that
you know, he's he's so loyal to God and this
and that, and then atheists say, well, how do you
you know, why would you worship a god that does that?
And then you know, and so you understand that when
you look at that story, you're not looking at necessarily
the details. You take a step back and you draw
the universal spiritual truth that comes from that story, the
moral teaching of that story. So when you look at
the Bible has tons of who are regarded as divinely
inspired men or god like men and stuff that dude,
degenerate shit that do bad shit, you know. I mean,
it's like so to say that, you know, because there's
these stories where the gods do things, you know, that
are lousy, like for example, the Saga of Volley, where
Odin is so angry about the killing of his beloved
son Balder that he goes and he essentially date rapes
a giantess woman, a princess in front of her father,
so they can give birth to a child that goes
and murders and gets revenge for the killing of his son.
I mean that sounds awful, you, I mean, it sounds degenerate.
But if you take a step back, you understand the
nature of Odin, and you understand that Odin is he
sees all things. He sees all of time, past, president
in future happening simultaneously, and then you go on to
understand that Volley goes on to be one of the
most crucial characters within the later within the cycle of time.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, it's a big difference between saying
that David sinned and God or Jesus committed sin. Those
are different things because we believe that God is God,
and God doesn't He's not fallen, so he's not going
to commit the kinds of actions that you would speak
of in terms of that kind of deity. And so
that's very different from saying, well, the Bible has men
committing atrocious actions. Yeah, because that's part of the mess
of the Bibles, that we're falling human beings. That's why
we need we need, we need God. But again, how
do you know when again, I think it. I think
it kind of begs the question to say, well, but
you know, that's why you got to step back and
not get hung up on the details. I mean, that's
really what I'm asking, though, is like, on what basis
do we know when something is a revealed truth about
Odin and when it's a thing where we say, now,
let's let's not really read that literally, let's step back
and find a universal principle. And I mean, there's there's
no clear way to adjudicate this, and the fact that
every single Pagan could just come along and say what
he thinks, uh, I mean, maybe you have the true
pagan revelation. But what I'm saying is, how do you
know to how to adjudicate the two? And the reason
I'm asking that is to read to lead to kind
of a clearer issue. To make this clear is that
there are universal principles like reason and logic, mathematics. These
things are not culturally relative, right, not things that we
just make up as social constructs. The forms and patterns
that we see in nature, concepts about logical laws, syllogisms,
and so forth, they're not They're not human constructs. They're
actually operant principles in the world. And what that suggests
is that is that there is a consistent pattern of
reason and doing reasoning. And what I get from you
is that's a kind of an atheistic approach. What we
want is to return to spirituality. So you kind of
set reason against spirituality. We don't do that. We believe
human reason is perfectly in line with with spirituality.
Speaker 2: First, I didn't I didn't imply that. What I'm saying
is that atheists are essentially just they're here to tear
They're Discordian, They're just here to tear it down. They're
just using weapons. They're not. I mean, I agree with
you entirely. If you if you in uh in Heathen theology,
we say the same thing. We know, uh human nature, logic, reason, mathematics,
all of these things are completely in tune with our
spiritual flofilosophy. Like you're just you're talking about the mathematics,
and I just briefly watched some of your video where
you talked about numerology and stuff, and that nailed it
on the head. I would say that same exact stuff,
except I would switch out some of the language that
I use. You we're describing kind of the same thing,
except the argument here is coming from you know, essentially semantics.
It's coming from semantics, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's very different to say that there's one God with
omniscience and who, by his divine providence, is the basis
by which we ground these principles in universals that are
offer in nature and by and contrasting that was saying, well,
there's a chain of being and that the top there's
odin and then there's all these kind of conflicting you know,
gods or whatever. So I mean, are the gods fighting
or not? Are they Are they just representations of symbolic
principles or are they actual entities that are fighting out
there in the world.
Speaker 2: I mean all of the above. It's here's the thing
about in uh in Heathenry, we don't try to pretend
that we understand and our little human minds can express
and really define what is divinity? What are the cosmic
mechanics of the universe. We're not gonna So we have
the gods to teach us it through story and allegory
and scripture, how to understand it and behave properly during
our short time on this life. In our earthly vessels
until we pass on to the next life.
Speaker 1: How do you know? How do you know when you're
supposed to enact revenge? And how do you know when
you're supposed to not? I mean, where there's no consistent ethic.
Speaker 2: In this at all? There is absolutely.
Speaker 1: How do you know? How do you know what? When
is a good action? When is a virtuous action?
Speaker 2: When is it not?
Speaker 1: When are you supposed to go to war? When you're
supposed to have a vendetta? When are you supposed to not?
Speaker 2: I mean, it says clear and day in the ed
is it says in the Havamal. There's there's plenty of
clear as day, succinct descriptions on how you should behave
in certain things, how things should be done, and how
to live your life and how to make decisions and
stuff like that.
Speaker 1: However, how do you know those aren't the How do
you know those aren't the details that don't really matter
that you're supposed to overlook and find a universal principle.
Speaker 2: How do you know that the ones in your scripture
are well.
Speaker 1: We have a we have a way of a pattern
of knowing this, because it's not just me reading this
book there's a whole history that goes into where this
came from and fulfilled prophecies. There's no fulfilled prophecies in
in Uh in.
Speaker 2: Paganism, absolutely there is, absolutely there is Ragnarok. Look at
look at the story of Uh. You know, the cyclical
nature of time. It describes to a t the cyclical
nature of civilization, and it's coincides contradiction if no, no, no, no
no no, it coincides with the stories that come into Vedas.
What they talk about in Sonata Dharma is like when
they describe the Yugos.
Speaker 1: Those are completely different philosophies there just because they are,
just because you find a similarity. The basis of that
religion is that you need to uh destroy your ego
and and find unification with the thusness of the universe.
That's why you see, that's why you see Yogis sitting
out there in their shit, because that religion is ridiculous.
It's not the same religion as what you're talking about.
So what you do is cafeteria style, pick and choose
what you want from each one of these traditions to
call to concoct the thing that you think makes it
look all the same that's false.
Speaker 2: First of all, you're you're implying that I'm saying that
the totality, the entirety of all of Hinduism is exactly
the same as that. You know, what I'm talking about
is the original scriptures written in the Vedas are hail
from a similar ancestral spiritually philosophical root. And we know
that in science, we know that we've uncovered these people,
the the you know, the Indo Arians, they all hail
from the same kind of root philosophy, and that's where
it all came from. Now to get what philosophy comes from,
it's called proto Indo European.
Speaker 1: Oh so, in other words, it took as it took
secular academics to dig up and prove what is the
true revelation that's the skeletal thing that's been corroded throughout
all these millennia, which you're arguing is somehow.
Speaker 2: In some skeletons, you're going to deny truth prophecy. By
the way, so what you're saying is you're going to
not deny truth because it comes from a source that
you don't like I thought you were just said.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that you are your arguments here are all
subjective because you're lying not they are. You don't see
that they are, but they are because you're relying on
principles that are mathematical, that are universal, that are that
are supposedly scientific. But the arguments that you're giving to
ground this are subjective. That's the problem.
Speaker 2: It's not subjective. You just said a few moments ago
that you are in line with logic and reason and
science and and what we do know and what are
mathematical truths. If we uncover a mathematical truth, if somebody
that we don't like that we're not in line with
discovers it, does that make it not true? No, that
would be that would be a sinful act, right to
deny something that is absolutely true, you know. So, I
don't understand why you would want to deny something or
expect me to deny something that is a universal truth.
Speaker 1: I think you're again you're begging the question because I'm
asking how you're getting a universal truth or a universal claim,
and then when you explain where it comes from and
how you get it, it's a bunch of places that
you go to that don't make sense, that aren't co
that aren't consistent with the philosophy that you have. That's
what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I just I just you know, no, I made
the case that it is consistent, and in fact it's
consistent that it's and I'm making the case like if
you read do Mozill, he points out many, many, many
different religions across the Northern Hemisphere, and even in you're
talking like Iranian and like Zoastrianism, and all of these
faiths have similar universal truths. And how do you know
what they are? That's the question.
Speaker 1: You're just saying these things. There's no clear there's no
You've not given a single clear example of how do
I know in a certain instance whether I should enactive
indetta or whether I should run away from it? Well,
that's say, Well, there's a lot of general general principles.
Speaker 2: Up we're talking about. How how do I know that
it's universally true? How do I know that my spiritual
philosophy is true? I know? Well, number one, and how
do I know that the mathematics and the metrics in
which I used to measure it is true are in
fact true? And I'm saying that one of my metrics,
one of my my pieces of evidence. Is that it
coincides and it's parallel with many, many, many other cultures
around the world that came to the same conclusion and
have even more more.
Speaker 1: That's just, that's just, that's just an appeal to uh
a large number. That's a fallacy. It doesn't matter how
many people. That's appeal to consensus is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: But that's how science works. How does how do we
come out? How do we establish that?
Speaker 1: As you about scientific consensus, I'm asking you for a
logical justification, and you gave an appeal to consensus.
Speaker 2: No, but what we're doing is we're I'm proving that
consensus is a legitimate thing. It's a legitimate system all
the sciences fallacy, it's but it's not. It's it's absolutely
based on consense, and consensus is the whole reason we
have scientific theory in the first place.
Speaker 1: Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: But you asked me what evidence, and I'm giving you
one piece of evidence. I mean, you can I didn't
ask for evidence.
Speaker 1: Also like fallacy, So there's a difference between a a
logical justification and empirical evidence or data. I agree with
you that we can bring forth pieces of evidence and data.
But I asked a more specific question about logical justification
for a claim or knowledge of a claim or a
metaphysical principle that you're talking about, And you can't justify
that by giving me an appeal to consensus, which is
a fallacy.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean I also don't. I don't like the
idea of logical fallacies because it's just a way to
cop out of an argument.
Speaker 1: So no, it's not you believe You just said you
believe in logic and universal principles.
Speaker 2: Yeah I know you don't. No, No, I totally do.
Speaker 1: You don't believe in the logical fallacies?
Speaker 2: You don't, Well, I will take I'll take a logic
and reason and scientific consensus and real world evidence over
just some like subjective you know, argumentative you know tactic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot. The the appeal to consensus is not
a subjective tactic. It's it is a tactical fallacy. Do
you not understand what fallacies are?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah I do. But it's just it's just some
ship that some guy made up. So he get it.
Speaker 1: Now you just have loss of debate.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay, but yeah, let's get back. Okay, let's
get let's get back to the to this stuff here.
But what was it? What was the original topic? We
kind of like went went crazy around in some crazy.
Speaker 1: So we were talking about, uh, the ideas of the
gods and the ideas of I was talking about fate
and the problems that I see in kind of trying
to find a basis for for paganism in in like
a perennialist approach. I did a debate a few months
ago with a guy who's a perennialist. It was a
very similar discussion to what you and I are having.
So basically, what I'm saying is that I just see
a bunch of conflicting approaches that don't really have a
unified vantage point from which to try to to do ethics,
to try to I'm not saying that in your own
life an experience, you don't have good things happen to you,
or you don't do good things, or you don't have
true experiences. I'm not saying anything like that, or that
everything you're saying is false. I'm just saying that when
I look at the philosophy of the worldview that you have,
when I look at the ethical claims of that system.
When I look at the metaphysics of that system, when
I look at how you know things and how you
believe and have come to believe that the the addas
or whatever are a kind of revelation. I'm saying that
to me, that's where it kind of breaks down. That's MYRT.
Speaker 2: Now I will completely admit to you, and I'm gonna
it's gonna be completely honest, and I know you're gonna
you're gonna jump on me on this, but you know
it's it's it's fact that a lot of our our history,
our artifacts, a lot of our our our literature, and
a lot of our stuff is lost in time and
we have to do a lot of stuff to put
it back together. And we have a lot we still
have some work to do to put the our faith
back together. And that's why we were called. I reject neopagan,
the word neopagan. We are a reconstructionist religion. We are
reconstructing and you're automatically, I know what you're gonna say.
You're gonna say, well, if it's not all together and
you don't have all the pieces, why would you follow it? Well,
because you know, because the gods are real, Because divinity
is real because this is the way that divinity uh
speaks with me and every man to understand divinity. And
we need to get away from materialism. And this is
my path out of materialism, and this is the path
for many people out of materialism. And it's objective that
the fruits of what we're doing and what we're enacting
are good. We're getting people people stop, you know, when
you in as true community, people stop watching porn, they
get married, they have kids, they give up drugs, they
get good jobs. We do, we build communities, We give
positive things to people's lives, and so you know, to
say that, you know, yeah, we we are a reconstructive movement.
And I'm not gonna I can't debate that position to
like because it's true, and I will one hundred percent
admit that. But the fact that it is does it
take away from the the the objectively good and objectively
true things that we're doing in society and beating back
the clown world degeneracy that all of us here, you know, you, me,
everybody listening, we all hate this, this postmodernist clown world garbage.
We all see that it's it's it's trash, This is
our formula. This is my formula, and this is what
has resonated with me and what has been the best
path for me and for many many, many thousand millions
of us. So that's that's what I got to say
about that there.
Speaker 1: So let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say that,
Let's say I have a dream, and I'm being serious,
I'm not trying to be a clown. I'm like, look,
what if I had a dream and I felt like
it was my duty to restore the true teachings of
Peyonic Egypt. And so what I do is I go
and I kind of construct from all of the from
the Mempha, the Memphi, the Memphi Creation Document, and the
Hermitica and these different ancient texts that we believe come
from Egypt. And I put forth a kind of a
skeletal approach, and then I build a pyramid out in
my backyard and I get it going, and I say that,
you know, the true Faluronic religion requires I have discovered
this through my own research, and I've actually found some
scholars that will back me up on this. We've discovered
that everybody who follows my cult that they need to
offer their all the hottest daughters all need to be
given to me. And that's that's divine phyronic revolution revelation.
I am like wadib, I am the god Emperor. So
how would you say that any of this is wrong?
How would you say that any of that's incorrect or
on what basis? Because I'm going to say, yeah, but bro,
it's objectively true that I am helping out these hotties
because when I'm laying the pipe to my harem of hotties,
I'm given the best possible world for all human beings
by more and more offspring coming from JD.
Speaker 2: Well, what is what? What? What is the fruit of
this guy?
Speaker 3: Like you?
Speaker 2: What are you? What are you proving? How are you
religion that I have constructed? Those are good fruits, bro,
that's that. But that's not fruits. That's just claims like
you got to produce something to show that you have
veg I.
Speaker 1: Really do this, and I really do have a harem
and a whole bunch of uh supermodel babes and I
and I act like I'm a god emperor, Like, how
is that not the fruit's consistent with my revelation in
my religion?
Speaker 2: Well, how would if a guy came out like that,
that said he is the next Messiah, and how would
you take him?
Speaker 1: And he could prove it, well, I would argue with
him the same way I'm arguing with you is that
these these contracts kind of break down because you ultimately
have when you're gonna compare these kinds of systems, you
have to go back to things like logic. You have
to go back to things like universal claims and principles,
and that's gonna involve pulling out things like logical fallacies,
which I guess you said it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 2: Well, do you know I actually agree with you one
hundred percent? Yah. You were is twenty nineteen, like we
we're a current year. So it's going to be kind
of hard for a guy to prove to me that
he is, you know, the son of Odin and he's
here to establish galactic pagan supremacy and he's got a
whole harem full of you know. Okay, but let's say
you're not.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I do this off over on my
own libertarian island somewhere and I'm not even messing with
your people. Your people. What I'm saying is, is there
any basis that you have to say what I'm doing
is wrong.
Speaker 2: I mean, sure, if you're if you're going against the
the you know, principles of Frith and oath set forth
within the the halve of mall and within the head
is then you're you're not doing constructing.
Speaker 1: I'm constructing the true Pharonic religion.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, okay, so number one, if you're constructing the
Egyptian religion, I would question you, you know, right away,
because you're not Egyptian. You're you're a white guy obviously.
Speaker 1: So, but there's a good argument to be made that
the upper class of Egypt, the upper cast were actually
uh perhaps Arian, So I actually agree with that.
Speaker 2: But but even so, but even so, so, what why
do I have to.
Speaker 1: Be part of that racial h haplo group in order
to be that maybe maybe the gods have donned me
the new initiator of the new Pharonic religion.
Speaker 2: Well okay, so this this gets into the the debate
of focism versus universalism and perennialism, and that divinity. In
our school of thought, divinity is expressed differently among different
peoples because different people are you know, as we know
in these you know, in these circles out here on
the internet. Different people are are biologically different, they think differently,
they have different attributes, they have evolved in different places.
They're just we're just obviously different. You know, it's not
one race, the human race. So obviously when something comes down,
you know, when they're divinely inspired, they will express divinity
in different ways, and that is why it's different. We don't.
We don't. So I could look at.
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with my with my wad deep God
Emperor cult. I'm the Quizat's hotter rock. I gotta hear them.
Nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 2: Well, there is something wrong with that because you're just
coming out with it. You're not. You're there's no basis
in ancestry that shows that it's a tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you just said that you had spiritual experiences
that led you to your religion. So I'm saying the
same thing. I have had a spiritual experience. It happened
in a dream. I was told that I need to
set up the pyramid in my backyard. On what basis
is that going to be degenerate?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, number one, it's it's not like Okay, So
here's the fundamental misunderstanding about Heathenry is that people that
look through a universalist lens still keep looking through a
universalist lens. It's not a universal religion that you could
just pick up. It's not something that you could just practice.
It's not Buddhism, it's not Christianity. It's not something to use.
It is an ancestral tradition.
Speaker 1: It is a okay, But ancestral traditions are particular, right,
They're specific areas or locales within history, geographical places and
so forth. But earlier in the debate you were making
a point to try to say that the point of
Odin is that he is a connection to or a
manifestation of universal logical laws and principles in mathematics. Is
that's why those two things don't make sense.
Speaker 2: I'll make it sense. Make it makes sense right now.
Odin is the german Man. Is the Germanic deity that
has come to explain to us of Germanic descent how
divinity works. He speaks our language, he looks like us,
he is he is part of us. He's the guy
that came to teach us how divinity works. That's that's
what that is.
Speaker 1: But how does he look like you, if he's the
ultimate perennial god nature, that's beyond all things.
Speaker 2: We mean, look at the depictions of him when he
reveals himself to people. Yeah, that's how he manifests. That's
how people understand him, that's how people have seen him,
that's how people depict him. That's how he's expressed in
our folklore.
Speaker 1: And that's universal, but he appears to specific cultures.
Speaker 2: Odin is not universal. Odin is not universal. Divinity is universal.
Speaker 1: Okay, So is it the same principle that's revealing truths
to all these different religions over time and space that
maybe it's not Odin, but it's like an avatar of
this same divine principle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so like an equivalent of Odi.
Speaker 1: What's that it's perennialism basically.
Speaker 2: Essentially, essentially it is a very similar to perennialism.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the problem with perennialism is that you can't clearly,
just clearly say what is degeneracy and what's not. Is
uh a giant orgy of but sex? Is that degenerate
or is that just part.
Speaker 2: Of the right absolutely degenerates it's a degenerate Why on
what basis. Well, because it's a it's a dishonorable act,
it is a disgraceful act, it's a it's a an
act of the flesh.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a reification.
Speaker 2: Okay you Okay, so it's bad because it's bad. No, okay,
So within within USO true, we understand that. Uh for uh.
In order to achieve a higher level in order to
like what you should strive for in your in your
life is you should find a balance between all of
the all of the natures of being, all of your
levels of existence, which you I'm sure, I mean, I
know you Plato, Guy Plato talked about the tripartite soul.
Many other people, philosophers talked about the tripartite soul. Everybody
understands tripartite soul. It appears in all European spiritual philosophies.
Same thing. In order for you to ascend to a
level of awakening, to a level of I guess a
spiritual oneness, you must balance mind, body, and spirit. In
order to balance them, you must master them and to
be like kind of a slave to just the carnal
Thurst's is the opposite of is the opposite of that.
It's anus worship. It's worship of the material, and that
is degenerate.
Speaker 1: Okay, But Plato also thought playing around the little boys
was good.
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't mean everything he said was good, you know.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we're back at the pick and choose cafeteria approach.
Speaker 2: You're picking it chuse it too. You like Plato, I
don't tell me you don't like Plato, and then you.
Speaker 1: Must not be you must not be familiar with what
I talk about, because that critique Plato more than I
praise Plato. I mean, yeah, I talk about when I
think he says things correct. But so most of my
talks are critiques.
Speaker 2: But you are picking and choose, and you say that
he does say some good stuff.
Speaker 1: But I believe, but I have a basis for him.
Believe in universal logical principles that directly relate to the
mind of a personal God. And you're telling me that
it's both subjective and irrational and coherent and rational at
the same time. That's the problem. There's a dialectic between
a universal rationality that you want to have to make
truth claims and to say something is objectively wrong in X,
Y and Z cases. And then on the other hand,
you're saying, well, I can't really say because in our religion,
it's just it's based on my people group, this revelation
to Germanic peoples. That's not universal. So what's the problem
is that there's there's an attempt to have both things
at the same time, and it's based on again a
kind of a dialectic. And I think that again, this
goes back to the Trinity. This is one of the
reasons why of the Trinity resolves this problem of one
and many is because we don't believe that there's an
ultimacy to either unity or to particularity and the many
that's out there. We believe that God is both one
and many, but ultimately there's one, one personal God. So
so that's the reason and basis for how we can
have a logical approach to adjudicating between true claims false claims,
true religions false religions is that it's not subjective. It's
it's objective, and it's not just saying it's objective. There's
actually a logical basis for how there are objective truth claims.
Speaker 2: Now, this goes back to why I think it's a
lot of it's semantic because like when I hear you
talk about, well, it's the separation between one and many.
We just have the one and then there's the many.
But then you also pay homage to the many. But
then it's not it's not worship, it's homage. It's different.
It's just a bunch of these semantic arguments. I feel
like we're both like we're both wearing like green shirts,
except you're telling me your shirt's not green.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not semantics, because even you yourself have
already said that the I mean, presumably the terminology that
you would differ in when you read the Vedas and
you find things that you don't agree with, that's on
the basis of the terminology and the words that are there.
So yeah, all all differences are semantic. That what's But
but semantics matter because words match up to reality.
Speaker 2: Well, what you're saying is that there's a universal mathematic
understanding of things that create an objective metric to measure things. Right, Sure,
that's what I'm doing. I'm saying that you know, in
this these guys came up with two plus two equals four.
These guys came up with two plus two equal four.
My stuff says two plus two equals four. Therefore two
plus two must equal four. That's what I'm coming up with.
Speaker 1: That is the metric, except that that's not what you
were saying in the first half of the discussion. I
was saying no, because mathematics is directly related to logic.
Logical laws can be formulated most of the time, many
times in mathematical forms and principles. So that means that
you can't, for example, deny fallacies because the logical fallacy
is nothing more than a specific example of something that
is a formal logical principle, and those logical principles are
essentially the same as mathematical laws, like if you talk
about a universal or universal negative universal claim, those are
very similar to things in math, math claims, and math sets.
So to, on the one hand, say that and then
say that that that, for example, the informal fallacies don't
matter shows that that's not really in your mind when
you approach your perspective or your worldview. So again, what
I hear is an attempt to want to be objective
and to have objective principles, but at the same time
to want to have a complete subjectivity and irrationality that
allows for you to pick and choose in a kind
of cafeteria approach, which things are true, in which things
are false. And again there's not if you don't have
do you have access to the ultimate divinity that's beyond odin,
that's present as the skeletal outline of all religions.
Speaker 2: I mean, we see it every day. It's everything is
an expression of the divinity. So it's monistic, yeah, sort of.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if monism is true, this breaks down at
a really fundamental philosophical level. If monism is true, then
ultimately everything is at root one.
Speaker 2: Right, everything? Okay, So it's not everything is the root one.
Everything is at root one. Okay, Well, so what monism
what you're talking about is that everything is part of
the great oneness. Everything is involved in the great oneness.
That's not necessarily what I'm saying. What I'm saying is
everything is an expression of the great oneness, including the gods,
including you know, which are different for each people. And
you know, that's that's what I'm getting at here. Now.
I want to before we go on, you said that
the metric that I'm using to describe logic along with
my line of thinking doesn't coincide with what I was
originally talking about. I want to know exactly what you're
talking about that didn't coincide.
Speaker 1: Because you said that the peal to consensus is not
a fallacy, and it is therefore everybody who would do
logic and basic logic would know. Then appeal to consensus
is an informal fallacy. But informal fallacies are nothing more
than examples or instant instantiations of universal principles that are
that are formal fallacies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just uh, when when I'm discussing stuff with
people and it's just a lot of time, I'm sure
you've ran into this. People that are masters of sophistry.
It's the logical fallacy thing is is a very easy
escape for them to get out of.
Speaker 1: Ark, there's not going to be any debate that an
appeal to consensus is fallacy.
Speaker 2: But why is it that science relies so heavily on
appeal to consensus.
Speaker 1: Because science deals with the domain of empirical research and data.
It's not dealing with the domain of rational justification, conceptual justification,
epistemic justification.
Speaker 2: So shouldn't spirituality be based on research and data as well.
Speaker 1: Aspect there's an aspect to religion, which is experiential and existential,
but there's also an aspect which is a priori and
conceptual or even mathematical.
Speaker 2: But it should be we should absolutely still be logical,
reasonal human beings. Yeah, so I just don't I just
don't understand the disconnect here.
Speaker 1: Because I'm making a presubpisitional critique of your approach, your worldview. Again,
the metaphysics, the ethics, the epistemic claims, they don't cohere.
Speaker 2: But I'm saying that they do. And it's just we're
using kind of I know.
Speaker 1: You're saying that, but that doesn't you know, doesn't make
it so. And I've already kind of been illustrating through
going through each of these points how it doesn't cohere.
The there's a bunch of conflicting claims.
Speaker 2: It's like you're you're saying this is true over here,
this is not true over here, and you're just kind
of like mixing it up, so it just all sounds jumbled.
But the fact is that I'm saying that you asked
me why is it that, or you asked me what
is the metric? What is the objective metric to prove
the stuff that I'm talking about, you know, And then
you said, you know, well, in spirituality, we should absolutely
use logic and reason. We should be scientifically minded because
we are modern people. As a place, yes, yeah, it
absolutely should have a place. Science should always have a place,
good science, not pseudo science crap, you know. But then
I give the example of a very scientific approach of
putting this thing together and proving my metric, and then
you say it doesn't make sense now.
Speaker 1: Because again there's a distinction between what the domain of
science and empiricism and investigates and the question that I'm asking.
That's a higher level question, which is how do you
justify claims? And this is pretty normative in philosophical discourse.
I'm not trying to be a douchebag and I'm trying
to be a sophist. It's just like, if you listen
to the debate that I would JF for example, we
talked about justifying claims or how do we make sense
of things like logic in the world. So it's kind
of a metallogical question basically, which is.
Speaker 2: Which is which is a A?
Speaker 1: I mean, this comes up in perennialism, this comes up
in the history of Greek philosophy. This is not an
out out there like I didn't make this up. This
is the Yeah, if you took a philosophy class in
the history of Western philosophy, you're going to deal with
the justification of claims, the justification of epistemology. How do
we know? How do we know the difference between believing
something and knowing something? These kinds of questions. So what
I asked you was was a very pointed thing about
how do you know that these this religious system is true?
And you appeal to a consensus, And I'm saying that
is a fallacy, That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not just the consensus.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: You asked to be about it a metric, a scientific
metric in which I could prove it, And I look
to the first thing that I know about science, and
that is appeal to consensus. So I gave that as
an ex as one example of truth. Another example of
truth that I gave was, you know, the fruits that
it bears, How these things that come out from this
faith are objectively true, and how these things that come
out from this faith are objectively good?
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can't imagine in a million years, you would
argue that having children and living a traditional life and
getting back to the simples and rejecting degeneracy is bad.
I can't ever see you say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But again, you're missing the point. The question is
about knowing and justifying beliefs and claims. How do you
know what's degeneracy and what's not degeneracy. That's kind of
the question I've been asking from the get go. Andy, Well,
it's just objectively good to have kids. That's called a
circular argument. That's restating the thing that you think is good.
And I'm saying, how do you know how to adjudicate
between the two. That's why I gave the analogy of
the guy who starts his pyramid cult. You might not
agree with where I get my vindication from my dream
of the gods talking to me and saying I'm the
new Pharaoh. But but who are you to say that
that's not true? I mean, who are you to say
because you grounded your positions on kind of like the
the spiritual experiences that you had, Like, how do you
say that my spiritual experiences are no more, are not
as valid as yours?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, when we got started, when I was talking
about by spiritual experiences. That was to explain how I
got here. That wasn't you know this this later stuff
that we're talking about is as my spirituality, my understanding
of the philosophy developed and became more refined. That's how
I you know, now I look through different lens.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this question. So, if do you
understand the idea that that morals or propositions are theory laden?
In other words, if in my belief system, I believe that,
and I'm acting on the whether I actually I don't
even have to believe it or not. If I'm acting
on the principle that I'm saying that the gods told
me that I should started the Pharaoh cult, then what's
good in my belief system, in my worldview is going
to be determined by my assumptions, within my my paradigm,
within my if so, if I believe and if I
think that I'm the God Emperor, then it is a
good thing for me to have a harem and to
to I don't know, have all the brides of my subjects.
If I so desire like, that's what I determine as
a good thing. And I'm saying on what basis is
that not a good because the goods in this perennial
system or any perennial system, are subjective.
Speaker 2: But they're they're not subjective because you know, I know,
you're we're going to go back to the fallacy of
consensus or whatever. But it's parallel with what other people
are objectively saying to the fruits of what happens. You can't,
I can't let that go. You understand that that's not you.
Speaker 1: That's not a justification of a claim, but.
Speaker 2: It's one one piece of a justification. You can have
multiple angles that come together into one full thing.
Speaker 1: You believe that a lot of people can a lot
of people be wrong about something?
Speaker 2: Give me, give me one secon here. And this is
what we're running into here. I'm trying to give you
like a multifaceted justification, and you're kind of like stopping
me on this and stopping me and like picking apart
of the ballacy.
Speaker 1: Then it doesn't work as a justification.
Speaker 2: But it can when it's mixed together. Yeah, of course
it can. Of course it can. Yeah, Okay, then get.
Speaker 1: Rid of that pallacies to justify a proposition or belief system.
Speaker 2: Okay, So here's another justification. It says that these behaviors
are how we're supposed to act clear as day in
the Eddis, and that was written by divinely inspired men.
That is the word of God.
Speaker 1: Okay, on what basis do we know that that's the
word of God when you were also appealing to like
ancient texts like the beta is to say that it's
the same idea there that's in the betas.
Speaker 2: I'm just confirming. I'm just confirming that it's saying other
things for other people, that the mathematics and the metrics
are true.
Speaker 1: How do you know that that confirms that?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: How do you know which things are the right things
to pick out when it's literal and when it's not.
Because you said a minute ago, don't get caught up
in the details, Well, maybe the detail of a situation
or a story about Vendetta is a detail I need
to pay attention.
Speaker 2: Well, how do you know that? What is your process
for justification? Then?
Speaker 1: Well, we have a process within the church, which is
where you actually go into the catechisis the whole mindset
of the church spread throughout the world, because there is
an objective revelation given in scriptures. No, it's a mystical experience,
it's initiatory experience.
Speaker 2: So you're you're how do you know that your experience
is better than mine? Then because of this coherent How
is it coherent?
Speaker 1: Because I can give a justification, a basis for all
these things that I'm talking about. How there are these categories,
how there are these principles that reflect in the mind
of a single personal God, And I don't think you
can give me a basis for it.
Speaker 2: It kind of sounds like you're just creating this like
logical uh, this like lot uh, like this giant straw
man logical trap, so you could like pick everything apart,
put it together, and knock it down when you're really
just kind of describing the same exact thing you're saying.
You're saying, you're saying, you're but no, no, no, know
what you're saying. It's called sofist string is what it's called.
It's called your point out things. I think.
Speaker 1: I think, I think I think that anytime you see
a fallacy or get called out, you think that sophistry.
Speaker 2: But yeah, no, I'm doing philosophy. But it's the intent
behind it. The intent behind it is to you because
you're because we know what the intend is. That's why
we're here. We know what we're here to debate and stuff.
Speaker 1: So you know you're saying that my intention is to
be to be sophistical and not to be rational or
to do philosophy. Now I'm doing philosophy when I'm asking
you these questions. The basics of philosophy are ethics, metaphysics, epistemology. Uh.
So I'm going to be looking at your worldview, your paradigm,
your belief system, and seeing if what I see their coheres.
I don't see a coherent uh starting point in any
of those positions. And while Christianity Orthodotrician unity I say specifically,
it might not have an answer to every single thing,
it's at least coherent. So what we do in my
approach is we can there two different paradigms and we
see which one is coherent. Because I believe in a
coherent You want me to be clear, I'm believing a
coherency theory of truth. I don't think that when I'm
getting here is coherent. It seems like a bunch of
jumbled up contradictory stuff.
Speaker 2: It sounds like you're described been kind of the same thing.
You say. Okay, well, it says in the in our
texts that this is true. It says through spiritual mystic
experiences that this is true. And it also says that
throughout our church, throughout the time and the world. You know,
the consensus of the church says the same exact stuff
I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: No, but the difference is that our paradigm has no
Our paradigm has a basis for how to justify these
these beliefs in each of these three categories of philosophy.
So what I've been doing is critiquing, critiquing your paradigm,
critiquing the basics of where you start the system. Uh,
And I'm saying that it's not coherent, and I'm saying
that if you look at ours, it is coherent.
Speaker 2: So what I said was essentially texts, uh, spiritual experience, consensus,
and then you said text spiritual consistence, spiritual experience, and
then consensus. Right.
Speaker 1: But the point is that the explanation of those things
was not coherent.
Speaker 2: But it's the same thing at its at its core.
Speaker 1: You can use the same words. I know you're talking
about semantics, but I showed you earlier that it's not consistent.
How do you how do we know if the guy
who starts as cult is did you or not?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 1: How you said, because it's objectively not true and there's
a scientific consensus. But actually there's not a scientific consensus
about whether having a bunch of kids it's true or not,
because much of science is bought off and now promotes
the idea that you shouldn't have any kids. So there's
not even a scientific What is science anyway? What is
the scientific consystem?
Speaker 2: And there's a whole other debate, there's a whole nother
debate is it is?
Speaker 1: But but so, and I appreciate the rejected scientism, but again,
there's not going to be a clear definitely. You said, well,
the EDAs tell us this, okay, But you also said
that the EDAs have a thing where we shouldn't get
caught up in the details, like things like, well, you know,
the gods seem to act like men, don't they They
seem to be personified human beings.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is that I think at root
here what the problem of paganism is that it's relativistic.
And I know that you're really reaching four ways for
it not to be relativistic. But I don't see how
that is justifiable or inescapable.
Speaker 2: But you know, I'm just gonna go back to the
bottom line, is what's the similar about both of our
face describing you know, get rid of the debate, tactics
and all of this. Is you know, your justification for
spiritual truth is what is said in your texts? What
is spiritual experiences? And uh, you know, consensus. And I
would say, I would go further, and I would say
that my consensus is more thorough than yours. Yours is
just based within the confines of your church mind branches
out to many, many different other spiritual philosophies that branch
throughout different names.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean you can pick and choose and
do that. I could pick and choose and say that, well,
there's similarities and all these other religions to my religion.
Therefore there's a skeletal outline of how my religion is
the true religion that that doesn't really I mean, that's
so that's so vague. It could be anything. I mean,
we can find similarities in anything between anything by doing that.
Speaker 2: Well that this is the problem with universalism, as you
think that you're you have the one universal truth for
all of the world, and which has led to multiculturalism
and all kinds of this other stuff that has gone down.
I'm not saying, though, I'm not saying that the Orthodox
Church has led to this. I'm not saying Catholics have
led to this, but just the general idea of universalism
has been fundamentally, absolutely destructive for all of the world entirely.
Speaker 1: This is another contradiction. Do you think that your position
is true? You've been arguing that there are objective truths,
that's a universal claim in a universal position, and now
you're trying to make a fallacy argument about how Christianity
is the source of and Judeo whatever history is the
source of universal claims and universal religion. That's what I
just tried to argue a few minutes ago, that your
position has universal moral claims.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, my position has My position has
universal truths. There are universal truths, but universalism isn't universal truths.
There are things that are just that are universally true,
like you said, mathematics are universally true, but that's not universalism.
Universalism is taking all of your philosophy and believing that
all people around the world works for them, which is
just fundamentally wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well again, I think that what you think is
sophistry is again doing philosophy, and this is how philosophy works.
This is doing philosophy, is asking questions about assumptions. If
you read the Apology, know you were talking about played
too Socrates. I mean, that's essentially what what Socrates does
when he goes out in Athens is he questions everybody's presuppositions,
they're starting points their paradigm. That's what I'm doing. And know,
actually what you're the sinction that you're trying to make
there really doesn't work. Because if it's morally wrong for
me to start the cult and have a harem and
to practice magic butt sex, then it's universally morally that's
a universal claim. So even if you don't want your
religion to be universal, but at the same time you
want it to have universal aspects, you're still a universalist.
Even a relativist, even the most rank relativist who says
there's absolutely no truth, man, he dogmatically believes that that
is a universal truth. And that's what I'm saying, is
that that's inescapable. So you play you're the one playing
a sophistical word game of wanting to have objective universal
claims and truths, and then turn around and say, oh,
it's the Christian who wants the universal truths when you
have in need the same thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I made the clear distinction that just because
there are parts okay universal, you admit that there's a
different parts of your religion, yet it doesn't matter because
its matter. Remember, words matter, definitions matter. You said, you
said that.
Speaker 1: You believe there's universal truths in your religion.
Speaker 2: Because some aspect there are parts that are universal, because
there are some things that are absolutely universal, but as
a whole, it is not philosophically universalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it doesn't matter whether you tack on the
ism on the back of it, because you still believe
that it's wrong for me to have the harem and
the magic butt sex.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, you know, why do we got to talk
about butt sex? Like? Can we just make it in
a lot of pagan literature? That's what it's not pop prominent.
I've read all of the I've never seen a single
uh butt sex, no butt sex, and and and uh.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Plato earlier Plato talks about it.
Speaker 2: Well, Plato is not Germanic pagan and in fact, a
lot of people argue thatism.
Speaker 1: And you're trying to you were appealing to Plato. You
were appealing to the no no no, no, no no no.
Speaker 2: I gave. I gave an example that I knew you
were familiar.
Speaker 1: So only the Germanic tribes were the ones that were
that refrained from butt sex. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2: In fact, and Tacitus, you know, he explained how the
Tutons would throw sodomites and bogs and pile rocks on
top of them and disappear them. So sodomy has not
been historically something that we are, you know, tolerant, tough.
Speaker 1: Well, whether it is or it isn't, I don't say
on what basis is it wrong?
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean you just made the claim that
there's gods having butt sex in the head is which
is I you know, it's just so I said, I talked,
I said the Greeks, all right, well I'm not Greek.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're you've been appealing to other religious traditions
as a universal way to vindicate the skeletal outline.
Speaker 2: Because I thought that it would be a better I
thought it would be better than just appealing to myself,
which is what the argument you're doing, And so.
Speaker 1: The appeal outside of yourself doesn't work as what I'm
trying to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm saying that the you know, the appeal to
yourself is kind of a you know, it's like saying,
you know, uh, it's you know, appealing to yourself is
also subjective, and it's kind of you know, it's kind
of sketchy. You know. I'm saying like, there's these other
examples all over the place, and you're saying, oh, my
examples come from in house.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I appealed to how you justify claims in philosophy when
you when you go to a debate, you kind of
there's the assumption that they're that both parties are going
to be subjected to the same rules and laws of logic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, but but it doesn't get past my point here,
is that Why is it that my justification I'm using
are contradictory. No, they're not.
Speaker 1: The exampt doesn't make them not.
Speaker 2: But they Yeah, you say, there's there's there's gods having
butt sex in paganism all over the world, doesn't make
it true because it's not true. But here's the here's
the bottom line.
Speaker 1: Is that true?
Speaker 2: It's not? Okay, read the edis. If you read the edis,
I will bet I'm a thousand dollars a thousand dollars,
you will not find one single examits why.
Speaker 1: Are we supposed to follow the EDAs? Why are we
not following Zeus? And in the Greek myths? Like why
is one true in the other? Well, I said, well,
it's this is from my people, so it's relative, it's subjective,
and I'm saying that you need a way to adjudicate
between true and false, between evil and good. You don't
get that in your religion.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, here's here's a good metaphor. So like, uh,
I'm though, like what is like say, you're trying to describe,
You're just trying to express what a light is to
multiple different people. Light, a light is light. You mean,
we know what light is there. But if you go
to you know, in India there's a different word for light,
still light. If you go to Germany there's a different
word for light, still light. Go to Russia, same thing,
over and over and over, still light, but it's spoken
in different languages, so that makes it it's consistently light,
it's just spoken in a different tongue.
Speaker 1: That's different than trying to say that the same religion
is manifesting itself across all these different cultures and that
there's a basic skeletal outline between all these different religions.
They're fundamentally contradictory.
Speaker 2: There's a difference between religion and God. There's a difference
between religion, philosophy and divinity.
Speaker 1: I said, knowing that that is true and that you're
actually accessing true propositions about the the divinity that's beyond
the different avatars or whatever, there's no way to know
that because system is completely contradictory and relativistic.
Speaker 2: Okay, debate stuff or argument of tactics society is there
yes or no? Is there an overarching entity in the universe? Yes?
Or no?
Speaker 1: Do you understand that the debate tactics aren't tricks, that
you're actually appealing to things that are real principles, they're
not they're not tricks.
Speaker 2: Well it is, because Okay, here's the thing you're you're
trying to prove to your audience by making me pick
apart my I could say something that's universally true. Like
just now, I know you would have said yes, but
you avoided the question because you're trying to pick me
apart and you're trying to make a display that you
and your position are superior to mind as opposed to
having you.
Speaker 1: Trying to make a point to you about how and
what the debate is and how universal claims and logic works.
And you see it as kind of like a sword
that you bring to the battle to whey, that that
you like rhetorically kind of sneak around people and make
them look bad. And I'm saying I do not view
it that way. You can think that I that I
do that, But the way I view it, and I'm
being honestly when I tell you this, is that we
are actually our minds are tapping into actual universal metaphysical
principles out there in the world. Logic is really a thing.
It really there really are real fallacies and all this
kind of stuff. They're not just tricks. It's not just semantics.
It's real. And so when we approach it that way,
what I'm trying to do is look at the justifications here.
And again, I mean, you're aware that there's the idea
of justifying things in like a philosophical way.
Speaker 2: But this is a performance, this is this is a production,
is a.
Speaker 1: How do you you don't know my motives? You're just
assuming that this is like theatrics and Hollywood or something.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that. But I'm
saying that you have the the intent to defeat taking
it because you know, I mean, am I wrong? Am
I wrong? That you have the the intent of promoting
your faith and kind of knocking down mind? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: That's part of my intention.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's go back to my first question. Is there
yes or no? And overarching divine entity in the universe
in all of creation? Sure? Yeah, So why is it
that you're avoiding these universal truths and using essentially pill
pull to kind of pick apart something that's also universally trial.
Speaker 1: I've been sitting here arguing for universal truths and claims
only consist that they're only consistent with they personally revealed God,
and that is distinct from the idea of all of
creation being a kind of pantheistic manifestation of God. So
that's very that's very important for us because we don't
confuse the Creator and the creature. They're two different realms
or two different things. Creation can be exalted, it can
it can participate in different operations or energies of God,
but it's never the same thing as the divine nature.
And that's the central problem with paganism, is that it
confuses the divine nature with what's created. And so when
once you blend those two worlds, what you get is
idolatry and you get the madness and relativism of paganism.
Speaker 2: But it's so what, Okay, let's let's take a step back.
What is your were metric? What is the justification that
your metric for analyzing this is true?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna utilize the justifications in philosophical discourse, right,
the justifications in logic, the justifications in uh epistemic analysis,
the justifications that also are at times empirical. Sure, there's
nothing wrong with putting forth empirical evidence, but that's again,
it's different than the way that we justify a claim
because that has to do with universal claims. And the
only way you can justify universal claims is not ultimately empirical.
It has to be a priori.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you're going to go back to you're essentially
using the same justifications as me. You're just using a
a more I mean.
Speaker 1: You've missed the entire argument I've been making the whole time,
and you're saying, you're just saying it's pillpol it's talmudism,
it's it's this kind of stuff. Uh No, I mean,
philosophy is not pillpool, But.
Speaker 2: You know, debate tactics is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's because I mean, have you are you not
familiar with debate?
Speaker 2: Like I mean, I'm not very.
Speaker 1: Rude to you, but I mean justifying claims is not
semantics and tricks.
Speaker 2: But when you when you split hairs and you try
to pick apart every single little detail before.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think having a harem and but magic
butt sex is splitting hairs.
Speaker 2: I mean that's a simple question. Well, I mean I've
I would never, you know, advocate for any kind of
butt sex ever.
Speaker 1: I know I'm not saying you are. I'm asking the question,
how do we judicate between whether that's degenerator or no.
Speaker 2: You're keep you know, you keep bringing up butt sex,
and I'm just saying that it triggers me and I
don't want to talk about butt sex. That's all I'm
saying here.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, we can pick a different human sacrifice, to
pick a different thing that we think is degenerate.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I made the I made the distinction that
you know, just like you did that. The justification for
why my faith is true is holy text is consensus
is results. The fruit of what has happened results the conclusion.
That's the same thing you said. So it's just like
all this other stuff to see kind of like fluff
to me, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, do you want to you want to go?
I mean, I'm not mad or anything. I think it
was a great discussion, but uh, you want to do
like a Q and A. We've we've we've been going
for a good while here. Yes, yes, sir, So you
want to do a Q and A and we'll take
maybe some super chats and all that and uh then
we'll do like maybe closing statements towards the end.
Speaker 2: Is that cool? Yeah? Absolutely, yes, sir.
Speaker 1: Okay, So everybody, if you want to, if you send
some super chats and we'll do some Q and A
and I'll read the ones that are here. What do
you think of this is wamp want five dollars. What
do you think of borrowing some pagan ideas like throwing
these people in the bog? Well, actually, well, you know,
the Old Testament laws about that were pretty strict, and
of course in the history of Byzantinem you have pretty
strict laws about that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: So I don't think it really has to.
Speaker 1: What the pagan perspective in dramatic tribes or amongst degenerate
Greeks is. In my view, it doesn't doesn't really have
any any bearing on what a Christian civilization could enact
on the basis of their understanding of divine law. Do
you have any comments on that?
Speaker 2: I'm the fucking bog lord. Yeah, yeah, I'm all. I'm
all for the bog cowards, shirkers, traders, sodomites.
Speaker 1: All may We don't want to get the channel taken down.
So all right, so you we have a strong view
on that, gotcha. Corneliu Corneliu Cordeliau fifty knocks Jay debate
Steven Anderson. Uh no, I'm not going to debate those guys.
They're not they're not they're not goodwilled opponents and debates.
Uh Imperium five dollars. How is perennialism any different than relativism?
By the way, I love how my like low iq
tweet inspired the greatest debate of twenty nineteen. What wow,
I don't uh, well really he thinks this is Yeah,
that's a compliment to both of us. Thank you, imperium.
I would say, if you saw the debate that I
did with with Eric, I don't believe that perennialism is
any different from relativism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say, it's the Oh, go go ahead,
I'm sorry if you have any comments, so free. Yeah, well,
relativism is it's it's kinda this is kind of a
hard thing because some things, you know, I don't believe
in these dichotomies, Like you can have things that are
that are objective and then also subjective. You could have
things that are both simultaneously true. You can have pieces
of this and pieces of that. Because the divinity is
in like spiritual philosophy is isn't just like bound by
our material definitions. I mean you can take a step
back now. What we're talking about tonight is is the
absolute objective metrics in which you you measure these things.
But to say that you know, relativism is is subjective
and all bad. I mean, I mean obviously obviously, I'm
I believe very strongly in perennialism. So yeah, I say
that it's I guess it could be relative. I guess,
I don't know. I'm not sure. That's a It's a
big topic that goes into more and more discussion.
Speaker 1: Eric Jewel timbucks, how do you feel about the practice
of uh drink looking male fluids as a as practiced
by Odin. I'm not aware of.
Speaker 2: That, but I'm not aware of that either. I have
no idea what the hell he's talking about.
Speaker 1: I think he's trolling. But let's see Lawrence Ballynag two dollars.
Anyone want to match my chat? Well, I don't know,
do they? All right? So a little bit of super
chat action there. Let's see you want to do a
closing statement. I'll let you if you want to do
a closing statement to go first, and then and then
I'll give mine.
Speaker 2: Sure, absolutely, And mister j oh we got another super
chat here. Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. Jake Berg five dollars as Ortho, can
you explic explicate how our faith is the fulfillment of
the expectation of nations. Yeah, I would say that if
you look at a lot of those Old Testament predictions,
like Genesis twelve, Justice fifteen, Justice seventeen. You know, God
says to Abraham that the Gospel will expand out of
Israel to the whole nations. And so there's a lot
of predictions in Amos, there's a lot of predictions in Hoseiah, Isaiah,
major Prophets, Daniel, etc. That Daniel even says in Daniel
nine that by the time of the Roman Empire, and
even secular scholars admit Daniel was written prior to the
existence of the Roman Empire. Daniel says that by the
time the next empire comes after Alexander, after the Greeks,
there will be a birth of a Messiah and you
will see the end of the Jewish temple sacrifice. And
then he says the gentiles will be brought into the Kingdom.
And that's what we've been seeing for the last two
thousand years, is the bringing in of the gentiles, as
Jesus talked about in Luke twenty one, in Matthew twenty four.
So that's how I think that all the way back
to Genesis. The promises of the Messianic sed are fulfilled
in Christ and in his Orthodox Church, and so that's
how I understand the fulfillment of the expectation of the nations.
So I don't see any more, super chat. So if
you will go ahead, uh, you have the floor for
your final statement beautiful.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, mister j thank you so much once again
for allowing me to step up to the plate here.
I hope I presented my position in my faith with
tact and cunning, and it's been quite the pleasure to
stand up with uh and class swords with an intellect,
intellectual giants such as yourself. You are, as I said before,
master of your craft. And uh I hope I uh,
I hope in this time David fared well against Goliath.
So uh, you know, thank you so much? Uh do you? Yeah?
Let me go.
Speaker 1: What's your final statements on on paganism if if you
have any funds? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, So my final statements for paganism for us true
specifically because uh, paganism and ostu are not synonymous. My
final statement is that you know within the clown world,
within our the sea of degeneracy and darkness, that is
the that is racked rock. As we approach our final days,
it is very hard to kind of find our way
back home. It is very hard to find, you know, continuity.
And you know, we're homesick for a place that we
do not we don't even know exists, We've never seen it.
So what is what is as true as true is
the gates to Hyperborea. It is it is a way
for us to master our mind, body, and spirit and
become in touch with our ancestral knowledge and our ancestral
wisdom and become a higher level of being, and to
become in touch with the things that make us human.
And that is family, that is folk, that is country,
that is that is divinity, that is all of these
things that are just wonderful and wholesome and make us
complete as men, as humans, as Germanic people. Hail Odin,
Hail the folk, and hail everybody in the chat that
tuned in. God bless all of you and all of
your wonderful, beautiful families. May the springtime bring endless just
fruitful gardens and beautiful angel babies for your tribes. Thank
you again, mister j God bless you, sir and your
wonderful family. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I would say in closing that I think that the
neo pagan movement is a reaction to reaction to things
that are degenerate, that are problematic obviously across not just
the Western world, but eventually and as we're seeing now
global degeneracy and toxicity. However, I don't think it is
ultimately the correct solution. I think that Orthodox Christianity is
what is the right solution and has been there is
the right solution for the last to millennia. I think
that the collapse of the Roman Catholic Church, which you
said you have come out of, signifies this. I don't
fault you for questioning the Roman Catholic Church and looking elsewhere.
I think that's a very logical approach, given the corruption
and degeneracy in that institution. But in our view, there's
a specific reason for why the Roman Catholic Church kind
of fell into that degeneracy, and it relates ultimately to
theology and the terms. They're the theological terms that we
make very precise and have definitions for. They're not just semantics.
They actually have a very important point. I think what
I wanted to stress in this debate was I believe
that the position that you're presenting is relativistic at root,
and it doesn't have a philosophical justification, which is needed. Certainly,
we can be overly rational, but I think the orthodoxy,
if it's practiced correctly traditionally, it actually has a good
balance between the mystical, the existential experience that you have
in the liturgy, in the practice of Hesekia, and the
realm of what's logical and rational. So all the fathers
did apologetics that they did these kind of debates, And
if you are interested in the stuff that I've said,
I would say just watch my video and I got
a drone on. I would say, watch my video that
deals with the prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled
in Christ. And then I would say watch my video
on Saint Athanasius and his critique of paganism, because he
has a lot of the same arguments I made there.
So thank you, great debate, great discussion. I'm really glad
we kept it civil. We got heated, but we didn't
get hateful.
Speaker 2: And this is a shining example of how we can
get together and we can speak like gentlemen like in
the West. This is what the West is based on
is guys coming together and having your battle of wits
and intellect. And even a guy like Jay who is
a philosophical guy. Man, I'm just I'm beering the porch nationalism.
I'm just a blue collar guy. The fact that he
would bring me on and let me talk is just
an example of how we can act civilly and be
gentlemen and and in our quest to defeat the generacy.
But real quick before we end, uh, may I give
a plug to where people can find my content, mister Jay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I've got your your your link there below,
but sure go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you guys can find me on Twitter at Big
Dave Martell, Gabin Minds at Dave Martell. You go subscribe
to my YouTube channel which is called Dave mar Tell.
You can also find me tonight on verbo timpestus YouTube
channel with the Conduit, where we dig into all kinds
of crazy esoteric conspiracy theories. And also find me on
Wednesdays at a pm Eastern on Roffen Folk channel where
I talk about all kinds of other heathen pagan context subjects,
have all kinds of awesome interviews. Or you go to
Amazon dot com pick up a copy of my book,
The American Loyalist Proclamation of Moral Insurrection. Our founders selflessly
flung themselves at God's Grace's feet in the name of libertey.
Speaker 3: Now they look down from their heavenly thrones and disgust.
Pick up your father's swords on the Republic and reclaim
what is yours. God wills it conquer or die. I
am big Dave Martell. Thank you everybody for tuning in
Hail Victory.
Speaker 1: It's like the Viking. Alex Jones there all right man,
Thank you good talk and yeah, so his links will
be below. Thank you guys for the super jazz. Thanksverybody
for watching checking out Jay's analysis. Be sure subscribe to
my stuff if you haven't, And until next time,