Debating Atheists: Epistemology and the Epstein Atheist Files

Summary

Jay'sAnalysis Podcast Summary

Host: Jay Dyer
Episode: Debating Atheists: Epistemology and the Epstein Atheist Files
Date: February 10, 2026

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on Jay Dyer’s sustained critique of internet atheism, focusing on epistemological debates, the intellectual credibility of popular atheist figures, and the connections between prominent atheists and elite networks (labelled here as the “Epstein files”). Using calls, live debate, satire, and discussion, Jay seeks to expose what he sees as fundamental flaws in mainstream atheism’s positions on knowledge (epistemology), purpose, and its infiltration or manipulation by elite interests. The episode also features live call-in debates, notably with Lucas Gage, on the question of epistemology and the justified true belief model.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Problem with “New Atheism” and Its Cultural Role

• Jay repeatedly argues that the New Atheist movement was a “top-down psyop” designed to demoralize society, particularly men, and notes the coincidental ties between famous atheists and figures linked to elite power and social control (e.g., Jeffrey Epstein).
• He accuses internet atheism of parroting establishment doctrines and acting as “NPCs” rather than providing genuine intellectual opposition.
• “Internet atheism has really been dying out the last eight, ten years, mainly because … it was kind of a propped up thing … Most of these people were not really intellectual.” (40:50)
• Jay draws parallels between the rise of atheism on forums like Reddit/4chan and the intentional cultural debasement through media and pop culture.

Memorable Quote:
“Young men are not catechized. And men are of course meant to be the leaders in society. … They get psyoped by the psyop of psyops, namely atheism.” — Jay Dyer (19:24)

---

2. Establishment Ties: The “Epstein Files”

• Jay links the atheist “rationalist” movement to elite networks, highlighting recent revelations of connections between figures like Ghislaine Maxwell (former Reddit mod, he alleges), “Jeff Stein McGuffery” (satirical stand-in for Jeffrey Epstein), and top-facing New Atheist personalities.
• He claims these connections further substantiate his thesis that atheism is weaponized at the societal level.

Memorable Quote:
“New atheists … are hanging out with and flying on the planes of Jeff Stein McGaffrey which by the way are CIA planes for three decades as we now know.” — Jay Dyer (19:24)

---

3. Debate Culture: Exposing Intellectual Weakness

• Jay calls out three mainstream atheist YouTubers—Professor Dave, Derek from MythVision, and Gnostic Informant—challenging them to public debates on epistemology and philosophy.
• He mocks these personalities for refusing live debates on philosophical grounds while continuing to assert strong opinions on religious and philosophical issues.
• The episode includes a review of call-in exchanges, particularly with Lucas Gage, centering on the justified true belief (JTB) model for knowledge and the Gettier problem.

Memorable Exchange:
Jay: “Why would I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain?” (29:11)
Caller (Jim Bob): “Because I'm right.” (28:06)

---

4. The Call-In Debate with Lucas Gage (89:06–105:51)

Core Focus: Epistemology, JTB, and Universality

• Lucas Gage: Challenges Jay on the attainability of justified true belief, referencing the Gettier problem, and asserts that human beings cannot have perfect knowledge.
• Jay: Counters that Lucas’s assertion itself is a universal knowledge claim, resulting in a self-refuting position if he maintains humans cannot attain universal truths.
• **Jay accuses Lucas of basic errors in logic and philosophy, especially regarding the meaning of universal claims and category errors.
• **Interaction highlights the common pitfall among online atheist “debate bros” of overestimating knowledge after a brief exposure to complex philosophical problems.
• **Jay and his philosopher co-host emphasize intellectual humility, noting that genuine expertise is earned over years of study, not via “smatterings” or internet jargon.

Memorable Moment & Quote:
Jay: “You're saying universally, you just said nothing and no one … That's a universal quantifier. This is basic college philosophy.” (95:05)

Jay: “Nobody who's advanced in philosophy cites their own first paper. That's just so arrogant, ridiculous. It's a sued attitude and behavior of extreme overconfidence.” (109:15)

---

5. Epistemology Deep Dive: Justified True Belief & the Criteria Problem

• Jay and his guest “Philosophy Professor” articulate the problem of setting criteria for knowledge (referencing Roderick Chisholm’s “criteria problem”).
• They explain that denying the possibility of justified true belief without offering a substantial alternative collapses into self-refuting skepticism.
• They show that philosophical advancement requires humility and the willingness to be proven wrong—something missing, Jay says, in the circles of online atheism.

Highlighted Dialogue:
Philosophy Professor: “He was equivocating on the word universal … In logic, it just means a class … It's not about being present everywhere.” (115:31)

---

6. Cultural “Degradation” and Social Engineering

• Jay delves into the idea that elite networks purposefully degrade culture via media, pop rituals, and ideology as a means of population control (references to “soft power,” Joseph Nye, and psychological warfare).
• He ties atheism, materialism, and cultural “wokeness”—including the infiltration of radical gender/sexuality discourse—into this broader pattern.
• Quotes Netanyahu and historic intelligence operations as examples of how pop culture is used for regime change and mass influence.

Memorable Quote:
“A degraded, demoralized population is much easier to steer and to control. Thus, atheism and materialism … are essential on the part of tyrannical regimes.” (49:19)

---

7. Announcements, Reflections & Upcoming Debates

• Jay previews his upcoming formal debate with Gnostic Informant and reiterates his view that his opponents evade philosophical scrutiny.
• He reflects on his own intellectual journey and the importance of humility, citing his past attachment to Thomism as a “phase of arrogance” that was later corrected by genuine critique.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (by Timestamp)

• “New atheists … are hanging out with and flying on the planes of Jeff Stein McGaffrey … CIA planes for three decades as we now know.” — Jay Dyer (19:24)
• “Why would I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain?” — Jay Dyer (29:11)
• “At the end of the day, it’s just pure arrogance. It’s t dump level saying reality is true because I say it’s true.” — Jay Dyer (78:14)
• “Nobody who’s advanced in philosophy cites their own first paper … That’s just so arrogant, ridiculous.” — Jay Dyer (109:15)
• “He was equivocating on the word universal … In logic, it just means a class … It’s not about being present everywhere.” — Philosophy Professor (115:31)
• “I was young, and orthodoxy and stuff like that, I still have this, these hang ups. But you were right. You were right about theistic evolution being garbage.” — Philosophy Professor confesses intellectual humility to Jay Dyer (125:06)
• “The only way you’re going to advance in these topics is to be willing to be wrong.” — Jay Dyer on intellectual humility (109:15)

---

Important Segments (with Timestamps)

• 19:24 – 24:00: Jay’s argument that atheism is a psyop and the “Epstein files” connections.
• 28:06 – 29:43: Debate on purposeless brains and the rationale for listening to atheist arguments.
• 40:42 – 44:00: Atheist experience debate recollections; Jay on vindication regarding the Epstein revelations.
• 48:50 – 52:09: Caller Q&A on fighting despair in the face of “satanic” culture and the importance of grounded community.
• 89:06 – 105:51: Extended call-in debate with Lucas Gage about epistemology and justified true belief.
• 115:31 – 124:47: Philosophy Professor joins to clarify universality, category errors, and recounts his own philosophical humility.

---

Tone & Style

• Jay’s tone: Direct, sometimes satirical, occasionally mocking, heavily referencing internet and “debate bro” culture.
• Discussion style: Engaged, combative with opponents, but reflective and communal with supporters and fellow philosophers.
• Language: Mix of academic terminology (epistemology, universal claim, category error), internet slang (“suited,” “Reddit tier IQ”), and rhetorical flair.

---

For New Listeners

If you haven’t listened to the episode, this summary covers all key intellectual battles, the satirical skewering of internet atheism, and the central philosophical points. The episode is as much a critique of argumentation style (and pretension) in online discourse as it is a defense of traditional theistic epistemology and a warning against the social consequences of “engineered” atheism.

If you want to witness live, unscripted debates between popular online personalities and hear philosophical arguments broken down and critiqued in real time—with a distinctly irreverent edge—this episode delivers.

---

Upcoming:
Jay will be debating Gnostic Informant live on Crucible next Monday, further continuing this series of direct confrontations on atheism and epistemology.

---

Transcript

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to WaldenU.edu and take that first step. Walden University Set a Course for Change Certified to Operate by Chev if you're.

[Commercial Announcer]

An H VAC technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Jay Dyer]

Sa. Sam. Sa.

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to WaldenU.edu and take that first step. Walden University Set a Course for Change Certified to Operate by Chev why choose.

[Commercial Announcer]

A Sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Commercial Announcer]

Cooler Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed. Shop now for a limited time only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Jay Dyer]

Sa. Let's create lives. God the Father has a body. It's a very tone body. He looks good good Mormons Space lives Space wives. Magic underwear fitting tight Magic underwear is feeling right Mormon Space Wives Mormon Space Wives. Lord I would like to have intimacies.

[Advertisement Voice]

With you.

[Jay Dyer]

On the planet of Naboo. Mormon Space Wise magic underwear. Where? Right there. Mormon space let's create lives Mormon spacewise. God the father has a body. It's a very toned body. He looks good. Good. Mormon space wives Mormon space wives Space center space Magic underwear fitting tight. Magic underwear is feeling right. Mormon space wives Mormon space wives. Lords of Kola I would like to have intimacies with you on the planet of Naboo. Mormon space wives Magic underwear Where? Right there. Mormon space wives space. Oh, that booger whistleblow. Let's see. Marks and traits of the cult guru. They do not typically like you doing well. What they are persecuting this. They do not have their eyes to cease. Therefore they must take down what they do not understand. That's that booger whistle, baby. They're energy vampires. That's that booger whistle, baby. I got a booger whistle fleet. They're energy vampires. That's that booger whistlebag. Oftentimes, the communal living that the guru demands doesn't match up to the guru who's driving around in a freaking Rolls Royce. How many swamis got a dang Rolls Royce? What? I asked Vision. Last night, the ascended masters came down to me. They said swami or to get rosewestle, baby. They're energy vamp. That's that booger whistle, baby. I got a booger whistle fleet. They're energy van burge. That's that booger whistle, baby.

[Lucas Gage]

How many Rolls Royces you got?

[Jay Dyer]

Get over there in that communal living. By the way, get out of my Rolls Royce.

[Lucas Gage]

I heard he's got 14 Rolls Royces and by Monday he would have 15.

[Jay Dyer]

That's that booger WH. Their energy vampires. That's that booger whistle. I got a booger whistle flute. Their energy vampires. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black king, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. But the dark ages was a time when black people ruled Europe. So when you go into the real history, you'll see King James was. That's King James right there. That's Jane LeBron. That's King LeBron right there.

[Caller 1]

Black.

[Philosophy Professor]

He was not a white guy.

[Jay Dyer]

You see his whole lineage of kings. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Who was a homosexual himself, who was in love with his sister Lucretia, who They made the image of Lucretia to be married. And that became the Renaissance era. Lucretia. Lucretia, That's a black name right there. How you gonna say that the people that was framing the black people were also black? That don't make no sense. Lucretia is a black as hell name. Lucretia Church even allowed, but you know what I'm saying. The church allowed for straight pimping. That have been suppressed. That have been suppressed. Listen to my brother. The 1500s, it was legal to be a pimp. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Black kings, black bishops, black players, people of the chocolate persuasion. Oh, yeah. Welcome, everybody. Everybody to the limit. It's another live stream. It's open forum, it's open calls. It's wisdom time. Not necessarily from me, but we're going to go to the fount of wisdom, Lady Wisdom herself, and we're going to get some insight into what no one has today, which is wisdom. Now, we got a lot we're going to talk about today. We're going to open it up. We're going to let people call in with their challenges, their opposition, their critiques, their disagreements, all of that. But I've decided, because no one has wisdom today, we got a lot of facts, a lot of knowledge, a lot of info, a lot of data dumps. And I'm speaking of data from Star Trek going number two data dumps. We have all this information, but we don't have much wisdom.

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Commercial Announcer]

Why choose a Sleep number? Smart bed. Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Commercial Announcer]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep Number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now, during our President's Day sale, take 50 off our limited edition bed. Shop now for a limited time only at a Sleep Number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Jay Dyer]

And one reason for that is that young men are not catechized. And men are of course meant to be the leaders in society. And when men fail to lead, or when they are severely repressed and oppressed by a oligarchical degenerate culture and society as we presently are, men retreat and become feminized. They live in fantasy worlds, etc. Etc. And they get psyoped by the psyop of psyops, namely atheism. And as you know my thesis seems to be more and more vindicated that mainline atheism was a top down psyop and especially all of the info that comes out with Jeff Stein McGuffery, what do you know? As we said, the top so called rationalist atheists are hanging out with and flying on the planes of Jeff Stein McGaffrey which by the way are CIA planes for three decades as we now know. Now keep in mind, the same people that were involved in high tier finance, toxic culture creation, blackmailing celebrities, politicians, world leaders, profiting from chaos and corruption in war torn areas, on and on and on are the same people promoting global trademark atheism. The New Atheists There you can see your good buddy Dick Dawkins. Yes, See it's all rationalism. You see when we eat the children underneath castles, underneath Windsor Castle, it's just rationalism. That's just a joke for those that don't know a joke. That's my Dicky Dawkins impression down there underneath Windsor Castle and the catacombs chomping down on not a baby Ruth, a baby named Ruth. That was a really preposterous joke. But no, as you can see, many many photos of the new atheists. And yes, I'm aware that Walwin's kwaus. I suddenly can't say my alls Walwin's kwows. What if I did the whole stream today not being able to say my Oz. My widow bubble when he was a kid he had to go to say his R's class. What Jeff we Epstein I used to make make fun of my brother because he had to go to how to say his orange class how to say my Oz. So today we're going to talk about my widow wobble and definitely Epstein because he can't say his Oz. I'm cracking up again at my own jokes. Jamie, could you bring me a wawa? Could you bring me a waddle? I hope my brother's watching this. He's gonna be cracking up sometime I get my brother to watch the streams. That's the first time I made fun of him though. Don, I'm making fun of you right now. Could you say your all. Could you say Jeff we Epstein? Jeff we Jamie, could you bring him a water? I need a water. I need a waddle. Jamie, he's making fun of me. I need a waddle. No laughing matter. Shout out to my little brother. I'm already crying out. So the stupid. Oh my goodness, here we go. Shout out to the super chats. I realized there was already water in here. I was laughing so hard. Now I got four waters over. I got full waddles. Okay, so the new atheists, as I've been theorizing, I think this is a top down psyop. And with the Justin McAffrey and just laying connections, apparently some of the dorks have done some really good sleuthing and it appears that they were also just. Lane apparently was a high tier Reddit mod with like 14000 posts in the Reddit atheist sphere. Of course, Professor Dave is the literal incarnation of Reddit. So what's funny is that these atheist bros, these arrogant goblins online, are actually the creation, the children of Jeff Stein McEffries. And do you think the Jeff Stein McAfferies appreciate or enjoy or, or are happy with low tier goblins like Professor Dave? No. No. They laugh at these people and they mock these people for actually believing the low tier scientism that they put out. And I've been saying that over here on my channel for probably 10, 15 years. We've talked about atheism as a kind of a psyop or professional skepticism. Right, Michael Shermer type trademark skepticism. They're the most establishment people ever. They repeat and they, they parrot every single establishment doctrine, whether it was the KUF or whatever. And let's not forget that your friend Professor Dave, who by the way, isn't actually a professor, and I looked into what he actually is, he has a BA not knocking a BA but he has a degree now in education. Apparently he's not actually a tenure professor. He's not actually a teaching professor at a university. He said. Yes, I did teach a semester at a trade school. Oh, a trade school. You mean like where they teach H Vac and VCR repair? A trade school. So he taught chemistry a semester at a trade school. Bob Vance, heating and heating and air dude was over there lecturing next to Bob Vance and he's like a professional. Now people are saying that he uses a lot of AI and other professors write his videos for him so he doesn't Even write the videos now. Can. Is it any wonder why he does not want to do a debate? He says, I will never debate philosophy. I only talk science. Well, we know who actually created science and I don't think y' all are ready to have this conversation, so. Yeah, well, Yakub McCaffrey. So y' all ain't ready for this conversation. Maybe when you are, we can talk about who really created science. But to give you an idea of the science that we're talking about, Professor Dave is a, an ally and an advocate for men becoming women and women becoming men. So what does that tell you about your science man, your science expert? Notice how many of these people, especially Matt Dilla monkey, right? Gender roles are obsolete. I want you all to understand I am an ally. It is time for everybody to stop being conservative and accept T R A N Z says Professor Dave in his pro trans video. So here's your great science man who can't even figure out basic common sense empirical facts, much less could he actually give an argument defending any of the metaphysical claims that he makes all the time. Now Jim Bob had a great call in here. Not. And I want you to see the, the level of the, the high IQ level that we're dealing with with these people, these absolute suits. They are absolute. This is the definition of a suit. And I'm going to prove it to you. Let's listen to Professor Dave respond to just a couple basic questions from Jim Bob. Okay, so then would you agree that.

[Caller 2]

From your perspective that your, the brain.

[Jay Dyer]

Was a process of random mutations produced by random mutations. Brains in general in every other organ and every other aspect of all life ever? Yes. Okay, so then. And it wasn't developed for any purpose, right? No, not any inherent purpose, but it serves, it is useful, right? Animals with brains have, have processing ability and then especially humans, we have this huge frontal lobe that is capable. Understand? I understand. But you would say that your, your brain has no real purpose, right? It has no inherent purpose. I use it for the purpose of thinking. Okay, but you know, it's not made for the purpose of thinking. There is no God that on purpose made things with the purpose that. I didn't say God. No God.

[Caller 2]

God doesn exist in this hypothetical.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, I just want you to understand.

[Caller 2]

From your view, then you would agree.

[Jay Dyer]

That nothing would have any kind of inherent purpose from a higher power. If it's all chance, then there's no inherent purpose to anything other than what proliferates due to infer conferring a survival advantage.

[Caller 2]

And so why would I why would.

[Jay Dyer]

I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain? Because I'm right. So that's the level of argumentation. It's literally t dump level. And all these people have been been mind graped. All of these people that have grow grown up on 4chan, which by the way, turns out Jeff Sign, McEfrey and company met with the 4chan dude. What was his name? Moot or mute or something? That was a psyop to essentially degrade the youth, I would say through all of the degeneracy and the pushing of.

[Podcast Host]

The support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University Set a Course for Change Certified to operate by Chev why Choose.

[Commercial Announcer]

A Sleep Number Smart Bed Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Commercial Announcer]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed Shop now for a limited time only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Jay Dyer]

Underage types of things that happened significantly over the many years through 4chan. All of the fake info dumps, all the conspiracy qtard crap. What do you know? It's all out of 4chan. And Dave is the perfect representative of a person raised on that. He believes, of course, that his position is rational, it's logical he's against these silly religious people, and he's so much smarter than everyone else, but he can't even formulate an actual argument. That's what I've noticed in watching several clips is yeah, if the debate was about whether Dave has learned some basic chemistry, I'm sure Dave would do do good. But that was never the question. The question was you're venturing into the domain of metaphysics and philosophy without even realizing it. As you say that you don't really care about philosophy. Philosophy doesn't matter. People are saying in the past Dave has actually done philosophy videos, so he should be willing to debate. Well, I've offered the challenge. So Derek, Myth Vision, Gnostic Informant, and Dave. I've offered all three separate public formal debates. Derek declined. No, shocker there. Derek seems to be the most butthurt out of all this. And he, together with Gnostic Informant, did a victory lap video after Dave made yesterday's video calling me a bunch of poop joke names. It's just, it's a, it's a bunch of really low tier Reddit, like Reddit people. If you don't know, they're like obsessed with anuses. They're all about anuses. The error that ex, that expels out of anuses, putting things in anuses, women becoming men so that they can go into the anus, that's really all they're into. And so they are degraded and demoralized disgusting people. And it comes out when you actually sort of try to investigate their worldview, you find out they're actually suedes, they're not actually educated. Now, when I say educated, I don't mean did you study chemistry at a community college? No, I'm talking about actually educated in the ability to argue, to have good discourse, to have good communication skills, and to make your case, rhetoric, logic, what we call the classical arts or the trivium. Can you actually engage in that kind of argumentation? Do you actually know any classical logical laws, fallacies, etc? No, they don't. And this all stems from the Derek Myth Vision video one year ago, where he's still mad that I hopped on the stream with him and Andrew and Jim Bob to debate. And Derek wanted basically no pushback. He wanted to be able to constantly go at Christianity and anybody that's so stupid as to be a Christian without anybody asking any questions about Derek. And so he basically had a meltdown and just said, I don't care, it's true because I say so. Interesting. That's exactly what we just heard Professor Dave argue, because I say so. So these people are actually incapable of arguing. And the other thing that's funny is that when Derek prophesied that he was taking over, his channel was going to dominate, he said he would be at half a million in one year, and he's not even anywhere close to that. So none of that came true. And as people have noted in the comments, I will critique your worldview. It's all mythological stories. Well, under your definition, your own worldview is a mythological story. I didn't come here to debate my worldview, so don't do an internal Critique of me. Don't ask me any questions about my worldview. I only want to come at you. Now, when I talk to Derek in dms, asking him for a public debate, he's essentially affirmed the same thing. I'm not going to debate philosophy. It's not my field. However, I will assert that Christianity is not true, and I'd be happy to assert Christianity is not true on a stream with you. And you can come on my stream. So this is how. This is how fragile and arrogant grown men are as people. Yeah, exactly. In the chat, grown men can't handle being challenged and they can't have just a little bit of humility to say, look, hey, I don't actually know what epistemic justification is. Could you explain that rather than just asking a few questions to see if he understood the argument? By the way, a year later, when he made his video the other day saying that, oh, by the way, I lost that debate because I was hungry and I didn't have any snacks around. That's literally what he said. And it's not fail because they, they tricked me. Okay, well, how about set up a formal debate then? If it wasn't fair and you feel like you can handle it? Well, and what's funny is that Jim Bob reviewed this from the other day. I've already tried to debate Sneako. I. I ended up debating Sneako, had to bring in his buddy Muslim Lantern. So we already did that debate. And no, Sneako's not going to debate me.

[Advertisement Voice]

Come on.

[Jay Dyer]

So you know what's funny is that really, I think, Derek, it would have been better for you if you had just basically at least understood what we were arguing. But in Derek's new videos, he made absolutely no effort to even understand the argument.

[Caller 1]

Argument.

[Jay Dyer]

And, and this is the thing is, like, people can see this stuff eventually when you have this facade and you get challenged and you basically have spurgout meltdowns and you're constantly talking about how it's not fair and you were hungry and this and that, like, okay, well then why not do us a formal debate? Well, now it turns out he can't do a formal debate because it's not his topic. He doesn't do philosophy. Okay, okay, so. I think that's enough on that topic there. So I've issued a formal debate challenge to all three of them. Somebody sent me a clip of Professor Dave saying that he's preemptively already said in an, in an interview or a podcast that he will never debate tag or philosophy. He only debates Science. Okay, well, I'm not sure what to say to that. I mean, if he preemptively says he won't debate and the debate is a philosophical argument, there's not much I can do about that. I didn't really expect any of these people to accept. However, I will say at least Gnostic Informant has the balls to do a debate. So of these three goobers, the only one who actually stood up to do the debate is Gnostic Informant. And that will be next. Not this upcoming Monday, but the following Monday on Crucible. We will have a formal public debate with Gnostic Informant, who. I know this is so crazy. I assumed by his name he was Gnostic. Lma, bro, I'm not Gnostic lmao. Who would think I'm Gnostic with the name Gnostic Informant? No, I know that's crazy of me to assume that a Gnostic Informant would be agnostic. No, turns out he is a quasi Aristotelian monist. Of course, Aristotle was a dietist and not a monist, so I don't think he knows what he's talking about. And that's gonna be a lot of fun. And cross your fingers, because, you know, what often happens in these situations is let's hope that there's no medical emergency or family problem that comes up within the next seven days. Which means that that Gnostic Informant can't make the debate. But he's already agreed to it. And Derek Myth Vision had to bring in Gnostic Informant as his big bro to do the debating for him. Well, how come Professor Dave? Isn't he the biggest channel and the biggest brain? He's the big intellect. He's got the biggest nose. I mean, the biggest brain amongst all of them. Can he not do the debate as the real Big brother? Is Gnostic Informant a weirdo subjectivist relativist? Last time I heard him argue arguing. Is he the best that they have to offer? Okay, well, this is gonna be a lot of fun. Looking forward to that debate next Monday. So shout out for all the people joining me and not watching the Super Hole. Of course we know the Super Hole is faking gay. It is engineered to be faking gay because our culture is toxic culture that is fake and gay on purpose. Who has been saying that for the last 20 years? Who wrote three giant books over a thousand pages on our culture being toxically engineered? I did.

[Podcast Host]

Now support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to WaldenU.edu and take that first step. Walden University Set a course for change Certified to operate by Chev why choose.

[Commercial Announcer]

A Sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Commercial Announcer]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed shop now for a limited time only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.

[Jay Dyer]

Years ago, there was an atheist channel that had me on to do a debate. I don't think that channel exists anymore. I'm trying to remember the name, something like Atheist Experience or something like that. And I'm just remembering a debate there. This is probably seven or eight years ago, and that guy debated me on esoteric Hollywood. Right? So we, we took a little bit of a detour from the standard atheist theist debate and he wanted to do a debate on whether or not esoteric Hollywood was the case. Right. I don't know if that video is still up, but I would like to point out that I'm vindicated 10 years later on that video as well. Because first of all, he didn't actually read my book. I know, shocker. He didn't read the book. He assumed that the book was arguing that everything in Hollywood is a gigantic coordinated conspiracy and that everyone is a Satanist and they're all eating babies. Of course, my book doesn't argue that, but let's see if by chance this is still there. No way. It's not atheist experience because that's, that's Matt Dilla Monkey. It was like dudes trying to compete with, with Dylan Monkey to create an atheist channel. And the guy that they had on, the guy debated. He ended up becoming a big atheist channel. Let's see if we can find it. That channel imploded, if you guys remember it, because they had a huge money debacle between the two of them, the two atheists that ran that channel. I can't remember the name of that channel though, If anybody remembers it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. But point being Is that again, you know there was a specific debate even on this topic. The line. It might have been the line. Let's see if it was the line because the two. One of the guys was named. It was the guys that hosted the. The mat. The Malpass debate. They had a separate debate channel thing and that's who it was. And then I debated their dude who ended up becoming a big atheist YouTuber guy. Anyway, I don't know if that exists anymore but I can try to find it. I think I might have saved it in my archive somewhere. Anyway guys, if you want to support the stream you can do so through super chats. Super chats are done through streamlabs is pinned in the chat there. You can also send a super chat natively through YouTube if you would like. Welcome everybody. We got 2, 200 live over here on YouTube and we got people piling into the Twitter space. There's the super chats there. Today we're going to be Reviewing Jeff Stein McEfery in terms of the atheist unstoppable. No, it was a different. It was two guys that. That had a. One guy was a Navy nuclear sub guy. It's the two guys that did the Malpass discussion. So let me see who those guys were. Non sequitur. That was the show. Other types of system. Okay, so non sequitur. I don't. Does this still exist? So it looks like they're still posting stuff and so they even. Even up to a few months ago they were posting Derek myth vision stuff. Okay so let's say if they still have my Hollywood debate up because I was vindicated. I was correct. All right, let's just try searching my name. Oh, here it is. It's still there. Mr. Atheist. That's the guy. So here's my debate seven, eight years ago with Mr. Atheist and lo and behold, here we are seven years later. The Epstein information has dumped massively. And who was correct? I was. And again, what do you expect? Of course the guy didn't read the book, but Mr. Atheist did become a large YouTube channel. I don't know if he still is doing stuff but There is my 8 year ago debate with Mr. Atheist. This by the way, doesn't. It doesn't. It's very hard to find these. Who is Jeff Simon Gaffrey? I don't know. Never heard of him. He's. He's a mysterious character. Let's see if Mr. Atheist is still out here. Yes, he got up to 350. He's live right now and they're calling out Maga. Wow, edgy dude. Imagine being an atheist calling out MAGA as if that's like some kind of like, was that, that wasn't even edgy in 2016, dude. It's like everybody could see that there were some pretty significant problems in MAGA, but. So that's where Mr. Atheist is at. And again, you know, Internet atheism has really been dying out the last eight, ten years, mainly because, as we said, it was kind of a propped up thing in the domain of, you know, Reddit, YouTube early on. And most of these people that were sort of the face of it ended up being, I think exposed pretty much as suits. Right? I mean, most of these people were not really intellectual. And you've got a few hangers on with Professor Dave. Professor Dave and I, I guess Derek Mythvision is the atheist agnostic. I. I don't know. But you know, again, Derek is having a hard time with losing a debate a year ago. So it seems to me like the, the easiest thing to do if you, if you, if it was an unfair situation is to say, hey, okay, come on, a formal debate in a neutral setting. And Derek said, no, I will not do that. Okay, so there we go. What does that tell you, by the way, if TAG is so stupid, if tag is such a bad low tier argument, wouldn't it just be really easy for these guys to come on a formal debate and to refute it? I mean, it should be really easy, right? But you know what they have to do is they have to go to professors, they have to bring on profess in their cope streams after the debates. Even Matt Dillon monkey did this. Remember, he had to bring on Professor Ozzy and somebody else because after our debate he felt like he didn't do very well. Now should we shift gears over into Jeff Stein McEfrey? Because I'll give a spot if anybody's an atheist agnostic. If you're on the Twitter space, raise your hand if you want to call in. We'll try to hit a couple of these before we go into Jeff Simon Caffrey. Now we're gonna have open calls all day. We're going to be covering the rest of the Bannon Epstein interview because it's so bombshell. I know there's going to be slow parts. Some of it's a little boring. We're going to pick back up after the first 20 minutes or so that we saw the other night. And that'll help us, help us, I think, to move forward. We might put it on fast, you know, speed so that we get through it. Nick Nicolos. What's up, Nicolas?

[Caller 1]

I had to have your thing on. Hello?

[Jay Dyer]

Yep.

[Lucas Gage]

What's up? Yeah, aj, I love your work.

[Jay Dyer]

Are you listening? Yeah. I have a question for you.

[Caller 1]

How do you not get, as someone new to this stuff, how do you not get overtaken by. Because I'm on Twitter and stuff, and.

[Lucas Gage]

I'm new to it.

[Caller 1]

I'm seeing all these clips of all these things of, like, satanic rituals. How do I not get, like.

[Lucas Gage]

Into that? And then I want to remain grounded. You know what I mean?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. You go check out the Orthodox Church, and you start to go to the Orthodox Church and you become an inquirer and then a catechumen. And that's the best defense against the reality of this kind of satanic situation that we're in. Because, remember, you know, for many years, I remember being depressed when I first came across this information. In 2003, I read the first book I'd ever read on ritual abuse, William Kennedy's book, and that kind of introduced me to the subject matter. I found it to be very difficult, very dark, hard to accept. And since that time, I have studied it extensively. And it's not all real, obviously. There's a lot of disinfo and there's fake stuff, and there's, you know, an element of sensationalism to the satanic panic. But there's also an element of absolutely real, hardcore stuff that goes on. And yes, they throw it in people's faces as part of the degrading of the population. A degraded, demoralized population is much easier to steer and to control. Thus, atheism and materialism, as I've said for many, many years, are absolutely essential on the part of tyrannical regimes and deep state operators. They would love to have atheism and materialism promoted because it debases the population. The population has no moral compass. They have no objective standards to try to rein in the passions. And what happens is you get a population controlled and steered by their passions. So when you see the leftists and the antifa and all these people out in the street, this. This glob of, you know, millions of people that have this Borghaive mindset, that are essentially a giant golem creature. That's exactly the way the Kabbalistic text describe the debasing and the controlling of the population.

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Commercial Announcer]

Why choose a Sleep number Smart bed? Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

[Commercial Announcer]

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now, during our President's day sale, take 50% off off our limited edition bed shop now for a limited time only, at a Sleep Number store or sleep number dot com.

[Jay Dyer]

It's a technique that can be used at a very sophisticated, high level. And as we see, as we're gonna see, because I saw several sections of this interview over the last week, Jeffrey Epstein is not a proponent of scientism. In fact, he's apparently a proponent of Kabbalism and perennialism. And that's what we're going to see, I think, as we get through this interview with Bannon here. But I would say, for example, we saw last year's Olympic ceremony, which we covered extensively on many, many large podcasts. We went into quite a bit of depth about the intentional inversion and blasphemy in those, you know, trans version of the Last Supper, all this stuff. So, yes, I would say with. With that being the case last year with the Olympics. And when we see inverted pentagrams this year, of course it's intentional, Right? So how do I know? Well, because there's. The last year's entire ceremony was intentionally about the French Revolution, the bloodbath of, you know, the. The Committee for Public Safety. That was all shown in artistic way, ex. Explicitly in last year's Olympic ceremony. And then they concluded with a trans version of the Last Supper. So, of course it was satanic. Of course it was on purpose. And so of course, this would be as well. Now, we did podcasts 10, 15 years ago highlighting the satanic nature of a lot of the super bowl ceremonies and the super bowl stuff. And it turns out you've got even pop star musicians essentially agreeing with us now saying, yeah, that's true. For example, if you guys saw the interview, the podcast that Billy Corgan did recently from Smashing Pumpkins, he says, you know, A lot of these pop stars in their ceremonies are more satanic so to speak than the, you know, so called heavy metal satanic panic stuff. And that's absolutely true. I mean you've got Lil Nas X literally like butt humping the devil. I mean it's just. Or the devil humping him. So it's like, I mean they're degrading the population. It's. This is a known technique in psychological warfare and non conventional warfare. You can degrade the opponent, the op, the opposition through for example, sexual compromise. You know, when we did our lectures on sexpionage, which I reposted the first half of that the other day, by the way, if you scroll down, we covered the historians text sexpionage by Boer Bower. Bower, Bower. And we saw that there were many instances in recent history, in the last several hundred years where you had very perceptive military operators, agents, spies on and on and on who had figured out that hey wait a minute, if we set up a bunch of, for example, in the case of Kenji Doihara, if we set up a bunch of, of opium dens in China and if I set up a network of prostitutes that are trained in Japan to be in those Chinese brothels, I can have the degrading the population advanced intel because the prostitutes are going to be my informants. And then once everybody's addicted to opium, it's I'm all good, right. And Kenji Dahara was doing that before even the British Empire was doing it. So Japan had figured that out as a technique even before the British had, at least in terms of the way Boer outlines the history. But were. Excuse me, where is that one at anyway? It's, it's on my wall somewhere. I'm not going to scroll till I was trying to find it. But if you go to my channel and you type in sexpionage, it'll come up. It's one of the more recent global elite lecture text that we did. Now guess what? Turns out in the sphere of Jeff Stein McGuffery, it's the exact same situation we have as Whitney Webb's excellent book outlines from my publisher. All of the same techniques and tactics that the British Empire was doing largely through a lot of the information that Lord Rothschild had figured out. That's exactly why Lord Rothschild brought Robert Maxwell into this operation, recruited him and then got just lane to train Jeff Stein McCaffrey. So that's 100 confirmed. There's no disputing that. That's all well known. None of that is even disputed. Guys who want to support the stream, you can do so through super chats. Super chats done through streamlabs. That's not Streamlabs, but it's pinned in the chat. I'm just pointing out that, like, atheists lose on every front, dude. Like, they try to defend every establishment position, most of these normie atheists. And by doing that, they show that they're actually just NPCs. Like, they don't even. They're not even against the establishment. That's why they have to resort to, oh, let's stream against manga. As if that's some kind of, like, edgy thing. Disciple Derek, what's up? We're going to read a little a few proverbs for our daily dose of wisdom before we get into the Jeff Simon Caffrey text. What's up, man? On mute for sure.

[Caller 2]

So I do a lot of end times eschatology, biblical dissection, and my question is, you know, you're talking about the rule of Satan. We clearly see that Donald Trump was exalted as the Prince of Peace by the Israel Heritage Foundation. Jerusalem Post refers to him as the.

[Caller 1]

Savior of Israel too.

[Jay Dyer]

We're not doing it. No, Donald Trump is not the Antichrist. It's too stupid. Don't stupid up my stream, dude. Come on. Jamie, would you make another espresso? Thank you. No stupiding up the stream today. Zero tolerance for retardation immediately going to boot you. You better have a good topic or a good question. What's up, man? Thank you, babe. Appreciate that. I'm going to. What up, dog? I. Mute. I'll fight you naked on mute.

[Caller 1]

Oh, hey.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, hey. What's up, bro?

[Caller 1]

I just wanted to say that I'm. I, I was a part of the new atheist movement.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, you were a new atheist. Okay.

[Caller 1]

Yeah. And I still call myself a non believer, but some of the things that are now associated with that movement, I mean, it's just basically the whole thing just went woke up. It was insane.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it is. That is because I remember back when I first started debating atheists in 2015. 16. Ironically, a lot of the. Even the YouTube atheist sphere of people were not woke. And so I think that there was probably some move or decision high up, probably to try to turn it into just another mouthpiece for woke up.

[Caller 1]

Overall, I just say, like, I don't consider Christians enemies anymore, even though I don't believe. But where that whole thing seemed to turn was when Dawkins started getting accusations. Or at least that's when I noticed it first. At least. But it Was really disturbing to watch everybody who claimed to be this irrational person who's above it all start doing a religious woke thing.

[Jay Dyer]

Are you saying that when they came after Dawkins because he wasn't woke enough, are you saying the Dawkins went woke? What are you referring to?

[Caller 1]

They kind of. They started doing the me too, didn't they?

[Jay Dyer]

Me too. Him. Yeah, they tried to.

[Philosophy Professor]

Me.

[Jay Dyer]

To Dawkins. Right? Yeah.

[Caller 1]

That was sort of one of the tactics employed by the woke elements that started kind of taking things over. And then it was just a question of whether or not you got. Whether or not you decided join forces with those people or whether or not you just kind of stopped being a part of those functions. They sort of took over the. The speaking circuit, which is where the thought leadership was, that movement.

[Jay Dyer]

Good point. And we also got the dark enlightenment people popping up. Up at the same time. Good point. Yeah. I, I remember even a few months ago seeing in the atheist sphere various people talking about how there were like the left atheists saying, we've got to make sure that we don't let anybody who's not a left atheist into our public atheism sphere. So that's still going on to make sure that it's all woke, and that's by design. And I think a lot of this Jeff Stein McEffrey stuff points in that direction. Keep in mind too, that it's not just the atheism sphere. I think there's a real parallel with what's happening over the years on 4chan, the connections to Epstein, just Lane Maxwell at Reddit, the atheism that's being pushed so hard throughout those outlets, degrading and debasing the population, particularly that generation of millennial and younger millennial and Gen Z to be raised in just absolute degeneracy to brutalize in the base of public. Now, if you think that doesn't exist, I would remind you that there's a great. Clip of BB and you might be surprised to hear BB saying this, but not if you're over. If you're used to my channel, you would not be surprised because. BB understood 25, four or five years ago, and even in the 90s, how to debase a population and how to exert soft power through pop culture. The very thing that I wrote my books about that people for so many years, so many decades, when the articles before the books, people call me crazy. Tle hat. Oh, you're so. You're just a piece of. You're trash. You're this, you're that Just thousands and thousands of people. Well, here's Netanyahu in 2002 talking about the very thing that I discuss in.

[Advertisement Voice]

My books to see a regime change, at least I would in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out. It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. Iran. Iran has something that Iraq doesn't have. Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has Internet use. I once said to the heads of the CIA when I was prime minister that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don't have to go through the CIA cloak and dagger stuff. What you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just be Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 2050 and all that into into Tehran and into Iran. Because that is subversive stuff. They watch it. The young kids watch it. The young people, they want to have the same nice clothes at the same houses and swimming pools and so on. And that is something that is available in forces, internal forces of dissension that are available in Iran, which is paradoxically, probably the most open society in that part of the world. It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is probably the most closed society on earth. And therefore you have no ability to foment this kind of dynamic inside Iraq. So the question now is choose. You can beam Melrose Place, but it may take a long time. On the other hand, if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots, is gone.

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the w with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to Waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev from Taco.

[Jay Dyer]

Night In Tulum to sushi in Tokyo. Make every bite rewarding with gold from Amex wherever you dine. 4 times Membership Rewards points at restaurants worldwide are piling up.

[Advertisement Voice]

Learn more at americanexpress.com Explore-Gold terms and points cap apply. There is a new age. Something new is happening.

[Jay Dyer]

So he's talking about what's called soft power there. This is a idea pioneered from Kennedy School. This is Joseph Nye who wrote the famous paper and then book on soft power. This is Council on Foreign Relations level stuff. We have done talks on the Joseph Nye's material and his information for years. Of course nobody listens to that. That's too boring. You've got to watch your sports hole today. But if you want to understand the real levers of power, you would be listening to what I talk about with soft power and Joseph Nye. And that's exactly what Netanyahu is talking about here. Back in 2002, he understood that the power of Hollywood and pop culture is much more effective than tanks and regime change and all that. Now that doesn't mean they won't resort to that, but there you go. There's that from your boy bb. What's up, Noah?

[Caller 1]

Hey.

[Caller 2]

I tried to call in yesterday but didn't work.

[Jay Dyer]

What's on your mind, dog?

[Caller 2]

Hey, so I found an interesting thing in the files that I think is something you've talked about before and then some confirmation. I don't think you've seen it yet.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, sure.

[Caller 2]

So it's Epstein. It's actually this guy named Gino Yu who's like a Chinese professor.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, the stage three I covered that.

[Caller 2]

Was it the thing about constructed realities? Digital realities?

[Jay Dyer]

No, I'm talking about the one where he talks about he's spotted a girl that he thinks could be useful for Epstein who's quote stage three in the process. Is this a separate one?

[Caller 2]

Oh, right. So yeah, so it is this guy.

[Jay Dyer]

So this guy talks to him about.

[Caller 2]

A bunch of this kind of quote.

[Jay Dyer]

Like woo woo stuff.

[Caller 2]

But this is actually interesting. It's more about the idea of like using digital realities and like constructed video.

[Jay Dyer]

Games to analyze people's decisions and predict their, their worldview in order to make.

[Caller 2]

Predictions about what they would do in the future. And it's kind of, I think what we. You've talked about before. Like with social media, when you control the inputs, you can also predict the outputs.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, that's feedback loop. Yeah, so that's exactly, yeah. Minds of Men, that documentary goes into that from how Norbert Wiener kind of pioneered that idea of feedback loops and mastering reality through, you know, DARPA style, you know, action future actuary, predictive technology and all that. Yeah, we talked that. That's also in foundation. If you read Asimov, which we've done streams on Asimov before. Shout out to the live audience. We've got almost 3, 000. This would be my first 3, 000 live audience, I think, without any big dumps from big channels, at least I don't think anybody did a big dump. So shout out to Jake or Crucible if they did, but I didn't see it if they did. So we're gonna hit 3, 000 on my first live. Now this griper over here says there's no motion on Dyer. There's no motion. He can't get anything. Oh really? We hit 3,000 live this week, 20 to 25,000 total on each of these live streams. And the five hour live streams are getting anywhere from 40 to 50,000 views as well as several hundred thousand clips on X. And then my channel just this week gained 3,5000 subscribers on YouTube and I think I gained 3 to 4000 on X. So I would say there's a little bit of motion. There's some motion in this ocean, baby. Don't, don't hate, don't hate the, the player, hate the game. How's it go anyway? All right, let's get into Jeff Simon, Gaffrey, if any last calls here on anything else. Michael. What up, dude? What's up, my wigger? A.J. yo. Hey.

[Caller 1]

I, I just so I, I, I kind of helped to break the story, the Epstein story back in 2016 or whatever it was. But I wrote an article for the, the American Conservative and I got a call from Tucker Carlson's producer, Eldad, you're on, asking me to come on to talk about it. And so I said, cool. That was all right. So I, so they, you know, I was driving into the, to the station and uh, and he called me again. He said, he said, I just wanted to make a request. I said, what's that? He said, don't talk about Trump. Don't talk about the Trump connection. The audience doesn't want to hear that. And I was pretty new to, you know, to the scene. So I just, you know, I was Tucker Carlson tonight on Fox News. So I agreed. I didn't go on, I didn't, I didn't talk about it. But then, you know, like six months ago, the Epstein files, quote, unquote, breaks again, right? And everyone's saying, oh, is Trump in the Epstein files. It's like, well of course Trump's in the Epstein. I was blown away. I couldn't believe it because, you know, I think anyone that's been paying attention to the Trump was all over the Epstein files. But you know, mainstream media rights, right wing media was running interference for Trump hard. I mean to the point where most people didn't realize that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein because that was all suppressed. So hard with the story straight started to break.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I don't know about all that, that I'm not faulting you, but like I interviewed the person who broke the story way before 2016, Nick Bryant. Nick Bryant was doing this stuff back in the 2000s. So what do you mean you broke?

[Caller 1]

Yeah, yeah, so I misspoke. I guess when it was when it really kind of like started to become mainstream. Not to just when it was. So I guess, yeah, misspoke. We're helping to amplify it. And it was, you know, thank God it was making, it started to make, it started to get some traction because you know, it's, it's, it's the big it's. But I, I guess I was just. All I'm trying to say is like I think people aren't really black pilled enough. Even the people that are getting black pilled now, they're not black pilled enough because this is like this has been, they've been covered, they've been, you know, actively covering this up for, I mean for, for decades this has been well known and then, but even the, you know, even the, the biggest organs of, of power like F News like the White House have been, have been, have been covering this up.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I think it was definitely a mistake for Trump to cover up for the intelligence agencies. I think Lord Voldemort is correct about that analysis. But you know, there may have been potential legal threats that they could have to undergo. I don't know. But I, yeah, I mean I still want to, you know, hope that the President isn't implicated. I know that he's close, he was close to a new Epstein. But you do have emails where Epstein says, I couldn't get Trump to, to get a massage. He says to Wolf, we gotta get rid of Trump, put pressure on, pressure on Trump. You know, where is the. I'm not saying that there's not, but we need to see the actual like hardcore information that does implicate Trump. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm just simply saying that we've seen a lot of fake AI stuff. My main criticism of Trump has been the, the warp speed, the boomerdom and the sort of just doing whatever Israel wants. I think those are major points of criticism. So it's not, I'm not a, like a MAGA cult person who doesn't have a problem. I'm post politics. I've been, I've been post party politics since Ron Paul era, dude. But so now we've got Lucas Gage going crazy, talking. He's so glad that they have refuted me. And this guy is really unhinged. He's constantly sort of going off on everybody. Everybody's a grifter, everybody's bad because he's the like greatest champion of anti Israel stuff. And you know, when he's called in, the two or three times that he's called in over here, I've been kind and tried to explain philosophical concepts to him and he has no idea what they are or what they mean. And these are people who are way overconfident in their skill sets and their abilities. Right. Think about Professor Dave, okay? We have a mid. Tier. What does he have, like a, a tv, VCR repair background with the UN the community college that he taught at, he says it was a trade university. Yeah, trade university is where you get like your H Vac, tv, VCR repair certification. So he taught there. Okay. Wow, that's, that's really profound. Lucas Gage then way overestimates his capabilities. He thinks he's a, a, a philosopher. And you remember when he called in, he was like, like, well, this Christianity stuff, why don't you just talk about like, oh, like now we're all one. Like everything is one, like a Buddhism or whatever. It's that level. Okay? So we're dealing with people that are this level. They think that science is like a religion. Right? So when we talk about scientism, that's what we mean. And I'll bet you money that guy won't come over here and debate because, you know, most of these people are just, we live in a situation where people have not been educated. That's a big part of it. But even with a lot of information, even with a, an Internet at your fingertips that has basically, you know, the world's, the world's information at your fingertips. People are not being educated. They're actually getting stupider. They're, they're becoming less educated. I will bet you, anybody in this chat, I'll bet you a hundred dollars that if we can get Lucas Gage on here and we can get him to engage Lucas engaged. I will bet you he doesn't know anything about logical argumentation fallacies. He can tell you the three laws of logic. I bet you couldn't. You couldn't do any of that. So let's see if we can get him to come to debate. I've asked multiple times here for him to. Come on, hop on. He's hopped on in the past and I think people think that like just talking is going to be some kind of like, I think they think it's like a, a replacement for actual engagement. And that makes sense in a Reddit 4chan debased and degraded society. So you've got a whole generation of people have been degraded and brutalized. And what does Charles Carroll say? Mind graped. And so they're not able to reason through things with an educated understanding. They all, for example, will cite peer review papers as the peer review papers are approved. Well, peer review papers might be in evidence, but we also know that peer review papers oftentimes contain fraudulent research and fraudulent data and conclusions. Even one of their wannabe new atheist luminaries, James Lindsay, made a name for himself on Joe Rogan by exposing the fraudulent nature of those peer reviewed networks. So even their own call this out, right? We saw the Lancet, one of the premier medical journals in the world, right out of the uk The Lancet had a famous paper which I've cited countless times years ago, saying that upwards of 50% of peer reviewed papers are actually fraudulent talent. And they called it a crisis, a crisis of trying to remember the terminology, like a crisis of faith, which is ironic, Something like that. Okay, cool. So then it should be easy for these people to demonstrate at a very basic, you know, rudimentary level the flaws in our reasoning. And they ought to have much more convincing, significant answers as to why we ought to believe their position. But you know what's wild is that every time we bring them on and we ask them very basic questions about justification, why we. What are the good reasons to believe your position? What, what are the fallacies that I'm committing? They don't know anything. And you just heard Professor Dave say, oh, it's, it's what I say. It is. Shut up, Jim Bob. It's what I say. Let's listen to this again.

[Caller 2]

And so why would I, why would.

[Jay Dyer]

I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain? Because I'm right. So this is all you get from these people. At the end of the day, it's just pure arrogance. It's t dump level saying reality is, reality is True. Because I say it's true. No actual argumentation. And they don't even understand the argument that you're making. Jim Bob is making a devastating dys teleology argument. What does that mean? It means that at a macro level, at a universal level, if there's no purpose to anything in reality, then there isn't really purpose at all. Purpose is kind of an illusory sort of localized temporal thing that in the big, big scale is. Is. Is meaningless. And Dave says, yeah, my brain is meaningless and purposeless. Well, guess what? If your brain is meaningless and purposeless, it's non purposive. Then that means that your statements are non purposive and meaningless. So atheists are literally saying, my actual worldview means that my life, my arguments, and my sentences are meaningless and purposelessness and just bubblings up of chemical reactions that have no significance. But also, by the way, I'm my own God and we're evolving to become transhumanist God beings. So note the absolute insanity of the presuppositional level contradiction in their worldviews. Their world views at a fundamental level are so contradictory that when they get actually pinned and called out, they have a meltdown and they just go absolutely batshit insane going after me. They have to call out my wife, right? That's how. That's how shitty these people are. It's like they have to go after Jamie in their videos because they are degraded and debased goblins. And then when you ask them to actually do a public debate, they won't do it.

[Podcast Host]

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Chev.

[Jay Dyer]

There's nothing like the American Express Platinum card. Find out your welcome offer after you apply, which could be as high as 175,000 points. Learn more and find out your [e-mail] explorer Platinum terms apply. Now remember, one of my best arguments is the. The. The half nug argument. I think this is a good one. So remember that the mutations occur and they Progress from generation to generation when they're advantageous. Interesting. What is the advantage of 18 of a PP? The nub. Right, the nub argument. Now, I know a lot of these people have a micropenis problem, and that's probably why they identify with it. They understand what it's like to have. Have a micro peepee. And so I think they want to feel like they were. They had a purpose in the evolutionary chain. My atheist Reddit, micro PP did have a purpose. My nub had a purpose, I promise you. Although, wait a minute. Dave just said there's not actually any purpose. Somebody said, Dave is the final boss of Reddit. We thought it was just Lane, but it's actually Dave because he has a big, big brain and a big nose. So interesting. Somebody in the comments said that because after his video, he sent a bunch of his atheist goblins to comment. Somebody said, around with a brain and find out. And I was like, it would have been so much better if he said it went around with the nose and find out. Rachel, what's up? Rachel, Hey. I just wanted to let you know I sent you to your inbox, me explaining to Derek on the timeline here.

[Caller 2]

Why we have to debate the worldview first. Because you can't just interpret anything, whether it's a text or history or anything else until you.

[Jay Dyer]

Because you have to interpret those things through a worldview. If the worldview is incoherent. Right.

[Caller 2]

You're going to get the wrong interpretation.

[Jay Dyer]

And his response is pretty hilarious.

[Caller 2]

So I thought you might be interested in that. And tell Jamie, don't worry about the people that attack her, because this is.

[Jay Dyer]

What these idiots do when they can't.

[Caller 2]

Punch our husbands, they punch us. Like it's, it's exactly like if they were standing next to you and Jamie and they're too scared to punch you.

[Jay Dyer]

In the face, so they just turn.

[Caller 2]

And punch your wife in the face.

[Jay Dyer]

Happens to me like, like constantly with.

[Caller 2]

Andrew where people are too scared to, like, go after him directly, so they just attack me.

[Jay Dyer]

So. Yeah, well, it's interesting. Yeah, I appreciate that, Rachel. I mean, I tried to tell Jamie that too. I was like, these are not intellectuals, babe. Don't worry about it. Like, these are. These are suits, and this is what suits do. But, you know, if they were looking for me to offer a debate, I guess they achieve that. And. But I don't think they're going to do it. Except for Gnostic Informant. However, we got a whole week for Gnostic Informant to come up with a, an excuse as to why he can't do a debate next Monday on the Crucible. Shout out to the Crucible and to Rachel and Andrew. The debate will be over there at the Crucible Monday night. I think we said nine or something. Nine or eight it'll be. We'll have a. We'll have the. All that posted all week long. What's up, John? What's on your mind?

[Caller 1]

I'm. I was gonna read something from Propaganda by Jacques.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, go ahead.

[Caller 1]

Is it okay?

[Jay Dyer]

Is it really long or short?

[Caller 1]

I'll end it up a bit.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay.

[Caller 1]

But it basically, in light of what you were just talking about, and it says that the state can no longer govern without the masses, which nowadays are closely involved in politics. But these masses of people are composed of individuals and from the point of the view, the problem is slightly different. They are interested in politics and consider themselves concerned politics, even if they are not forced to participate actively because they live in a democracy and they embrace politics as soon as somebody wants to take the democratic regime away from them. But this presents them with a problem that are way over their heads. They are faced with choices and decision with which demand maturity, knowledge and a range of information which they do not and cannot have. And elections are limited to the selection of individuals, which reduces the problem participation.

[Jay Dyer]

To its simplest form.

[Caller 1]

The individual wishes to participate in other ways than just elections. He wants to be conversant with economic questions. In fact, his government asks him to be. He wants to form an opinion on foreign policy, but he can't. He is caught between his desire and his inability, which he refuses to accept. For no citizen will believe that he is unable to have opinions.

[Lucas Gage]

And then.

[Jay Dyer]

Is that from his propaganda book?

[Caller 1]

Yeah, and then it just says the majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion at all.

[Jay Dyer]

Wow, that's very. That's very perceptive. How applicable to the Reddit brain. Reddit sphere. Is that right there? That's crazy. Yeah, that's the classic text from Jacques Lowell on propaganda, which I've got over there. We need to do that book sometime in the near future. Thank you for that, John. Now I'm hoping we can get Lucas Gage to come over here, so if you guys would tweet at him and tell him to come in here because he's popped in over here and tried to, you know, discuss and. And in a civil way argue religion and theology. He was trying to tell me why. Gotta be Buddha's the dude inside the Buddhism and that, like the God or whatever. It's like though everything is to God. Or whatever, really profound stuff from these people. And I'm thinking that from. We're going to get the same thing from gnostic informant, because gnostic informant says he's a. He's an Aristotelian monist, okay? Which. Aristotle was a dualist, famously. So I don't think he's going to do too well not knowing these basic ideas. But this is what you get with. You know, we live in a situation where people way overestimate their capabilities, and they think that because they've learned one discipline, that that discipline then gives them sort of the key, the master key to every discipline. Now, we saw that, for example, with jf if you remember the first big atheist debate that we did. Well, second, we did Adam Kokesh, and then we did JF JF thought that his capabilities in neuroscience qualify. And he even says stuff like in the debate, like, qualified him for everything. And then when I start bringing into sort of basic logical fallacies and, you know, contradictions and flaws, he gets angry, basically. Almost rage, quits the debate, almost booted me before I said, you know, all right, all right, you know, fine, let's. Let's. I'll chill out, say he was about to boot me from the debate. But my point is that we get that with these people, right? People that are a lot of these scientism bros. A lot of people coming out of, like, you know, one discipline. They did their grind work in one discipline, and they think that they're like, literally, I've seen this so many times. They think that they're experts in every arena. And the same thing happens, ironically, with MMA bros, right? We've had several people who come out of the MMA sphere. They get really hyped up into talking about everything and everybody else. And then they think that because they did Brazilian jiu jitsu, that they're like, somehow master debaters. More like just masturbators. Yeah, good one, dude. I've heard that joke a zillion times. Jay's not a master debater. He's a master. Who wants to. Out here. Lucas is here. He's going to set it straight. Great. Because we're a science denier. Oh, science denier. What's up? Lucas, you want to unmute? Lucas, you want to unmute?

[Lucas Gage]

Sorry, it's that low IQ of mine. I muted myself. It's that Reddit tier iq. Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

You.

[Lucas Gage]

You summoned me for some reason. What's going on?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, you summoned me because you said that you're glad that I was exposed as a suit. So how Am I sued?

[Lucas Gage]

No, I, I posted that video because everyone, it was Professor Dave, which is a left wing shitlib, as everyone knows. And then myth vision, who I don't talk to, I don't know who he is.

[Jay Dyer]

And then he's not.

[Lucas Gage]

What's his name? Neil. So I just like to, I don't like the science denial. So I know that you guys.

[Jay Dyer]

Where did I deny science? What's that? Where did I deny science?

[Lucas Gage]

Well, I mean, you think evolution's faking gay? Aren't you a. Also a young earth creationist?

[Jay Dyer]

So hold on. So evolutionary theory is the same thing as science?

[Lucas Gage]

I'm saying that you don't agree with evolutionary biology, right?

[Jay Dyer]

I don't agree with macro evolution.

[Lucas Gage]

No, but if you understand that what micro evolution is over time is what you call macro evolution, that's what you guys have to understand the second.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I do understand that, but how do you prove that? Where's the, that's an assertion. Where's the, the proof of that?

[Lucas Gage]

We have speciations. I'm not an expert in evolution, so I can't tell you every single species. I know there's this ring, there's a ring species in California of salamanders, there's things like that, there's bacteria that evolves. We see it all the time.

[Jay Dyer]

You want, we see it all the time. Have you observed that? Because science is an imperial.

[Lucas Gage]

Have you observed your great great great grandmother?

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly, it's an imperial, it's an empirical domain. So if you haven't observed observed it, then how do we know that that's actually the case?

[Lucas Gage]

Because listen, you could look when you see, here's the thing about science, it makes a prediction, then we confirm the prediction. So if they, even when you go back in time and see Foss, if, if this, if this is true, as evolution is true, we should have transitional fossils. There's millions of them.

[Jay Dyer]

Like what?

[Lucas Gage]

That's the thing, it makes a prediction.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, hold on, hold on. Where is this evidence? You're making all these assertions and I'm asking where is it?

[Lucas Gage]

Fossils? You did the fossil record.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I've not seen a fossil that shows the millions of transitions that you're talking about. Where is it?

[Lucas Gage]

You're not going to see millions of transitions.

[Jay Dyer]

You just said we do see that. Now you're saying we don't.

[Lucas Gage]

We have milk, we have, I don't know exactly how many fossils exist. I know we have tons of them.

[Jay Dyer]

But how does the fossil tell you that it's the transition. How does the fossil itself. Tell you. Isn't that an interpretation?

[Lucas Gage]

Because here's the thing. Every time they have a fossil, you guys want another fossil in between those two fossils. And well, there's another.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but that's begging the question. How do you know that that specific fossil is part of the transition? That's the thing in question.

[Caller 2]

Nearly home.

[Jay Dyer]

Isn't home where we all want to be? Reba here for realtor.com the Pro's number one most trusted app. Finding a home is like dating. You're not just looking for a place to live, you're searching for the one. That's where realtor.com comes in. Like any good matchmaker, they know exactly where to look. With over 500,000 new real listings straight from the Pro Pros every month, you could find your perfect match today. Ranch style with a pool, barndominium with an in law suite. Realtor.com's got em modern craftsman with a big yard and a treehouse out back. Realtor.com will have you saying, yep, that's the one. No more swapping. It's time to start finding. Download the realtor.com app today cause you're nearly home. Make it real with realtor.com pro's number one most trusted app based on August 2025 proprietary survey. Over 500,000 new listings every month based on average new for sale and rental listings July 2024 to June 2025.

[Lucas Gage]

Because you could see the transition go over time.

[Jay Dyer]

You don't see transition. That's an interpretation. That's the thing. I'm asking you about empiricism. You're an empiricist and you're saying I see transitions. No, you don't. You see present day fossils that you're saying are transitions.

[Lucas Gage]

Here's a thing, here's the problem here. So you're saying that I'm an empiricist and that's all I care about is there's different kinds of beliefs, Jason. You know, there's intrinsic and there's extrinsic beliefs, right? There's mathematics, there's analytics. All American. All unmarried men are bachelors.

[Jay Dyer]

What does that have to do with this? What does that have to do with the.

[Lucas Gage]

Because the thing is, when it comes to epistemology, are you, are you operating under the justified true belief model?

[Jay Dyer]

Yes.

[Lucas Gage]

Okay, then that's just garbage. I'll tell you why. Because you can't, you can never obtain that. It's unattainable. We're not omniscient beings. And I even wrote a Paper on it.

[Jay Dyer]

I can't do it.

[Lucas Gage]

To get your problem. You know what the get your problem is?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. That at time T you also have to have an extra qualification.

[Lucas Gage]

So here's the thing.

[Jay Dyer]

Why you keep interrupting me when you're just yapping at me? Because you're saying that you know that there's no justified true belief, so if there's no justice we cannot obtain. How do you know that we can't obtain that? Hold on. How do you know that.

[Lucas Gage]

That we cannot.

[Jay Dyer]

How do you know that? You just keep asserting it.

[Lucas Gage]

Are not able to. We're not.

[Jay Dyer]

How do you know that? That's. Those are great assertions. Cool. What's the proof of that?

[Lucas Gage]

We can't. Can you show me a justified true belief that you know?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, sure. To deny JTB and the getier problem results in the impossibility of true knowledge. So there you go. That's a transcendental argument. What? What? So I'm giving you basic argumentation out of mixing.

[Lucas Gage]

See, look, you're using a logical claim to make the justified true belief the tea. And just.

[Jay Dyer]

You don't think that. Okay, so when you argue against justified true belief, you don't think you're using logic.

[Lucas Gage]

Yeah, but logic is a system we know the boundaries of. We're not talking about.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, you just said we don't have justified true belief, so how do we know the boundaries of it? You don't know that. I want to know what is your. What is your epistemology?

[Lucas Gage]

Language. We're talking about language here. We know.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but you just keep shifting. So.

[Lucas Gage]

So a lot of you guys do. You'll say, is that a true thing?

[Jay Dyer]

Thing. Well, that's true, isn't it?

[Lucas Gage]

That's what. No, we're talking about absolute truths of reality. We don't know the absolute truth of reality.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, Is that an absolute statement? Is that an absolute statement?

[Lucas Gage]

Yeah, but that's a statement that's not about absolute truth.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes, it is. It's a universal claim. You just refuted yourself.

[Lucas Gage]

No, because it's not the same. It's language.

[Jay Dyer]

You're saying it's not the same. It's a universal claim. You're saying for all states of affairs, no one has universal knowledge.

[Lucas Gage]

If we don't exist, is that still true? No.

[Jay Dyer]

What does that have to do with you just contradicting yourself? You made a universal claim.

[Lucas Gage]

What's.

[Jay Dyer]

What?

[Lucas Gage]

What does it mean to be universal at all times, all places and all if we don't?

[Jay Dyer]

And you said that that's not possible. That's a universal claim.

[Lucas Gage]

No, listen, we're talking about. You're talking. We're talking about language when we haven't.

[Jay Dyer]

No, you made an existential claim. It's not just language. You made an existential claim about everybody having no universal knowledge or. Or absolute certitude in any state of affairs. That's a metaphysical and an epistemic claim that you just made.

[Lucas Gage]

You and I, as human beings, because we're finite creatures. You will argue God has that. That's why you're operating under justified true belief. And only to have. That's with God.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but you're operating on that system too. You just deny it. And that's what I just showed you.

[Lucas Gage]

I'm not. What are you. What are you saying?

[Jay Dyer]

You're using the same principles and justification and then turning around and saying, but I don't have to justify it, even though it's a. A universal claim. You said no one can have that level of knowledge and certitude. No one is a universal quantifier. That's a contradiction.

[Lucas Gage]

And I could state that in language.

[Jay Dyer]

So your language doesn't apply to reality. Then it's a purposeless statement. That's ridiculous.

[Lucas Gage]

No, because the human language isn't eternal and it doesn't exist without us. Are we speaking about the same objective?

[Jay Dyer]

Do you not understand that this is a basic critique of your skeptical position? No, what I'm saying, you don't understand that.

[Lucas Gage]

You're using language that we know, we define, and you're saying that's universal and that's absolute truth. And even if we don't exist.

[Jay Dyer]

So translate it into logic. You can, you know, you understand. You can translate those statements into logical statements, right?

[Lucas Gage]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

So no one has this knowledge. That's a universal quantifier in logic. That means that it doesn't exist anywhere. You just, by your own criteria, said no one can have.

[Lucas Gage]

I said humans. Humans. I said humans.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, I'm not picking up. In your worldview, there's not. In your worldview, that's all there is. In your worldview, that's all there is.

[Lucas Gage]

Justified true belief cannot be obtained by us.

[Jay Dyer]

That's a universal claim about you. It doesn't matter whether it's about humans. It's about humans in all states of affairs universally, it's still a universal claim. No one is a universal quantifier. This is basic college philosophy. It doesn't matter that you keep saying human beings. It's a universal claim. Saying.

[Lucas Gage]

I'm not saying. A God can't do it. So you're. You're straw manning me. I said human. I said we can't.

[Jay Dyer]

If God exists, then that would be in my position. That would be a justification for jtb. You're using these categories.

[Lucas Gage]

This is what I'm saying. So listen to me. This is my point. I said we as agents, you and I, human beings, we cannot obtain justified true belief.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, that's why I'm making a transcendental argument. That's what I've been arguing the whole time. Do you. You.

[Lucas Gage]

It does. Listen, you're not understanding.

[Jay Dyer]

No, it's you that doesn't understand. You don't even know what a transcendental argument is. You said it's crazy.

[Lucas Gage]

Absolutely do what it.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, what is it.

[Lucas Gage]

What is it you're saying when you're making these claims that transcend all of the things we're talking about?

[Jay Dyer]

That's not what a transcendental argument is. You don't know what it is. Just admit you don't know what it is.

[Lucas Gage]

You know what it is.

[Jay Dyer]

Then what is it? What is a transcendental argument?

[Lucas Gage]

We just. We just had one. You literally just made one.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, can you tell me what it is? Where does it come from historically? Give an example of it in the form. Form.

[Lucas Gage]

Oh, here we go with this whole.

[Jay Dyer]

So you don't actually know.

[Lucas Gage]

No.

[Jay Dyer]

But you said you did know.

[Lucas Gage]

Yeah, I do know.

[Jay Dyer]

But now you're saying you don't make.

[Lucas Gage]

Is you're straw manning my argument. I'm saying.

[Jay Dyer]

No, your argument isn't an argument. It's a fundamental contradiction. The fact that you just. You said that we don't have access.

[Lucas Gage]

To it, including God.

[Jay Dyer]

Nothing. Nothing. That's a universal quantifier. You're saying universally. You just said nothing. And no one didn't. Did you not not.

[Lucas Gage]

I said nothing. I literally give the constraint.

[Jay Dyer]

Nothing and no one is a universal quantifier.

[Lucas Gage]

Jason, we're talking about humans. Why do you keep going to God?

[Jay Dyer]

It doesn't matter that you add on this phrase. We're talking about humans. Because it would be universally the case for humans everywhere.

[Lucas Gage]

Jason. Yeah, and we're limited.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. Okay, then. Now you've admitted that it is a universal claim. Do you understand what a universal claim is?

[Lucas Gage]

What?

[Jay Dyer]

Do you understand what a universal claim is?

[Lucas Gage]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

What?

[Lucas Gage]

All times. This is all possible worlds. Do we exist in all those places? Possible worlds and times? Do we.

[Jay Dyer]

Do we assume that's not what. That's not what? That's not what possible Worlds even means it has nothing to do with whether we exist in all those possible worlds.

[Lucas Gage]

What does universal mean? Go ahead.

[Jay Dyer]

It just simply means at all times, in all places. It doesn't even have to be.

[Lucas Gage]

Human beings exist in all times and all corporations, places.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, my gosh. The question is not about human beings existing. We're talking about the truth of the. Do you not understand what a truth of a claim is versus the human beings making the claim?

[Lucas Gage]

This is what you guys always do. You talk about the language and say.

[Jay Dyer]

No, you're making a fundamental mistake in category error. It's a category. Do you know what a category error is? Do you even know what a category error is?

[Lucas Gage]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

What?

[Lucas Gage]

It's when you conflate two different things, like Jim Bob was doing earlier, making purposes.

[Jay Dyer]

So now you're going off into Jim Bob. What does Jimbo have to do with this? You're saying that. That it's not universal because it talks about human beings and human beings aren't universal. That's so low tier, dude. That's ridiculous. The claim is the universal, not the human being making the claim. This is silly.

[Lucas Gage]

I'm. You're literally strong. You're literally strong.

[Jay Dyer]

Now this is basic epistemology and Logic 101. To make a universal claim is when you have a universal quantifier, it doesn't mean the person is universal.

[Lucas Gage]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I'm saying no human beings could have justified true beliefs. We cannot.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, there's a problem with saying that. It's a non sequitur. Because to have any kind of true belief requires jtb, namely to be able to say no one can have this position. That's what you don't understand, Jason. Why do you keep saying my name?

[Lucas Gage]

What does that have to do with this? The gettier problem proved that we cannot.

[Jay Dyer]

No, it doesn't. All it is. All that says is that. No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with the paradigm love. No, it doesn't. Now, so here you go off into this is not so erudite, destiny level stuff. You should not have called in, man. This is making you look ridiculous. I should read your pie paper. Okay.

[Lucas Gage]

Did you read it?

[Jay Dyer]

Why would I read you? Why would I have read your pie paper?

[Lucas Gage]

Have you or not? I'm just. I'm just asking. No, I'm asking you. Have you read my paper on the epistemic model that I came that actually transcends this great patrol?

[Jay Dyer]

I don't follow you. How would I Read your paper. Paper.

[Lucas Gage]

Okay, well, if you read that, you'll understand that obtaining knowledge is not propositional. It's structural.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, wow. You want me to.

[Lucas Gage]

Want me to go through the premises for you?

[Jay Dyer]

No, I'm not even gonna entertain it because you've already demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge of these subjects.

[Caller 1]

No, I. I don't.

[Lucas Gage]

I don't know every terminology that you're claiming.

[Jay Dyer]

No, you don't know the basic terminology. Why would I listen to your paper? You don't know the basic terminology.

[Lucas Gage]

You said. You literally said a universal is every place, every time, in every place. And I said human beings do not exist in every time and every.

[Jay Dyer]

That's a category error. You're fundament. Competent in. In. In epistemology.

[Lucas Gage]

I said we would have to have omniscience to have justified true belief. That's why you appeal to God. Yeah, but human beings cannot have justified true belief.

[Jay Dyer]

And my argument. Okay, do you understand? Could you state what my argument is? I know you don't believe it. Could you restate what I'm arguing?

[Lucas Gage]

Your argument about Tag and how God is. Which argument do you talk about?

[Jay Dyer]

Yes, specifically. What I'm saying is your violation and how it to. Relates. Relates to Tag.

[Lucas Gage]

You're arguing that essentially, in order to ground these transcendentals like logic and everything else mathematics, you need an entity, a mind to ground them to keep the consistent.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, but what was specifically was my critique of your. Of your claims.

[Lucas Gage]

You're saying that I'm making a universal claim that no one, including God, can have justified true belief. That's not what I said.

[Jay Dyer]

No, no, no. I'm saying that the phrase itself, the proposition, when you say no one can have that, that. That requires still access to a universal state of affairs to have the universal quantifier.

[Lucas Gage]

I'm saying we as human beings cannot have justified.

[Jay Dyer]

But you stating that doesn't answer the objection because the objection is at a level of presuppositional critique. And you're just saying another thing that's not addressing the criteria. So this is ultimately a criteria question, and you just appeal to another thing that isn't addressing the criteria. Question. Question. So, yeah, I understand. And we agree that individual human beings, because they're finite and they go on the basis of empirical data, they don't have access immediately to universal categories. That's why. David.

[Lucas Gage]

Listen, Jason, I'm not an academic. Everyone knows.

[Jay Dyer]

Wait a minute. But I thought I needed to read your pie paper on how structuralism is the answer to all this, because I.

[Lucas Gage]

Have this intuition where I could find.

[Jay Dyer]

So now we should go. Why should we go to your intuition? That's a ridiculous.

[Lucas Gage]

Because I understand when there's a contradiction, so.

[Jay Dyer]

Well then how come you don't understand the contradiction I'm pointing out? If you understand contradiction, I do understand. Yeah. What is the contradict? What is the contradiction specifically that I'm pointing out?

[Lucas Gage]

You're saying because I just said no one, it's a universal claim. You're saying that because I said no one, which I didn't, I was talking about us people and I constrained it, that it's impossible for anyone, including God, to have justified true belief. Is that not what you're arguing?

[Jay Dyer]

No, I, I'm sure that you could say theoretically likely that God might have that, but that doesn't matter in regards to the proposition itself. Do you understand propositions themselves have truth values and that you can extrapolate logical forms?

[Lucas Gage]

The problem with, and I say this in my epistemic model, is that when you have a proposition, it has to be justified. And how are you justified? Are you foundationalist? Are you an infinitist? What are you epistemically? Jay?

[Jay Dyer]

I'm a revelation theorist, so I believe in divine revelation, which is none of those. Which is not. Stop interrupting me. Which is none of those, those secular models. So, so what is your model?

[Lucas Gage]

I have my own model. And basically what I discovered is this how I describe.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, so this is all justify any of their beliefs. This is ridiculous. We're done. So it's just his own made up thing. He doesn't even know the basic terminology. So basically again, the fact that you say universal claims and then saying but it's not universal because it's only amongst human beings is totally irrelevant to whether it's a universal proposition or claim. So this is just too stupid. So there you go, there's your atheist defending. He would rather defend the shit libs than actually have conversations that deal with anything beyond what does it always end up being? Oh, it's my paper. It's the thing that I came up with. It's the thing he invented. So there you go, there's your Bayes tradition. Buddy of the shitlibs there. Chase. What's up?

[Caller 2]

Hey man, I just wanted to talk to you. I know that was rough and that the defeat was bad. So if you got anything you want to get off your chest, I'm here for you if you want to talk about it.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, he wrote a paper, so you didn't read his paper.

[Caller 2]

He wrote a Paper, you're finished. That's basically game over. No, I just wanted to jump in. It's, it's really funny when people do that. Like with, with the Gettier problem, which assumes that we have knowledge. First off the getty get your problems not trying to say knowledge is impossible, it's showing. Hey, sometimes you're gonna need a fourth condition, right? Like non accidental or something like that. And then I find it so funny if someone goes, I don't, I don't, you know, I totally disregard justified true belief. That's not enough. And you go, okay, can you demonstrate that? And if he offers a demonstration he's trying to justify his beliefs and believe he should have good reasons to believe.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, this is what happens when, yeah, this is what happens when people get a smattering of introductory level philosophy and then they think that they're competent to speak to the most difficult, challenging matters in the history of philosophy. And by the way, why haven't you read his paper? This is the extreme arrogance. And you know all these atheist guys, it's funny because they were saying that I'm dunning Kruger. That was dunning Kruger right there for you guys on display the assumption that a smattering of introductory level philosophy knowledge gives you the capabilities to then form your own model to solve some of the most challenging dilemmas in the history of Western philosophy. And by the way, just read my paper. So it's hard, I mean, at certain.

[Caller 2]

Points if you go, okay, sure, demonstrate now, you know that justified true belief, you just totally disregard it. You don't even need a fourth condition. You reject the whole, the whole project. The only move they could make which is really funny is, well, no, I don't believe I need to justify anything. I just, I just know things.

[Jay Dyer]

Things.

[Caller 2]

So just try.

[Jay Dyer]

It literally comes down, he appealed to intuition.

[Caller 2]

Just trust me.

[Jay Dyer]

Just trust my intuition. I have a good intuition for this. Just trust me, bro, trust me.

[Caller 2]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. But it's, it's gonna be, it's gonna be fun to see. See you in Gnostic Informant debate. I like popped into a panel that was on some channel like midway through last year and, and it literally came down to him, him saying, well, we know, we just know what reality is.

[Jay Dyer]

Is.

[Caller 2]

That's it. We just know what reality is. And then he tried arguing with Jim Bob that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. And I started going through asking, okay, what's the criteria for these things? And I used an analogy of saying the same name, right, like Neil from Gnostic Informant. But this person I'm referring to is a fat Filipino woman who makes documentaries of how Christianity is true. And he goes, well, no, it's. That's not me, because, you know, you're ascribing different beliefs that I don't have. And I said, so, you know, now we don't worship the same God. He goes, no, it's not the same because they also say the God of Abraham. So he just reverts right back to the same thing. So I. I think it's going to be really funny, man.

[Caller 1]

But I'm gonna.

[Caller 2]

I'll pop down and listen, but good luck with this, man. This is. This is funny.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. I hope we get some more Professor Dave fans. But why would we be surprised that we had that level of argumentation when this is Dave's level of argument advantage? And so why would I. Why would I listen to sounds coming from a purposeless brain? Because I'm right. There we go. Because my intuition, bro. By the way, if you guys would hit like and share also, you can support the stream through super chats now. It's interesting too, that I don't know Lucas, but it's. It sounds like he's been listening to philosophy podcast and talks and. Because he picked up on some of the jargon, but. And people think that you're being a douchebag or you're being, you know, engaging in sophistry when you try to ask people these questions about. Because I can spot immediately when a person doesn't know the material, when they haven't actually done the reading, when they've got a smattering little bit of it. It's just like if you were a guitar player, you really got at guitar. You can spot when somebody has just simply mimicked a solo or they just know basic chords, but they're not actually proficient in the material and they haven't done the. Put the time in and done the research. And nobody who's advanced in philosophy cites their own first paper. I mean, that's just so. Just arrogant, ridiculous. It's. It's a sued attitude and behavior of extreme overconfidence. And that's why when you start to ask them questions and you hear what they're saying, I can pick up on a person who doesn't know basic philosophy or has only heard a little bit. So that's a person with a kind of freshman, sophomore level of philosophical information. And, you know, that's great that he's getting into it, but what everybody has as a kind of a temptation when you get into Philosophy is everybody who's a first or second year philosophy student thinks that they've solved everything. They think that they've, they've, they're going to have the answer to, you know, the criteria problem. They're going to have the answer to, you know, the consciousness problem. And, and then as you get more and more advanced, you get into grad school, you realize that, oh, actually that was a really arrogant attitude, right? I have, I need to have more humility about these topics because there's a lot of people who spent 20, 25 years in this domain and they know this stuff better than me. So to act like as a new, you know, that you're gonna have. It's the same. It's like when people go into the MMA stuff and they're like, they bust up in the gym and they think, I'm gonna fight the dude that's been, you know, fighting in the Octagon for 20 years, because I watched some videos on YouTube and I think I could take that dude. And then in every case, those people end up being just manhandled, right? We saw that with Derek Myth Vision a year ago, and that's why he's still angry. And I think in the MMA domain too, like, people will say, look, you got to learn some humility, right? The only way you're going to advance in these topics is to be willing to be wrong, because I guarantee you there is nobody who studied philosophy and went from the introductory level to, you know, advanced who didn't get humbled at some time. This is a, this is a necessary stage in the process so that you can advance to, to learn and to realize that you don't know what you think, you know, know. So when I hear him say this and that, oh, you make this tag argument, and I say, well, I don't, I don't believe that you actually understand what a transcendental argument is in terms of the form, and they can't explain it. They don't know what it is. Now, I give him props for at least understanding what JTB was and the gettier problem. So that was a, that was a, that was a good thing. That means he's studying. Okay, but that you're studying doesn't mean that, for example, you don't make fundamental mistakes. Okay? So, for example, to say that because a universal claim is made by an individual human being and because individual human beings aren't universal, it's not universal misses the point of what a universal claim is, right? So there's claims themselves, the truth value of the claims. And then there's a separate category of which I was inquiring into, which is what is the ontological status of those truth claims? Where are they? How can we have a universal claim? What is universal claim? So he kind of got a little bit of the basics of what Tag is arguing. But then when I try to say that his approach at denying JTB ultimately ends up putting him in a way worse position, his answer was, well, I'm just relegating it and limiting it to the human domain. It doesn't matter. Because even relegated to the human domain, it, it disqualifies the initial statement that you, in other words, you couldn't know that no one in the human domain has that lack of knowledge. So it's just moving the problem back a step. So what he ought to look at, if he actually wants to understand this, is to go deeper into Sellers and into the criteria problem of Chisholm. Right? Because Chisholm brings this issue up in multiple different ways. And it's a problem that, that you can go in the direction of metaphysics or you can go in the direction of epistemology. If you go in the direction of epistemology, you're in a really bad position to deny jtb. And then the problem is that you can erect other types of systems and criteria, because a lot of philosophers try to do this. The problem though, is that usually it's moving the problem back a step and not actually addressing what the criteria problem is asking for. For. So, for example, oh well, I'm going to throw out JTB because I'm going to instead say that we don't even have to have that. No one can have that. But wait a minute. Every time you're asserting something, you're begging the question about, okay, but what is the criteria to say then? If it's not jtb, then what is the rival criteria? Oh, well, it's. We know. Structuralism that I've come up with. With. Okay, but you saying that it's a structuralism that you come up with is an assertion that is not actually dealing with the criteria problem. Father Deacon, Dr. Ananas, what would you say? I'm you. But we have a logic professor on hand, by the way. What's up? Go ahead.

[Philosophy Professor]

From the University of Science.

[Jay Dyer]

From the University of Science Incorporated by the.

[Philosophy Professor]

He was equivocating on the word universal.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. That's why he was making a category. Category.

[Philosophy Professor]

Here a universal could mean. I mean, it's typically not used this way when we're speaking in logic, obviously in philosophy. He was taking it to be present everywhere.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, you could do a. You could do a Boolean argument, right. Where it's not, it's not even that.

[Philosophy Professor]

Times or something like that. And that's not what it means in logic.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Philosophy Professor]

It just means a class. It's either a set or a set of all things or no things. So it doesn't mean like if you had. You have to think about how stupid this is. If you had.

[Jay Dyer]

Me a coffee.

[Philosophy Professor]

Marbles.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Philosophy Professor]

And they're the only existing marbles. You don't have to be omniscient or be present everywhere to actually look at the class and be like, yeah, that's the, the class of all marbles or something like that. That's what a universal is. So he was fundamentally confused on, on that issue. And then what was the other thing I noticed?

[Lucas Gage]

He was.

[Caller 1]

Well, he was transcendental.

[Philosophy Professor]

He was kidding.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, he thought transcendental was transcendent. No, transcendent is not the same thing as a transcendental. Yeah, but what would you. Let's, let's say that, you know, for the sake of argument. Well, what, what if I just throw out justified true belief and I say that it's some other thing? Like how do you, how do you deal with that? Well, I thought you.

[Caller 1]

I thought you did.

[Philosophy Professor]

Well, you bring up Chisholm's criterion problem. So why is. How would we know that's the criterion to identify what knowledge is?

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Philosophy Professor]

Because I'd have to know what the criterion is and I have to presuppose that I actually have knowledge. And so in other words, if I have to have a criterion to identify number one, to identify what knowledge is, number two, I can only identify.

[Jay Dyer]

Number.

[Philosophy Professor]

One if I already have number two and two if number one. So you're just in a vicious circle.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Philosophy Professor]

Does that make sense?

[Jay Dyer]

Yep, exactly.

[Philosophy Professor]

That's exactly. And a weird thing to kind of deflect and be like, but I mean.

[Jay Dyer]

Language, but also, I mean, you could, you could just, you could argue that like in some situations a universal doesn't even have to have a metaphysical import. Right. And at the point of the Boolean types of type of argument.

[Philosophy Professor]

Yeah, that's bully. And universals have no existential import.

[Jay Dyer]

So even if we argue that they had no existential import just in terms of the form itself, it's like you're refuting yourself. Yeah, exactly. That's what I'm. Yeah, it's like saying it's like saying it is universally the case that this very proposition is not universally the case.

[Philosophy Professor]

Exactly.

[Jay Dyer]

And it doesn't matter whether you're trying to give it an existential import or not. That pro the thing itself. That's a contradiction.

[Philosophy Professor]

And furthermore, I'm starting to use this tactic. I just tell people I don't believe that you believe that there's no way. I mean, talk about dishonesty. You go around all, you know, all the time avoiding contradictions because you think it's bad. But all of a sudden you get in a debate and now you want to double down and be like, like, well I, I get to use it. That's just language. That's dishonest. And I'll just tell people, I'm like, I don't even believe that you believe it. So how about that?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I mean he kept, he kept deflecting and saying, well that's just language. That's just language. Which I think he was trying to say that the words don't actually have any existential or metaphysical import. Okay, but that's a double edged sword because if they don't, then your argument against these words also don't.

[Philosophy Professor]

So how do you know that?

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. That's what I said. That's what I kept asking.

[Philosophy Professor]

Like, I think you already pointed out you're making some huge big claims.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Philosophy Professor]

Of all this stuff that you know and, and I think you'd mentioned to jumping in some of the most difficult philosophy, you're just going to claim, well.

[Caller 2]

I know I'm right.

[Jay Dyer]

Well that's what Dave does too. So it's like, like that seems to be a pattern here. Right. But of course they think that we're, they say, oh you guys are so arrogant. You guys are know it alls well again. And I think you could speak to this as a professor and you know, being at one point a freshman. Right. And progressing then to say in your case the PhD, don't you think it's kind of normal for everybody who studies philosophy to get humbled in many situ like you're not going to be a freshman and have figured it all out by the time you're a PhD, you're gonna, you will have been wrong many times.

[Philosophy Professor]

You get humble. And I remember. So I was introduced to philosophy and Christian apologetics like 17, 18, my senior year in high school. And you know, you just learn like really easy, like kind of refutation you're basically mimicking.

[Caller 1]

Right.

[Philosophy Professor]

So you haven't read any and really dive deep into these things. But as we all know 98 of people are idiots. Like it doesn't take much. So we would just go around and, and you know, give these. Let me give you a classic one. And it's true, like we still use this today. But I'm showing you that like this is one of the first things that I learned and it gave me a little bit of hubris. Well, somebody's like, you know, there is no truth. Oh yeah, is that true? Like, that was one of the first things that I actually learned where you just. That's a really easy tactic and it's, it's a good argument to refute somebody, but it doesn't mean that you're knowledgeable in philosophy. Does that make sense? And so, you know, going through, and thinking through these issues and reading the history, history of philosophy and you know, I'd even say like, even, you know, coming out with a bachelor's, I was still prideful. I still thought that I was just talking with all that we're just conference here with some of the best philosophers. We all thought that, we thought when we went to get a degree in philosophy, we finished our bachelor's and I went into grad school that we're so smart, we're going to change the world, world, you know, like we're really gonna make a difference. And then you realize how difficult this stuff is and you're just happy to get passed and get a PhD.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, yeah.

[Philosophy Professor]

I remember, like any of us can spot a suit.

[Jay Dyer]

When I was in my 20s and I was really into Thomism, I remember being at my, my university and, and I remember one of my undergrad advisors, Dr. Martel, he had to put up with me constantly trying to defend and argue Thomas and all the Thomistic principles. And then one day I think he got kind of annoyed with it and he found a really good critique of Thomism. And I was probably 25, 27, just absolutely insufferable. Know it all, I'm sure. And, and I'd never really read a good challenge or critique to Thomism. And he gave me that paper and I remember reading it and I remember, you know, at first I was very, oh, he's just a, you know, unbelieving professor. And why do I have to listen to him? And I, you know, he doesn't have any, you know, he's not Roman cat, he's not a trad cat. He doesn't know anything. And then as I grew older and as I matured and the more I began to kind of question things within Thomism, like I Realized, no, actually I was the one that was wrong. I thought I knew it all. And Dr. Martell, even though he may have been an atheist, agnostic, like, he did know enough about criticizing Thomism and knew the critiques of Thomism well enough to, to challenge me. But I was too immature at the time, in my 20s to be willing to say, you know, actually I'm wrong. I don't actually know what I'm talking about. There are, all right, I'm gonna tell everybody.

[Philosophy Professor]

I'm gonna make a public confession. I told, told Father Peter this today. And he's like, did you ever tell Jay this story? And I'm like, I've told Jay this story, but you guys got to hear this, okay? It's a confession about how I was wrong and Jay was right. So when I first found out about you, it was through my wife. She's like, look at this guy on YouTube. And I didn't like you. I thought you were arrogant. It and that. And the reason why I didn't like you is because you were arguing against theistic evolution.

[Jay Dyer]

I was it.

[Philosophy Professor]

I believed in theistic evolution. So you know what I told my wife? I'm like, j. Dyer doesn't know what he was talking about. And I'll debate him and I'll refute him. You heard it here on the X. That's what I thought. And guess who is wrong. I.

[Caller 1]

And guess who is right.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I don't remember debating you, so you must have.

[Philosophy Professor]

Like, I wanted to. I debated you in my head, Jay. No, but I told my wife, I like that. I was like, oh, I'd crush Jay in a debate. Are you kidding me? How arrogant. And here I already had my PC, so like, I still, we're all still working on humility. Like, you know, I, I get it. I was young and orthodoxy and stuff like that. I still have this, these hang ups. But you were right. You were right about theistic evolution being garbage. And so we, we all just got to be careful about that. You know what I mean?

[Jay Dyer]

Like, yeah, well, I think the same thing with totally, totally removed from the sphere of like academia. And this kind of stuff is, is, is other domains too, like geopolitics and that kind of stuff. Like, you know, we have a lot of people in the, in the sphere of the Fuentes overlap, right? And so I reached out to try to say to some of those people, hey, look, you know, I've been studying this stuff for a long time and I, I'm not an enemy of Nick. I want Nick to do well and come to, you know, orthodoxy. Ultimately, that would be the goal. But, like, we can all learn from each other if we listen to each other and not get caught up in the noise or the 20, 30 second clips, all that kind of stuff. Because I think in the case of the Vatican, you know, I wasn't arguing that the entire Vatican is subverted by Epstein or anything like that. I was very specific that I think that the close relationship between Epstein and John Paul Paul was verifiable. And the close relationship between John Paul and people like Saville are all very well documented. And then people say, oh, look, Jay thinks the entire Vatican is Epstein. I didn't say that. So it's like a lot of things get mistranslated in the noise. And that's why it would be good if. If people would just listen to kind of what other people are saying and not assume bad will from. From everyone else. Right. All right, so let's get over here to Jeff Stein. McGuffrey. I know we've been waiting for this. A lot of people are saying, when are you gonna do this? Wasn't expecting the. The attention that the Professor Dave crowd was going to give. So I'm glad that Lucas stepped in. Hopefully he's not mad. We got pretty heated, so I tried to. I tried to step away.