Strange New Religions with Jay Dyer

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Thank you.
I love how dramatic they makeit.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Do they do this in Orthodoxy Jay?
Do you?
Guys have magic hands.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
Move over Benny Hand.
There's a young stud in townRight.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
We like to get Jay Dyer on from time to time.
He's the leader of AmericanByzantianity.
I'm your resident heretic.
My friend Antonius calls itByzantianity.
It's pretty funny.
But no, dude, you tweetedsomething out the other day.
It was like a video of someweird occult thing and you were

(01:33):
like this is really gainingtraction.
I should have talked to youabout this beforehand, but I
pulled a couple of videos ofjust this weird.
Like Jim Brewer had this guy onthe other day and everybody's
passing around the clip wherethey talk about Chappelle and
Brewer's like you know, theyclone Chappelle essentially is
what he's.
It sounds like that's what he'ssuggesting.

(01:53):
He's suggesting that Chappellegot a talk from a group of
people and then he disappearedand went to Africa and then when
he came back he was a totallydifferent person and he got
jacked and all this stuff and hesounds like he was suggesting
that the guy got cloned.
And I figured you were probablythe right person to talk about
this, because I hear about thiskind of stuff a lot, with
celebrities getting cloned.

(02:13):
Is there anything to this?

Speaker 4 (02:16):
I don't believe in celebrity cloning.
I mean, the closest thing maybeto that would be that you know
there have been body doubles forfamous people.
You know what I mean.
Like we've seen presidents andworld leaders have body doubles,
that's well, like putin's gotone.
I know that they did.
If there was two bin ladens,there was a um.

(02:37):
They made a movie about saddamhussein's body double.
Do Do you remember that?
There's only two.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
I do remember that.

Speaker 4 (02:45):
So I mean that seems likely in in some cases.
If you're a superstar, like youknow, maybe Tom Coon has a body
double, but I just to me itlooks like you know people age
they get plastic surgery.
Uh, you know, maybe they're ondrugs and they get.
I'm not talking about Chappelle, but I'm saying like people get
on drugs and they theirappearance changes.

Speaker 3 (03:07):
I saw a new Kim Kardashian came out.
Today Somebody posted a videoof the new Kim Kardashian.
She just looks like she got abunch of plastic surgery.
She looks like a bit of analien.

Speaker 4 (03:15):
These people are.
I'm a skeptic on cloning too,like I don't even I'm not sure
yeah yeah, do you think it'ssupposed?
To convince me that there iscloning, like the fact that
somebody says that dolly is aclone sheep.
Well, I have no way to verifythat and they'll say that a
clone is.
I mean they could just.
I mean, science lies all thetime anyway, right, mainstream.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
So yeah, we got it.
We got a few things we couldcover.
So, yeah, so that uh brewer hasthat guy on and everybody's
passing that clip around, butthe majority of the interview
was this insane nonsense thatthis guy was talking about.
It had to do with likeetymology and stuff.
Rob, let's play the TikTokvideo first I hate that so much

(03:55):
and then we'll get into it.
The guy's name is like 777Truth or something, but it's so
absurd and I have no idea wherethe hell this stuff came from.
It seems just total gnosticnonsense.
I don't know glory.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
Be to god, welcome hell.
Come to evil.
Lucian love illusion.
To go backwards would be todevolution Devolve To devolop,
to devolop.
What does that mean?

(04:30):
State in that's a state in astation that's set?

Speaker 4 (04:38):
in.
That's ethereum, that'sethereum Seth.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
Dude, you could do this.
Heck, yeah, man, you couldliterally do this.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
Everybody can do it as the dragon of Eton.
If you're eating Eton.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
He's just making things up.
I don't get a word for this.
You want the other minute ofthis, Anton?
No, I don't know.
There's a word for thisaffection talking.

Speaker 5 (05:05):
You want the other minute of this answer no I don't
know what is.

Speaker 4 (05:07):
There is like there's a word for this, it's called
schizophrenia.
Yes, this is how skits thosethings.
I just covered this and uh, ifyou read through the looking
glass, the lewis carroll novelwe just did a breakdown of, uh,
the whole book there's a lot ofwordplay and in Wonderland or in
the looking glass world,everything has this sort of

(05:28):
weird reality.
When you, when you play theseword games so when Alice talks
about you know portmanteaus orthese weird you know double
entendres or words havingdifferent senses it like makes
it real and through the lookingglass world.
So basically, these people arethinking the way that you know,
like and and through the lookingglass world.
So basically, these people arethinking the way that you know,
like they're in the lookingglass world this guy.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
I want, I want to, okay.
So brewer is an interesting guybecause a couple months ago he
comes out and he starts talkingagainst like the covid
restrictions and stuff and hestarts talking about god a
little bit and he talks abouthow god saved his marriage, his
wife's, uh, you know, born againchristian.
But he starts talking about Goda little bit and he talks about
how God saved his marriage, hiswife's, you know, born again
Christian.
But he starts hinting that,like you know, my wife's a

(06:10):
little crazy with this Jesusstuff, I don't really know.
And now he kind of talks aboutGod in this esoteric, gnostic
way.
And so if you actually go to theBrewer clip, rob, you you can
see, like this is this stuff ispicking up some kind of like
steam.

(06:30):
It's to me it just seems likejust do the one with actual
brewer there, yeah.
But it seems to me, likeeverybody, like the
enlightenment's coming to an end, people can see that there's
something more to stuff.
But they want some kind ofspirituality, but anything that
that doesn't put any moraldemands on them, like it's just
anything but christianity, likereal christianity not.

(06:51):
You know, I believe in jesusand I have to not worry about my
, my sins anymore, because youknow there's no responsibility
with being a christian.
Just believe in faith alone.
So yeah, let's, let's just jumpto the brewer clip real quick
and just see where he goes withit.
This other slavery, these otherwords, these other.
You know, we need to wake up,we need to go to school, we need
to dress.
You need to do that.

Speaker 5 (07:13):
Where every single, every single thing and this will
be hard for people tounderstand you can ask me a
question Every single thing in aphysical reality, whether a
parallel universe, a paralleluniverse, it doesn't matter how
far you want to go in space andtime.
If it's governed by anything,time, that's Saturn, satan.
If it's not Satan or Saturn,it's another word they're using.
It's just time.
Time consumes everything.

(07:34):
I don't care about nobody'sopinion.
After time you have a spirit.
The spirit lives forever.
That's God.
So everything that's physicalcame from fallen angels, point
blank, period.
So we are created from fallenangels.
There's a hierarchy that theycame from and they physically
cut off a DNA strand to falldown.
It's not like they're up or down, it's within.

(07:54):
Is this Kabbalah Directions?
They've cut off a DNA strandthey have literally fallen.

Speaker 4 (08:03):
Kabbalah is the by Gnosticism.
If you read Gershom Scholem'sbook, he says that really
Kabbalah is just a way torepackage Gnosticism for Judaic
mysticism, so they're kind ofthe same.
But yeah, you're absolutelyright, this is just straight up
Gnostic stuff.
So I think the conspiracy worldthere's always that danger

(08:27):
where you start to questionthings and then you question
everything.
So, because you're lied to,right, you then think, well,
maybe I'm lied to abouteverything, and then maybe
everything is a lie and so maybereality itself is a lie and
then you're at the point of likethis whole world is an illusion
.
I was by an archon, um, youknow, it kind of goes off into
the david uh world view, whichis not true how do?

Speaker 3 (08:51):
oh man, because it just it's.
It's kind of everywhere.
You see, even the, even thesymbolism in the rainbow
movement, everything.
Like they're trying to uselanguage for trans, like it's
like trans is sacred, thingslike that.
Like you just see religionpopping up everywhere, but it's

(09:11):
with the collapse ofchristianity and civilization I
don't know what comes next.
Like what do you think happenswith this election this year?

Speaker 4 (09:21):
I have no idea.
I mean, I, I think that'regoing to.
I think last time we weretalking about them throwing out
all the stops to, to derailthings.
You know we talked about Ithink that Obama produced movie
yeah, leave the world behind,which you know has a scenario of
some something apocalyptic.
I just went and saw the newAlex Garland movie, civil War,

(09:44):
which is not at all what youthink it is.
You think it's a movie about anactual, you know, apocalyptic
scenario in America, like theObama movie.
It's not that at all.
It's very bizarre.
It's more of an arthouse film,which is not what the trailer
makes you think it is, butnevertheless it's still very
much about this theme of the endof america, the end of this, of

(10:04):
this, uh, nation, thecivilization.
Um, so, for whatever reason,they really want to keep
perpetuating this notion of theend of an aeon, the end of an
era, uh, probably to helptransition us into, you know,
the next phase of the greatreset or whatever.
So I, I don't know like what itdoes?

Speaker 3 (10:23):
It does feel like we're coming to the end of
something, right?
I mean, it definitely has thatfeel to it.
And even the flooding ofmigrants thing and the allusions
to war, kind of like this fogof war stuff that's going on,
these little kind of just theseeds they've been planting over

(10:43):
the last few years, it just.
And then, on top of that, Istill don't understand people
who are so convinced 2020 wasstolen but think that this
election is going to work out OK.
I don't get that.

Speaker 4 (10:54):
Yeah, roger Stone had a good article back in 2016
about the specific strategiesand even, like some of the
people involved in foreign CIAoperations and coups, how they
would rig elections, andpointing out that they were
involved in his view at thattime.
So, yeah, I mean I'm surethey're going to pull out all
the stops.

(11:15):
You know, I think it wasn'teven Dr Phil talking about a new
pandemic.
So I mean it's getting so crazythat you know, dr Phil, get
ready for a new pandemic, y'allneed to be prepared.
So I mean it's getting so crazythat you know Dr Phil, get
ready for a new pandemic, y'allneed to be prepared.
So I mean we're at Dr Phil'snow Alex Jones level stuff.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
What's funny about Dr Phil is that this guy because
conservatives are so cringe man,it's like this is a guy who's
essentially a leftist his wholelife, and then all of a sudden
he comes out and he sayssomething, something against
transgenderism, and then youhave the whole conservative
world holding this guy up.
Look, look, dr phil's our newconservative right, so they do

(11:52):
bill maher too.
Yeah, which is so bizarre to me.
Man like so when you're allright.
So you still do the fourth hourand alex jones, right?
How do you go about planningthat?

Speaker 4 (12:03):
I don't plan it, I never do you really just go on
and wing it now you just gaveanthony more, more you can ask
jamie, she's always like whatare you going to talk about?
I'm like I don't know.
She'd be asking me like fiveminutes before.
I'm like I'm not sure yet.
So I kind of just like I'll bataround a few ideas in my head
and then I'll just spit it out.
I'm dead serious.

Speaker 3 (12:26):
We had Trent Horn and Joshua Charles on the other
night.
We were talking abouttranshumanism.
We were just talking about theway technology has been kind of.
Joshua was saying he thinkstranshumanism is almost
inevitable because of the trendsthat are going.
They keep telling us it's goingto happen, but how do you think

(12:49):
this whole thing's going tounfold like?

Speaker 4 (12:52):
yeah, I mean, well, that's interesting, because I I
mean that sounds a little tooconspiratorial for trent.
Trent tends to, I think, shyaway from anything perceived as
conspiratorial.
So I'm I didn't get to see yourshow, I I'm curious what his
comments were.
But then I guess, on top ofthat, the question would be you
know what exactly counts, causetranshumanists always say don't

(13:14):
you like wearing spectacles?
Isn't that just transhumanism.
Well, that's different thansignificant modifications to the
human being.
Okay, so wearing glasses oreven having a prosthetic arm and
there's nothing wrong withthose things.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
That's correcting something disordered.

Speaker 4 (13:32):
Yeah, and they'll leap from that to say well then,
therefore, man.
They'll talk about theplasticity of humanity.
Man is not a real.
There's no essential nature,there's no essences, so man is
just sort of silly putty thatcan be molded into whatever.
And I think that's thepresupposition of most of the
transhumanists is that there'sno such thing as man, there's no

(13:53):
such thing as essences orsubstances, so man can evolve
into, you know, some sort ofcyborg or some sort of hybrid,
and ultimately, transhumanism isGnostic.
Going back to the conspiracyidiots that we were talking
about, I'm not talking about JimBrewer.
I like Jim Brewer because we'veactually had a few DMs.
I'm trying to get him to do apodcast.

Speaker 3 (14:13):
I like him too.
I can talk about the Gnosticstuff.
This was the first show I saw,because I always thought he's
been on several shows where hetalked about God and I was like,
oh, this is awesome, you know,like hearing somebody talk about
.

Speaker 4 (14:26):
God.
Then he had this guy on.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
And I'm like what the hell is this?

Speaker 4 (14:30):
Yeah, I mean that's the thing, right.
The conspiracy world can alwaystip over into, you know,
gnostic stuff, typically withfallacies.
And if you think about whatfallacies I've been talking
about this a lot lately We'll goback to the transhumanist,
which is basically just Gnostic.
I mean ultimately thetranshumanist to put a cap on,
that is the idea that we'regoing to transcend the body and

(14:52):
sort of be in the cloud orwhatever.
That's totally Gnostic.
So we're right back atGnosticism with the end goal of
most transhumanists, but theGnostic stuff with, in terms of,
like the word concept, fallacyor whatever.
They're always playing theseword games.
Like you know, jordan Maxwellis a lot of this comes from him.
So he was a really popular lastgeneration boomer conspiracy

(15:14):
theory dude, really popular inthe 80s and 90s, and he, his
whole thing was a lot of theseword games and wordplay Right,
was a lot of these word gamesand word play right.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
So he would have these lectures where he'd say
and he talks like this and hesays if you understand admiralty
law, you're raised underadmiralty law and you are like
the birth of a ship, becauseyour mother gives birth to you.
A ship is in water.

(15:44):
You come out of your mother'swomb through water.
Therefore, you are owned by thestate.

Speaker 4 (15:51):
He was always playing these word games and all the
conspiracy theorists.
Like that dude, the youngerthey're just mimicking him, so
he's like the granddaddy of thisridiculous word concept fallacy
.
Maybe one more example therewas a dude who came on to debate
this was one of the wildestones that I've seen yet and it
has to do with lack of education.
So a big part of what's goingon you're talking about this

(16:13):
collapse, people making theseridiculous mistakes, it's not
having basic education.
That remember through thelooking glass that's like kids
reading.
This is books that kids aresupposed to read.
With wordplay there's actuallyquite a bit of sophisticated
logic and you know grammar andand predicate subject that
there's.
There's lessons in the book.

(16:33):
That's the purpose of it invictorian england.
You know the pedagogy at thattime and so you've got people
who don't know any of this.
And this guy came on the streamand he was trying to debate and
he said I've written a wholebook and I figured out the
solution.
Everybody in the West isworshiping a demon and I'm like,
how could everybody in the West?

(16:54):
He says because you worship God.
I'm like, well, god's not ademon.
How can we all be worshiping ademon?
He says because if you look inIsaiah.
It says one of the demonscalled Fortune is God, g-a-d.
He says what does that soundlike?
God?
We're all worshiping the demonGod and I'm like.
First of all, an A and an O aredifferent and you know that's

(17:17):
an English transliteration.
God is from Theos and that hasnothing to do with Gad a demon,
and so they literally think thatlike the phonetics is words,
that like casting a spell sowell that that brings us to the
title of the video.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
You must call him yeshua, like yeah, what is that
whole thing?
Is that just messianic jews whoare?
I don't understand, becauseevery once in a while you'll
come across somebody on Twitterand they'll use Yeshua and come
down on you for using the Greekor the Roman pronunciation of
Jesus.

Speaker 4 (17:53):
Yeah, it's kind of a superstition.
I think there was a risingpopularity in the late 1800s,
early 1900s of what would becomethe Hebrew roots movement, so
what you're talking about.
That's flourished and kind ofinfluenced all these different
sects, whether it's so, brysonis not black Hebrew Israelite,

(18:14):
he's a Hebrew roots, so he's anAryan.
He doesn't actually have agroup.
He says he's part of some groupthat I don't think has any like
meeting place, but he's anAryan Hebrew roots person who is
not black Hebrew Israelite.
Black Hebrew Israelite isanother its own weird thing.
But they all relate back tothis thing you're talking about

(18:35):
with we've got to use the nameYeshua.
It's a weird, just superstitiousthing that began, you know,
kind of late 1800s with some ofthese people thinking that the
purest form of Christianity mustbe, you know, before the church
expanded to the Gentiles.
It must be like Acts 1 to 10,right?

(18:56):
Because once Cornelius came init started getting too Gentile,
right?
So if we go back to that pureJudaicaic era of the church,
which is a real fundamentalmisunderstanding of redemptive
history, I mean there's there'simportant things that happen
after acts 10, right, yeah, Imean acts 15, the judaizers
coming in, the whole settling ofthe cult, for example, apostasy

(19:21):
.
so it's a really fundamental,weird misunderstanding too.
It's kind of like, you know,protestants thought, for example
, the Reformation, we're goingto get back to the pure church,
we'll go back to, you know, thefirst, second, third, pure
Christianity, before all theaccretions like Gavin Ortlund

(19:41):
talks about, right, Well, Ithink this is a variation of
that, where they thought, well,if we want to be true
protestants, to get back to thepure, pure pure church, we got
to go back to, like, you know,acts two and pentecost and you
know preaching and talking, youknow, in hebrew or aramaic or
whatever they think they'retalking anyway.
Um, yeah, it's just kind of asuperstitious thing, I think
that, uh, I mean, the oldtestament says many, many times

(20:03):
over that the covenant would beopen to the Gentiles.
Isaiah says there will beGentile priests, but I think
these people have no conceptionof any of that.

Speaker 3 (20:12):
Yeah, malachi.
It says a pure offering will beoffered throughout the world.
Things like that.
There's a whole bunch of placeslike that.
Does Bryson Gray actuallybelong to a sect or is he just
grabbing the Bible, reading it?
Because I was arguing withsomebody the other day and I
said soul scriptor is probablythe most evil heresy to ever
come out of church historybecause it really made yeah, it

(20:35):
nothing else fractured thechurch more than that.
It made it so that there'swasn't just a sect came about,
it's thousands and thousands andthousands of sexes.
Everybody grabs the bible, theyread it for themselves and they
interpret how they want andthey call each other heretics.
The only thing you will agreeon is that the, the traditional
forms of christianity are wrong,and that's it I would agree, I
think, if you tried to pick outthe root error.

Speaker 4 (20:57):
and it's odd too, because in the trent horn debate
with james white, he got jameswhite to admit that they weren't
operating on the principle ofsola scriptura for the first
four centuries or whatever headmitted.
That seems like an oddadmission for a person that's
been arguing for sola scripturafor so long.
It was a great admission.
I'm glad he admitted that.
But I think that speaks to yourpoint that, yeah, even before

(21:20):
errors like sola fide or errors,you know, relating to whatever
else you want to point out inthe reformation, iconoclasm or
whatever, there's a morefundamental error of thinking
that you know, the limitation ofrevelation is only to this
arbitrary written collection ofProtestant decided texts, right?

(21:42):
And then there's anotherassumption I think goes along
with that that we often miss,which is the assumption that
texts are self-interpreting.
No, I mean, why do you thinkthe Constitution has a Supreme
Court to interpret it, toenforce an interpretation?
Right, it doesn't make sense tothink of texts.
And this is always whatProtestants say.

(22:04):
You know, even James White saysstuff like well, they talk
about the perspicuity ofScripture and there might be
some verses that are perspicuousor clear.
But there are many that aren't.
And the Scriptures themselveseven say Peter says Paul has
written many things that aredifficult to understand at the
ignorant, unstable.
Twist so clearly not all theScriptures are clear.
Twist so clearly not all thescriptures are clear.

(22:29):
And the idea that the texts saywhat they mean and mean what
they say is a really naive, kindof dumb view of how
interpretation and texts work.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
Especially because people operating under that
whole presupposition, none ofthem really use typology ever.
None of them ever see Jesus asthe new Moses.
None of them ever really seethe unfolding of covenants
throughout Scripture.
It's all just a paradigm oftaking about six or seven verses

(22:59):
from Scripture that all have todo with penal substitution,
substitution and uh, uh, youknow, uh, being saved by grace
through faith, and they add theword alone into it, and then you
wind up just getting thisfracturing where, as long as
what they'll call fundamentals,which are kind of ridiculous,
because I don't even think anyof them agree on what the

(23:21):
fundamentals are.

Speaker 4 (23:22):
It's a weird thing yeah, literally, uh, go ahead no
no, no, you gotta jump in godyeah, I totally agree there.
I think, um, I remember when Iwas a protestant encountering
this issue, I was studying atboston seminary and we I took a
hermeneutics class and bostonwas teaching hermeneutics and
eisegesis and he was alwaysstressing the grammatical,

(23:45):
historical, literal level, andthere was a controversy that was
happening at that time in theReformed world between him and a
guy named James Jordan and someother people who were stressing
that hey, wait a minute, thetraditional interpretation of
the church fathers isn't limitedto, and doesn't only focus on,
the grammatical, historicalsense of the text, and they were

(24:06):
moving towards typology, movingtowards allegory, moving
towards anagogy, all thedifferent things that we call,
you know, the four senses, right?
So James Jordan wrote thesebooks that the other reform
people were getting mad about,and I was moving more and more
in that direction of typologyback at that time, and so it
ended up being kind of a thingwe had a falling out over in

(24:28):
terms of the Bonson circles andthis, you know, to me over time
it became really clear that well, wait a minute, you look at the
New Testament, the way theapostles interpret the Old
Testament.
They're the ones constantlydoing typology.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
So that's the apostolic hermeneutical lens is
you see peter referencing theflood, talking about baptism.
You see paul calling christ thenew adam.

Speaker 4 (24:53):
Like you really do see them explaining scripture in
that way and I brought this upto a couple of protestant
professors I had, and theirresponse at that time was
something like oh, and this iswhat protest especially reformed
protestants.
They always do this.
They'll say oh well, those arethe only cases that you can do
it, because the apostles arelimiting you in their examples.

Speaker 3 (25:12):
So in other words, they're not giving you.
Someone said that to me.
So, man, it's so frustratingsometimes because I was.
I was showing some.
I'm like, ok, the.
He's telling me, no, the bible.
I'm like, okay, well, the bibleactually tells us how you just
how you solve disputes in thechurch.
When you just look at acts 15,you see the council of jerusalem

(25:33):
is called.
So you obviously call a counciland that is how you solve these
disputes and this is whathappens in the early church and
that's how you get some of thesedifferent things.
Well, no, we didn't have the.
The canon of scripture wasstill being written at that time
.
But now that's the the solerule of it.
I'm like, where does it saythat in the Bible?
It's amazing.

Speaker 4 (25:53):
Where does the Bible say, by the way, that the only
uses of typology are thespecific ones used by the
apostles in the new Testament?
It's arbitrary, yeah, itdoesn't say that.
So they're always interjectingsort of arbitrary rules.
And to bring it up to thereformation, it actually mirrors
what happened in thereformation with the dispute
that I had with uh one of theprofessors at the time.

(26:14):
Um, because if you look at theway that the humanist movement
which was influencing uh, bothprotestants and catholics, so
that is in itself that's not abad thing.
When I'm not talking aboutsecular humanism, humanism was
was a movement to go back to theoriginal sources of the Greek
and the Latin.
It was very popular amongstpeople like Erasmus and John

(26:35):
Calvin, other reformers.
So it was a Catholic andProtestant academic movement.
But when the reformers took onthe humanist move, they decided
well, this means when we go backto the original Greek, hebrew
text or whatever, we're going tostress the grammatical,
historical level ofinterpretation and not do any of

(26:59):
the other typological stuff.
So they arbitrarily limitedtheir approach because sometimes
the Catholic opponents or theinterlocutors of the Protestants
would appeal to typologies.
They saw this as a way to sortof cut off any typological
argumentation, and you can seeit.
For example, if you read thedebate between Eck and Luther,

(27:19):
which is a great debate.
This actually comes up thetypology and this kind of stuff.
And Luther who does?
He's more typological thanCalvin, but you know he says
something like well, I justdon't accept any of your
typology arguments.

Speaker 3 (27:34):
It's weird because for me, Christianity didn't
become real until I saw typology.
It's like when it's like the.
Bible came alive.
For me when I started seeing itwas like this story is so
complex that it could never havebeen written by a human mind
like that, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (27:54):
I wrote an essay some years back.
I'm sorry I'm going to cut youoff.
Uh, just pointing out thattypology actually isn't
apologetic 100%.

Speaker 3 (28:01):
I did article on that , yeah, so, all right, so, all
right.
So, guys, what we're going tostart doing is we're going to
start getting into some.
All right, we're not going todebate, because I honestly don't
.
I've never looked intoorthodoxy enough to even know
the orthodox.
Um, uh, like arguments againstCatholicism.
I'm just a fricking RomanCatholic, like I'm.

(28:22):
That's just my DNA, I'm, youknow so.
But you and I got into uh, notthat we didn't get into
something I called mary themediatrix of all graces the
other day.
Now, that's not a catholicdogma, uh, but you called me out
and said, um, okay, so is sheit?
Would she be the mediatrix ofall graces before the
incarnation?
And at first I was like, well,maybe they're posting carnation,

(28:45):
but no, like all grace.
It's really like when we havefather maudsley on, it's like
it's crucifixion to creation,not creation to crucifixion,
like create.
Like the crucifixion was theoriginal plan, it's not like the
crucifixion was a plan b.
So would you, as an orthodox,have an issue calling mary the
mediatrix of all graces intheory, not as dogma or anything

(29:09):
like that?

Speaker 4 (29:09):
like well, first thing I would say is uh, I don't
know if I would say thecrucifixion was the plan per se,
because I think the incarnationwas always the plan.
And this is the view that yousee in the in the eastern
fathers they always stress thisidea that, um, you know, adam
being created in the garden iscreated, yes, in the image of

(29:31):
the Trinity, but alsospecifically in the image of
Christ, and so Adam is a Christ.
The reason Adam is aChristological type in First
Corinthians 15 is because he'smade in the image of Christ, the
logos in the garden.
So for us that kind of assumesthat creation itself is a
theophany.
It's a Christophany for us asOrthodox, and that's in the

(29:55):
Roman Catholic world,franciscans and maybe Scotus.
But Franciscans are pretty muchon the same page with the
Eastern Church.
On that perspective of theincarnation not being a plan B,
I would say, in god'sforeknowledge, yes, he, he
certainly foreknew that the lambwould be slain before the

(30:15):
foundation of the world, but Iwouldn't include the necessarily
evil or anything like thatunder the divine decree.
That would be moving in thedirection of calvinism.
I know you're not saying that,but I wanted to be clear about
specificity, about that theincarnation was always the plan,
because we think it was alwaysthe plan to deify man.

(30:36):
Even had there not been a fall,god still would have been
wanting to raise man up togreater and greater heights, so
to speak.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
So you guys would call that theosis, we would
probably call that divinization,correct?
Yeah, one difference therewould be that we believe that
it's kind of a never-ending upinto God.

Speaker 4 (31:00):
I don't know if the right word, we would say the
beatific vision or something.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
Yeah, but yeah.

Speaker 4 (31:03):
Yeah, anyway.
So I don't know that the phraseitself, because I mean, if
she's the new Eve, which she is,st Ernest says that she's the
new Eve.
She acquiesces where Eve failed.
So she's the new Eve.
Yeah, in that sense I think youcould say that in immediate

(31:25):
sense, not M-E-D-I-A-T.
Immediate sense.
She is in that sense notm-e-d-i-a-t immediate sense.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
She, um, yeah, in that sense the people get hung
up on the phrase mediator.
Right, because there's onemediator between god and man.
But no, but god comes to usthrough her.
So in a very real sense she isa mediator between god and man,
not you know it, just just in asense.

(31:50):
Like God comes to us throughher, so she mediates humanity
and and God.

Speaker 4 (31:56):
Yeah, and if you mean in that sense, I don't think
there's a problem necessarily.
I just wanted to raise someinteresting thoughts about
whether, more so that maybe thiswould be a problem for a Thomas
, because in a Thomas positionthere was debates in the middle
ages that you know, could Godincarnate as an animal?
Could the incarnation beeffective or effectual if God

(32:19):
didn't assume human nature couldhave happened through some
other means?
And that is was a dispute thatwas had, I think, with
Franciscans, and the Franciscanswere affirming the Eastern
position that no God had to takeon human nature because that
was the only way that would healhuman nature.
So that's a medieval dispute,but it illustrates the point
that the world is a Christophanyor a theophany for us, and I

(32:45):
don't think in Thomism I I meanyou have this idea of the
analogy of being I just don'tthink it really ends up being in
the immediate sense, somethingchristological.

Speaker 3 (32:55):
So that's the big difference, that it's
interesting talking about thisbecause you know the catholic
arguments, because you wentthrough a catholic phase, you
know.
So you actually like I've never.

Speaker 4 (33:04):
I'm a high school dropout, I never read like tomas
I mean you, you know quite abit, so you're not, you're not
doing your position, you knowyou're not failing to do it
justice.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
Yeah, that's the only thing I worry about, like I'm
not, uh, I'm not uh, uh, like atheologian or anything.
So I don't want to have peoplecome on here me, debate you and
then be like, oh you know, I'mnot the guy for that.

Speaker 4 (33:24):
I think, yeah, what you were talking about with Mary
.
You know the terms that areoften used is immediate
salvation versus immediatesalvation.
So, immediate being the youknow, if I am your friend and
you're an unbeliever and youknow we're buddies for a long
time and I pray for you and youknow we hang out and I
eventually convert you, then Isaved you.

(33:46):
Right, paul speaks this way,right where he way, where he
says that, timothy, do this andyou will save those around you.

Speaker 1 (33:53):
Protestants does that mean, you think Jesus doesn't
save you?
Mary saves you.

Speaker 4 (34:00):
No, it's like there's a cooperation going on, with
God being the ultimate source ofsalvation, but using these
proximate means to save us.
But it's just.
I would say that in theliturgical tradition that we
have, I'm not aware of a phraseof something like that for Mary,

(34:21):
because we do differ on Mary,the Orthodox and the Roman.

Speaker 3 (34:23):
Catholic.
Okay, so how about?
So?
All right, so the Marian dogmasmaybe we could talk about those
a little bit Like what's thedifference between like the
Dormition and the Assumption.

Speaker 4 (34:35):
I mean, I know Catholics celebrate the
Dormition as well, but For us wewould say that she was still
under the effects of Adam's sin.
So we don't think that she wasimmaculately conceived, even
though we have a lot ofterminology like spotless virgin
.
We think she was preserved fromactual sin.
So we don't think that she wasimmaculately conceived, even
though we have a lot ofterminology like spotless virgin
.
We think she was preserved fromactual sin.
But because we don't seeoriginal sin as anything dealing

(34:58):
with inherent guilt and I knowthat the modern Roman Catholic
position doesn't hold that, buttypically the Latin position has
had a tendency to think thatthe stain of original sin in
some way is passed on.
Yeah, that's a typical.
I don't mean the point betweenyour balls and your butt, I'm

(35:20):
talking about taint.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
Yeah, I think the modern Catholic apologetic would
be more like original sin is alacking of something, like a
lacking of grace.

Speaker 4 (35:35):
Yeah, I mean.
So we would say that Mary stilldied because she's a daughter
of Adam, but she had no actualsin.
Okay, so she was preserved fromactual sin by grace, but that
she still died.
That's, the meaning ofdormition was that she went to
sleep.
Um, we don't believe in thenecessarily the bodily and what

(35:55):
about?

Speaker 3 (35:56):
what about the pangs of childbirth?

Speaker 4 (36:00):
um is there any?

Speaker 3 (36:02):
is there any writings on that?
Like because catholics willactually say it was like light
passing through glass that herhymen was kept intact?

Speaker 4 (36:10):
Yeah, that's the terminology in Ezekiel 44.
So we would say that she's evervirgin, because in Ezekiel 44,
it says the prince passesthrough the gate and the door
remains shut and it's neveraffected.
So I would imagine that that'sthe case.

Speaker 3 (36:27):
It's funny because the Latin church does get super
technical about a lot of thingsright, like especially after the
split.
The Latin church gets supertechnical about stuff like with
Thomas and.

Speaker 4 (36:45):
Linus and stuff.
Both churches do, but it's sortof like different on different
things.
Like the eastern church issuper specific on elements of
christology and that kind ofstuff.
Um, and I'm not saying thelatin church isn't, but after
the split I think the thespecificity on what is really

(37:05):
precise is different but whatare some of the things after the
split that the eastern churchdoes?

Speaker 3 (37:11):
because it's weird, like I really think, because the
latin church got so, um,rigorous in their, uh, the logic
of everything and like makingsure everything had rationality
behind it, they lost some of themysticism a little bit.
You know, it just seems likethat, especially when I, when I

(37:32):
read things from from from theeastern fathers a little bit,
even even like the littleexposure I've had to it, which
isn't much, you know, granted,but it just seems like they have
a much more mystical sense ofthings than the latin church I
think that's still okay to sayas kind of a basic distinction
between the perspectives.

Speaker 4 (37:50):
But it can always be overplayed because, for example,
in a lot of St Gregory Palamas'writings he relies heavily on
Aristotelian logic.
So Roman Catholics might findthat or hear that and think that
that's odd, because well,aren't you guys the mystics, why
would you be doing apodictictreatises on you know, ristian
logic or whatever?
But so I mean there's there'smore overlap on some of that

(38:13):
stuff than we might think.
But I would say that if youpick out specific doctrines like
the theophanies or the essence,energy distinction or, um, you
know in what sense weparticipate in uncreated grace,
that stuff is not typically inthe Eastern Palomite synods, for
example, the Byzantine synods,for example.
It's not, it's not uh, try it.

(38:35):
There's not an attempt toresolve it through like uh
syllogisms.
The resolutions are typicallycitations of the six councils.
The six councils decree theEastern fathers, cappadocians.
So then, in other words,they're saying look, what's the
ancient faith say abouttheophanies, what's the bible

(38:55):
say about theophanies?
We're not going to worry aboutthe fact that many of the
medieval latin theologians areconcerned with how it
compromises divine simplicityfor god to be in time and space
in a theophany before theincarnation.
Does that make sense?
Like, for example, uh, this justcame out fairly recently.
This is the translation of the?
Um all four of the palomitesynods, which we haven't had an
english translation that for agood, a good while.

(39:16):
Uh, maybe in parts and otherbooks, but so this just came out
and you can you notice that theresponse of the palomite synods
to in byzantium, to the romancatholic synods of, particularly
lions 1274, and then florence,the orthodox in the in byzantium
response is um, what isrelating to the things I

(39:41):
mentioned?
Right, so uncreated energies,uh, rejecting tomism,
specifically in terms of createdgrace and absolute divine
simplicity, not rejectingeverything in Thomism.
Certainly, we have people inthe East that appreciated
Aquinas, like St Gennadius, butelements of Thomism that we
couldn't accept would be thenotion that grace is not itself

(40:03):
uncreated.
We can't accept the beatificvision in the in the roman
catholic sense.
Um palmyra synods talk about um, uh, the nature, person, will,
energy, distinction being uhexplicit that you have to accept
uh, those as more than justconceptual.
So those kinds of things arepretty precise it's.

Speaker 3 (40:25):
It's funny, like the, the, the minutiae, that, the,
that, that some of like, eveneven the debates in the early
church that you saw to likehammer out even a story is a
historianism and and some someof it's over like a single
letter and a word or phrasingand it um well, homo is the

(40:49):
difference between jesus beingthe eternal son of God and being
the first thing God created.

Speaker 4 (40:53):
So yeah.
Right.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
Yeah, it's just interesting to me, even you
referencing all these councilsand things like that, to me it
would take such an incredibleamount of study.
For a westerner, not for, like,I really do think like there's
something to the apostolicsuccession in the east and the

(41:15):
church growing itself in theeast, like that, and then the
church, the western church,doing its thing in the west.
So you know, obviously somebodyin the east like that is their
church, that is the, the churchthe apostles set up.
But for somebody in the west toactually have to go and dig
into all these things and thiskind of stuff, like do you think
that there's any um, almostlike, uh, like god would not

(41:40):
make it, make his church so hardto uh find a kind of thing.
Yeah, I don't, I don't, youknow, just just for a westerner,
like it would just seem likeyou're somebody who goes and
reads a million books For yourevery common guy, it just seems
like a hard process to kind ofhammer out.

Speaker 4 (41:59):
Yeah, I understand this point, this critique or
this.
I don't want to call it aselling point, dude, listen
First of all anybody watching.

Speaker 3 (42:08):
I don't want to call it a selling point.
I mean, I don't want to offendyou.
No, dude, listen.
First of all, anybody watchingpeople are allowed to have
different positions.
I'm asking a question.
You can ask questions.
It is what it is.

Speaker 4 (42:19):
Yeah, I'm just saying , and I understand that
objection, but at the same timeit's sort of like we could think
of periods in church historywhere East and West were
basically united.
It's sort of like we couldthink of periods in church
history where East and West were, you know, basically united,
where we had similar problems.
So, for example, in the fourthcentury much of the church was
already capitulated to not somuch full Arianism but

(42:40):
semi-Arianism.
Yeah, so if there's StAthanasius and a handful of
bishops left, you know, would wethen say, well, look, what's
the basic numbers approach here,right?
Yeah, so one big difference, Ithink, in approaching these
questions practically betweenOrthodox and many Roman
Catholics is just that we seeOrthodoxy first and foremost as

(43:03):
not so much numbers or expanse.
It can mean that at times itcan mean, you know, in
particular periods when there'sunion and there's an expansion
of the church, large numbers.
I think Catholicity does includeto a degree the notion of size
and numbers, but it can't bereduced or defined by that,
because there's many periodswhen the majority of the

(43:25):
professing church is heterodox.
So I think that would reallyspeak to that.
There's other periods too, bythe way.
There's, like you know.
There's other periods whenother heresies, almost you know,
took over large portions of theiconic class.
You know they capture a lot ofthe bishoprics.
They captured a couple ofpatriarchs, I think at one point

(43:47):
they captured a couple ofpatriarchs, I think at one point
.
So you know, you can havepretty sizable losses, so to
speak, or even the majoritybeing heterodox.
St Maximus has a great quotewhere he says something to the
effect of you know, even if thetrue Catholics were reduced to a
small number, he says, I wouldbe amongst them and they would

(44:08):
be the true universal church.
So in that sense we can see,catholicity can't be be sort of
reduced to numbers what do you,uh, what do you make of like?

Speaker 3 (44:17):
because I think a lot of the young kids to me,
somebody coming from atheism orprotestantism and going orthodox
or catholic, I'm happy about,like anything in that movement
towards traditional christianity, I'm happy about Anything in
that movement towardstraditional Christianity I'm
happy about.
There's something myconversations with somebody like
you are extremely differentthan they would be with somebody

(44:39):
who's Protestant.
Somebody who's Protestant.
I'm going to be combative, I'mgoing to try and hammer away at
their little thing where atleast we're both coming at it,
seeing the sacraments and thingslike that.
Like you're actually living outa christian, uh, you know the
way that christianity wasintended to be lived out.
What are, what is?
What do you think of all theseyoung kids coming in that don't

(45:02):
have access to divine liturgy,like, like.
I think there's a lot of youngortho bro online, only ortho
bros that is, uh, true, it's aproblem.

Speaker 4 (45:13):
We've addressed that too, by the way.
I think a lot of people thinkthat, like we encourage that or
something like that ever sinceour discord started back in 2017
.
From day one, we had clergy inthere pretty quick and the
clergy were always stressingI've always stressed, too that
you can't just be online likeit's not, you're larping if you
think that it's.
It's just online now if youdon't have a church or you know

(45:35):
that's.
We had to do that, I think itwas in.
Like saudi arabia was in thediscord at one point like I mean
, that guy can't, yeah he's notfine, he has to do the best he
can do.
I mean you do the best you can.
I mean, um, do the best you can.
I mean so, yeah, I don't thinkGod expects more of us than is
possible.

Speaker 3 (45:55):
It's a weird time right now, even for Catholics.
Right, there's a lot ofCatholics who won't attend the
Novus Ordo and they have to finda Latin mass somewhere.

Speaker 4 (46:03):
Well, I mean, yeah, I was going to say like in my
experience when I was RomanCatholic, I remember you know I
came in on the Novus Ordo 2003.
And I was in the Novus Ordo formaybe a year and a half and
where I came in was actuallyfairly conservative Novus Ordo,
so it wasn't, like you know, hiphop mass or any of that stuff.
It was fairly conservative.

(46:23):
The Novus Ordo mass was donevery reverently and that
probably kept me from going tolatin mass longer than I would
have, right, uh, but I prettyquick, quickly decided to.
Somebody left a latin massmagazine in the pew one time.
I remember picking what yearwas this?
Sorry, this 2003 four,somewhere in there.

Speaker 3 (46:42):
So, man, this is before some more pontificum
comes out anything, okay I wasreading uh, uh von hildebrand.

Speaker 4 (46:50):
I remember reading a dietrich von hildebrand article
in a old latin mass magazineabout the uh superiority to the
to the nova sordo missa and allthat, and I didn't know anything
at that time.
It was all new to me.
But I peaked my interest and sothen I dove down the rabbit
hole, the bunini and all thatstuff, and I ended up getting
like um paul davies's trilogy, Iread that right away.

(47:12):
I read gumaris and in all thetrad cats I read all that stuff
I got into.
I read all of not all of it,but several of uh lafevra's
books.
So I was pretty hardcore sspxfor a good seven or eight years,
that's where you would go.
You're going to a shop.
I went went to the Memphis SSPXfor a long time.

Speaker 3 (47:32):
Wow, that's interesting.
What's a Alright?
So I know you guys have weepingicons right.
Are there Eucharistic miraclesin the East?

Speaker 4 (47:46):
No, interestingly, there's not.
This is an interestingdifference between East and West
.
If in the Orthodox Church, ifthere's a, if something happens
in regard to the Eucharist, theystop the liturgy, oh wow, yeah.
The reason for that, apparently, is that the belief in the East

(48:08):
tends to be that they'reconcerned with the danger of
prelust, rather than the sort ofand I don't mean this in a
derogatory sense, but sort oflike jumping on the idea that oh
, it's a miracle, right, I'm nottrying to cast aspersions on
you guys, I'm just saying likethat's their rationale for it.
You guys, I'm just saying likethat's their rationale for it.

Speaker 3 (48:29):
Well, we talked about there's a there's a major
problem with in the Catholictradition of people prophecy
chasing right and, like justevery apparition, they go crazy
over those issues withMedjugorje.
There's, like you know, there's, there's a lot of that goes on
Like we've Rob and I, both whenwe were younger, like my parents
, were like charismaticCatholics, you know, and growing

(48:50):
up in that environment it was alot of, a lot of it was chasing
feelings and you go fromspiritual high to spiritual high
and then when you crash, likeyou really crash, you know.
So finding the traditionalLatin mass for me was more just
like a stabilization, like oh OK, I don't have to be going and

(49:11):
singing and dancing.

Speaker 4 (49:11):
It was like sobering up.
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
I mean, when I was a protestantI was, you know, pretty
hardcore reformed, so we didn'thave, we had none of that like
craziness.
So I was kind of already in aat least some notion of a stable
worship environment where youdon't have any of that All
that's shunned upon, rightShunned.

(49:32):
But you know, and I think everyreligious tradition can have
that danger, in the OrthodoxChurch that tends to be more of
a danger in the monastic sphere,a lot of monastics are tempted
with prophecy chasing.
That's a great term, I don'tknow, did you coin that?
That's genius?
It just seems like what it isright.

(49:56):
Prophecy chasing, that's agreat term, I don't know.
Uh, uh, did you coin that?
That's genius?
I mean, I wouldn't say it's as.
I mean, I was, you know, I hada decent experience of roman
catholicism over the years, so Iwouldn't say that it's as
prevalent in the orthodox worldas it is in the roman catholic
world.
But the difference, I think, isthat, um, in the Orthodox
church, uh, monasticism is stillvery strong and it's very
prevalent and you'll see a lotmore monastics everywhere than

(50:18):
you would in most Roman, I know,I know that you guys have
monastics and convents, but I'msaying like they're a bigger
part of our church in like theday-to-day life.
Like if you go to umjordanville, like jordanville
seminary is like attached tomonastic life.
So they want the seminarians toactually be in a monastic cycle

(50:39):
.
So in that regard the I thinkthe danger I wouldn't say it's
prevalent, but I would saythere's a decent sector of the
Orthodox world that kind of getsstuck into this chasing Elder
so-and-so said that you know,antichrist will appear and will
be a Furby.

Speaker 3 (50:58):
I think that's man.

Speaker 5 (51:00):
I think, that's a joke?

Speaker 3 (51:01):
No, obviously.
But I think there's somethingin us.
I mean I've said before I thinklike every generation wants to
believe they're the last,because they're very
uncomfortable with the worldgoing on totally fine without
the like.
I don't know if it's like a acertain amount of
self-importance that people feellike no, no, this is the end
times.
But I remember, even in the 90s,when my parents were in the

(51:26):
charismatic stuff, it was likethey went to medjugorje and it
was all about like bleedingstatues and this is going on.
It was the end of the world.
So why two K's coming?
The end of the world's going tocome and it and like when it
never came, that led to meleaving the sacraments for years
because I was like what thehell?
Like?
Well, this was for nothing, youknow, and it wasn't.

(51:46):
Until I came back to thatsobering, more stable version of
and look, I know a lot ofpeople in the comments are like,
oh, charismatic Catholics arethe best I'm not saying they're
not Like they're some of themost faithful people I know.
But for me it didn't work, Likeit was just too much of living
on the edge of my seat waitingfor something to happen that
just wasn't coming.

Speaker 4 (52:06):
Yeah, waiting for something to happen that just
wasn't coming.
Yeah, when I was like Iremember when I first started
reading the Bible and I was 18,I started going to just whatever
Bible studies my friends weregoing to and some of them were
charismatic.
So I had a little bit of aphase when I was 19, where I was
charismatic and in like aProtestant sense.
So when I got when I becamereformed, though that I got rid

(52:27):
of most of that pretty quick.
So when I got when I becamereformed, though that I I got
rid of most of that pretty quick.
So when I came into the RomanCatholic church, um, I didn't
really have any interest incharismatic Catholicism.
I was always kind of I thoughtthat was kind of weird and I've
seen enough of that nonsense inthe Protestant world that I was
like this is, this is not goingto help anybody in the Catholic
world.
I don't know why it's here.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's absolutely forbidden inthe Orthodox world.

(52:52):
Father Cesar from Rosebasically completely condemns it
.
He's widely respected.
I think he expresses theOrthodox mindset that we believe
there's miracles andclairvoyance and this kind of
stuff, but the charismaticdisplays and and all that we
would say it's delusion yeah, Ithink, I think, a lot of yeah, I

(53:17):
think it's people.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
People really have to be on guard for it, especially
the chasing different yeahapparitions.

Speaker 4 (53:24):
Well, it will do what you said like it'll.
It'll give you this false hopeand then, when it doesn't happen
, then you feel let down.
Oh man, I've been cheated man,screw this.

Speaker 3 (53:34):
Like it leads to that letdown yeah, um, what do you
think of the uh orthodoxcatholic reunion that they're
gonna try and put forth nextyear for the?
What is it in 2025?

Speaker 4 (53:47):
they're doing that forth next year for the what?
What is it in 2025?
They're doing that.
I don't think that it makesmuch sense.
I mean, I think that a lot ofthe I think, traditional
catholics would agree withorthodox on the point that you
know.
It doesn't really make sense totry to pretend that you all
agree on key issues that youdon't agree on so, uh, it's a
lot of words and gibberish and Iactually think there's a bigger

(54:08):
sort of geopolitical agendabehind it.
I don't really think it's a lotof words and gibberish and I
actually think there's a biggersort of geopolitical agenda
behind it.
I don't really think it's abouttheology per se at the high
power level.
I think a lot of peopleinterested in it believe it's
about theology and they'resincere.
But um, I think it's reallypart of this.
You know we're like a foreign,you know internationalist agenda
.
I mean masonic fraternityexactly.
It's about that kind of stuffmore than it is getting to the

(54:31):
theological truth, because a lotof these people even say that
are heavily involved inecumenism and whatnot.
They even say it's not abouttruth, it's about all of us on
the journey to find the church,as if there isn't the church.
So I think it's a lot ofgeopolitical, uh, machinations,
more so than it is anything todo with with truth there was a.

Speaker 3 (54:57):
There was a catholic author who wrote a book about
the cia infiltration at thesecond vatican council oh yeah,
I know I've been referencing itever since it came out.

Speaker 4 (55:05):
I love that book.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
For people who think that's not like, it's even like
people.
Elections Now I worry about,because you know I mean if, the,
if, the if the Americanelections are getting messed
with.
What do you think is going on?

Speaker 4 (55:19):
Yeah, exactly, in fact, a couple of the other
Gladio books that I read andanalyzed the Paul Williams book,
the paul williams book and, um,even one of the books written
by the cia, dude kaylor, who waspro cia involved in the in the
vatican, like not a conspiracy,to like saying why it needed to
happen.
Even he talks about the ciabeing directly involved in two

(55:39):
of the papal enclaves paul thesixth and john paul the second.
Now he's not saying that theycaused them to be elected.
Paul williams says that theydid cause them to be elected.
They wanted to make sure,particularly with Paul VI,
because they were worried thatJohn XXIII, because of the
encyclical about Is it Pacem inTerris, the one that deals with,

(56:02):
like, the world and the economy, it's kind of, it's called like
the quasi, it's called the pinkencyclical.
You know what I'm talking about.
I don't know.
But yeah, so don the 23rd wrotean encyclical about um, we need
it's like one of the first tocall for the need for
international bodies to dealwith economic and social

(56:22):
disparities.
Right, um, I I read it manyyears ago to merrill the details
in it, but it's famous for that.
I'm pretty sure it'spachamonteros.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
But yeah, that worried.

Speaker 4 (56:30):
The cia was worried because they thought he might
have socialist leanings, so theywanted to ensure that the next
pope would be in on board withthe western americanist ideas.
The cia so it's not that theylike-controlled Paul VI, I'm not
saying that.
But they wanted Paul VI becausethey felt that he was more in

(56:53):
line with what the CIA wantedwith their neoliberal goals.

Speaker 3 (57:00):
This isn't even crazy stuff because you even look at
all the bishops that Franciselevated to cardinal, it's like
these are all men that will beeasily manipulated.

Speaker 4 (57:13):
Who knows what's going on.
Yeah, it looks like you know,if paul williams's book is
correct and I mean even if he'sonly correct about 60 of it, I
mean it's that alone it's likedevastating.
I mean, that's pretty wild.
I mean he basically says thatkissinger was calling a lot of
these shots.
That's why kissinger and uh,kissinger was meeting with paul
vi constantly.
Colby was uh meeting and talkingto a lot of the.
The uh, james jesus angletonwas state he was stationed in

(57:36):
rome, that was.
He was like the cia sectionchief in rome.
He was the liaison officebetween cia and the vatican for
a long time.
Um, and then one othercharacter, uh, john Paul II, he
constantly met with.
So there was all these Roman.

(57:56):
There was a bunch of RomanCatholic CIA dudes under Reagan
Colby, so he called him hisTemplars or something like that.
Anyway, I'm serious, and youknow they were just really
trying to sway the Vatican awayfrom, which sounds good on the
surface, right?
This is, this is Wim Hof'spoint, right, he makes the point
that, yeah, it makes sense tosway the Vatican away from, like

(58:18):
any alliances with Gorbachev orany alliances with the Soviets.
The problem is that you'retaking on a power block that can
now influence the Vatican.

Speaker 3 (58:29):
Yeah, you see, so now the CIA has a huge amount of
say so yeah, there's adocumentary called John Paul II
and Communism and it reallyshows how John Paul II and
Reagan take down communism inthe 80s.
You know that's the killer book.

Speaker 4 (58:45):
That's the point of the killer book.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (58:47):
And it makes it look like this great thing which I,
you got to take down communismbut.

Speaker 4 (58:52):
But the problem is that now you have a new master.
That's that's the point.
That's wim hof's point in hisbook is that it's not that
communism's good, but that whenthe this alliance between the
vatican, the cia happens, thisleads to a lot of problems with
now the power block that runs.
The cia has a look, yeah, likefamilies, like the rockefeller

(59:13):
right, they're having a say-soin terms of like hey, uh,
vatican, we're ready for you tostart caving on skittle stuff,
we're ready for you to startcaving on this thing, this thing
, this thing.
That's the, the push, pull that, they, that they get.
You see what I mean?

Speaker 5 (59:26):
yeah I'm not.

Speaker 4 (59:27):
I'm not just singling out the Vatican, because the
same thing happened with theecumenical patriarch.
It's identical operation.

Speaker 3 (59:35):
I saw just even one of the I don't know who it was
like the American Bishop of, ofeven the Orthodox or all.
Look, this is.
This is affecting everybody.
That's the it's it's like, andeven the orthodox have to
understand that what happens torome happens in the west.

(59:55):
I mean, it's just there's sucha there's a reason why they want
rome to cave on these issues sobad is because, as, as the
church goes, so goes the world.
And that's you, regardless ofyour position on what the Roman
Catholic or Eastern Orthodoxy is.
It's just the reality of it.
Like they're, they're the,they're the only block of

(01:00:15):
Christianity big enough toactually still have sway over
things.
So it's the same thing withFrancis.
When he, when he took theposition he did on the shot in
2020, him endorsing that made itimpossible for people to go and
put a religious exemption in.
I mean, it was.
I actually had con edisontelling me no, we won't accept a

(01:00:35):
religious exemption based onthings that your pope said, and
I had to get an individualpriest to actually sign my
exemption letter, and I was ableto get my exemption because an
individual priest did.
But, like I was this close tolosing my job, dude, and it was
because was because the Vaticantook that position on that.
That's crazy.

Speaker 4 (01:00:53):
That's crazy.
Yeah, I mean we had individualbishops in the Orthodox Church
posing the same problem.
So yeah, I understand, I canempathize.
That's crazy.
And, by the way, I would addtoo, like wim hof's book, he's a
lawyer and as far as I know, Ithink he just attends the
traditional latin mass.
He's not a conspiracy theorist,he's just a lawyer who wrote a

(01:01:15):
giant 800 page book about thehistory of what's called the
doctrinal warfare program.
That's the cia's doctrinalwarfare program during the cold
war to make the.
And it's you're absolutelyright, it's not just the roman
cal Church, but it forms thesort of paradigm example of what
you're talking about.
If they can get the Vatican asan engine of Americanism and a
tool of soft power, then therest they believe would follow.

(01:01:39):
The Orthodox would also becomea tool of Americanism.
And then the Protestantchurches were already sort of
you know, controlled a long timeago.

Speaker 3 (01:01:46):
Well, they're just especially the American
Protestant Church.
They church they are just likethey have such a hard time
distinguishing between being achristian and being a republican
like that's, it's so it's sucha real protestants were like
they caved to liberalism in the20s and 30s.

Speaker 4 (01:02:03):
That's how long ago they were.
They were already.
I mean the word fundamentalismin american christianity it
comes from protestants who werereacting in like the 20s and 30s
to the mainline protestantdenominations, caving at that
time, yeah so, the mainlinelutherans, the mainline, uh,
methodists, episcopals.

(01:02:24):
They were already going liberalin the in the 20s, 30s, 40s.
That's where fundamentalismcomes from.
Is the reaction to that, um so,yeah, so that that I mean
that's why, like the, the pc,usa has, you know, like women,
bishops and yeah, you know, thiskind of stuff yeah, it's it
there's.

Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
There's like almost an idolatry of politics in in
certain branches of Protestantthat you see like you'll even
have guys call themselves megapastors, things like that.
It's really strange, you knowrappers.

Speaker 5 (01:02:56):
What the, what the what the you know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
you got to tell me what toll houses are because
that Christian Mario on, and wewere talking about like
purgatory and he was like well,he's like, well, he's like I'm
not suited to explain it, butI'm like what the hell are toll
houses Is?
That is, I don't even know whatthe hell they are.
What are the toll houses?

Speaker 4 (01:03:16):
Right.
So you know in the Orthodoxview that there's a lot of stuff
that's not defined, like youwere saying earlier.
See, if there's like, is itpart of the list of the things
that I have to believe?
And I mean, really RomanCatholicism also doesn't
necessarily.
I mean, you got Denzinger andyou've got the catechism and
stuff like that, but even that'snot the extent of like

(01:03:37):
everything you have to believe.
But so basically it's just theidea that is more of a
liturgical view, that traditionthat when the, when the body
dies, the soul has to sort of gothrough an ascent back to God.
So it's not purgatory becauseyou're not like paying off debts

(01:03:59):
, but there is a sort ofmystical notion of?

Speaker 3 (01:04:02):
would that be kind of like Dante, like, like, like
doesn't Dante doesn't he have togo down before he comes up?
And dante's?
I never read it I remembertrying to read it it was just
too difficult, but I, I've readit, it's, but it's.

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
I mean, he goes to, uh, you know he does progatio,
uh, inferno, uh, and then he,you know, heaven, but um, no,
this is more like, uh, there'sthat there's angelic, uh, beings
that are sort of arranged in ahierarchy that you ascend back
to god through.
Okay, so it's like there'sspiritual gateways.

(01:04:38):
Um, serf rose has a book called, uh, life of the soul after
death.
So, even though we don'tbelieve in purgatory, we do have
a, um, a period where, when youdie, where you're apart from
the body, um, there is this.
There's a time period, forexample, where there's a
tradition it's not dogma thatthe body, the soul, is still
around for a while, and this iswhy, for example, we pray for

(01:05:00):
the dead.
We do think that those that diein the church, that the prayers
for the dead help them, um, andthen the soul has to sort of
return.
But the return there's a sortof journey.
So it's not, uh, I mean this isa bad analogy, but uh, have you
ever heard of that book?
Is it like the tibetan book ofthe dead?
I've heard of it.

(01:05:21):
Yeah, I mean that's obviouslypagan and you and you, but the
idea is kind of similar, wherein that when you die you kind of
go through these, for them it'sdemons because they're
basically going into a hellishexistence where you're sort of
walking through these demongates, but in Orthodox tradition
is sort of ascending throughangelic gates.
So the celestial hierarchy isinvolved in the afterlife, is

(01:05:44):
the point.

Speaker 3 (01:05:47):
I like to think the first domino in getting Jay and
Roman Catholic discourse to be athing.
Oh, he was.
He went on your show.
That's Joe Boca.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, it wasyou, joe, and Christian Mario.

Speaker 4 (01:05:58):
You guys did a show together.
I was wondering what happenedto, because he left Twitter, so
we used to.

Speaker 3 (01:06:03):
He's still on there.
He's just hiding from everybody.
He along there.
He's just hiding from everybody.

Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
He's got a lot on account.

Speaker 3 (01:06:09):
He disappeared.
He was basically chased off bya bunch of witches.
Let's call them a coven ofwitches, literally literal
feminist witches.
Are you joking?
Yeah, well, not literal witches, but they were just a coven of
feminists.
Oh, like Harpy, he just gotbombarded and he was like.
You know what I don?
Don't want to deal with thosebunch of banshees.
So he uh, he depped and then hejust came back, like recently,

(01:06:33):
but he's still keeping hisaccount locked and stuff like
that.

Speaker 4 (01:06:35):
But, um, somebody asked uh why you think uh,
fatima is a conspiracy uh, in myopinion, I wrote a couple
articles on this a long time ago.
Just outlining that and I don'twant to make you guys all mad.
I don't know if you guys thinkI'm here to rile up everybody.

Speaker 3 (01:06:56):
That's Anthony.
Anthony riles people up.

Speaker 4 (01:07:00):
When I got into the geopolitical side of things, it
gave me a new angle on some ofthese events.
And I'm not saying every event,god can do what God wants to do
.
I'm not trying to say thatthere's no miracles or anything
like that, but it seems to methat it's much more sensible
from a geopolitical perspectivein terms of, if you read Quigley

(01:07:21):
, what the Anglo-Americanestablishment prior to World War
I, what they wanted to do interms of targeting the opponents
of the Anglo Empire.
American Empire, israel doesn'texist yet, but their two main
rivals are the Austro-HungarianEmpire, which is Catholic, and
Russia, which is Orthodox.

(01:07:42):
Different ways to rile uppeople and they had a cognizance
at that time, even in terms ofpsychological warfare, of ways
to marshal large numbers ofpeople.
So fast forward to Cold War.
There's multiple examples in CIAmanuals, cia history books.

(01:08:02):
I just read Graziano's academic.
These are academic texts, bythe way, not conspiracy books.
Graziano put out a book he's anacademic the History of the CIA
and Religion.
And it's not, you know.
Obviously it's the last severaldecades, so it's not all time
in terms of intelligence, butjust the CIA's relationship.
If you look at people like EdLansdale, in multiple cases he

(01:08:24):
was staging Marian apparitions,staging things to do Catholics.
He even went so far as topropose to the CIA a staged
second coming.
I mean, these people are crazyto dupe Roman Catholics in Cuba.
So Michael EMJ talks about hisbelief that I think he thinks

(01:08:46):
Medjugorje.
Medjugorje yeah, that's hiswhole yeah, so I was surprised
to see him saying that.
Um, I went pretty deep intobayside.
I read an academic guy'sanalysis of bayside.
I think bayside's super duperweird like that's so.

Speaker 3 (01:09:00):
That's right near me.
That's like a half hour from myhouse.
I don't know anything about it.
What's going on?

Speaker 4 (01:09:05):
but I know it's, I know it sounds super sketchy
though because You've got toread this paper, dude.
They were saying crazy, theywere talking Seda stuff before
anybody else.
Isn't that weird?

Speaker 3 (01:09:14):
Oh man, I want to learn about this.
All I've heard is that it'ssuper sketchy the Bayside one.
I don't know anything about it.

Speaker 4 (01:09:29):
The thing about Bayside is that she made a bunch
of predictions about, uh,america getting nuked, getting
destroyed, uh, the soviets weregoing to invade.
It was just cold war propaganda.
Yeah, totally.
And then when that stuff didn'thappen, oh well, you know, mary
has decided not to do it, ourprayers averted the disaster
exactly um yeah, so so my, mythesis is that it's to it seems
like Fatima serves the Britishimperial designs for World War I

(01:09:53):
and World War II.
Eventually, I mean Fatima's notpart of World War II, but I'm
saying World War I is a big partof that, and I've always found
it odd that first of all,communism would come from Russia
.
Communism comes from England.
Marx and Engels are in Englandand Marxism, socialism, I mean

(01:10:14):
they're well, they're English,and I'm sure you guys can figure
out who else right, Amish, theIrish, the Amish.
Amish and English.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:10:25):
That's where Marx, it doesn't come out of Russia.
So it's odd that Maryidentifies Russia, who is
particularly the enemy of theAnglo-American Empire.
So I've always found it odd Tome.
I think she would say if it wasa true apparition she would say
you know, england's errors willspread to Russia and then
infect the world, or somethinglike that.
So anyway, I just think thatmakes more sense.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
Well, you also even have to think the shadiness with
the third secret and stuff.
Like there's all this mysterysurrounding Fatima, so I know a
lot of Catholics treat Fatima asif it's like a fifth gospel,
like Fatima converted me, though, so it's weird that the

(01:11:08):
shadiness about it, I do thinkyou mean, like the stories of
the miracle of the sun orsomething, what?

Speaker 4 (01:11:12):
what do you mean it?

Speaker 3 (01:11:13):
was?
Uh, I was.
I was away from the faith foryears and I stumbled across a
fatima documentary and I had anillumination of conscience
through it that, like like, blewme away and the one that just
ricardo montalban is thenarrator.

Speaker 4 (01:11:30):
Is it that?

Speaker 3 (01:11:31):
I don't know who it was.

Speaker 4 (01:11:32):
I remember watching one with him as the the
moderator yeah, I, I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
I don't remember what I got.
I'd have to find thedocumentary but it just like I
had this illumination of god.
I just saw myself like burningin hell.
It was pretty intense and itlike led to me coming back to
the faith and coming back tochurch and changing my whole
life around and stuff.
So like I do have an attachmentto fatima, but there's also a
lot of shady stuff that goes on,and you're also.
It's another one of thosethings where everyone's always

(01:12:00):
talking about the third secret'sgoing to be fulfilled.
The third secret is going to befulfilled.
I mean, you had uh guys who whowere telling us it was going to
be fulfilled any day, who arenow dead.
You know they like that it's.
You've been waiting.
It was like in 1960, the secretwill be revealed and it wasn't
revealed.
And then this you know there'sa whole lot of things that go on
.
So it's, there's always goingto be that, that veil of mystery

(01:12:22):
to the whole thing thatobviously an agency like the CIA
would use to manipulate people,things like that.

Speaker 4 (01:12:30):
Well, now we know for sure they have right, because
there have been multiple caseswhere Ed Lansdale is on record
trying to do it and doing it.
Not every case that wassuccessful.
Victor Marchetti and his CIAmemoirs talks about staging
Marion stuff in Latin SouthAmerica against the communists
and it's like well, but we gotto do what we got america
against the communists.
And it's like well, but we gotto do what we got to do against

(01:12:52):
the communists.
Okay, but wait a minute, likenow we're staging, we're like
I'm not saying communists aregood, but like that it calls
into question a lot of things.

Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
When you know what I mean, when I would just say you
got to read this bayside paperand you'll see what I'm getting
at yeah, I want to read that onebecause I've heard a lot of
shady, strange things aboutbayside and it's one that's so
close to my house I don't evenknow, is that still going on?
Like do people?
still, I don't know I I justI've heard from people that,

(01:13:21):
like in my area about bayside,they're like no, I don't, don't
even look into that one, thatone's a little shady, so I might
look it up.

Speaker 4 (01:13:27):
I remember I had a trad cat friend that got really
into, uh, back in the day, maybe, just like maybe 10, 15 years
ago, the great chastisement andlike the three days of darkness
or something nonsense.

Speaker 3 (01:13:39):
Yeah, the three days of darkness, the three days of
darkness, stuff like I considerthat like the catholic rapture,
but yeah, these are people thatthink if they have beeswax
candles they're gonna escapesome kind of chastisement and
it's like dude that is what doesthat come out of?

Speaker 4 (01:13:54):
asa?
Or medjugorje?
What's that?

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
no, that's um.

Speaker 4 (01:13:57):
Uh, mary taiji, that that's of a few older mistakes,
another one, okay, yeah gotcha.

Speaker 3 (01:14:03):
yeah, but it seems like one of those things where
it's you.
You know, if you have blessedbeeswax candles, you're not
going to be able to open yourwindows.
You have to make sure you havetape for your windows and it's
almost counterintuitive to whatthe faith teaches, which is more
like okay, you embrace yoursuffering and unite it to the
cross.
Yeah, you don't try and hidefrom it with magic candles.

(01:14:24):
Oh, that's a great point yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:14:31):
Mary Julie Jahaney Okay, with magic candles.
Oh, that's a great point.
Yeah, like marie julie jahini,okay.
Yeah, that's a different one.
Let me tell you this.
Uh, let me tell this baysidepaper.
And you know now, this guy's anacademic who's just writing
about how bayside was used inthe cold war.
Um, he's not like a conspiracyperson and he's not, you know,
interested in whether cathCatholicism is true or not.
But I'll give you this.
It's a really fascinating paperthat I think makes.

(01:14:56):
It's called the Virgin and theBomb, the Bayside Apparitions,
cold War Anxieties and MarianAnti-Communism is the name of
the paper.
So I recommend that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:06):
Yeah, I'm going to have to check that out.
Wait, what was somebody justsaying in here?
yeah, dude, like, and if youguys think like we're saying
something bad about fatima, it'slike you think about even the
conspiracies about, like a fakesister, lucy and stuff yeah, I
remember that yeah like allright, so we were you were
talking earlier like, uh, evenwith the stuff we started the

(01:15:26):
show with, like people are sojaded from being lied to by the
government that they go downthese conspiracy rabbit holes.
Like how do you know when tocut that off?
Like, how do you, how do you?
Because you hear the craziest.
Even during during COVID, whenthe, when the medicine was
coming out, you heard thesethings where people like they're

(01:15:46):
making they're making plansthat in three years everybody's
gonna die and it's like allright, I'm so glad I didn't get
that thing.
But there's also, you know,things were obviously
exaggerated and stuff like howdo you even know when to put a
barrier up and go, all right,that's too far, that's a good
question.

Speaker 4 (01:16:02):
There's no easy answer.
That I mean.
I've been looking atconspiracies since like 1998 was
my first foray into that world.
I think after over over timeyou kind of get used to the
patterns of the things that arebaloney.
Like a lot of the really wildstuff is is baloney.
Um, sometimes wild things dohappen, right, but it's like the

(01:16:24):
really wild stuff is every 10or 20 years, right.
I mean, how often do we get abig nine event or a big goof
event?
Right, it's not a lot, but thewilder stuff usually is not the
case.
But yeah, that's a greatquestion.
There's not any easy answers.
I do think that it helps tohave.
I'll say this there's twofallacies that conspiracy

(01:16:44):
theorists always fall intoGambler's fallacy and the Texas
sharpshooter fallacy.
And basically, like you know, agambler's fallacy is where, if
I roll a dice five times in arow and it lands on three, is
there any necessary connectionbetween the five times I rolled
three that the next time will bea three?

(01:17:04):
No, there's absolutely noconnection at all.

Speaker 3 (01:17:06):
It's just chance, exactly so.
There's absolutely noconnection at all, it's just
chance, exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:17:08):
So there's no the fact that you know an event.
You know, let's say, threeevents are sus and then a fourth
event happens that's very muchlike the previous three events.
Does that necessarily mean thatthe fourth event is a fake flag
or sus?
Not necessarily.
Yeah, many conspiracy theoristswill default right to oh, it

(01:17:29):
has to be because of these andthat's a fallacy.
So you have to be careful ofthat.
The other fallacy is a texassharpshooter where, uh, the data
is picked to fit thepreconceived notion and any data
that doesn't fit the narrativeis excluded.
Right, and that's another one,obviously, that you know
conspiracy people can fall into.

(01:17:50):
So I think one or those keepingthat in mind is a helpful way
to avoid falling.

Speaker 3 (01:17:56):
I fall into it sometimes where I just like any
stupid news story that comes out, I'm like I don't know, I just
don't do.
They got me to the point whereI just don't trust anything
anymore well, that's naturalright.

Speaker 4 (01:18:06):
I mean, if you've been lied to by the
establishment a million, zilliontimes, then I think it's a
natural reaction to doubt it.
But you know, when we do try togive an analysis and have a
narrative explanation for thisor that thing, we just have to
be careful as conspiracy-mindedpeople to not fall into those
two fallacies.

Speaker 3 (01:18:29):
What do you got going on with jamie kennedy?
What's that whole thing?

Speaker 4 (01:18:31):
you guys are doing shows together yeah, man, uh,
I'm trying to remember how thatcame about.
I remember going on samtripley's show like the first
time in person.
I went to la in 2018 and we didsome events out there and, uh,
there was a girl comedian ontripley's show with me and I
gave her my book and she justhappened to be friends with
Jamie Kennedy.
I didn't know that, and soJamie had gotten my book a long

(01:18:52):
time ago and I had no idea.
And then I remember, so I sawhim on Tripoli show and I
messaged him and I was.
I didn't think he would doanything.
I didn't think he would come onthe show.
I was just like how do you wantto come on my podcast?

Speaker 5 (01:19:04):
You know podcast, uh, you know, I've grew up watching
you and watching your shows andI thought you're you know super
funny dude, um and he was likeyeah, dude let's do a show we
did a podcast.

Speaker 4 (01:19:15):
we.
We got along pretty good, um,and then he was like I don't
even remember how we came upwith the idea to do a live show,
I think he suggested he's likeyeah, come on, when you come out
to LA let's do like a liveevent.
And the first one went reallygood.
And then we went back out to LAa month or two ago and did our
second LA event with him and itwas really good.

(01:19:36):
So then he's like he took usout to dinner and we were eating
at a Korean barbecue in LA andhe was like I think we need to
do this.

Speaker 5 (01:19:44):
We need to do it again.

Speaker 4 (01:19:50):
Let's do, and they do it again.
It's the vegas, right?
So now we're gonna do a vegasevent.
It's gonna be fun.
And then I just got to go dothe uh sam hyde podcast, which
was wild.

Speaker 3 (01:19:54):
So yeah, dude you pop up in the funniest places.
Man, it's like I, I saw you,you shot.
Like you were you.
You challenged ruslan to comeout of something he's like.
Only if you come in person,I'll do it if you come in person
he hasn't seen the videos whereI was like responding.

Speaker 4 (01:20:12):
So uh he's.
He mentioned having a rapbattle and I was like yeah,
let's do it.
But then he watched myresponses and I think it made
him mad.
So now, now he won't reply.
He's ghosting me now.

Speaker 3 (01:20:22):
So because, okay, so I watched your ruslan response
videos and they're so funnybecause you point out where he's
just playing a Gavin Ortlundvideo.
Yeah, and he'll play a clip.
And I'll go, oh, like you'renot actually saying anything
there, dude, you're just Like 20minutes of video and I'm going
hmm, hmm, look at that point.
That didn't actually connect toanything at all.

(01:20:44):
You know, I like Ruslan when hedoes like um cultural
commentary, but then when hestarts getting into biblical, so
I'm just like dude, what do you?
like it's just so incoherent,like the.
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:20:56):
I have like almost no , no patience for protestant
argument at this point I love tolike, if he's not mad, I'll go
out there and debate on thispodcast, but I feel like now
he's mad, he won't have me on.
I don't know, know, but I'll doit.

Speaker 3 (01:21:08):
Yeah, you, you, you will go at anybody and it's
pretty funny.
All right, man, We'll wrap thisup.
Dude, thanks for coming on me.
You always, you always come onwhen we ask.
We always have a good time withyou, oh wait no, dude, I loved

(01:21:31):
it.

Speaker 4 (01:21:31):
Uh, I did a.
I mean, there's a couple placesI would critique it, but I
think I did like three podcastson I.
I read doom messiah, like acouple months ago and did a
whole podcast on that before itcame out um about to read
children of doom.
So, um, I liked it, I thought.
I thought it was the firstfirst time I've enjoyed going to
the theater in a long time,since since the matrix, I think,
or maybe yeah, like that wasthe last time I felt like that
yeah, lord, of the rings, or thematrix, or something did you?

Speaker 3 (01:21:55):
did you perceive paul as a false messiah?
Because that's the narrativethat everybody was given and I'm
like this.
He wasn't a false messiah.
He was like the messiah thejews wanted.
He was like the messiah thejews wanted to conquer the world
in the name of israel.

Speaker 4 (01:22:10):
You know, and the whole storyline.
It turns out he is and he isn't, so he kind of is as a savior
in immediate sense.
To go back to our earlier,because he gives birth to lito,
the second, who actually doesend up being the least on all
guys, so he's kind of like theuh conduit for the.

Speaker 3 (01:22:30):
I'm wondering what they're going to do with the
next movie, because I kind ofwant them to pick up right from
that, right where they left offwith that war.
But if they do the Dune Messiah, it's like 15 years later or
something, right, no, no no.
We had our friend Mark on andhe told us the whole lore.

Speaker 4 (01:22:49):
It's crazy, dude.
Like doom messiah is verydifferent from dune.
It's like a.
It's all like courtly intrigueand conspiracy versus like dune
is an action movie, you knowit's an epic sort of battle, but
doom messiah is a like aconspiracy philosophy book.
It's very different.
So it will be weird to see howthey, how they play that out.

Speaker 3 (01:23:08):
Yeah, I love watching your breakdowns of um movies
and things like that, and justeven even some of the Jordan
Peterson stuff you've done.
Those are the things I enjoythe most that you do, so thank
you.
But, uh, all right, thanks forcoming on, jay, you got anything
to?

Speaker 4 (01:23:21):
add.
Can I remind everybody too that, uh, if they do want to come
out to see our event, it's notprimarily a theologically
focused event.
Although there might be Q&A,people can ask questions if they
want to.
Our live events are six hours,so there's like lectures on the
stuff that you just said youlike.
So we do a lot of deep divesinto symbolism, esoteric stuff,

(01:23:42):
movie analysis, geopolitics.
I talk about all of that in mylive talks.
We have some stand-ups comedyand then jimmy kennedy as well.
So, uh, it's, it's not atheologically driven, it's just
kind of everything.

Speaker 3 (01:23:55):
If you guys want to come out, you're kind of like a
jack of all trades man.
You like you know how to fit in, like even when you're on tim
pool.
Like you know how to not corneryourself into one specific
topic.
You're very good at just beinglike a like I.

Speaker 4 (01:24:09):
You throw me in the mix and I'll freaking talk about
anything no, I mean, like allof us, I'm sure that you know we
all have different interests.
I like different.
I get bored if you just talkabout, you know, just talk about
movies all the time.
That'd be boring.

Speaker 3 (01:24:21):
Yeah, yeah, dude even us like having you on is to put
some variety in, like peoplelike how many times times are
you going to talk about the sameissues over and over?
To me it's fun to get somebodyfrom a totally different
perspective.
It doesn't have to be afreaking, totally
Catholic-focused show.
We can just talk about faith ingeneral, transhumanism whatever
it's just to put a little mixinto the subject matter.

(01:24:42):
A lot of people who knows whatpeople like?
Yeah, dude.
Thank you so much, jay.
Uh, anything else you want topromote?

Speaker 4 (01:24:51):
it's just the the vegas show, june 22nd in vegas.
Go ahead and get your ticketsearly and uh, yeah, I got some
big shows coming up, so, uh,you'll see me on some of those
in the next couple months.
Hopefully there might be acouple really big ones.

Speaker 3 (01:25:02):
So and go check out jay's videos disputing
protestantism man.
They're some of the best.

Speaker 5 (01:25:07):
They really are hilarious.

Speaker 3 (01:25:09):
Thank you, just point out the absurdity of some of
the arguments.
If you guys watch any of theRuslan takedowns, they're
freaking amazing Jay.
Thank you, brother, we'll seeyou next time.

Speaker 4 (01:25:23):
Have a good night, yeah Later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

United States of Kennedy

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Strange New Religions with Jay Dyer

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}United States of Kennedy

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Strange New Religions with Jay Dyer

United States of Kennedy