Speaker 1: In the last millennium and in particularly in particular the
last century. If a better explanation ends up being that
its actions are explained by geopolitical power and influence, then
that means that it doesn't make sense to think that
infallibility and an indefectibility were conferred upon a crime syndicate.
So if I can prove that the Vatican has for
a long time been co opted in becoming crime syndicate,
you must, now, as a Roman Catholic, defind the position
that Jesus wills us to be giving our children's future,
giving tithes, etc. Two a goblin sect, a bunch of
organized crime figures. Now I'm speaking chiefly of Rome, I'm
not talking about most local Roman Catholic churches. In terms
of the people in general, they tend to be good hearted,
well meaning people. The problem, of course, is the subversion
that has occurred at the top of the Roman Catholic
system into their office of the papacy. That is not
a new subversion. It is a subversion that is very
easily documentable. It's very easily provable from a lot of
geopolitical texts, and for those that don't know about the
history with Trent Horn, this is a mirror situation of
the history with Michael Lofton and Eric you Bara. And
you might think, why is Jay so mean? Why is
he just out of nowhere? He just just suddenly becomes
mean to these poor innocent victim Roman Catholics. You say,
this is many years of interacting and dealing with these people,
and you'll notice that in many of these cases, the
original relationships started out friendly. Everybody had podcasts together, everybody
had common discourse. People made joke videos. Laura Horne made
a video making fun of the realm of Catholic apologetics
and Protestant and orth Docs apologetics, and those videos were entertaining.
They were It was a lighthearted era. Everybody was sort
of quote getting along. However, what developed was more and
more bad behavior that many of those Roman Catholics wouldn't
exemplify publicly, but would exemplify behind the scenes. And if
you doubt that, note that, for example, in the case
of Michael Lofton, almost everyone that he originally interacted with
and worked with eventually had that bridge burned and came
to the same conclusion that he's impossible to work with.
He's exceedingly fragile, he can't take any jokes or ribbing,
and the lightest, softest things set him off. Now on
top of that, in the case of Lofton as an example,
if you recall I was going to be on Gospel
Simplicity maybe five or six years ago. Lofton and Ibarra
tried all they could to get me canceled from going
on that show and other shows. Michael Lofton emailed and called,
for example, father Deacon Doctor Antonius's diocese trying to get
him defract, trying to complain because he said the R word. Yes,
you heard me right, because a deacon used the word
retard one time in a discord message. This was clipped
as an attempt to cancel FDA. To me, these tactics
and techniques are so ridiculous, so leftists, and so just
bad faith that the public humility and piety signaling is
the most nauseating of all of it. To have the
public face of being a perpetual victim as this, like
the meme says, as you're stabbing people in the back
and acting so fake, eventually wears on all the people
that you're around, and when you run everyone else off,
it's a good sign that maybe it's not everybody else
that's the problem. In the case of the Roman Catholic domain. Nowadays,
a lot of those figures have sort of drifted away,
They sort of waned in interest, their channels are not
that popular, and now this has all sort of fallen
to Trent Horn. Trent now has the mantle. You could say,
I guess of what's left of Roman Catholic apologetics. There's
not a whole lot there. We have lunatics like Sam
shamun obvious mental problems, absolutely unstable, and much like all
the other characters, literally has run off every single person
who's been kind and tried to work with him. There's
not a single person. Even his last leather Daddy friend,
William Albrecht, has been run off due to whatever their
recent faking gay scandals were. Now. The reason I'm bringing
up character and behavior is because we don't usually talk
about that. This isn't a drama channel. That's not what
we focus on. But I've noticed the pattern that when
the theological and position arguments start to fail, the inevitable
shift turns to the bad behavior and piety signaling. Could
there be times when people deserve to be called out
for bad behavior. Sure, for example, Voice of Reason, one
of their rising star apologists. Everybody sort of had inclinations
and called out Voice of Reason as very sus something
was going on. And lo and behold this chief piety
signal or person himself, this vast castle of piety defenses.
I mean, he was one of the most nauseating piety signalers. Well,
turns out he's engaged in absolutely horrendous private activities and
that all comes out. And does he cease being a
quote minister. No, Now he does everything on Patreon on
the back end of things, And lo and behold, we
are still the bad people. The Orthodox are still the nasty,
disgusting people according to him and his grifter buddy roots
of Orthodoxy. Now, in the case of Trent Horn, again
the mantle seems to have fallen to him to be
the present voice of Catholic apologetics. But Trent Horn himself
is no stranger to this same shifty suss attitude. And
everybody falls for the public pretense of niceness and piety
and all of this. And once again, it always begins
in a very friendly, charitable way. But as things don't
go their way, they then turn to more and more
nefarious backdoor activities, and I'll give you some examples. So
in the case of Trent Horn, when I've asked for
this debate, Trent has always explicitly said, I will not
debate this topic. I will, I can't debate you, it's
not my topic. Now, every other Roman Catholic apologist that
I've gone down the line, including Roman Catholic academics and
historians that I've messaged and reached out to, none of
them will debate this topic. So it's interesting to me
that they will not debate this topic. And now that
we've gotten to an actual public, biggest news story of
our lifetime, release of the Epstein files that does explicitly,
in multiple instances, link Epstein to a direct relationship with
John Paul, to a direct relationship with Poe Francis, to
scheduling meetings, et cetera, even to sharing weird architectural fetishes
that they apparently had. All of that must been including,
by the way, Jeffrey Epstein's intimate knowledge of the inner
workings of the Vatican Bank, again suggesting this close relationship. Again,
I'm not claiming that there's explicit evidence that John Paul
the second did something in that abuse case, the scenario.
Although he has been called out for many, many years
by many, many, many Roman Catholics for covering up the
abuse crises, what you'll notice is that the Roman Catholic
world isn't concerned with is that true, They're concerned with
covering it up. There's a pattern here, and Cleeve very
perceptively notice this that, for example, when he in his
weekly shows has called out the insane LGBT, trans skittles,
all that stuff in the Roman Catholic domain going on everywhere.
You have priests doing gay marriages, you have actual ones,
you have blessing the couples, you have everything that you
could think of, including blasphemous artwork, you know, Sacred Heart,
that's a pig heart. I mean, just all this insane,
blasphemous stuff. And when Klee brings it up, do you
have Roman Catholic wanting to cleanse that church and expose that. No,
they immediately go into cover up mode. So we're gonna
be looking to see is Trenhorne concerned with the truth
of the Vatican Bank and it scandals, the truth of
the role of the papacy in geopolitics and is there
perhaps smoke where there's fire? Is there fire where there's smoke?
I should say, rather, it seems that he immediately has
gone into lawyering mode. Paopal lawyers. You know we talked
about this years ago with Eric you Borrow. It seemed
as if a Borrow was more and more and more
becoming a legate or a legal defense character for the
papacy versus a seeker of what's true. Now, notice I'm
not arguing that the Orthodox Church doesn't have geopolitical corruption.
Of course it does. Whoever thought that there wasn't a
persecutory relation relationship, for example, between the Soviet state and
the Orthodox Church in Russia. Everybody knows this. Roman Catholics
themselves should be aware of the fact that their own
theologians like Eaves Kongar admit that the Gregorian Reforms was
a century a period when there was a tremendous amount
of German Germanic state influence on the papacy and who
would be the pope So much for cesero papism, because
that's papelo crism, same position. But when we come to
trent Horn, because there is a nicer face on the
front of this, there's this tendency. I think to assume
that anyone who critiques or comes after Trenhorn must be evil,
it must be nefarious. And I'm going to show you
a consistent pattern of absolute inability to admit even the
slightest era. Now why is that a big deal. Well,
if you look up the traits of narcissism. And I'm
not trying to do one of those low tier YouTube
psychoanalysis things. I'm just giving my own personal opinion. I've
met a lot of people over the years who literally
cannot admit that they even made the slightest error at
all on anything that tends to be a characteristic of
a narcissistic type of person. In the case of a
family member, for example, I have a family member who
I think has this, and they've almost never admitted in
their life that they've ever done anything wrong, even the
slightest thing, which is just a bizarre It's almost like
it's like it's removing your humanity because we all know
that surely, at some point in your life you did
something dumb, got something wrong, and surely you need it
at some point in your life to apologize. But to
people that have a very fragile narcissistic type of attitude.
They are absolutely incapable of ever admitting that they made
a mistake. And I don't just mean making a video
pretending to say, huh, I got this wrong and I
want to admit, because you can do a lot of
those types of things for public consumption. I'm talking about actual,
deep heartfelt Man, I really screwed up. Man, I've got
a problem here. I made a mistake. And I think
anybody in the Orthodox Church knows that as you begin
to try to fight the passions, as we talked about
with a Father Turbo today on that podcast, you are
very quickly going to see not just how many mistakes
you've made, but how difficult it really is to defeat
the passions. It really takes the grace of God to
defeat the passions, and it's a lifelong struggle. But when
you have people who consistently double, triple and quadruple down
on things that eventually even become common public knowledge, it's
very odd. It's very bizarre, and I think that speaks
to the root of what the problem is here that
most people are missing. People jump into the debates, jump
into the comments. I saw dozens of comments that were
They look to be bots, because it's like Roman Catholic
profiles with no followers, hardly any tweets, and they suddenly
pop up to comment on all the Trent stuff out
of nowhere. Where is this who are who? By the way,
has a profile that only comments on like a Trent
horn thing and nothing else. It's just really weird and
no followers. It's bizarre. I don't I get proved that
it's boded, but I would not be surprised because Catholic answers,
of course part of this organizational structure of the Romancaolic
Church that at all costs must triple down, quadruple down
to defend the hierarchy at all costs, no matter what.
And this is really the problem of this system. When
you have systemic level corruption from the top down in
that type of autocratic system, it becomes very difficult for
the members within that system to go after the head
of it, especially if the fish is rotting from the
head down, because it then almost everybody intuitally knows that
if we give up this papal thing, then the whole
thing falls. It's a house of cards, especially if you
read Vatican One and in the last several years. Most
Roman Catholics that have converted to Orthodoxy that I've talked
to or interacted with, almost all of them have said
to me, Jay, when I actually went and read Vatican
One is when I understood the arguments and the position.
Then I understood why it's a system level defeater. That's
why we're not arguing that the Russian Orthodox Church has
no corruption, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church,
the Serving Orthodox Church. We are not arguing that nobody
would be so silly as to argue that our church
has no corruption, yours has moral corruption. Again, the argument
is that to show so that the papacy has defected
or contradicted at a dogmatic level on faith or morals,
that is a system level defeater. And you can't apply
that argument copy and paste to the Orthodox system because
it doesn't have that position. It does not argue that
the ep or any of the individual bishoprics are infallible
or that they can't defect. In fact, many of them have.
The ep has in many cases in church history defected
and become heterodox. So from our system, we don't have
a problem saying Rome is heterodox. And then also other
sees can be heterodox, including the ep Roman Catholics think
that the Orthodox are a sort of want to be
papacy system, and so their ecumenical patriarch is a sort
of little pope or there's five little popes. Now. They
don't even understand that their own system in the past
has already recognized the pentarchy as a normative structure of
the church. I'm going to talk about why I blocked
Trent Horne in a moment has nothing to do with
the recent well it does have to do with recent discussions.
But people are saying, oh, are you going to have
a debate when you blocked him? Trent has already declined debate.
Do you not understand this? I block people all the
time because I lose respect for people when they go
to the piety signaling and they won't debate. And at
that point I don't want to interact with you anymore.
You have lost respect in my eyes. I don't I
think that you are a coward, because if you really
believe this system, if you really knew your doctrine and
your dogmas, it would be easy for you to come
on here and make the case. You could request Jay,
I want time to talk about my position. Give me
two five minutes to state my position. I would give
you that. We've done that for many people have called
in over the last eight almost ten years of call in.
That's easy to do. Oh, you just could have mute people.
You got a mute people. I don't even hit the
mute button. I might boot people, but I don't mute people.
There's no need to mute people because in almost all
of these cases, except for the rare chance occurrence when
we get a knowledgeable Roman Cathy, which is pretty rare,
most of you guys end up hanging your own selves
when I ask you a series of questions. I don't
have to mute you when after about five minutes of
questioning I can easily pull out of you the contradictions.
Because I know this system so well, I lived it
intimately for almost a decade. None of the people who
come on, by the way, have ever even investigated the
information that I've sent to them. Now. I still like
many of the Roman Catholics that I'm friends with, like
Tim Joe Inders is a good guy, Anthony from avoiding Babylon.
Those are good guys. But all of these people I
have sent reading lists books suggestions to for all of
these years, and none of them have even scratched the
surface of the material. What does that tell me? That
tells me that they're not actually that interested in the
position that we're putting forward. Now. The way I approach debates,
and the reason that I don't lose debates, is that
I always want to know the material as good as
my opponent or better. That was a dictum that doctor
Boonnson always recommended. If you want to win a debate,
if you want to know how to always win, know
the opponent's position to his satisfaction, and you'll never lose. Obviously,
have to know your position too, but it's a great
principle for debate. And we all know that when I
debated Trent Horn, whom I've already debated. For those of
you that you are saying you're scared to debate Trent,
I've already debated Trent, and all of the polls, even
Roman Catholics for the majority, admitted that Trent did terrible
in that debate. In fact, a Roman Catholic today was saying, hey, look,
I'm not happy with this recent kerfluffle, but you did
beat you did beat him in a debate. Okay, well
that's fine, but let's talk about the topics and the issues,
because ever since that debate, Trent has had a bit
of a dilemma with me. He's had an issue with me.
And since that debate, I've said for months years, where
it's been years, four or five years since God the
debate a Trent, let's do a debate on the geopolitics
of the papacy because I actually believe that's a kill shot.
Here's why he won't do it. He will not do it.
So why would by the way, why would the Catholic apologist,
who's the top apologist, now, why would he not debate
the argument that is I think the kill shot argument?
Why would he not? Well, to be fair to Trent,
he does admit that it's not an area that he's
very knowledgeable in. Well, if this is becoming a consistent
argument that people opposed to you or making, maybe it's
time to become familiar with it. Now. Years ago I
sent Trent four books I said he should read. I said,
you should read the Gladio text, you should read by
Paul Williams, you should read the John Courtney Mury text.
You should read I forget what else it was a
couple other geopolitical texts related to the same material, no
interest at all. So again, if people are not interested
in engaging the line of argument that we're making, and
if Trent Horne always falls back on just wanting to
debate the papacy, which by the way, itself is ambiguous. Right,
Remember in the debate with Tim Gordon, do you Orthodox
deny the papacy or did Jesus set up the papacy?
Well that's a equivocation because what the papacy means in
the post Vatican One system is not the same thing
as papacy in the Orthodox system. Of course, Orthodox and
Catholics both believe that Jesus said up a quote papacy
aka Bishop of Rome. But what the extent of his powers,
the natures of that power are, is where we disagree.
So a lot of this debate, a lot of these
things trade on ambiguities. And to go back to the
Trent Horn debate, if you recall, Trent wasn't familiar with
basic epistemic issues and debates. So when I brought up
the criteria question self evidence and circularity, Trent was lost.
In fact, he appealed to Descartes cogito as if that
was actually a good argument. It's a terrible argument. And
I called all of that out. And you'll notice where
did that natural theology debate lead? Exactly where I wanted
it to go, which was in the direction of showing
that the Roman Catholic position logically leads you to say
that the Old Testament doesn't teach the triad, it teaches
a Unitarian deity. And where did Trent go Exactly there,
he admitted the very point that I wanted to come
out of that debate, and that caused a lot of
reaction against Trent's position. Trent admitting that the Old Testament
doesn't teach a triad was a huge defeat because that
shows that the natural theology position logically leads to some
kind of perennialism and or syncretism. Well, lo, and behold,
what does Vatican two teach. Nostra tate teaches that very thing,
And Pope Francis and Pope Lee have reiterated that nostra
tat absolutely means it in that way that we all
worship the same God, not just the quote monotheists, but
also Hindus exactly as I argued on Timcast to Tim
Gordon and to Temple. So Francis reaffirms my reading of
these texts. Leo reaffirms my reading of these texts. But
the Roman Catholic apologists all know better than their popes,
which is amazing. The actions of the papacy demonstrate and
signify how they understand this by praying in Moss towards Mecca,
by participating in Hindu religious festivals, by participating in the
Ascesi festivals back in the nineteen eighties, where all the
religions come together at a see to pray to whatever
generic God they're praying to. Lo and behold us. The
basis for the document of the Declaration on Human Fraternity
and Religious Freedom, according to the joint statement between Francis
and the Grand Imam, that became the basis for the
Abu Dhabi Faith Center. Now, who's going to tell me
that if the Abu Dhabi Faith Center, which is the
generic theism of natural theology of the quote monotheistic religions,
if that's what they build on the basis of Francis's
document in Philosophy from Vatican two, how are you going
to tell me that that's not what Vatican two means.
It becomes utterly absurd to anybody with any discernment. But
the problem with Roman Catholic apologetics, and I know because
I was one, I was in this world for many,
many years, is that you are stuck coming up with
making squares fit into round holes. It does that you
force it in, you put in to make it work,
and you come up with whatever you think might make
it work. Remember when I first brought up to Trent
a long time ago, the death penalty. I said, Trent,
how could the death penalty at the time of Trent
and the Council of Trent talk about it being something
part of natural justice? And then by the time of
the New Catechism John Paul and Pote Francis, it is
now quote contrary to the Gospel. How can we have
at the time of Pious the Fifth and Trent the
statement that homosexuality is liable to the death penalty to
be handed over to the state. And now all the
way up to today we have the blessing of the
allowance of gay priests in the Italian diocese. Now I
understand they're expected to quote be chased, But as Father
James Martin said, who is now supported by Poblio openly.
The difference here is that we're not going to say
that identifying as a homosexual that bars you from the priesthood.
It used to and now it will not. So that
is a specific change in the Italian diocese, and Leo
agreed with that change. These are obvious, clear changes in
Catholic morals. Do you remember what Trent said in his
video as to how to make that work? He actually said,
there's a lot of different things that you could do
to make this work. Wait a minute, I thought Catholic
theology worked. Why do we need to construct things to
make it work? Why are there different interpretations? As he said,
I think he said something like there's three different ways
you can interpret this. So wait a minute. The purpose
of the magisterium is to make clear Catholic doctrine so
that we have clear answers. This is the pop Catholic
apologists selling point that they always give you, guys. And
yet when it comes to a very basic moral issue,
should there be the death penalty? Should we have that?
Trent says there's three ways to interpret the pope's statement
on the death penalty. Wait a minute, So now we
need your three interpretations of a magisterial supposed teaching on morals.
The epistemic issue is so crucial and so devastating that
once you get the semic issue, it's pretty much over
because you realize that the magisterial teachings are really whatever
any individual Roman Catholic wants to be the magisterial teachings.
Let's give an example, because when Trent was asked by
the way, people said, you're not being fair because this
is a clipped comment. This is all he offered in
the video. Go watch the full video. When asked a
specific epistemic question, which he still does not get, Trent,
what tells us the criteria for when something is infallible
in binding in your system? Give me the criteria. I
don't want the things that you think are binding. What's
the criteria for when we know that it is infallible
and binding? Magisterium? And let's hear Trend's answer once again.
Speaker 2: Trend is understood is defined infallibly unless this is manifests
Lee evident.
Speaker 1: That's literally what he said. That's all he said. By
the way, you clipped it. You clipped it. Yeah, it's clipped,
because that's all he said. He said a lot of
more words, but there was no other argumentation as to
what that even means, because he goes to canon law. Now,
as far as I'm aware, most Roman Catholics do not
believe canon law is infallible. For one, it's time bound
to a degree, it's changeable, it's updated, and so you
could say it's binding, morally binding, but not necessarily eternally
time bound, eternally binding and infallible. So there's some flexibility
there with the rulings. You could say that the papacy
gives through canon law. Uh, but it may be still flexible.
But so you went to a thing that's now fallible
as far as I can tell, in your system. And again,
Roman Catholics even debate what that even means, to say
that it's you know, who knows what the actual status is.
This is always debated. Let's say, for the second argument
that it's fallible, you're going to a thing that's fallible
to tell me a generic principle, manifestly evident for identifying
amongst stacks of thousands of documents the things that are infallible.
Who does not see how absurd this is? I mean,
am I in a looney bin and everybody else is looney?
Am I actually the Brad Pitt character in Twelve Monkeys
and I'm like eating bugs and like like, am I
just hallucinating reality that nobody else can see that this
is absolutely ridiculous, just so fundamentally ridiculous at a basic level.
You don't need a PhD, a THHD in epistelizeology and
philosophy and theology to get this basic question. And you
guys will recall everyonem catholic so called apologist that I
brought this up to absolutely has a meltdown when I
bring it up. When I brought it up to, Uh,
what's that guy's name, feels guy, what's it? Pinesapp? Pinesapp
has a meltdown. And so you're a little men. You're
a pathetic little man. Bro. All I asked you was
what's the criteria? Pathetic little man? You're a pathetic little
min This is all they have is a spewing fourth
of insults. Now, when we say, well, diar, you're the worst,
this isn't actually even the case when we talk about
something of jokes and insults, right, and remember when they're
on the ropes, when they're flailing. They immediately shift away
from the doctrine of theology arguments and the philosophy arguments too.
The bad behavior of all the Ortho bros. This is
what they do. They've been doing this move all the
way back to twenty sixteen, seventeen eighteen. Do you remember
I used to say, Loten, it's not gonna work to
keep building the people in your church, to just say
and whine about Ortho bros, to whine about the fat
joke I made about Ibara eight years ago, Like, how
do you think that's going to keep people in your church?
The only people that keeps in your church are the
most low information, low brow people who don't care about
what's true. And maybe that's what they're after. Maybe they
just care about the numbers. That's all that matters, is
the big numbers, because many of them actually think that
proves their church. They actually think that numbers prove the
truth literally, and they think that winning battles proves the truth.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They don't
even realize their own greatest saint of the Patrician era,
Saint Augustine, wrote an entire apologetic City of God arguing
that you can't prove or disprove the true faith on
the basis of political success and battles, you idiot, because
Rome said that Christianity caused the Roman impart of fall.
So Augustin wrote to they of God saying, this is
a stupid argument. The whole book is about that. It's
an apologetic against that argument. Most of the online Roman
Catholic idiots literally repeat the Pagan argument, Ah, bro, you lost,
you lost to you fell dog lah, we owned.
Speaker 3: You, dude.
Speaker 1: It fell when it was Uni at you idiot. So
that's an argument against you. Your own argument that when
you lose a battle disproves your church means that Roman
Cathlsen's false because Byzantium fell when it was Roman Catholic,
you idiots. Now on that geopolitical point, the reason this
matters is that all these things in our world you
are connected. It's true that you don't have to have
all of your geopolitics straight to be saved or to
be whatever. That's not the point. The point is that
when you are a public figure, and when you push
various ideologies and ideas, and even if you don't explicitly
know morals such as Stabby's and masking up. You are
taking a stance on a very controversial issue, and I
suspect I can't prove it, but I've asked her. I said,
why did you delete all of your past social media stuff?
All of his tweets up until recently, we're all deleted.
And he put up this thing saying, oh, I'm pious,
and so I'm leaving social media, which he didn't actually
leave because he's out here tweeting all the time, so
that was all performative. But I suspect that being pro life,
he says, means that you want it to be illegal
to directly kill innocent human beings. So he's arguing I
firmly support Stabby and masking up. Thus, Trent was trying
to morally one up people who would doubt what was
not actually a stabby. It was a experimental genetic stabby.
He apparently didn't know that, and probably still doesn't know this,
because even today when this has been brought up, he
can't admit that he's at all. He cannot admit any
error even on this. Now, why do I bring this
up Because there's a lack of discernment at a global
level about spiritual realities that affect the temporal's fear. If
he were to admit that he was wrong about coof
stabby's and lockdowns and masks and social distancing, this would
also implicate his papacy once again in failing to see
a very basic moral principle. And of course, the papacy
openly promoted the stabby's and the lockdowns and Unesco and Davos. Now,
when all that was brought up, what was Trent and
Jimmy Aikins's reaction? The conspirators, with their tin full hats,
believe that there's a global elite. In fact, the first
childish joke that Trent Horn made about me. Now, remember
Trent Horn is so pious, he's above making childish jokes.
The first thing he ever said about me was that
I'm a Jack Chick comic come to life. I'm a
low tier fundamentalist, idiot, conspiracy theorist. That was his portrayal
of me, Jack Chick come to life, low tier fundamentalist, level,
tinful hatter. This was what he was arguing about me
before our natural theology debate. After doing the debate, I
think he regretted that arrogance that he had Now did
he ever, even a little bit perhaps move the needle
and admit I was wrong? Of course not, because Trent
fundamentally can never admit that he's made a mistake. And
isn't that funny? Because that's the system of the papacy.
The papacy is a massive, super fragile system, and like
his pope, to ever admit any defection in teaching a theology,
to admit error, truly sincerely from the heart, would be
for them the undermining of their so called papal perfect system.
They are like the thing that they spiritually commune with.
And so the reason that, for example, we make a
big deal about who we commune with and they don't,
it's precisely because there's a spiritual dimension to this, where
you are linking yourself to these people and participating in
their spirit. And so if you are communing with Francis
and Leo, even if you're critical, you're still communing with
that spirit. You are taking on this delusion and thus
forcing yourself by kind of spiritual contract, to defend at
all costs and cover up at all costs significant degeneracy
and wickedness in that system. And I am not just
saying that it's a question of, oh, do you say
the crew up bishops? Crew up bishops. That's not what
I'm saying. I'm saying way beyond that international crime syndicate level,
evil Epstein level stuff. That's what I'm talking about. That's
way beyond was the bishop stealing money? Was the bishop
secretly gay? Did he touch butts? It's more than that.
It's inverted satanic elements that even some of their own
trag cats have called out over the last fifty years,
ritual abuse. The first book that I read on this,
which Trent thinks is so funny, was from a Roman
Catholic journalist in two thousand and four when all of
this started breaking in the news, especially on the Internet,
and he wrote this book, Lucifer's Lodge sra in the
Catholic Church, William Kennedy. All this book is is a
collation of news articles and journals and papers. That's it. Now,
there's some areas where he speculates on how did this
come into the church in America, et cetera. But the
overall thrust of that book is a Catholic journalist writing
about problems within Rome. And that came out when I
was a tried cat. So when I was a track
keet reading that, that shook me. Not because I thought, well,
I'm gonna immediately leave Catholicism, but I thought, well, at
least this guy's calling this out. We got to deal
with these problems. And in the two thousands, when I
was a Roman Catholic, a tridecthic became a Roman Catholic.
Two thousand and three, I noticed the tendency was constantly
amongst priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the pope to constantly
cover these things up, to move people like Cardinal Bernard
Law that were massively involved in this around, to cover
it up, to protect move the priests around. Does that
exemplify the attitude of for example, Saint Paul when he
writes to the church at Corinth, does he say cover
it up? Or does he say get him out? What's
the proper attitude? Everybody should know what the proper ateurgude is.
So the question then arises, why would they do that?
Why wouldn't they purge the institution? Well, our good buddy,
John Paul's a good buddy. Jeff Stein McAffrey has a
indicator as to why that is, and that is in
the Vatican Bank email. We're going to see why this
matters and why they don't want to talk about it.
This is Epstein's email to Larry Summers, the Clinton era
viper banker. Hey, Jamie should not be in there. The
most important change in the Vatican may not be put
Benedict's sudden retirement, but the change in leadership at the
Vatican Bank. Because the Vatican Bank status as a sovereign country,
it is exempt from transparency rules not only of Italy
but also of the EU. This status allows it to
be an elite client. It's elite clients to evade scrutiny
for money transfers. Epstein is explaining to a Clinton era
high level banker, Larry Summers, and a viper who helped
loot Russia the inner workings of the Vatican Bank. How
does Jeff Stain mcaffery you know the inner workers of
the Vatican Bank. Oh, because he was friends with John
Paul the second. As we said, the status allows its
clients to evade scrutiny. It's a money laundering operation. The
Vatican Bank's president at Tour Tadeshi, was fired after Italian
authorities investigated his bribery schemes in which he allegedly was involved.
He had forty seven dossiers, et cetera. And then this
was the background to the real reason Benedict the sixteen
step up, according to Epstein. Now you could disagree with
the theory of Epstein here, it doesn't matter. But what
it shows is a knowledge of the interworkers of the
Vatican Bank, just like we talked about in the Gladio lectures,
in the Gladio books. So this is Epstein basically saying,
this is the Gladio. So this is how it works.
It's an organized crime, black market bank. And that's the
whole story of Banco de Ambrosio Roberto Calvi and the
collapse and stealing of the Italian people's pensions. This was
huge news back in the seventies. It came out in
the early nineties. They didn't know it was Gladio yet,
but that's what this was. And they had compromised a
large portion of the Italian cardinals and prime members of Parliament,
et cetera, or whatever their government system is, that they
were basically compromised. And this is the entire book by
Catholic FBI consultant John Williams. Again not a conspiracy therist. Okay,
So these things indicate and point to what I'm talking about,
what I've been talking about, and they don't want to
talk about that. Their immediate mode of operation is to downplay,
to downplay, cover it up, downplay, and they've always done this.
The book is Operation Gladio by Paul Williams. And if
you don't want to get the book, the entire book
is on YouTube on audio Paul Williams Opperson Gladia. Now
that's just one text. We've actually lectured through many, many
texts on Gladio. And you might want to know as
well that these relationships this history isn't even controversial. You
can find this in mainline history that, for example, the
Masade established a very close relationship with John Paul the Second.
That's why John Paul the Second had so many overtures
and actions towards promoting Rabbinic Judaism, promoting no strataatee, all
of those things that are so controversial. John Paul the
Second was the champion of that. He did more for
that than anyone else in the history of the Romancolic Church.
So all the bays trad Cats that want to make
this some sort of base trad anti Jewish, anti Zionist thing.
That's not your papacy. Your papacy is a Zionist thing. Explicitly.
I'm not talking about political Zionism, talk about the theolo
of it. Yeah, I'm sure you could say, well, Francis
and Leo, they've criticized the operations in Gaza. Yeah, that's
not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about were
they ever critical. I'm not talking about do they oppose
desert storm. I'm talking about the theological admissions to not proselytize.
And you notice they lie when they say proselytism doesn't
mean making converts, it means forcing them to become And
that's not true, total bullcrap. The word has never meant
forcing people to become converts. They just make up stuff.
They just lie like crazy, just like them saying that
you blocked Trent Horns so that he couldn't debate you. No, no, no,
He's already said three times he won't debate. What are
you talking about? Here's his email, his Twitter post saying
I will not debate. Now. You can make all this
fuss and smoke the mirrors all you want, guys, but again,
why will none of your Roman Catholics debate the geopolitical
killshot argument that I make? Why won't they do it?
If it's such a weak argument, it should be very
easy for any competent Catholic apologists or scholar or historian
to come on and simply demunk this. Do you know
what they all say in response to that, you're too mean?
I'm too mean? Really? Now, what are the things that
characterize the two mean thing? Well, let's look at that.
Does Trent Horn engage in childish argumentation? Well, we saw
yesterday that he was gloating about a ratio. Ah, I
ratioed jay nyertio. Now there's nothing more immature and four
chan level speak than talking about a ratio. And by
the way, the other posts that I put up ratioed him.
So so what now? The first thing that Trent Horn
said about Andrew Wilson in his video was that Andrew
Wilson ca open a pickle jar hot he's not a
man like, implying Andrew isn't even himself manly because there
was this pickle jar. Now. I know people don't know this,
but when you go on the whatever podcast, that room
is freaking one hundred degrees. It is hot as hell
in there, super hot, and so yes, you are sweaty.
You sweat the whole time you're in there. It's in California,
and so the fact that Andrew couldn't twist the pickle
jar because it was hot as hell and he was
sweating in there is the most ridiculous thing to go
to to prove that Andrew isn't manly or whatever. Total
bull crap that's all they have. But isn't that immature.
I'm confused because we're not supposed to engage in making
fun of people, but it's okay for the Catholics to
do it. They have a free license to do it.
They do it all the time. Michael Lofton used to
make fun of me. Michael Lofton would put up ridiculous
thumbnails of me. Who cares. Guys don't really care about
that level of stuff unless you're very fragile, very sensitive,
and you can't deal with banter. The reason Tim Gordon
and I are still friends and we can banter and
joke around is that he's a normal guy. These weirdos
are not normal dudes. There's something off with them that
makes them sensitive and soy to where the slightest joke,
the slightest reference turns them into women. They become effeminate,
catty women. Now let's listen to Andrew to Trent's comments here,
and remember this comes on the heels of the last
video a few weeks ago blaming all the Ortho bros.
Because debate is now no longer worth it. It's evil. Now,
debate is bad because Jade Eyer Andrew Wilson, they've ruined debate. Well,
first of all, blood sports debate does not come out
of the theology domain. This was something that Andy Wirsky
started with JF to have drama streams and to have
these weird sort of hash outs. It also included at
times people doing theological debates and cultural debates, But originally
it came out of the gaming and Worski sphere I
was right there at the thick of that. It went
through a phase of being associated with Ralph Witz's face,
and then it became the thing this associated with Andrew,
and ironically, Andrew upped the game and the status of
the debate by actually putting on way more formal debates
on the crucible than anything like what Andy Orsky put out.
Those debates were absolute chaos, just degenerate, everybody cussing, everybody out, screaming.
It was just pure drama. The Andrew era has produced
mostly formal structure debates. I'm going to be debating Monday
against Gnostic and Formant. It's a formal debate. We're gonna
be debating his I know, it's crazy. I thought he
was a gnostic with a name like Gnostic informat, but
apparently he's a pantheist monus or something. So again, formal
debates are the tendency there. I've never seen a problem
with going into the sphere of whatever or whatever and
having those other types of debates because I came out
of that domain. It doesn't bother me to have a
heated exchange. But keep in mind that Trent Horn only
thinks of debates in a very formal, structured way, and
that's fine. Like that still exists. Nobody says you can't
do that. But nobody ruined the debate because there was
always the low tier, bloodsport yelling types of debates that's
always existed, and to blame that on me and other
people is just kind of ridiculous that we all ruined
debates and debates are debates are all about image, and
debates are all about the way it looks. Well, Trent,
if that's the case, then why are you folksocusing on
the optics of behavior in people who debate and not
focusing on the arguments. So you're doing the very thing
that you say is the problem in modern debate. It's
become about optics and gotcha's and behavior and not about
the argumentation. That's what you've been doing in your last
several videos. It's all about the optics and who said
a mean joke? And it's just so gay dude, Trent.
This is so gay dude. It's just so weak and
freaking gay dude. And that's what is so annoying to
so many people are actually going to see that the
root of the problem here is multiple, but it's a
spiritual problem, and it's a masculinity problem. And according to Trent,
the Ortho bros Are toxically masculine. You can't make this up.
Because Trent I'm not kidding is a male feminist. In
the debate with Tim Gordon, he defends earlier feminism. Voting
for women is necessary and essential. According to Trent Horne,
now being a conspiracy there is. I don't put a
whole lot of stock in voting, but I certainly don't
take this ridiculous Normy position that we can actually benefit
from women voting when women vote for the worst stuff
in massive numbers. It's a preposterous position. And I hope
Trent really does debate Andrew on that topic. I hope
it comes about. But you have to keep in mind
other Roman Catholics who aren't even SSPX state of accontest trads.
Other Roman Catholics take huge issue with Trent over these issues.
So this isn't just a orthobro versus reasonable Trent position.
Large numbers of Roman Catholics think that Trent is ridiculous
on this position. This is why he has this debating
Tim Gordon on male feminism. And keep in mind too
he debated Pearl on the same topic. I'm defending male
versions early versions of as a male feminist defending the
early waves of feminism. All the waves of feminism are
bad because all the waves of feminism are a form
of gender dysphoria. And Tim is one percent correct on
that Tim has consistently showed in older people teaching that
the popes held Tim's position. So the fact that modern
Roman Catholic apologetics and lectures and talks support this idea
of equal submission is preposterous. And the reason people call
that out in Tran's personal life is that it shows
the problem. You're just being mean, You're just a tucking
him dude. You know how many Roman Catholics have come
after me and my wife for ten years and said
the worst imaginable stuff. It happens all the time. I'm
not saying that's good, but I'm saying, you're gonna have
people looking at your private life, your personal life, and
they're gonna see does does this match up to what
you're publicly saying. You're publicly moralizing all the time. That's
the thing that is so disgusting from these people. It's
not that they take a moral position, it's not that
they defend their positions. It's that they moralize and they
constantly want to one up you spiritually and morally. And
it's nauseating because dudes know that it's just weak. It's
weak sauce to constantly whine about a man saying something
in a debate that hurt your feelings, To constantly say
he shouldn't make jokes about fake Bishop Tilda Swinton. That's mean.
Are you serious? You would rather tone police for a rabbit,
anti white Marxist fake bishop. He's a con man. You
would rather tone police for that guy. That guy deserves
to be trolled. That guy deserves to be laughed at.
He's a ridiculous person. And in the debate on Piers
Morgan it showed he was a ridiculous person. He's completed.
But I'm actually kind of amazed that the only thing
Trent found was me calling Till the Swan Till whatever.
I don't even know what his name is anymore. I
just think him of as Till the Swinton, which I
thought was a funny joke. And I will always troll
and make ridiculous jokes like that. But imagine harping on
that as a moral one up. That is so gay, dude,
it's just freaking gay. At least find something bad, like
me calling a bar of fat. That's a more morally
appropriate thing than me going after some fake con man
activist that your own church agrees a isn't a bishop.
That means he's a fraud, a con man. But I'm
bad because I made fun of him and called him
Tilda Swinton, which everybody agrees was a funny joke. It's
just so weak, dude. Now, I have plenty of criticisms
of Pearl, but I'm gonna mention just this little clip
because people were not attacking Trent Horn over his wife.
Now maybe Grouper's were. I didn't follow that stuff, and
I didn't even talk about any of this, but I'm
bringing it up because it shows the discrepancy between the
things that he says male feminism will do and his
own life when his own wife disrespects him and by
the way, she retires from social media after this event.
Trent has a video where he tries to explain this
away and say, no, no, she didn't cheat. Nobody says she cheated.
The point was that she formed a bond with a
man that was not you, and she talked about it
on a podcast, which is somewhat humiliating, and they played
the victim after all of this, and that deflected from
a lot of these criticisms. He's not addressing the main
point that people are making. Now, maybe some of these
groupers were going to crazy and saying awful stuff. Yeah,
but the main point is, Trent, you're moralizing, hyper moralizing constantly,
and you're doing that more and more and more recently,
and that's really nauseating when people don't see that in
your own life. This is exactly what happened to Voice
of Reason, hyper moralizing, piety signaling NonStop. And of all people,
I have many disagreements with Pearl, and she can, even
as an outsider to the religion, recognize that the people
that constantly morals morally piety signal signal. All these egirls,
they do the exact same of the egirls Sarah Stock,
constantly moralizing about how moral she was because she was
getting married. She beat everybody else, she won the contest,
all the thoughts lost, and it was total hypocrisy. That's
the point here is that when you your channel and
you're apologetic on the moralizing, what happened with Voice of Reason.
He starts out debating ubi debating Protestants and Orthodox on
actual theological issues, then he shifts into all about that
piety signaling. Baby, When you see that shift, there's usually
something else going on, and it's usually a matter of
time before they get exposed. So why am I saying
this Trentanard. I'm not being mean, because the root of
the problem here is that Trent is an effeminate soyman.
That's the problem. Trent cannot admit because he's so fragile,
he's so psychologically weak to admit any theological error, any
geopolitical error, any error on history or papacy, in his mind,
would be to crack this facade. And he's wrong about
all of it. He's been wrong since we had the
debate on natural theology. He's wrong about the Old Testament.
He's quadrupled down on Muslim Christians and Jews worshiping the
same God. And he doesn't care about the various fallacious
critiques that we made explaining how that's not possible. He
doesn't even care about the quantifier shift fallacy. He just
repeats the papal system as if that were an argument
to just repeat the papal doctrine, Like people that don't
believe the papacy are not going to just buy you
repeating the papal theology and the papal arguments and assertions
over and whatever. We need an actual argument. It's a
wise's case, not just the papal positions. So why is
this a root problem in the household.
Speaker 3: Oh saying that men need to get married. You know,
the sleeping round is men, it's not women doing it.
And I just knew. Sometimes my super simp radar goes
off right. I'm like this guy, his wife is running
the relation because of how he thinks and his super
simp tendencies.
Speaker 1: This is accurate. And I'm saying this because Trenton himself says,
my wife chooses my friends for me. Let me play
you the video. Might I might have unshared it. I
can't remember if I shared it or not. But and
this is not just you know again, I'm sure a
lot of people justlike Pearl. The only reason I'm playing
this one is because she has the clip of the
three hour Matt frad podcast. And I don't know where
in that three hour podcast this is. And I'm certainly
not gonna watch a whole three hour podcasts talking about
all this nonsense. So we're gonna listen just to this
brief section where she discusses this, and then we're gonna
listen to what Dr Jordan Peterson, who is absolutely spot
on about male feminists. This is this, This is the psychology,
the psychology of a male feminist.
Speaker 3: Now I think this was the guy who hosted it
Pints with a Quinas. And again, this is the challenge
you get with the religious men. It's it's like, what
they do, what they've attended to do, is they virtue
signal morality. So they say, I am so moral, But
how moral can you be as a man if you
are afraid of your wife? Yeah, like, if you fear
your wife, you're officially a woman. Now you have the
same morals as a woman because you're going to defer
to our morals. And you know, we don't have morality.
You know, we don't have Okay, so here we go.
Speaker 4: Hey, so I got super close to a male co work.
Speaker 3: Make sure this isn't on two X.
Speaker 4: Okay, Hey, so I got super close to a male
coworker and I share this testimony and we used to
do like a marriage encounter weekend and I shared this
testimony and I got too close to him, and you start,
I wouldn't say developing feelings. And Trent knows all this stuff,
but I think that's how affairs happen. They happen very slowly.
It's not like you, you know, just have an affair
with someone even to know them. You're attracted to their temperament.
They see the best side of you. And like, Trent
was very uncomfortable with it, and I was like, well,
we're just friends. But he's not a jealous person at all.
So he was like, you know, I'm just asking that
you don't do anything that you wouldn't be uncomfortable with
me doing with a woman like you have that same standard,
Like if I was like talking to a coworker often
and joking around with that person and they were, you know,
like getting.
Speaker 3: So she's talking publicly about how she wanted to smash
another dude.
Speaker 1: And now again, the reason I'm playing this is because
it shows the discrepancy between Trench's picturing of how feminism
and male feminism is supposed to work and why it
actually is a good thing, and why it's the Christian
way to go. And yet in the real dynamics what's
going on to Everybody who has any sense can see
that's not how that works. Women do not respect male feminists.
Women do not respect weak, simply effeminate men. They do not,
and it eventually will make them resent the man and
they will want to find masculinity elsewhere. I don't care
how Christian you want to say you are and pretend
the reality is the biology oftentimes overrides the professed things
that come out of people's mouths. Now, we're all liable
to those temptations. So I'm not trying to be mean,
not trying to be unfair. But Trent wants to go hard.
He wants to come at me constantly. Now, okay, let's
do it. Let's talk about what masculinity actually is. Let's
talk about what the real problems are. Let's talk about
behavior and hypocrisy, because that's where Trent wants to go. Now,
what does Jordan Peterson say about men who identify as
male feminists? And Jordan Peterson, I think he's got his
issues as well, but he is very perceptive and correct.
And you see this in the history of many scandals.
Think about all the men public leftists, Josh Weeden for example, right,
and there's been some other cases of very prominent democrat,
famous leftists who identified as male feminists and lo and
behold it comes out. They are absolute moral savages. They're
absolutely involved in some crazy stuff. Why is that, Am
I saying that Trent is some crazy immoral I don't
know Trent personally, but when you get people like that,
like your wife, going on podcasts and admitting things that
are humiliating to the man, it's people are not wrong
to say this is weird. Same with Candace. Where's Candace's
husband in the midst of her spouting all this insane nonsense.
Does she not have a husband with some degree of
guard and care for what her His wife is saying
it's just weird. It's bizarre, right, And if Jamie went
on a podcast and started talking about how she was
developing possibly developing feelings or whatever on the road to
developing feelings, because they want to qualify this a million times,
because that's what Trent does. In his coat video where
he tries to explain this away, he says, my wife
didn't it wasn't anything. Well, why would she say that
on a podcast? It's just weird, dude. It's bizarre and
it is humiliating. And what came out of all this victim?
Trent plays the victim as always. It's a Roman Catholic pattern,
Vara lofton all of them. They're always victims, never wrong,
never making serious mistakes, victims in fact, surprise Voice of
Reason hasn't said that he's a victim, that the poor
chicks were texting him too much, and he was the
victim in this scenario.
Speaker 5: It's not only women that engage in I said it's
female type anti social behavior, but men can engage in
reputation savaging too, and some of the worst of those
are the men that ally themselves so to speak, with feminists,
so that they have a sneaky way into popularity with girls.
There's no shortage of that kind of appalling psychoe have
behavior either.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, some of the bitchiest behavior I've seen online
is from men, and most of them might identify as
male feminists, but they can be quite misogynistic.
Speaker 1: App Peters is absolutely right as a lifelong, you know,
person in the realm of psychiatry and diagnosing and studying
these things. You can disagree with, you know, a lot
of his positions, as we do gnosticism and all that,
but he's absolutely right here in the tendency to think
that you're gonna get an end, you're gonna be popular,
that the women are gonna like you when you pretend
and when you signify that you're a male feminist, it
is absolutely pathetic and all of us out here in
this sphere who have been normal dudes and have spent
time dating various women or understanding female nature and understanding
the reality of the world, do not fall for this.
That's why it's so popular to simping simping behavior, which
is exactly what Trent exemplifies in these In these cases
does not actually show a person who is virtuous, who
is pious, that's the intention. It actually shows a weak
inability to understand and admit female nature, female biology, and
the reality what's going on. It's a form of the
alying and delusion. When you read the Proverbs, do you
think Solomon has a male feminist attitude at all? Of
course not. Now that's not just Solomon. But even according
to the New Testament, the Proverbs are inspired literature, So
the Holy Spirit is actually speaking through the Proverbs. And
how to modern feminists and male feminists and people in
the so called church say that Proverbs should be treated
as an old, outdated text when it comes to gender.
In other words, I don't care what the Holy Spirit
said through Proverbs. I have a new, updated theology of masculinity,
which is femininity. And if you think I'm wrong about
that you realize that this is the very argument that
Tim Gordon makes against Trent. This is Tim's line of argumentation,
not so much about proverbs, but he's saying that the
papal system has already stated that the attitude and the
relationship between men and women is much more accurate in
the ancient medieval world than the post nineteen sixties feminist
revolution and post even first wave feminist suffragette revolutions. These
people all want to defend the first waves because they
think that was rational, that was reasonable, and that's true.
Male femininity or excree me, male feminism. Male feminists are frauds.
And I can tell you that right away. Every dude
that has good testosterone levels recognizes this simpory and this weakness.
That is the root problem. It's not just going after
so you have to go after him because you don't
have any arguments. We've already spent seven years doing the arguments.
What are you talking about. I've got hours. I've got
at least twenty hours of video refuting point by point
Trent Horn. In fact, we collated together one hour. We
wanted to make it underneath one hour on the clips
channel here dire archive one hour refuting every single low
tier theological argument from Trent Horn. So don't give me
this nonsense. You ain't got no real theology argument. You
gotta go out to you personally. No, we never did that,
never even talked about him at any personal level until now,
because he's decided to do that. So let's watch his
video and see is he consistent with what he's saying
and arguing, And then we're going to open it up
to calls to anybody has any questions, challenges. You want
to come on and refute me, You're more than welcome
to You can have as much time as you want.
You want to talk for five minutes, be my guest.
Just indicate that at the beginning. So here's the most
recent video. I will remind you too that the previous
video is him saying that debate is no longer good.
He's above debate now, he's too pious for debating because
the theological area has been absolutely dominated by the Orthodox
the last few years. Every one of their debates, they
go into the polls say Orthodox majority win, Orthodox majority win,
Orthodox majority win, me versus ten the last few years,
Luigi pinsap Alex Soren, whoever, I'm forgetting I apologize if
I'm forgetting you. But over and over and over, Trent
Doherty huge just absolute chaos, not going good for the RCS.
So where are we at now, Well, the mantle has
fallen to Trent, and Trent's basically at a position where
he's not going to engage. It doesn't sound like given
that he's better than debate now he's not going to
engage at the debate level anymore because evil Andrew Wilson
and Jay Dyer have ruined it. But apparently he also
has got a lot to say about Tim Gordon and
the Roman Catholics as well who disagree with him.
Speaker 2: Recently, Eastern Orthodox cultural commentor Andrew Wilson criticized me as
a virtue signaller who is too critical of political Christians
like him that are actually trying to fix the culture.
Speaker 1: It's actually correct, you are a virtue signaling piety signaler
and his Andrew is spot on there.
Speaker 6: Most people to me are like the lowest of the
low or the low, you know, reps like Trent Horn
people like this.
Speaker 2: So in today's episode, I'll talk about where I agree
and disagree with Andrew and the difference between being a
strong assertive crit Christian and a bad overly aggressive one.
And to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything I met.
Speaker 1: Don't be overly aggressive. Please make sure and up your
estrogen levels. Please make sure and get a full dose
of gauge us today and drink your soy milk.
Speaker 2: Messaged Andrew and showed him this script. So my reply
incorporates some of what he wrote to me in our exchange. First,
let's take a look at Andrew's comments on the Patrick
Bette David Show.
Speaker 6: Most of my criticisms don't actually come from leftist though
many of them do. They actually come from a particular
brand of Christian virtue signalers.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: They're always trying to signal their virtues. And it's always like,
oh my god, you smoke, he smocks cigarettes. Ah, you
drank beer, Career Christians don't drink beer.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 1: It's always petty criticisms.
Speaker 6: But anytime there's controversy around me, or clip taken out
of context or something like this, these are the first
people to rush in and give me universal condemnation, mostly
so that my enemies will look at them. And these
are leftists, right, They want leftist to look at them
and think you're the good Christians.
Speaker 1: This is exactly what I just I've not seen this
clip yet, by the way, so this is exactly what
I was saying, and exactly what Jordan Peterson said about
the psychology of the male feminist. It's a weird, low
tier thing to think. If I show how much I'm
on the side of these insane people and the women
and the leftists, they'll like me, and I'll get a
big crowd and they're going to love me.
Speaker 2: Andrew maybe speaking of critics more generally here, but I
don't have a problem with drinking beer or smoking. I
have a hard time justifying habitual smoking, but if other
Christians want to smoke or drink, I'm not going to
say they're sinning. I do think smoking can come off
as an embarrassing larp when people lean into it as
part of their identity as a Christian influencer. And I
think Andrew would agree that no one is above criticism.
In a previous video, which I'll link to below, I
praised Wilson for using shrewd debate tactics that resulted in
Matt dillahunty Rage quitting their debate. In that debate, Andrew
plays fully kept calm and got Dila Hunty to flip
out by bringing up stuff that was personal to him,
like Dilla Hunty being in a de facto same sex relationship.
Speaker 1: Well no, wait a minute, So Trent is okay with
bringing up personal life contradictions with the way that you live.
Yet he seemed to have a very big problem with
people calling out the seeming inconsistency between what he says
about feminism and the relationship between his wife and the
guy at the place that she worked beginning to form
that relationship or possibly forming that relationship. So if that's
the case, then he should have no problem with people
calling into question the very thing that he made a
response video saying not to call into question about. Now again,
I'm not talking about people who quote attacked his wife.
If they did that, that's separate from people calling out
the inconsistency in what Trent says male feminism will produce
versus his own personal life and relationship as the head
of a household.
Speaker 7: Attempting to lie to people who claim men can be
women isn't human flourishing? Why you ask, would people be
this over the top stupid? Well, it's simple. The good
is the good man. We have to do what's good
for human society and human flourishing. And if you don't
call these range lunatics don't think they obviously aren't, they
might self terminate. So in order to avoid that, we
need to make everybody on planet Earth lie to them.
Speaker 1: This guy's not serious and I'm leaving James. If you
want to refund you well, sir, and So.
Speaker 2: Andrew won the exchange, but on the Whatever podcast recently,
Andrew was generally seen as losing this part of an
exchange with a feminist who used the same tactic against him.
She calmly brought up a legal fact about Andrew's wife,
and then Andrew aggressively responded to her.
Speaker 4: Your wife has three baby daddies and has been married
twice before.
Speaker 1: And you under and youlix your religion. Huh what is that?
Speaker 6: Don't talk about my wife, He's stupid.
Speaker 1: Shut your mouth, Shut your stupid mouth. Your wife with
the three baby did I just say I with the sorry, Donald,
I'm sorry?
Speaker 6: Is she morally in consequential in comparison to your clicking?
Speaker 1: So? Notice Trent has no problem highlighting and calling out
what he sees as inconsistencies in people's personal lives and
what they say on the debate stage and publicly, which
is exactly what people did in regard to Trent and
his own wife's inconsistency when it came to the Matt
frad Pintes with a Quietess podcast talking about her beginning
to develop an affection and a relationship with a guy
that could have become inappropriate. So again, there's a lot
of hypocrisy that we're going to see in Trent Horne,
because it's the same with the jokes. It's okay when
Roman Catholics make immature, childish jokes, but if you do
it at a certain thing that he doesn't like, or
a certain way or over his line, then it's the
end of the world and they're absolute victims. These are
the people who play victim but stab you in the back.
Speaker 2: Like the me power discus with people insulting you, it's
not uncommon to lose your cool. We're all only human,
But this kind of aggressive behavior isn't uncommon for Andrew
and other people in his orbit, so it's fair to
point it out and discuss the merits of acting like this.
Like any public proponent of Christianity. There's good and not
so good elements to Andrew's approach. In our email exchange,
Andrew said, sowing circle Christians tend to focus on why
the person who is moving policy and people's minds on
policy isn't acting in a pure enough way, and often
will actually side with the critics of that person affecting
change in order to purity signal no iigue.
Speaker 1: This is true, Aree.
Speaker 2: It's cringey when some Christians do everything they can to
please non Christian critics, even by taking unnecessary potshots at
fellow Christians. It's a kind of ideological simping, similar to
male feminists who throw all men under the bus to
appease women.
Speaker 1: Oh you mean, like you as a male feminist because
you identify as a first wave male feminist. So does
that include you or what is this talking about.
Speaker 2: My criticisms aren't because of how other people complain. It's
because God's revelation has said we shouldn't engage in these behaviors,
and I definitely care about appeasing God.
Speaker 6: And it's like the whole time, so in other words,
the whole time, these people are burning the whole forest
down around our ears, right, and I say, hey, put
those matches down, Hey, don't say the F word, Like, well, wait,
we got a bigger problem here, we got Now.
Speaker 1: It's important to note that Trent's long time still, as
I understand, good friend Tim Gordon says the F word constantly.
Tim says it all the time. I've not yet seen
Trent call out Tim Gordon on a public video for
saying the F word. Did you want to say something?
What happened? Hello? Are you? Are you talking to me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I'm ahead? What's that call out?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: Oh? I totally forgot about that. Remember when Trent Doherty
lost his mind and just screamed and cussed me out
and then streamed and cuss Cleve out. So again, this
standard is not applied to their team. This is all
very team based stuff, and it's like, yes, we have
this standard, but we pull this when we need it,
when it's an ortho bro, when it's you know whoever.
But we're not going to say it about Trent Doherty,
who was an absolute disaster for them. We're not going
to say it about Tim Gordon, who says the F
word all the time. So it's very convenient sort of
rolling this out when it needs to be rolled out
and what happens again, Andrew's point right here is absolutely correct.
What's going on right now the biggest news story of
our lifetime with Epstein stuff, And what's Trent's concern? Who's
saying the F word on a PbD podcast. Trent's concern is,
let's rebut Epstein and the Vatican so immediate cope and
cover mode. Why why is that the concern in the
midst of the biggest scandal of our time. This is
what is so ridiculous. This proves Andrew's point about sewing
circle of Christians is that the world will be burning
down around them and they're capitalizing on piety signaling over
the frickin' F word. It's just insane. Now I'm going
to see what he thinks he can do to rebut
the absurd conspiracy theories about the Vatican. Note he's still
quadrupling down that after Epstein, there's no global conspiracy, there's
no tinfoil hat stuff going on. Remember him and Jimmy
A can put out things saying Davos is not involved
in a globalist elite conspiracy for a technocratic order. They
put out in from it during Coke during the coop
when he was pushing stabbies and masks. This dude is
the ultimate normy.
Speaker 6: A bigger problem here. Nope, you said the F word. Yeah,
that's no good.
Speaker 2: I agree with Andrew that being overly puritanical about language,
I e. What i'd call true tone policing is lame.
I covered this in my episode on Christian swearing, where
I said profanity in itself isn't wrong and it could
be justified in some cases.
Speaker 1: I use the example yeah, because he knows that that's
exactly what Tim Gordon argues.
Speaker 2: Hiplo Stephen Colbert engaging Philipszimbardo, who said that God was
wrong and the devil was right. When Colbert gave him
the correct theology on the Matterszimbardo said, you learned well
in Sunday School, to which Colbert epically replied, I teach
Sunday School mother effort. But that's different than just dropping.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's different. So when Colbert, who is an absolute, disgusting,
degenerate Catholic goblin, uses it in a comedic way, it's acceptable.
But if I make fun of Bishop fake Bishop Tilda Swinton,
a radical anti white Marxist activist I'm the bad person.
So even right here within this stupid video, he's already
contradicted his own allowances, which shows you that there's no
consistent application of some moral puritanism about holy speech. It's
just arbitrary to figure out when and where it's applicable.
What do you mean, I mean Colbert at least used
to say is Catholic. I don't know whether he is
or not, but he's identified, at least in the past
as a member of the Catholic Church. I think, could
you give me a espresso and also a water? Thank you?
Speaker 2: Hopping an F bomb to insult somebody like Andrew does
in this clip, I will.
Speaker 6: Never be able to convince you of my worldview, Charlie.
I just think, honestly, you're too stupid to understand them.
Speaker 2: Saint Paul repeatedly says that overseers in the Church must
be gentle and not quarrelsome or violent, and that all
Christians must put away anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul
talk from their mouth. Jesus said in Matthew five twenty two,
whoever insults's brothers shall be liable to the council, and
whoever says you fool shall be liable to the hell
of fire and Sewod Simothy chapter two set.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the text is not making a joke or making
fun of people. The text is accuses his brother and
thus liable to the council. So that's some Roman Catholic translation.
But regardless, there's many places in scripture where we're told
to actually identify the fool, and it is appropriate to
call people fools. In fact, most of the Church Fathers,
when dealing with persistent, obstinate heretics, call them demons, idiots, morons, devils, dogs, morons,
et cetera, over and over and over. This is a
common refrain. Saint Cyril. Saint Cyril Jerusalem says in the
Catechetical Lectures that all heretics should be hated. They should
be loathed for their system and for their error and
for their theology. Again, does that mean that we can't also,
at the same time love them. No, it is possible.
It is possible to have disdain for someone and at
the same time love them, wanting the best for them.
But sometimes what's best for people, especially exceedingly wicked frauds
like Bishop Tilda Swinton, they should be publicly called out
and rebuked, And that's the only thing. It's amazing actually
to me that that's the only thing that he could
find to call me out on. Now, there's nobody worse
at this than scam chemou. Is he gonna apply this
to his own Catholic apologetic buddy, I'm assuming that other
buddies in the sense of the same church, his own
ally in Catholicism, scam chamou Or is this only selectively
applied when trend decides that you could say the F
word when it's Stephen Colbert in a joke setting against
an atheist or something like that, you can't say it
against another person. Okay, So he's interjecting his arbitrary standards
to justify his own moral stance. And this whole thing
is about his moral position, why he's moral, and nobody
else matches his morality. That's the problem here, is that
the debate has shifted away from the issues and the
topics into piety signaling. And once you're there, that's you
on the ropes. That's the last legs of the defense
of your system, because you've got nothing else to come
at in terms of the system. You can only come
after the perceived moral infractions and why you're morally superior.
That's why we've seen the last couple of days just
a flood of Roman Catholic bots pidi signaling like crazy.
Why my thesis is they are concerned about the attachments
of Epstein to John Paul the second and the Vatican.
Why is that such a big deal if it calls
into question the sanctity of John Paul the second. And
that's the key point here is that Epstein identified himself
as getting special gifts, particularly architectural novelties, from a John
Paul the second, And because associates and allies of Epstein
say in the emails that Epstein spent significant time at
the Vatican, and because we do have vindication of Epstein
being blessed at the Vatican during that time period, this
means that the sanctity of John Paul the Second would
obviously be in question, and that means that sainthood in
the Roman Catholic system would fall apart. That means Roman
Catholic dogma would fall apart. Because sainthood is part of
the ordinary universal magisterium.
Speaker 2: As the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly
to everyone. An apt teacher forbearing correcting his opponents with gentleness. Now,
if I were to just tell people all of this
without citing scripture, they'd probably say I was effeminately tone
policing them. So I appreciate when Nick Fuentes admits he
thinks this way about the Bible itself.
Speaker 1: Rod twenty dollars.
Speaker 2: Those nerds in sixteen forget Bibical masculinity involve Samson killing
a hundred people, David killing a giant, and Jesus winning people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they forgot that.
Speaker 8: They worked out the Bible. They did deadlifts, and they's
rights and.
Speaker 1: They beat people up.
Speaker 8: Biblical masculinity is based let's just be honest.
Speaker 1: Biblical masculine. Oh wait, I'm not seeing a lot of
Nick point this in a while. But that's funny that.
I guess I'm not the only person that does a
retard voice. But I'm sure Trent would call out that
it's mean to say the word retard.
Speaker 8: The Bible tells men to be feminine, Like, let's be honest,
let's just be honest. Typical twenty dollars. Hey, Nick, let's
not cope about it. The Bible is not a story
of like men being jacked and going to the gym.
Speaker 2: But that's only true if you think masculinity is raw
power that doesn't give an f about anything, instead of
seeing true masculinity is controlled strength that submits to God
impatiently endoor his heart.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but your own church. Prior to the nineteen sixties,
in Vatican two, Trent did not teach that first wave
feminism was an acceptable Roman Catholic masculinity or femininity. In fact,
pre Vatican two teaching actually says what Tim Gordon says,
which is that the role of women is to not
at all supplant the role of men, and that includes
gender dysphoria of thinking that women should in any way
predominantly be in masculine roles. Now, I don't necessarily agree
with every single point of Tim Gordon, but Tim Gordon
is way more correct in Catholic teaching and Catholic theology
traditionally speaking, than what Trent Horn is pushing. But Trent
Horn is a modern neo Catholic that absolutely supports all
of the Vatican two nonsense that he has to, and
so it only makes sense that he would support two
days Vatican, which tends towards skittles and gay feminist theology.
Speaker 2: First Corinthian sixteen thirteen. Paul even says to be strong
and Andrithas say, literally act like men, because men are
the standard of strength.
Speaker 6: And so those people to me are like the lowest
of the low or the low.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you want specific names.
Speaker 1: Specific names, if you're comfortable saying who are some of them?
Speaker 6: So I would say people like Lilah Rose, Representatives like
Lila Rose. I would even say, you know, reps like
Trent Horn, people like this. These are people who they
themselves may not necessarily levy the criticism directly, but it's
the influence that they have over the various audiences that
they have that then go and direct these criticisms towards you.
Speaker 1: Got it, And this is correct because this is the
same critique that Tim Gordon makes of all of these
same Catholics. And I don't have to necessarily agree with
every single position of Tim were I'll give an example.
I disagree. Tim thinks that Proverbs thirty one is like
uniquely some sort of Hebrew Jewish queen text and it
only applies to Jewish queens. No, it's a pattern, I
would say for the godly woman. It's not just for
Hebrew queens. So I disagree with Tim on that point
as an example, and so it's not necessarily wrong in
my view for a woman to do a side job,
or if she can not at the expense of the children,
if she wants to have a part time job or
something like that. Again, that doesn't jeopardize the household or
the man in that relationship first and foremost, or the
children first and foremost right. So that's one area of
minor disagreement I would have with Tim Gordon. But in
the main, when it comes to the Roman Catholic system,
you have to keep in mind Trent doesn't seem to
be aware that pre Vatican two popes already spoke on this.
They already talked about at the time of the suffrage movement,
the problems of suffragism and why suffragette ideology coming out
of the French Revolution is just an older form of
liberalism that today's conservatives think is a concert a position.
Just like the people that defend democracy and last year's
you know, like the Democrats and the Republicans, right, we
talked about this, the GOP is defending, you know, the
liberalism of twenty years ago. The Democratic Party has now conservatism. Well,
guess what the tradcat apologists are defending the liberalism of
the French Revolution as traditional Catholic conservative values. That's how
ignorant these people actually are. Though I never Tim has
multiple places and examples where he goes through those older
papal minds and people quotes. I don't even care to
do that. It's boring to me. I used to do that.
I used to live that world. But there are multiple
pre vaticant to papal teachings on the appropriate role of
men and women and why suffragette nonsense is an earlier
version of feminism. That is, by the way, what Trent
Horn openly defends. He says he's a male femin But
Rachel Wilson is absolutely correct in her book A called Feminism,
where she says you could not have today's trends without
all the waves of feminism, including the first one. Even
the first one was an intentional social revolution to upend
male female dynamics. And as Tim has hammered home and
as Lyla Rose and these other people like Tim Trent
Horne don't get, is feminism is the original gender dys
for you, not because it's teaching the Tierra and z
stuff explicitly, but because it's beginning to plant the seeds
of women taking the role of men and men taking
a step back. Hands off, let the women, let the
slag queens do their shit.
Speaker 6: Bro or actually see these people in the arena debating
these social issues with anybody. They'll do abortion, debate things
like this, but I never see them surrounded with a
panel of like the worst degenerates on earth, debating all
of their worldview simultaneously. But they have tons of criticisms
for people who do, and I'm like.
Speaker 1: Well, where are you now.
Speaker 2: I'm sympathetic to some of Andrew's criticism. For example, I'll
get people who criticize how I debate non Catholics like
Gavin Ortland or Alex O'Connor and say I'm too nice
or I'm not blunt enough, to which I say, Okay,
then why don't you debate the best defenders of Protestantism
or atheism and show us how it's done.
Speaker 1: By the way, I've tried that, and Alex O'Connor, funny enough,
will not debate me and decline to debate me on
more than one occasion, but he will debate Trent Horn?
What does that tell you? That tells you that there
are certain people that they're so soft that they're not
afraid to debate with. But everybody knows that they will
not debate me, including Trent Horne, who won't do a
new debate with me. You blocked him so he could
he debate you. I blocked him because he already said
months ago he won't debate, and I have no interest
in interacting with him anymore.
Speaker 2: That's one Andrew's criticism is Simil, don't critique how I
engage people unless you're willing to engage them yourself. But
I don't see how this criticism applies to me. In particular,
I used to do debates surrounded by college students, and
now I focus on just engaging the best defenders of
other worldviews in one on one debates.
Speaker 1: But Trent, you just said in your previous video that
you don't like debates anymore. So are you going to
do debates or are you not going to do debates?
And why would you not debate the position that I've
been hammering for several years now, which is causing quite
a few people to leave your church. In fact, I'll
show you comments of people saying that they are now
leaving the Roman Catholic Church because of the arguments that
we're making, including the geopolitical arguments. Why do none of
the Roman Catholics want to address this issue? And you
can keep pretending that, oh, it's a dumb argument. I
don't want to listen to a good keep pretending that,
because that's not going to keep people in the Roman
Catholic Church, I assure you, nor will the constant piety
signaling in moral signaling that will keep the lowest to
your peace people there. But maybe that's what you want.
Speaker 2: I've applied to beyond Jubilee, and I'm open to being
on panels with hostile opponents, but I don't want to
engage in a fruitless shouting match. I'm also not sure
if I want to do something like a whatever podcast discussion,
because one of its main effects is just giving free
publicity to OnlyFans pornographers. Though it can be a good
place to evangelize these people. But even in environments like
the whatever podcasts or Jubilee, there are political Christians like
Charlie Kirk or Michael Knowles who have done well without
resorting to the more aggressive tactics that Andrew Wilson uses.
Speaker 6: And where are you, by the way, when anybody wants
to debate you on why it is that you're so
inactive when it comes to the culture war and social issues, right,
they turn all that stuff down. They refuse to argue
with the red pillars, They refuse to argue with any
of these people. They literally just refuse to engage. Tons
of criticisms, absolute refusal to engage when it comes.
Speaker 1: And the same thing applies to the apologetics domain from
this whole crowd of moral piety signalers. Yes, Trent did
a debate with me five or six years ago, but
he won't do it again. And what has been the
constant refrain and the excuse, Oh, he's too mean, he's
too mean, he's too mean again, an effeminate excuse to
not debate when we've already shown that in a formal setting,
I can absolutely be civil to you and we can
have no meanness. There was no meanness in the debate
that I had with Trent Horn, so he knows that
there was. There's no there's no infallible necessity to me
being mean to him. And imagine even being at this
stage where actual men in the public sphere are saying
they won't engage in a debate because people are mean.
This is so fake and gay Just that alone is fake.
Speaker 2: And gay a culture war issues. I'm not sure what
Andrew means. I did a discussion with alex A playing
with Fire on premarital sex, which is fruitful. And I
debated Pearl on men in marriage, which felt like banging
my head against a wall.
Speaker 9: And how do you think a man should approach the
subject of headship.
Speaker 1: In their marriage? What does that mean?
Speaker 3: I think it's more that women should be obedient to
their husbands and all things.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with, Trent, though, as long as it's rational.
Speaker 3: I see a lot of women weaponize that.
Speaker 9: But yeah, just as husbands should correct their wives if
they have a really bad idea that could hurt the marriage,
wives have that same role because husbands sometimes get pretty
bad ideas that could be hard haul. Yeah, but who
determines it the human brain in the marriage?
Speaker 8: Yes, so the men.
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 2: And in this debate, we know which side is the
more rational one?
Speaker 1: Right in our message, Trent thought that was an own. No, Trent,
I don't think you understood that. Actually, wasn't an own
like whatever you think of Pearl, Pearl was correct in
that statement, in your attempt to try to equalize the
idea of headship, which is this equalitarian position that many
Roman Catholics take that Tim Gordon h is so behement
to oppose. I mean, bro, did you not catch that? Now? Again?
Roman Catholics said, Jay, you clipped Trent? You clip Trent H?
What has Trent done throughout this whole video? Oh? Eclips
ten twenty second clips of people? So I'm confused. Is
it dishonest to clip people? Or is it actually okay?
Because many many Roman Catholics went after me for my
short calling out Trent saying that the way that we
know Catholic dogma is when it's manifestly evident. They said, well,
you shouldn't clip him. This is so dishonest. Trent is clipping?
What do you mean change?
Speaker 2: Andrews said that Christian apologists don't focus on dating culture,
world affairs, policy, politics, and prescriptions. Well, in many cases
that's because our own audience and critics tell us to
stay in our