B (2:06)

That's true. That's true. All right, that looks better. All right, guys, we've got the one and only Jay Dyer with us today. We're going to be talking about the Candace Owens looking glass, the ancient Sumerian technology that the CIA has gotten their hands on and Charlie Kirk being a time traveler. We're going to talk about that theory, the origins of that, where it comes from and what have you. We're going to go into some geopolitics, regime change, Iran, Venezuela, all these different types of operations that are happening. The US's current, current position in global politics, maybe a bit of global reserve currency where Jay sees that going, the Brics nations, these types of things. We're going to go into a little bit of Kabbalah as well. And then I want to pick Jay's brains about apologetics. Apologetics basics and debate skills and tactics and how we can sort of how we can all get better at that. So, Jay, for those of you who haven't explored your work before, tell us a bit about where they can find you.

A (3:04)

You can find me on my website, jason, alyssa.com. everything there is kind of the central hub, including my archive of the last 10 years of interviews, lectures, debates, comedic material. You can find me on the Alex Jones show, usually on Fridays, but today was. Didn't work out. But you can Find me on YouTube under my name, you can find me on Instagram under my name, and you can find my books at my shop in the web at the website.

B (3:30)

Very nice. Very nice. So, I mean, we're talking about it off camera. I'm not sure how much you're able to divulge, but what have you got going on this year?

A (3:38)

Well, it looks like we may, if everything goes well, have a debate with Stefan Molyneux. That's going to be a round two on atheism. We might have some more, whatever podcast debates in the near future. We might have some other big names that I can't name right at the moment. But beyond that, I think we're gonna have another big conference down in Florida, Orthodox conference with some big names when that gets all kind of inked. So it's, it's going to be, I think, a popping off year. And thanks to you, we've had some, some clips popping off and all the clips channels are kind of expanding the audience. So I think 2026 is going to be a big one.

B (4:15)

Yeah. What did you think about the. The tier list? It looks like there's a bit of a trend going now, people doing the various tier lists of apologists and stuff like that.

A (4:23)

Yeah, I appreciate you guys giving me the props. Yeah, there's a couple places I disagree with you guys. I disagreed with Trent Horn being kind of high up. I think. I think Trent Horn's a little overrated, but otherwise I think you guys are pretty much spot on. And I was kind of surprised to see Jake the Muslim Mataritor giving me such a high position.

B (4:44)

What did he, what did he say?

A (4:46)

He ranked me in the top tier as well, because I don't know why I figured he would have put me in the bottom, but we'll see.

B (4:53)

Well, I mean, if you look at it objectively, it's pretty much undeniable at this stage, though.

A (4:56)

Well, you're too kind, dude.

B (4:58)

Yeah. But was there anyone that we were missing on there? Anyone that you particularly think is a. Like, a really good apologist?

A (5:05)

I mean, you know, contemporary. There's nothing that many. So I think. I think you guys had most people that I could think of, but, I mean, I would have put Bonson probably on there, but, I mean, Bonson's technically not contemporary because he died in the 90s. But so otherwise, you guys are right.

B (5:23)

Nice. All right, man. Well, one of the big news stories of this week has been Candace Owens's new theory. Now, look, at the start, I was thinking, all right, she's, like, maybe poking a few holes here and there, poking a few holes in FBI narratives. There was the text messages. There was the meetings at the. In the Hamptons, these sorts of things. And it definitely piqued my curiosity, and I thought that there was some decent investigative journalism going on there, but it seems like almost. It's just. It's gone into this place now where it's like the. The fix has to be. Has to be fed, and there has to be a show, so there has to be a theory, so there has to be all this crazy stuff happening. And the most recent one is that the CIA has access to ancient Sumerian technology and a looking glass and that Charlie Kirk was privy to this and that Charlie Kirk is. Was a time traveler and disturbed the continuum or something like that. So what. How did you see that? Like, am I. Am I getting that right?

A (6:19)

Yeah. I played multiple clips on my live stream last night where that is where she's taken it, and that's exactly what I predicted it. So I got into this maybe a month and a half or so ago because I didn't really have a whole lot of time to follow a lot of this, you know, Charlie Kirk speculation stuff. I kind of assumed that, you know, the government's probably not telling the truth, but. And like you, I thought, well, this is probably, you know, some good questions to ask initially. And then the plane drama was a little weird. There was some holes in that that. I saw Crowder's video, I think did a good job critiquing. And then Alex did a critique, too, back six weeks ago or four weeks ago, and then it just sort of got a little bit weirder, so I actually tuned in. I was like, I'm going to check out what her whole thesis is. I'm going to follow this. And then I noticed a pattern that something I've seen, you know, analyzing alt media and mainstream media for 15, 20 years is that people want to. It's almost like episodes of a drama where you have next week's episode's got to be up the ante, you know, even more extreme, more intense. It's like in, you know, to X Files next week for the craziest monster of the week episode. So that's what it was. And I said, actually I said, watch. What's going to happen is she's going to take it to the next level. It's going to be an even wilder yarn that she spins next month, making all the so called conspiracy theorists look bad, making us look like a bunch of idiots. And that's unfortunately where it's gone. Because I had a lot of high hopes, you know, when Candace started covering a lot of the Zionist stuff, I thought maybe she's gonna be another voice. But unfortunately it's just gotten more and more absurd and she just quadruples down, doesn't walk it back at all. So that's where we're at, unfortunately.

B (8:05)

Yeah. So what exactly is it? Because I know that there is a theory out there, or maybe there is some evidence out there that a part of the Middle Eastern wars was. I don't, I don't know anything about it. I just know the surface level. I've maybe watched a video on it a few years ago or something that there was some sort of like ancient technology or whatever that was in Iraq. Is there any credence whatsoever to this?

A (8:28)

Not that I'm aware of. I mean, you have sometimes people mentioning this kind of stuff. I think one of the Hillary emails mentioned.

B (8:35)

That's right, that's what I was. Yeah, that's what I remember.

A (8:37)

There was, there was mention of something like, you know, relics or, you know, ancient relics, but that doesn't mean that it was some sort of advanced, you know, history channel, ancient aliens technology. I mean, it just gets so absurd and there's no evidence for any of that. So that's sort of the yarn that I think she was connecting it to. And you know, maybe a little bit of CERN thrown, thrown in there for good measure. A lot of the, you know, conspiracy classic type stuff, which is pretty fringe arena material, which, you know, if she had stuck to critiquing Zionism and you know, calling out Bibi, that kind of stuff, that might have been a little more grounded, but it's just gotten crazier and crazier in order to also in gonzo journalism. So I'll put herself into the story. So you'll notice all these stories also are about her. They're coming after her. Mossad, you know, French intelligence is sending, you know, their operatives, the Foreign Legion. The CIA was also there. And then there's tunnels. And it just keeps changing because every week has to be this cliffhanger that brings you to the next dopamine hit of the craziest, most wild speculation. And again, if you go and see your comments, it's all like soccer moms and Karen. Yes, I've noticed that we're not talking about rational, you know, patriarchal logos minded dudes that are, that are working through the evidence. We're not talking about, you know, guys that have been in black ops or veterans because most of those guys that comment on this say that she's full of it. And I think it's, it's pretty obvious when you, when you get into this, particularly with the Mitch Snow story, you know, his whole narrative crumbled. It was obvious that he was a grifter pretty quickly. You know, how does a guy who's a black ops green Beret vet get imprisoned in the garage by his wife who breaks his thumbs? I mean, the stories are just preposterous. And then of course, turns out that that guy was, you know, a psychopath. And all his stories made absolutely no sense. You don't stumble onto Fort Huachuca and accidentally wander into a skiff and hear colonels planning an assassination. Doesn't work that way. And you know, anytime I had people defending this position, I asked them to call in. And anytime they would call in, I would ask them. I said, well, can you tell me a couple books that you've read on assassinations or anybody that you've interviewed? You know, I've interviewed the biggest hitman in the world multiple times. So I know a little bit about it. I'm not an expert on assassinations and nobody has any knowledge of this. So it's all just like, you know, wine mom gossip or something at the, you know, at the, at the soccer match, you know, want moms gossiping. So anyway, I'm rambling, but you get the idea. And then it just sort of got to the next level with, you know, she's relying on her dreams, she's relying on Marian feast days that she had a prayer, the day of the immaculate Conception and blah, blah, blah. And that told her intuitively. And so it's just Getting more and more absurd. And really the only question at this point I think is is it why choose a sleep number Smart bed? Can I make my sight softer? Can I make my sight firmer? Can we sleep cool? Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D. power ranks sleep number number one in customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online. And now the more you buy, the more you save on beds, bases and more. Plus, get free premium delivery on any bed with base limited time. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit jdpower.com awards check it out at a sleep member store today. This podcast is supported by the RealReal. Meet Christine. She loves shopping, and this is the sound of fashion. Too many fabulous things, not enough space. So Christine started selling with the RealReal.

B (12:18)

I've always loved collecting designer pieces, Gucci bags, Prada heels. But my style keeps evolving. Selling with the RealReal game changer. I earn more. And they do everything.

A (12:29)

Seriously. Just drop off your items or schedule a pickup. We handle the photos, descriptions, pricing, even shipping. You just sit back and watch your items Sell fast to our 40 million members.

B (12:39)

And I get peace of mind knowing I earn more selling with the RealReal than anywhere else.

A (12:43)

Exactly this. That's the sound of your closet working for you. The real real.

B (12:49)

Earn more, save time, sell fast, and.

A (12:51)

Only for the month of January. Earn up to $550 extra when you sell with the Real Real. That's right. Up to $550 extra. Go to the realreal.com to get started.

B (13:01)

Earn up to $550 extra this month.

A (13:03)

At therealreal.com terms apply. An actual sort of break in terms of psychosis is this schizophrenia. And I don't mean that in a mean, vindictive way. I don't have any animosity, really. Just being honest and objective in the analysis. Is it disinformation? You know, cointelpro style stuff? Is she being handled or, you know, is this just grifting? It could be any of those things.

B (13:28)

Yeah. Have you ever seen that meme where it's like the woman looking in the mirror and then it just says, now go and make it about you? Kind of seems that way. Then the reason was that Charlie was, you know, monitored from a young age and he was, you know, prepped and molded to do this and that Candace also, they tried to get her into the smart school, the special smart school, but she said no. So she like, really dodged a bullet with that. So it Is I was in the game program.

A (13:54)

I could speak to that. I was in California in the GATE program. Gifted in the talent program. Gate Gifted and talented education. G A T E. That's what it stands for.

B (14:03)

So I was in these are the gay program.

A (14:06)

No, everybody makes that joke. In fact, we did a Sam Hyde episode about that and we were, we were calling that, we were calling it the GATE program. So yeah, no, I wasn't in the gay program. I was in the street program. I promise.

B (14:24)

The chat can have fun with that.

A (14:27)

I was in the gay program. We had to write like this. So yeah.

B (14:36)

I wouldn't be surprised if these days they had the gay program.

A (14:38)

You know, that is what education is now. It's the gay program. So state education literally is that. I mean. Yeah, I mean all it was was just, you know, the sort of smart kids being kind of given their own curricula and put into other programs, whether we did a lot of artistic stuff and not so much a lot of like rote memorization type stuff. So there wasn't any MK Ultra. There was no Professor X, you know, picking out new mutants or any of this nonsense. But that's the way that she's sort of blown this up based on again, the popularity of this theory on Tick Tock, right? So if you go to Tick Tock and you look up the GATE program, in the last year this wild narrative has been spun through a bunch of idiotic Tick Tockers that the GATE program was this secret, you know, MK Ultra, Stranger Things type thing where they're picking the smart kids and trying to turn them into literal X Men. All of which is nonsense. That's not what the gay program was.

B (15:35)

And you would have looked into this stuff. I mean, in terms of the skull and bone societies and all these sorts of things, there is some level of grooming that goes on. Like if I was going, if I was an elite and I was looking for people to come in and fill the cabinets of the various different countries that I wanted to. To fill the cabinets of like a Klaus Schwab or something like that, then I would look at the Ivy Leagues and I'd be like, who's going to be the future leaders? Let me influence these guys. Absolutely.

A (15:59)

No, that's abs that, that's legitimate. That does happen. But that's not what the GATE program was. And that's not what, you know, there's no evidence that Charlie Kirk was some sort of chosen groomed person because he would disrupt the time continuum. And you know, we gotta have, we Gotta have, you know, Marty McFly and, and Doc Brown find a flux capacitor somehow to take us back and fix the time to take you. I mean, yeah, somebody said on Twitter, I thought it was pretty funny. I was like, you could tell what movies she's been watching lately from her conspiracy theories. So she must have watched the Mat, Back to the Future and Inception because, like, the stories kind of match up to that. And I was like, yeah, it sounds like X Files to me too.

B (16:37)

But do you know what this whole looking glass thing is, though? It is allegedly some sort of ancient Sumerian technology. Like, what, what's the, what's the law behind that?

A (16:46)

Well, first, I would say some of these projects are real. And, and we try to do, you know, on my channel, the people that we've interviewed. I try to do as best I can with actually finding real elite documents and reading the real things and not relying on, you know, secondhand speculation. But I think, you know, at the level of Candace and people like that, there's. There's really no vetting going on, which is kind of odd to be that large of a channel and to not vet sources like Mitch Snow or documents. So I'm not aware of and I haven't found. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I've not yet seen the actual document about this. I'm not saying that it couldn't exist. There is project the gateway process, which Dr. David Patrick Harry and I did a live stream on that because we actually went and found the document and read it. And this is, you know, if you look at stories like men who stare at goats, right, that's a real project where they were studying things like remote viewing at Stanford Research there is the Stargate project. So these things are real where they study this stuff. But Stargate got shut down because they really couldn't reproduce the, the work. There was limited success with remote viewing. The other projects with mind powers and all this nonsense. If you, if you've seen Minister Goats, you'll know what I'm talking about because.

B (18:01)

It'S got men who stare at goats. It's a movie.

A (18:03)

It's a George Clooney movie based on a John Ronson book. So it's a real project with the 1st Earth Battalion, which was a bunch of military guys that were trying to sort of experiment with mind powers, psychic powers, remote viewing, etc, but they had limited success with this. And again, Stargate project, that's real, but there's not any evidence beyond some of the studies of like meditation which is in the gateway process document. Beyond that, there's no evidence of time travel or seeing into the future. All of that's nonsense. People have to understand too. Sometimes the CIA declassifies things that are just publications that somebody wrote that were, that they had for some reason classified. It might have been somebody's name that was mentioned. It could have been anything. Just because something's declassified doesn't mean that, oh, this was a real, you know, government operation. For example, there was some document declassified that was a large speculative publication some years back that dealt with poll shifts. Okay, well, that doesn't mean that there's going to be a poll shift. It just means that there was a document declassified that in many of the pages happened to mention this speculative theory. So in the same way, even if there is some document, I mean, they can, they can declassify fake documents or things that really weren't even successful or real projects. That has nothing. The fact that it's declassified has nothing to do with whether it's actually valid or not. So I would say there is no, I mean, there are other things called Operation Looking Glass which have to do with like Air Force and military stuff, but there's no, I don't think there is any real technology of seeing in the future. It's a bunch of nonsense.

B (19:46)

Right. Just to let you guys know that we are going to be, we'll read super chats in between every segment. So we're going to be doing a bunch of different topics today in between. We'll basically just read anything that's like yellowing up. So any final thoughts on the whole, that whole situation there, like what your predictions are in the future, where you see that whole situation going with, with Candace and you know, in Carol and these sorts of figures who are quite popular these days?

A (20:13)

Well, I think that she's kind of locked into quadrupling down, so I don't expect her anytime soon to, to back off. In other words, we've seen this pattern pretty consistently. She's just going to keep upping the ante. In fact, she even hinted that the, the, the mystical Sumerian Wakanda technology suddenly stopped working in 2012. I mean, what, like that's Mayan calendar? I don't think, I don't think anybody believes in the Mayan calendar 2012 nonsense. And it was so it's just really weird to tie to. For her to tie that into that. And yeah, I mean, there's something going on with, you know, she seems to think that, you know, all of reality is sort of. Sort of turning around her and Charlie Kirk, which to me is. Is a. In an orthodox church, we would call that delusion or pre. Last. Right.

B (21:05)

What does pre list mean again?

A (21:07)

Pre list is a spiritual delusion. So it's more than just kind of being deluded or arrogant. It's actually thinking that God is talking to me and sending me these messages, and I don't have to listen to anyone else sort of, you know, checking me or, you know, firewall, giving me some feedback because God's talking to me. Right. So it's a supreme form of kind of spiritual delusion where you think you're kind of anointed and God's, you know, using you.

B (21:31)

Yeah. Get a lot of that with the various, like, some of the weird sort of sects of Christianity out there.

A (21:37)

Oh, absolutely. Yeah.

B (21:39)

Yeah. I had a long.

A (21:39)

Well, she's influenced by. She's influenced by the sort of charismatic vein of Catholicism. And so, unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church has for the last few decades adopted the Pentecostal charismatic, you know, methodology, where you just sort of have these experiences and that's supposedly God talking to you. And that's the proof itself. Or how do I know? Well, God, that's God. God's my feelings. God's the one that's, you know, gibbering through me through these, you know, speaking in tongues. But of course, in Scripture, tongues are just languages. There's. There's no gibberish. So she's actually influenced by this sort of charismatic Catholicism.

B (22:15)

I had a long chat a few weeks ago with a random Protestant, and I was trying to understand the. Why they thought. What they thought it was like, in, like, a personal, personal life sort of conversation. And we were going around in circles because I was sort of saying, look, like the Bible, it's good. Like, I think that it's good to obviously read scripture and to know scripture and these sorts of things, but it's not my job to interpret the Scripture. And this is why we've got, like, thousands of years of saints and all of these different theologians who can tell me that, like, I could spend my whole life trying to interpret the Bible and I would come to so many wrong conclusions that it would be ridiculous. So this is why I appreciate the idea of, you know, church authority and having that structure as opposed to everybody just doing their own interpretations. And every time I feel. Feel a feeling that's like God speaking to me. And we're going around circles because they just kept saying, no, I know what this means, and I can Interpret it because God tells me like, like, and, you know, God's speaking to me, and I read the words of God and I was like, well, how do you differentiate if I believe this and you believe this and we read the same scripture? What's the sort of. What's the threshold breaker here?

A (23:21)

Right?

B (23:22)

And they just like, well, God told me, like, it's. It's bizarre in my mind.

A (23:26)

Yeah, it's a recipe for disaster and sort of delusion and hence that term pre. Less. I mean, you know, we have. In Orthodox Church, for example, there's checks and balances. Nobody has this sort of, you know, lone wolf anointing kind of thing. We do believe in God moving you and speaking to you in. In special ways. But in our framework, there's always spiritual authorities and other people that you bounce that off of. For example, if I was to ever have some kind of vision or experience, I would talk to my spiritual father about that. And he's a virtuous, you know, honorable husband, priest that I've known for many, many years. And I trust him because I know that he's not going to steer me in the wrong direction. I have other friends like Father Deacon, Dr. Ananias, people that would give me good counsel. And, you know, in the Protestant world, you don't really have that. It's just sort of you on your own, doing your own thing, but you actually need that. Checks and balance, we would say, precisely because we are so susceptible to pride, we're so susceptible as fallen human beings, to trusting in our own hearts. And if you read the book of Jeremiah, for example, there's a section where Jeremiah says that the false prophets trust in a vision of their own hearts that they think is God, but they're actually confirming and believing a deception.

B (24:45)

Yeah, I've been. I'm halfway through the Soul after Death by Seraphim Rose at the moment. It's probably my favorite. My favorite of the saints that I've read. I just like how dense the books are with information. There's not much waffling that goes on. It's just like, interesting topic, interesting topic, interesting topic. Boom, boom, boom. Facts, facts, facts. Great book. I actually stole it from. From the Wilsons. I need to send them a new copy. But he does talk about this, about seeing apparitions and these sorts of things. You don't want to take it at face value. You want to actually go and, like, approach your spiritual father or somebody about this, as opposed to just seeing a ghost or even like a dead family member or something like this. And it goes all into out of body experiences and astral projection and what the orthodox view is on this, and it's super, super interesting stuff.

A (25:31)

Yeah, that's a great one. You'd also probably like his book Orthodoxy and the Religion, the Future, because that gets.

B (25:36)

Yeah, I read that. Yeah.

A (25:37)

Oh, cool.

B (25:38)

That's a great book.

A (25:39)

The other one that's really good from him is Nihilism Roots of the Revolution, because it's kind of a presuppositional critique of Marxism, socialism, communism, and. And most of what we know is modern leftism. He does a really good critique of that. Yeah.

B (25:54)

All right, well, let's get through some super chats here, and then we'll move on. Jordan says, Jay, congrats on being the first black woman on Rattlesnake TV to be in a positive light.

A (26:03)

Well, we all know who the real queen is, and it ain't Candace, I'll tell you that.

B (26:07)

Sniper Mike, gifted five. Thank you. Sn Hyper Mike. Anthony says, great collab. Hope you guys do this more. Hope you had a great birthday yesterday, Jay. This year is going to be great for you both. Birthday yesterday. Hey, happy birthday.

A (26:17)

Thank you. Yeah, I just turned sweet 16. Got me a nice little grand am out there ready to take it for a spin. Thank you guys so much. Everybody's really generous and super chats. Appreciate that.

B (26:27)

Yeah. Cam says the CIA has the observatory from Assassin's Creed.

A (26:34)

Yeah, I remember there's some kind of, you know, future vision tech and Assassin's Creed, so. That's. That's funny. I'm surprised by the way. What? I mean, we're only like a week or two away from the next episode of Candace's X Files where she goes full, full Wakanda or Yakub. Right. So when is Yakub gonna appear? It's got to be soon.

B (26:53)

Moment Killer says, God bless, brothers. Keep up the Lord's work. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Dishwasher Safe Speculum says, thank you, Jay, for traveling back to do this interview.

A (27:02)

Okay, okay, okay. If you watch Candace, you'll still go. Okay, okay.

B (27:09)

Cam says California is kind of like a gay program anyways. True.

A (27:13)

All of California is the gay program. Yeah.

B (27:15)

Yeah. Giovanni says, yeah, Jake, is that what you want to do today? Talk about Venezuela? They're making fun of my Venezuela. Venezuela. Venezuela. Venezuela.

A (27:26)

Venezuela.

B (27:29)

Blaine says I came back from 2049 to donate this. Thank you. I appreciate all the time travel and brothers.

A (27:34)

Hopefully I'm the Pope of the future and not Candace. I know that, you know, probably by then will Have a black woman pope, but hopefully it's, it's me and not her.

B (27:44)

All right, next one I wanted to get into. Other big story of the week is obviously the United States's role in global politics. So it appears to me, and let me know what you think about, about this. Right. It appears to me as though there is a shifting of the power of the great power politics happening in the world right before our eyes. You've got the Brics nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and the adjacent countries as well. And their express goal seems to be to knock the US off its purchase the global reserve currency to trade in yuan, to even create their own sort of trading currency so that they don't have to rely on the US Dollar anymore and they don't have to be or fall victim to sanctions, if you will, and these types of things. And now the, it, it looks to me as though one of the reasons is though Trump is trying to get Greenland and he's deposed Maduro, is to maybe consolidate a little, a little bit of power, consolidate the United States's position as the, the global superpower. Do you think that that's too simplistic? Is there, is there a lot more going on at play there?

A (28:47)

No. Also what could be happening is because the US Economy is pretty bad, you know, seizing these resources could also be just another source of resource money. So you know, Venezuela having all the oil, basically top oil producer, that could be a lot of revenue because the US Economy is pretty much screwed. There's no way out of the debt given the usury based fiat printing model that we've adopted since 1913. So there's no way out of that other than just seizing resources. And unfortunately, when you have a gigantic ouroboros of debt as we have, like, it's almost, it's almost like it forces people to, to engage in these activities to maintain the imperium. And we have an empire, whether we acknowledge that or not. Even Brzezinski said it's a US Imperium. So I think you're right to point to those factors. But also, you know, we seem to be even in, you know, foreign Middle Eastern countries media, it was reported that some of these actions in Venezuela were actually at the behest of foreign Middle Eastern countries, if you, if you grasp what I'm saying. So that's a big part of this too is doing what our allies tell us to do. And I think that's a little bit surprising because people wouldn't think of Venezuela as that. But one of Our good, you know, my good friend Tristan, you know, he lives in Ecuador and he knows Latin South American politics very well. And he sent me a ton of information on this which actually confirms that, that there was quite a bit of foreign interference, shall we say, in Venezuela. And that doesn't mean that I'm saying socialism is good. It's not. It's really a false dialectic between the neoliberal IMF shock doctrine, you know, debt slavery model, or do you want to be in the socialist debt slavery trap model? Both of those are bad. They're both a false dialectic. So there's really no easy answer for America's, you know, Pax imperium, Pax Americana in Latin South America. But the same model as you're pointing to, I think with regime change is the same. It's the color revolution model that's being used there. There's just straight up regime change. They're also going to use the same, you know, strategy with Iran. You know, Israel's been calling for the installment of the relative of the Shaw as the, the next leader of Iran. But, you know, the CIA and British intelligence had an alliance with the, the Ayatollahs as well. So is when, when the revolution happened, the CIA was right there in the middle of that as well. So there's a lot going on. But suffice to say that, you know, the, the reason these things happen is ultimately for resource control and for, as you said, geopolitical stuff.

B (31:40)

Right, right.

A (31:41)

Strategic. Strategic stuff.

B (31:44)

So there's this argument that you've got the.

A (31:54)

Are you there? I lost.

B (32:12)

Lost you there for a sec. You back?

A (32:16)

Yeah. I don't know, maybe the Internet or stream labs or stream yard froze or something. But yeah, I was trying to say geo. Somebody came, came in and distracted me. Geostrategic purposes. Right. So to make sure that there's a, you know, unipolar world, not a multipolar world. That's what the brick stuff is about, you know, Russia, China, India creating a multipolar world. So. Yeah, I forgot to mention bricks, sorry.

B (32:38)

Yeah, so I mean, yeah, there's this argument that you've got the clean break memo, late 1990s, all of these countries that they wanted to destabilize, overthrow so that basically the Israelis can be the, the, the hegemon in that region. In the Middle East, a lot of these countries got overthrown, the leaders got deposed. Syria, Iraq, Libya, these different countries. And then the theory goes that Iran is sort of like the last one on the chopping block. They get rid of Iran and then the Israelis have achieved their goal of being the hegemon in that region. Is. Do you give credence to that theory?

A (33:10)

Oh, absolutely. It's, it's odd Yunan, and it's the Clean Rate memorandum. So yeah, we did some live streams on that six or seven months ago when the Iran stuff was really popping off. I went back and read those and then had a kind of a pseudo debate with David Wood and apostate Prophet on all of that. But yeah, those memos, those memorandums are absolutely the game plan that really makes sense of why the US has done everything that it's done in the Middle east for the last, you know, 20, 30 years.

B (33:39)

So I was watching a debate on this. Exactly. With Dave Smith and Coleman Hughes. You might have seen this debate where Coleman Hughes was saying, well, why is this such a significant memorandum? There are thousands of memorandums that will come across the desk of the intelligence agencies in the United States. This was just some random piece of paper and people are grabbing this and acting like this is some sort of a really significant thing. Do you think that it is as significant in, in terms of their actual geopolitical strategy or is it just a random piece of paper memorandum that some guy in the office drafted up?

A (34:11)

Well, I mean, Netanyahu's memorandum and the strategy being followed and it lining up in many ways with the oded, you know, on strategy is not just any random memorandum. So no, that's just completely not true. That's to ignore the fact that the U.S. you know, engaged in these actions to support Israeli policy there. It's not every single one of them. I mean, there's mentions, for example, of trying to create a Christian government in I think Egypt, like a Coptic Christian government in Egypt. Well, that didn't happen. So the argument is not that every single thing successfully was achieved, but it shows you a general layout and strategy and it doesn't mention all these countries and they have all been toppled except for Iran. But that doesn't mean that Iran is like, I don't really view Iran as a 100, you know, anti Western force. There's a lot of backdoor deals. I mean, if you read Victor Stravsky's books, Mossad sold a lot of armaments to Iran on the down low. So there's a lot of backdoor deals that make even a lot of this just kind of dialectics and you know, exactly what will happen in the long term. It's hard to say. But I mean, we are really obviously following, you know, the Zionist policy in the Middle East. I don't, it shouldn't even be questionable at this point.

B (35:30)

Yeah, I mean, I think it is pretty, it is pretty self evident by this stage for sure. So in terms of this, this Shah's son, this guy, from what I've seen, has basically never really had a job or anything. He comes from a royal family, moved to America after the revolution, hasn't really engaged in much politics himself. So the idea for me that he can just come in and just sort of click his fingers and take over from the Ayatollah seems a bit far fetched, especially considering the changes in the region since 1979. Like, it's a lot more volatile and dangerous from what I can see. And there are a lot of very hostile non state actors around. You've got your ISIS and Al Qaeda, even though, tell me if I'm wrong about this, but they also hate the Ayatollah because they see him as a Shiite clerical apostate and they kind of hate him even though they're all Muslims, that they're Sunnis and Shias, they're, they don't like each other and they see the Ayatollah, the Sunnis see the Ayatollah as illegitimate, even though they don't like the Shah. They also hate the Ayatollah.

A (36:32)

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, they've been fighting for centuries. So I mean, they, you know, if you go back to, I'm going for memory here, is it Karbala? You know, the Shia have the whole ceremony where they celebrate battling the Shia. I mean, the, the Sunni. So yeah, yeah, that's definitely the case. And that's why you have at times, you know, the, the Shia have reached out to kind of have more of an alliance with the west or with Christianity because the opposition of this, of the Sunnis. But ultimately in the, in, in the long game, if you're an orthodox Christian, these all, they're all really Antichrist powers because Shia Islam is just another form of Neoplaton. So in many ways it's kind of similar to Sufism, but there's nothing really that links it with Christianity ultimately. So there's always going to be the animosity. But in the Middle east, yeah, there I think that, you know, Iran does obviously have designs because you wouldn't have the assassination of these generals. You wouldn't have Mossad engaging in things like stuck net, sucks net and whatnot. If there was, if they weren't really trying to, you know, have their version of hegemony in the region. So really, you know, every time I say this, everybody gets mad and they say, oh, so you're pro Israel and you're anti. I really don't think there's any good or bad guys, you know, in, in this, this level of geopolitics. And it's just, it's just going to be classic tribalism and fighting for, you know, regional dominance. So I don't really think the US Wins either way. But I also don't necessarily support, support regime change. And I do think that, I mean, if you get into Shia Islam and look at what they believe, it really, it is a crazy cult.

B (38:21)

Really?

A (38:22)

Yeah, absolutely.

B (38:23)

What makes them more crazy than the Sunnis?

A (38:26)

Well, I mean, Shia Islam is a little more mystical and they, they're a little more apocalyptic in terms of their, you know, they think of like the end times and these manifestations are going to, you know, happen in the near future. So another, A lot of times, any kind of like imminent eschatology, end times type stuff can motivate more radical, irrational actions. I mean, Rabbinic Judaism is not much better. But no, Shia Islam is an absolutely insane cult.

B (38:56)

So what do you see happening there in the future? Because it looks as though you had the Trump strikes on, on the nuclear facilities in Iran and then you've got the revolution that looks like it's happening in the street, looks like it's gaining momentum. There's a lot of protesters being killed there at the moment. This could be seen as a grounds for deposing the leader. Do you think that that's going to happen in the near future? Do you think this is going to be a false alarm? And also why do you think it is that we are seeing this big sort of revolution happening? Do you think that there's foreign involvement and interference or do you like. When I look at it, I tend to think if I was in Tehran right now, if I was a citizen of Tehran, I'd be looking around me and be thinking, do we really want to go to war? We've been, we've had a few strikes that have happened. We haven't really been able to respond. The government is as, isn't as strong as we thought. All of our different proxies are kind of just getting taken out one by one. Do I really want my home to get completely destroyed? Like, it's not a war that we're going to win, get rid of these guys, have a more Western friendly government so that we don't go to war and our country doesn't get destroyed? Maybe I'D be thinking that if I was a citizen. But how do you see that, that going?

A (40:07)

Probably, I mean, I know that there's, the mullahs are unpopular, that's true. But also, you know, it's, it's, it's such a challenge because, you know, US Leaders like Trump formerly were opposed to these kinds of things. You know, you've had many, many people saying, let's not have this regime change, let's not do this. And yet now here we are, supposedly because, you know, because of the threat to Israel. And so we're, we're probably going to see some sort of, you know, false flag blamed on Iran eventually. You've got to have something to motivate, you know, popular support, because nobody really wants this except for Netanyahu, who's, you know, they've wanted this for a long time. So, and, and surprisingly, if you remember, you know, the last few rounds of this, you know, Trump didn't do exactly what Netanyahu wanted. Now it looks like for whatever reason, we are doing all that. So, you know, who knows what the real game plan is? But I would guess that it's probably not going to be successful. I mean, again, you're, you have to understand, it's a, it's an ideology motivated by a cult. If you talk about Shia in general, and that's not going to operate in a rational way. But, yeah, I think it's, it's just bad news all around. I mean, we've had some Orthodox clerics and people warning that, you know, we might actually have a big war in 2026 if a lot of this continues.

B (41:40)

Wasn't there one? I mean, deep. I remember DPH talking about this. It might even have been with you. He was talking about an Orthodox cleric who said that there would be strikes on Iran and it would come to some sort of a war. And he predicted that ages ago.

A (41:52)

I think that's. Elder Paisios said that before he died. But he, you know, he's a pretty recent holy man. But, yeah, I think his, his story was that there would be presages of a big war when it comes to Iran. And then I think something to do with Turkey and Greece, if I recall.

B (42:12)

Yeah, well, difficult to see where it's going to go. Witsius came in and said, hi, Jay and Jake. Hello, Whitzy, it's good to see you. Blaine Pasashik says, jay, do your Nick Cage impression.

A (42:24)

I'm so glad to be here with my good buddy Jake. Jake's probably the best shaman on the Internet. He's going to give me a reading later. I've got a bit of a cold, so my, my Nick Cage is a.

B (42:35)

Little off, but you can't be sick doing the Nick Cage. Not bad, though. Amelia sent 28. Thank you very much, Amelia. Greatly appreciated. All right, what did we have next on the agenda here? Kabbalah. So this is something I'm curious. I've heard you and DPH talk about this a lot in your various streams. It's something that I've listened to a fair bit, but I just still don't understand it at all. Some sort of a mystical practice. It's just one of those things that's so late. Like, first of all, what, what is Kabbalah and what are the origins of Kabbalah?

A (43:12)

Well, the word just means the, the tradition or the received or passed on tradition. So the, the word is referring to, in some sense, the oral teachings of Rabbinic Judaism. And it's the idea that all the way back to Genesis or to the time of the prophets like Ezekiel, there's this oral form of revelation or Judaic tradition that's also been passed down that's sort of concurrent with the, the rabbinical written text or the Torah or whatever. But there's also branches of it that get into mysticism and what you'll find in a lot of, you know, Western religions in general, whether it's Hermeticism or whether it's Christianity or Islam, a lot of times they will borrow or utilize the structures of Neoplatonism. So Neoplatonism is later Platonic schools in the first, second and third century that developed Plato and Aristotle into some sort of systematized way to understand the structure of reality. One of the classic examples of Neoplatonism is what's called the Porphyrion Tree. If you look that up, it's a tree that's intended to kind of give you the structure or the dimensions that make up reality. And there's all kinds of theories, there's all kinds of schemes, but this is a basic template that's used. And Christianity or Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Sufism, Shia Islam and Judaism, particularly with Kabbalah, have appropriated and utilized Kabbalah and the Porphyrion Tree to, to kind of give meaning and structure to reality beyond just the basics of, you know, Genesis and creation and this kind of stuff. So it's more of a metaphysical thing. And within Kabbalah in Judaism, it gets, in many cases way more mystical, where you can have practices that include things like magic, sigil magic. There's a medieval Jewish myth called the Golem. You've probably heard of the Golem and this idea that through magical incantations or perhaps even through technology or whatever, and using the words, the Hebrew words and names of God, you can create sort of animatronic or living beings. And I don't even think that Judaism is necessarily the beginning of that idea. You can find that idea in ancient Greece where some of the philosophers talked about creating sort of technotronic beings or mechanical beings, so to speak. So, long story short, a big part of that school of mysticism deals with things like what we would call perhaps computer beings or AI beings. Right. If you're a Kabbalistic Jew, you would interpret or think of a lot of things like AI or robotics as a version of the Golem. So there's much more to it than that. But I mean, it kind of branches into Gnosticism at times. A lot of the medieval Jewish kabbalists were influenced by Christian Gnostics. So they utilize kind of good and evil as flip sides of the same coin principles. So it gets all. It's all over the place. And every different kabbalist kind of has its own scheme or system. So that's.

B (46:31)

So just quickly, like what? Like who is actually pract. Do we know that people are practicing this sort of thing these days? And is it a small portion of the Jewish religion? Is it like a weird sect of the Jewish religion? Or is it something that's pretty ingrained? It would be like Orthodox people or.

A (46:50)

Well, I mean, any person within and even without Judaism could conceivably be interested in or have some version of Kabbalism. I mean, for example, many Western esotericists who weren't even Jews, like Aleister Crowley, he borrowed heavily from the Kabbalah. Albert pike, who wrote the, you know, Bible of Masonry, morals and dogma, was very influenced by Kabbalah. So he utilizes it. And then, you know, we have pop culture figures who've been big promoters of Kabbalah, like Madonna and the LA Kabbalah Center.

B (47:23)

They know, though joking. They know the sort of tradition of what they're actually doing and what they're actually saying. Or do you think that they have various influences around them that. That make them do these? Because I can't imagine Madonna really sort of looking into any sort of medieval metaphysics.

A (47:40)

No, I think in her ca. I mean, I'm not saying that what she's into is very well thought out or sensible. I'm not saying that like Madonna is controlling the world through the rabbis. But I mean, I mean, I've read the, you know, she for many years was promoting the Kabbalah center in LA back to the late 1990s actually. And I've read some of the material from her Kabbalah center in la. And I mean, again, it's not like extremely in depth, like, you know, reading Thomas Aquinas or something like that, but I think, yeah, she absolutely knows that it's medieval, you know, Jewish practice. You can watch videos of Madonna where she's actually promoting some pretty, some ideas that are a little more sophisticated and high tier than you would expect her to promote. I mean, it's all demonic. But I'm saying I think she is fairly serious about it. But again, beyond, you know, people like that, that popularize it in the, in the pop world. I mean, you have people like Ashton Kutcher was a big promoter of it, popularly speaking, but in a more, you know, serious geopolitical sense. I mean, there you have people like Jacques at is the Kissinger of France. You know, I read his books. He's. He's obviously a pretty systematic devotee of the ideas of it. I mean, he utilizes it in his geopolitical writings. For example, in Brief History Future. He predicted in 2006 that we'd all be linked into a global hive mind which he calls the Golem. And he specifically links it to, you know, Kabbalism. You have a lot of people in Hollywood directors, Darren, Darren Aronofsky. He first, his first movie was about Kabbalah. You've ever seen PI?

B (49:18)

No.

A (49:19)

Yeah, PI is pretty famous. I mean, it's a, it's a, it's a movie about numerology amongst the Jewish Hasidic community and a guy kind of goes crazy. But most of his movies, I mean, whether it's Mother or whether it's Black Swan or, you know, they're all pretty much Kabbalistic themed movies. So yeah, many people do practice it. Many people are just influenced by it. But I think more so for the geopolitical sphere, it's. It's Hegel who was really influenced by Kabbalah. And he took Kabbalistic ideas of thesis, antithesis, synthesis and turned that into a way to understand all of reality. And then Carl Marx took that and turned that into dialectics for Marxism, socialism. So actually when you talk about Marxism, you're actually talking about a form of atheistic Kabbalah, so to speak speak.

B (50:08)

That's really interesting. So because, because Hegel was quite sort of spiritual in his practice in like his philosophy and the Things that he believed. And the whole idea of the. The dialectic, like you said, the thesis, antithesis and then synthesis. And then Marx translated that into sort of like dialectical materialism. Is that what he calls it? And then a way to view the world and history in. In the sense that material conditions can be just keep on changing and then create different synthesises. Is that correct?

A (50:36)

Absolutely, yeah.

B (50:38)

So, yeah. So that actually comes from this kabbalistic metaphysical way to view the world.

A (50:46)

Yeah, I mean, at least there's a very heavy influence. And there's a academic text that covered this is called Hegel and Hermeticism. It's written by a professor who's a Hegelian scholar who went and looked back at the many medieval, late medieval esoteric hermetic influences on Hegel, which a lot of people had not really noticed before. But you have people like. Y' all come. If you're. You have people like Giordano Bruno, the famous medieval hermeticist. The. They were into these ideas and even. Even though they weren't Jews, they were still influenced by these ideas. And that was a huge. Yeah, it was a huge influence on Hegel himself, who was pretty much a. I guess what you. The best way to figure out, to characterize Hegel would be as kind of a version of Neoplatonism, which one of the problems, and I'm not going to spend too much time on this because it's pretty abstruse and boring. But one of the problems in Platonism was always that Plato's ideas and these, these realms, these manifestations or whatever, they're very static. And so there was always a problem in Platonism to deal with process and change. So in other words, if the realm of the ideas is eternal and static, how does it have anything to do with the realm, our realm, which is always in flux and changing. So that was constant problem in, in Platonism and Neoplatonism. And one thing, one of the things Hegel does is really try to resolve that through process philosophy. So he's a huge proponent of there being these sort of ideals. But they're always sort of in process moving towards what he called the Omega point, which is everything becoming self conscious. And you can find this influence very heavily. I'm sure you mentioned this probably with Dr. David Patrick Harry, and I think he would back this up, especially amongst the transhumanists. They're very much into these ideas of Hegel or Terror de Chardin and the idea of the noosphere and everything kind of becoming unified into this grand Supra consciousness via the web, the Net, the global brain, Jacques Gollum, etc. It's all the same idea.

B (52:47)

The idea, and this is like the Omega point that is the sort of final destination of the dialect itself.

A (52:54)

Absolutely.

B (52:55)

Interesting, interesting. Okay, so here's a. This might be like a simplistic question, but do these people believe in God?

A (53:04)

I mean, I've got Ray Kurzweil's books. He's sort of the, you know, most famous transhumanist. And he says in the books, I don't believe in God yet. And he basically. And he says some other comments like I'll believe in God when I'm. When I become him, or something like that. So I mean, it's like, you know, for transhumanism, you, you know, they tend to believe that the. It's an emergent deity, it's a deus ex machina, it's a God that will emerge out of the system, meaning, you know, some super AI or whatever. Some of the people, though, I think in that vein, could be Kabbalistic. I've got some books by kabbalistic scholars that are into, you know, AI and transhumanism over there on my shelf. So I would imagine that they just see it as some form of mystical Judaism. I mean, I think you got a whole range of people. I mean, there's people who, like Peter Carroll, who's actually the godfather of modern Satanism and transhumanism, even perhaps before Crowley, and he was kind of the pioneer of techno, paganism and cyberpunk stuff, because he actually thinks that the Internet is kind of a form of chaos magic and that the Internet itself will kind of become some sort of like uncontrolled deity. I'm not saying that that's true, but I'm saying, like. So I think you have a range of people's views amongst these, these technocrats.

B (54:26)

But what about, say, like the cabalist? Because it kind of appears to me as though from what you were saying before, that they view the trajectory of humanity in a. In like the reverse way to we. They look at it from man to God, whereas we look at it from. From God to man. So do they believe in a source or an origin, or are they Big Bang theorists sort of people are. They're agnostic.

A (54:47)

I mean, one of the things I've noticed with. I mean, I haven't read a million kabbalists, but I've read probably five or six different kabbalistic texts and views, and I've read the. The premier kabbalist of the 20th century was a guy named Gershom Sholem. And I've read two or three of his books and, and he basically just says, you know, you basically, you have like this, this structure of the Neoplatonic tree. And then any individual Kabbalist can come on and kind of like paste on to the structure his version of it. So there's almost as many Kabbalahs as there are Kabbalists, right. So you could read some medieval rabbi like Nachmanides and he'd have his theory, and then you could read some modern day rabbi or teacher, I don't know any of them off top of my head, but. And they would have their own kind of theories and sometimes they might emphasize number theory and number magic, which again is, that's really just like Pythagoreanism. That's not anything new. You might find others that emphasize, you know, Orthodox Judaism and they might actually believe Orthodox Judaism and still be a Kabbalist. So you kind of have, again, it's like any other Western religion. Like you have the more rational strains and then you have the more mystical, esoteric strains of it. And you could get anybody believing all kinds of things.

B (56:11)

Is it? Yeah, well, because these people would really have to believe what they believe. Because if you did, if you do take the metaphysical realities of the world and the spiritual warfare and the spiritual aspect to life, and if you do believe that your soul is different from your body and that there is some sort of an afterlife, then I would imagine it's a question that people take very seriously if they're not just atheist materialists. But I do wonder sometimes, why would you want to go down when you look at like Aleister Crowley, for example, these Satanists, the people who worship demons, these sorts of things, why would you want to be on that team? For lack of a better way to put it.

A (56:48)

I guess probably the most popular reason why would be that those systems offer people a kind of a self apotheosis path. In other words, they offer to you this idea that you can become your own God. So it's kind of a repeat of what you see in Genesis, ironically, where the serpent says, you know, you'll be your own God. That's why God wants to keep you down. And you know, Crowley and these different systems offer the same thing. And you know, I have a book over there by, I forget the name Eleanor Creeped or Creed or something like that. She's some sort of Kabbalistic academic mathematician woman. And in her book she says, well, one of the things that's fascinating about Cabal is that it offers man this ability to. Through magic or technology to become his own God. So I think that a lot of people think and believe that they're going to, you know, achieve some kind of apotheosis. Do you ever see that? It's a. It's a really silly 90s movie, but it's. It's the Stephen King story, Lawnmower Man. Have you ever watched that?

B (57:55)

No.

A (57:56)

You should watch it. It's pretty funny because basically there's this guy, and he's literally retarded. I'm not saying he's an idiot. Like an actual retarded guy who's like a lawn care dude. And Pierce Brosnan experiments on him to see if he can, like, raise the guy's IQ using the Internet, which was kind of new at the time. And the guy ends up becoming this sort of deity in the Internet world because he gets, like, this massively high IQ and he tries to sort of take over the world. So Lawnmower man is a good, funny example of what I'm trying to say here.

B (58:28)

Right. So, I mean, then you contrast that with the orthodox Christian way to view the world and the idea of theosis, something that I've been looking into a fair bit recently. How would you, if you had to accept, explain the idea of what theosis is? Because I was watching this. Have you ever seen that YouTube channel, Harmony?

A (58:46)

I've not, but I've been. I've been hearing about this. People have been saying I should check it out.

B (58:49)

Yeah, it's really good. He does breakdowns of various different orthodox traditions and basically explaining orthodoxy. And he's very cine. Like, the cinematography is really good. Like, it's very artistic. It's. It's a good channel. And he did this video about theosis being the meaning of life. So, I mean, tell me. Tell me what. What theosis is.

A (59:09)

Yeah. In the orthodox view, that's what we mean by grace. And, you know, you hear Protestants or Roman Catholics talk about, you know, being saved by grace. We agree with that. But we see grace as more than just sort of God's disposition changing towards us from, you know, anger to love or whatever. We see it as more of an ontological reality of participation. So it's very crucial in the orthodox view that we're not just being better people or whatever. We're actually participating in the uncreated energies and life and love of God. And that's actually what transforms us. So it's a much more metaphysical, ontological stress. In the orthodox view versus the typical sort of Western, Protestant and Catholic view about where you stand legally based on whether you were good or bad. So that's kind of what it is. And the orthodox view, you know, we kind of have this idea of there being a process to it of, of purgation and illuminate and then deification and illumination. We have this idea of the means of grace, which is the church, the sacraments, confession, you know, prayer, Bible study. All of those things kind of are part and parcel with how we participate in those uncreated energies of God. So the big difference between that and apotheosis or what a lot of these, you know, occult traditions or cabal or whatever saying is that for those groups it's kind of a. A ritual sort of magical working that you're doing to become God. Whereas for us, we're never going to become God in some replacement or identity sense, but we can participate in God and become like God through grace. So it's two different. Two very different positions.

B (60:47)

And that's sort of the. God's intention is for you to be. To. To like, sort of live in the image, in his image as much as possible and to sort of shed the passions and these sorts of things and prepare yourself in this. In this life, to be able to participate in those energies. Like I'm read this book that I'm reading, the Soul After Death. One of the things that they're talking about in the part that I'm in at the moment is the toll houses before. When the soul leaves the body, it goes to these toll houses and it goes through a series of tests, tests, if you will, where different passions will be presented to you and the demons will try and make their case and the angels will try and make their case. And it kind of makes sense when I think about it, because you would have to shit like you're not going to be in communion with God in any way if you are, if your soul is unclean. And if you, if you have all of these different passions that you're sort of a slave to because you have to, God's not going to allow that into his orbit. Right? So this is the, the idea that you have to sort of cleanse yourself and resist the passions and shed those things so that you can eventually be almost like face to face with God. Is that correct?

A (61:55)

Yeah, absolutely. I think the idea is that when we die, there's. There's still probably attachments that we have. And the, the purpose of that process after death is to remove, to get rid of any of those main, those passions that we're still sort of maintaining, as you said. So one of the reasons in the Orthodox Church that we pray for the dead is because we believe that there is still that efficacy of the church and its sacraments even when a person who's died in the church moves on. So, yeah, you absolutely nailed it. And I think it's fascinating too that when. And I think Father Serfim, it's been probably 15 years since I read that book, but I remember Father Rose says something to the effect of when you look at even the other ancient world religions, like, they still have this same idea, like the Tibetan Book of the Dead or Egyptian Book of the Dead, they have this idea of the journey after death. And you know, that's not alien to the Christian tradition either, especially in the orthodox world.

B (62:52)

Yeah. So this is one thing I do wonder. It kind of makes sense to me when I think about the history of human. I actually got this from watching one of your videos. You did a 20. There's like an old, old video that you've done. It's about 20 minutes or so where you're describing the history of humanity basically, and that you have the fall of, like you have the fallen angels that have dominion over the world. Christ comes along, he defeats death, and then now we have, we have the ability to be able to have power over demons because we, we have the, the power of Christ. And he came and defeated sin and death and these sorts of things.

A (63:31)

Things.

B (63:32)

So before Christ, all of these other ancient religions, Hinduism and all of the different pagan religions and, and everything were all essentially manifestations of demons terrorizing human beings. Is that correct?

A (63:50)

Yeah, I think there's a little bit more to it in that. I did a good podcast many, many years ago, maybe six, seven years ago, with Seraphim Hamilton, and we, we did a whole assessment of kind of ancient history from the orthodox Christian perspective in terms of Genesis and then the world perhaps before the flood, which. The idea there would be that even in Genesis you kind of have proto Christianity. So all the religions derive from a very early Genesis era proto Christianity. So the reason that there's what, what we call the Logos or the seeds of the truth of the Logos, even in all the other religions, whether Hindu or Buddha, whatever. Like the reason that's there is because we would say the original religion was actually proto Christianity. So over time what happens is, you know, the descendants of Noah that lived in China or wherever, like they had this seed form of the truth that they remembered from their ancestors back, you know, in the ancient era. But what happens is that over time it gets corrupted. It sort of fades. People start to worship, you know, the things of the earth, they worship the demons, et cetera, and that message gets perverted. But there's still some truths in those religions. So I think that that sort of understanding it from that perspective, which is kind of unique to our view, that proto Christianity. There's another book that touches on this from the sort of the Eastern perspective, which is Christ the Eternal Tao, written by one of the students of Father Seraphim Rose, where he talks about how you can find a lot of the orthodox Christian ideas even in like Taoism and Confucianism and so forth. Precisely because there is perhaps this proto Christianity.

B (65:32)

Yeah. All right. So when I go around to Eastern Asian countries, for example, Indonesia, these sorts of different places, and when it. I always notice that there is a lot of demon worship going on. They. They actually create. Like when I was in Bali, they do this Day of Silence, and they literally create effigies of demons and they walk them around the street. And I was taking photos of them because it all made sense to me after I'd heard this sort of information. They. They walk them around the street in order to cleanse the. The island of bad spirits, and then they will burn the demons. And it's. It's this warfare where they. They seem like terrorized by the demons. And it just seems like a very. It just seems like a crazy religion to be subscribed to because Christianity, we believe that we obviously have. Have power over these demons, but these people, they're like terrorized by them. It's like a fight against them, but we still have that, that fight against demons. But it's just so pervasive in these Eastern religions.

A (66:29)

Yeah, I think one of the things that happened when you have the perversion of the religion, whether it's in the ancient world or now, like, what happens is that you end up, as Paul says in the New Testament, you kind of fall prey to being subservient to the thing that you're worshiping. So when man turns away from God, and as he says in Romans 1, he worships and serves the creation rather than the creator, you end up being enslaved to that. And that enslavement is, as the church fathers would say, really rooted in a kind of demonic power or activity. So you might be worshiping the stars, or you might be worshiping a totem figure, or you might be an animist or whatever. But behind that word, there is some sort of an enslavement, entrapment that entraps the spirit and the mind into thinking that you must placate these lesser powers and lesser deities and forces in order to get what you want. A harvest, you know, the crops next season. And so when you do that, it just really, it's, it's worse off for you. And that's the irony is that people, people I think, think that just like with the transhumanists, they think in this bargain I'll get something special out of this, I'll get to be God. But it's the same kind of in paganism, you're placating these deities through rituals or rights or even perhaps self harmed at times. You have to do that, like in, you know, some of the shamanic or voodoo traditions. You have to actually hurt yourself to get the spirits to give you what you want. And you know, all of that is just enslavement, as the New Testament says. And so Christ sets us free and we're not in bondage to any of the lesser elements, lesser deities, etc.

B (68:08)

Yeah, another time I was doing. My friend was doing a breath. I don't know if I told this to you. Maybe I told you.

A (68:13)

Yeah, you told me about that.

B (68:15)

Yeah. That when we're doing the, the breath work thing and then seem to be demonic. Yeah, yeah. And they started saying that we're going to welcome in the spirits and I just sort of like what the. They said we're going to welcome in the feminine goddesses. But it in. Yeah, there's a big red flag. But in.

A (68:30)

You were in the gay program too?

B (68:34)

Just briefly, I got out of there. But like the thing was though that they are always really consciously aware of this as well. They're like really be careful when you're doing the meditation because you don't want to welcome in the wrong sort of spirits. And it's like, well, when I, when I pray, I guess I don't really have to worry about that so much. But Christians do still have to worry about that. Sort of like we were talking about before about apparitions and these sorts of things. We do still have to worry about that demonic influence. Like what's the, what's the actual difference there?

A (69:04)

Yeah, I've heard a couple orthodox priests and spiritual advisors kind of make an analogy to. One of the main differences is that a lot of times when a person is serious about orthodoxy, they come into the church. The, this kind of an experience tends to be more external to them. And before a person's in the church, a lot of times these manifestations can be more internal. Right. So in other words, actually sort of the spirit within a person, these manifestations kind of coming out of the person up to like full on possession. Because like you, I mean, I've been around people sort of in meditation, New age intentional type settings or guys that were like experimenting with shrooms and that kind of stuff. My own, I had a bad trip when I was, I think 17. So you know, my assessment of those experiences is definitely that there was definitely something internal. People were manifesting, speaking, other voices, very sort of, you know, almost animalistic types of aggression and voices that people would, would have when they were on these bad trips. Something else was running the ship, you know what I mean? So I think, you know, demons is a perfect explanation of that. But I think when you're serious about Christianity, it's not so much that the demons kind of manifest in that way because you're probably not going to be tripping shrooms, but you're, you know, you're going to be battling more so with external temptations, you know, to, to lust or to whatever.

B (70:30)

Right, right. All right, man. Well let's read a few of these super chats out and then I want to get more into debate talk into debate, topic tactics, these sorts of things. Mighty Maximus, a great supporter of the channel, says this is a great collab. Jay, you're a legend. Great interview so far, Jake. Thank you very much, sir. Mighty Maximus also said send another 20 for the mods and 20 for the chat. Thank you very much, man. Witzius sent five Rattlesnake TV memberships. Much appreciated. And so did Michael the pilot. Be safe up there, Michael. Real rain says 10 for, for 10. Hey Jay, one thing I wanted to ask you is why do you think it was so easy for Christianity to spread through Scandinavian pagan European countries?

A (71:14)

It's a good question. I mean, the only thing I can think of that immediately comes to mind is that, that there was a lot of, there's a lot of Christianization of the literature that happened by the monastic communities at that time. And we actually studied this in one of my grad lit classes that the monastic groups that were, that were missionizing those people would actually take their myths and they would kind of put Christian themes and elements in that. We even see that with today's version of Beowitz, the Beowulf story, which most scholars believe had, you know, some Christian revisions. We don't actually know what the original Beowulf story was because what we have is A sort of pseudo quasi Christian story. It's the same with Odin. I mean, I think Odin dies on a tree. You know, this kind of stuff. I think the monks were. Were using their myths would be my guess.

B (72:05)

Right, right. Joel says I'm Coptic Orthodox and we reject the Chalcedonian definition of two separate nature. Do you believe the Copt. Optic position is illogical of a unified nature?

A (72:20)

It is. And you know, nature's. You can't have two things be a nature because the nature is what it is to be that thing. That's the Aristotelian definition of a nature. And so there's no such thing as a tertium quid divino. Human nature. We do believe in a real ontological change in the human nature of Christ. But you can go watch my lecture series that. Myself, David Irhan and Kai from Orthodox Shahada. We're about five lectures into critiquing Oriental Orthodoxy.

B (72:53)

And the cut says, this has been a fantastic, fantastic interview. I'm a fan of both Jake and Jay. Do we get to see you guys team up in a debate anytime soon?

A (73:01)

I'd love to. I mean, I've watched Jake's debates. I've seen two or three. I think Jake's a good debater. Very talented. He does really well. Super smart dude. So, I mean, I'm always down.

B (73:12)

Yeah, yeah, thanks, man. I appreciate that.

A (73:14)

If we could find somebody that would. This looks hard to find opponents, so I don't know.

B (73:17)

Yeah, something like a feminism debate would be awesome. That'd be fun to team up on. All right, man. So speaking of debate, something that I've gotten into just the last few years. It helps me to understand the world when you. When. And it helps me to be able to think through ideas when you learn the rules of debate. Because one of the things that you always do when you're debating is you'll call out logical fallacies. And people find that annoying when they watch you if they're. If they're not really a debate. Somebody who understands debate, because they're like, oh, this guy's just so focused on semantics. But that's the rules of the game. That's like if the debate was a chessboard. You can't just grab your castle and move diagonally. That's against the rules. And if somebody does that, you're going to be, hey, put your castle back. You can't do that. So it helps me to understand and think through ideas. Right. So if there's something that I'm trying to figure out, is this true? Is this false? You can. You can sort of attack it from a few different angles and find fallacies and find flaws in the argumentation. So what are the first steps for understanding debate from the casual observer?

A (74:19)

You made the first point, which is step number one, just to realize that it's not just a domain of playing a game or it's not like semantics and wordplay. It's not about who can be louder or talk more or whatever. None of that is really what debate is. Debate is, like you said, best compared to a chess game, chess match or some sort of game where there's rules and everybody's bound by the same rules. And even if you don't recognize that as a. An opponent, if your opponent doesn't recognize that, like you, that's actually an advantage that you have, right? Because if you know the rules, the game well enough and your opponent doesn't, even if they don't believe that there's rules, you can actually demonstrate to them that they're making a huge mistake on their own terms. So it's very effective, first and foremost, to learn the informal fallacies. You're not going to necessarily memorize all of them, but you need to know some of the most basic ones that happen all the time. Because you'll notice those happen in not just debate settings, which most people probably aren't in a debate setting, but. But they happen in mass media. They happen in conversations that you're having with your spouse. They happen when you're at Thanksgiving dinner and your uncle's trying to argue for, you know, why we need to go into war somewhere, right? Because propaganda relies on fallacies. So deconstructing media or war propaganda requires that, you know, basic reasoning skills to, for example, not fall into a non sequitur. That's one of the most common fallacies. And to just recognize and know that one would get you way ahead of the game. Because a lot of times people will. Let's take Candace as just a case example. I know we'd moved on in the conversation, but one of the things that keeps happening in Candace's assessments is non sequiturs. In other words, she will say a series of things that may or may not be true or partially true, and then she has a conclusion on the basis of these pieces of data or evidence that don't necessarily follow. But if the audience is a bunch of wine moms and they're not perceptive enough to catch that, they're gonna. Oh, yeah, honey, she was right when.

B (76:28)

She said, well, it doesn't follow.

A (76:31)

From the fact that this guy was at the base in, you know, Fort Huachuca, and this guy is on the, you know, record causing a disturbance at the base, and they arrested him, and that this other guy happened to be there the same day at the base. It doesn't follow from those three things that there was a planned assassination of Charlie Kirk. So in other words, it's not saying it didn't happen necessarily, it's just simply saying that you cannot conclude logically from those three things that necessarily, Charlie Kirk was assassinated or the assassination was planned there on those pieces of data. It just simply doesn't follow. And a lot of people will think when you say non sequitur that it means, oh, you're saying that it didn't happen, you know. No. Is just simply saying that you cannot conclude that. Okay? And you guys probably noticed there's a guy who's been doing a lot of debates lately, Alex Soren, and he's an orthodox apologist who's got. Gaining an audience recently because he's a lawyer. And so lawyers, for example, are almost kind of intuitively familiar with a lot of these ideas because even if they didn't study logic or logical fallacies in college or law school, they're still using the same principles, even if they don't know the words. Right? Because if you're in a courtroom, right, and we, we've all watched law movies or courtroom dramas, it's doing the same stuff. You're, you're right, saying, you know, okay, you've got this testimony that you were at the house and, you know, somebody saw you walking in and the murder happened that night. Right. Is that enough to conclude, therefore, you are the murderer, you're guilty? Well, of course not. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove or demonstrate guilt. So likewise, you're going to be using these same strategy and techniques in debate that are, again, just kind of an extension of something like a courtroom.

B (78:22)

Right, Right. So those are like the logical. It is so true, though, when you, when you do look at law and, and the courtroom, you do have to be aware of non sequiturs, even if you don't know, it's a non sequitur that doesn't logically follow. Therefore that's not sufficient evidence. So, all right, so learning the basics, the chess match, this is something, because over the years of My channel, I've, you know, dived into debates. I'm just super interested in it. And then you, you start to view things very differently when you look at it. This, from this paradigm. So when I was a teenager, I used to love the Hitch slap videos, the Christopher Hitchens shutting down Christian. And then eventually when you sort of understand the chessboard, you realize, oh, that was just an appeal to emotion or that was an appeal to authority, or that was just an anecd. That wasn't actually a logical argument. And then the Christians who are a bit more mild mannered will be making logical arguments. And even though Hitchens is very charismatic and he's got that English charm and wit and everything, he actually wasn't making good arguments. It was just a series of appeals to emotion and just rhetoric.

A (79:27)

Yeah, I remember watching and, and, and you know, I enjoy watching some of your debate reviews and streams as well. I remember watching the Sam Harris. I can't remember if it was Sam Harris versus, I want to say, maybe William Lane Craig. But that's a classic debate example. That's good to, to review if you're new to this topic or you're interested, because in that debate, Sam Harris really just constantly flexes another version of emotional appeal. The whole debate is just him saying, basically, I could never support a religion where this is how women are treated. And could you imagine being in the Middle east and you see this poor, you know, child and having to deal with this? None of that was an actual argument. It was all, again, just intended to emotionally elicit a response in the audience so that you felt like Sam Harris was making a really powerful case. And emotions are very powerful, especially in propaganda, in advertising, in movies, but they're the exact opposite in debate. Right. They have no authority in debate whatsoever. But so many people are trapped in that they think that the way that they feel about a subject or the way that the thing made an argument made them feel, or this is why you see, for example, so many people get hung up on the way Andrew debates or the way that I debate or the way that you debated somebody. Oh, you. But you were so aggressive and you talked loud and. Okay. But none of that has anything to do with whether what I said was true or false. You may not like it, but again, this is another common one. This is called a psychological report. The fact that you weren't convinced, the fact that you didn't like it, the fact that you found this unconvincing has nothing to do with whether it's true or false. It's simply a psychological report, totally irrelevant. Right. I mean, imagine being in the courtroom and. Right. Like. And you say, well, you know, your honor, I don't really find the. You know, prosecution's interrogation of me, very convincing. Okay, so what?

B (81:27)

I didn't like that time. Yeah.

A (81:30)

So in the same way, you'll notice, like, a lot of, a lot of debate is really just kind of filtering out the noise and getting to what's actually being said and divorcing that from, you know, everybody knows about ad hominem. Right. Like, well, you know what, Jake, you made some really interesting points, but you cheated on your wife. So I don't really have to listen to anything you say. That's an, that's a fallacy. Right. Because Jake's cheating on his wife. Not that he did, but would have nothing to do. Would have nothing to do with whether the argument that he said about this or that was true. And, and sometimes there are exceptions, which I think really low tier noobs don't realize. Like, there would be an exception. For example, if we were debating whether Jake cheated on his wife, then it would be appropriate to bring in the evidence or the arguments that he cheated. Right. That wouldn't be ad hominem. So there are some, you know, anomalies which are in the minority where you would have to be against the man, but that wouldn't be a fallacy. That would be just the nature of what we're debating.

B (82:30)

Yeah. And also, for example, the, the Mitch Snow thing, because that was purely relying on his sort of eyewitness testimony.

A (82:36)

There was exactly.

B (82:37)

There wasn't any evidence there. It was just like, is this guy a reliable source? And, and people were saying, well, it doesn't matter that about, about all of the other fraud things that he's done, because, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't like, sort of necessarily say whether it's true or false. But it's like, no, no, his character and his past here is really the only thing that we can go off.

A (82:54)

No, that's actually another. That's a great analogy to where you would want to get into the credibility of the witness. So in other words, when we have a situation where, as Candace was doing and she was sort of hinging a lot of her position on the star witness, and then if the star witness's testimony and life is not credible, that means his arguments and his claims are not credible. And that's exactly what would happen in a courtroom. Right. If you, if you watch any. I mean, I'm not a law courtroom person, but if you watch any courtroom drama. Right. You get the. The lawyer will try to question the credibility of the claims of the person. Right. So that's absolutely, totally not Ad hominem it, right? I mean, if somebody had said Mitch, Mitch Snow's arguments and claims are false because he cheated on his wife, that might be an ad hominem. But if we're saying Mitch is not a credible person because he has a history of lying and not being credible, that's. That's not an ad hominem, Right?

B (83:55)

So when I. I'm going to use a boxing analogy here, right? So in my years in the gym, some of the biggest. There's always missing stakes that you see with guys who are coming up and wanting to do fights. And even the younger guys who want to become pro, sometimes they'll get a bit sidetracked. They'll be focusing on girls too much and they'll be focusing on partying too much, this sort of thing. Sometimes they're a bit too cocky in the gym. They just, like, have their guard down all the time. Don't think that they need to work on defense, and then they'll get caught a lot. Early career if you get caught a lot. Sometimes they'll rely too much on aggression and power and these sorts of things. There are all different kinds of mistakes that people make in a boxing format that will make them ultimately not be able to live up to their potential. Or sometimes you just see things, you're like, you're just not cut out for this because your attitude is just wrong or because you just don't work hard enough, any of these types of things. So what are some of the things that you see in terms of debaters that you think are some of the most common mistakes?

A (84:54)

Great analogy, Great question. A lot of times people think that you can win every debate with some kind of easy trick, like, oh, if I just learn the basics of presuppositional apologetics or the transcendental argument, I can just use that trick on everybody. And that might work for a lot of, you know, normie co workers or, you know, somebody that you're debating with at the coffee shop or the bar and they don't know anything about philosophy. But that's not going to work. If you debate somebody more sophisticated, you know, in a debate setting, Right. Or if you're, you know, your atheist buddy says, oh, come talk to my friend, he's a professor, and, you know, try your tag argument on my professor buddy. That's probably not going to work because the professor is going to know a lot more things about, you know, problems in philosophy, problems in that type of argumentation, and they'll probably be able to trip you up. So A lot of people, I think, get a little cocky when they learn tag really quick and then they think that they can just run that on anybody and they don't know a lot more about epistemology. So I would say it's, it's good to ground yourself in, you know, some basics of epistemology. I would say read something like W.J. wood's book on epistemology. It's very readable, it's very short. That would help you with debate. I would say go back and listen to all of Dr. Greg Monson's debates because he's a master at the craft. He's probably one of the best in the last century at debating. I'm not a Calvinist, but he was just, I think everybody recognizes he was just an amazing debater.

B (86:16)

And I was the guy that you.

A (86:18)

Said before the epistemology book, W.J. wood, and it's just called Epistemology. It's part of the, it's part of a series for the name of the series. But his installment's good if you want something that's a little more advanced. It's more of a grad school text on epistemology. It's a Bonjour's text on epistemology. It's a green text by Bonjour. It's commonly used in grad programs. So those are, those are pretty good. But a lot of people don't know anything about epistemology and they think, well, I can debate and do, you know, learn a few of the fallacies and then I can go to these debates. And you're gonna do a lot better if you, you know, learn the basics. Kind of like you give the analogy to boxing or to fighting or, you know, it's like I could learn guitar and, and memorize a solo, right? But I'm not going to be able to play in every band and jam with them knowing that one solo, right? You got to learn the basic chord structures. You need to learn, you know, chord progressions, all these different things that are actually going to make you a debater. And so it's the same, I think in this domain. It's a lesser known art, but it is an art form and it is part of, you need to know rhetoric. In other words, you need to be able to have a good degree of communication skills that are going to help. So I would focus on some public speaking stuff, learn a little bit of that too, if you want to be serious about debating. But to go back to that main point of another thing that I've seen people make major mistakes. This is a huge one. Even for the people that are out doing pop debates, they're really bad about this, and that is not understanding and steel manning the opponent's position. The way to win every debate is to first of all, want to lose. And I know that sounds kind of corny, but I'm being serious because I want to be committed to the truth to the extent that if I'm wrong, I actually want to be wrong. And if the opponent is correct, then I actually want to lose because I want to be on the right side. So you have to first and foremost want and love truth. If you're out for your own gain and you're just debating for the, for the heck of it, like, you're not going to get very far, and eventually you're going to lose because you're going to come up against somebody who's actually smarter and better than you. But if you love and are committed to the truth, then even if you're wrong, you're still going to win because truth is what matters the most. And that's what debate's ultimately about, even if people don't recognize that. So, last point, just simply that I see so many debaters, they go into debates, they, they, they come to the, to the, to the meeting. Lazy, not knowing the other person's views, not knowing the other person's position. For example, when I did all these Muslim debates, I had to read the most boring, horrible Muslim text that I never wanted to read, and I had to force myself to do it. That's why it's a lot of work. Again, think about, like a court case, right? A lawyer has to know through discovery, right? And all this, like, the other side's evidence, their case, you've got to know the other person's position. And I think the way Bonson always said it was something like he said, you should know the opponent's position to the point that you could state it to their satisfaction. If you can do that, you will be excellent at debate.

B (89:39)

Interesting. One of the things I also. I'm just going to bring it back to boxing again for a second. Sometimes you see somebody walk in the gym who's just got it. You know, they're quick, they have a good boxing iq, they understand distance and range, they have a good temperament. They're not getting angry, these sorts of things, and you're like, all right, yep, that person's got it. What are some of the things that you're recognizing? If. Is there any debaters that you, that you Know who you saw like, and you were just like, all right, that guy's got it. And what are the, what are the characteristics that you'd, that you'd look for some of the unteachables.

A (90:13)

Being able to state your ideas and think quick in a, in a concise way. The more, the older I've gotten, I've noticed the talent and the ability, the skill of being able to take complex ideas or to synthesize a really complex long argument in a very quick, easy way. That's crucial for audience success. So to be able to convince the audience of your position, even if it's really difficult, technical ideas. That's a unique skill set that not everybody has. I mean, even to be able to publicly speak is a skill set that not everybody has. A lot of people are afraid of it, they're terrified of it. So those are some of the immediate sort of potentials that you notice, I think, in people rhetoric and being charismatic in a debate. What you pointed out when you and Andrew were ranking people, you know, being funny and being charismatic can go a long way in a debate. I mean, you can't rest everything on that because then it's just fluff and it's just, just noise. But to be charismatic and to be funny and silly demonstrates, you know, I think, a very convincing element to the crowd. You'll vibe with the crowd better. Being able to think on your feet very quickly obviously is a, a potentiality for debate and being a reader, I think being able to read books is a big part of it because we live in a society where people don't debate and I mean, don't read. And then thus they can't debate and communicate their ideas. They haven't thought hard on ideas or deeply on ideas. And being able to debate without chat, GPT, without the Internet is also crucial. So that's another reason why we have to do a lot of in person or live debates now. Because so many people, especially on the left, you know, not so erudite destiny clones these people. They've been caught, you know, trying to use chat GBT in the midst of debates. And that's just cheating. I mean, imagine being, you know, a chess master and you're over here like asking the AI what the next best chess move is. It's just retarded.

B (92:16)

Yeah, definitely. Is there any like, of the top, top tier of debaters in your mind? Are there any guys who you look at and you're just like, damn, like, yeah, that guy has really got an airtight worldview and anybody Would be a tough night at the office for them.

A (92:35)

Well, there's some people that are really good at debate that don't have the best world view but I mean I think Bonson was probably the best debater, but I don't think that, I mean I think he had some pretty significant obviously flaws in his worldview. You know, Andrew's really good at, I think Andrew has a silver tongue and he's really good at turning the debate around. Really good at internal critiques. That's of course, you know, a thing that comes out of pre substitutionalism and tag. So you know, Andrew's great, Bonson's great. John Lennox is good. I think John Lennox, I would have given John Lennox a higher place above Trent Horn. Honestly when y' all, you guys are ranking it. But I'm trying to think of people that are just really, really good. I mean I, it sounds kind of douchey but like there's not, I mean I'll have to say Jim Bob, I've seen like immense improvements and Jim Bob constantly impresses me when he's pressing atheists and materialists. I think Jim Bob is getting really good. There's a lot of potential and I know Alex Soren's only done, I think one debate so far. He did really well in his first debate. I mean I think Chase Haggard has a lot of potential. It could be really good at debate. So I mean I'm probably missing people. David or Hun did good in his debates. There's a lot of potential. But, but yeah, I would say elite tier debaters these days. You know, honestly Jordan Peterson, if he had been more aggressive, he could have been in. I feel like he really could have been an elite tier debater because there were so many. Yeah, well there were so many points in, in the Matt Dillon debate or the Sam Harris debates where if he had been aggressive he could have come out and just demolished them. But he would always kind of get up to the point and then kind of back off probably to you know, maintain friendships and relationships. So I'm not knocking him in some personal way, I'm just saying like I feel like he could have really been, you know, just super tear debater if he wanted to.

B (94:30)

What do you think his strengths are? Jordan Peterson?

A (94:35)

He's a very intelligent, quick thinker. He's very good at turn of phrase and, and sort of silver tongued and able to synthesize those complex ideas in a very quick, clear way. Also I think people overlook the fact that doing debate requires the skill of improvisation. So if you've done improv, which I, when I was, I was actually a theater kid, I used, we used to do a lot of improv and I think that actually helped thinking on my feet in debate quite a bit. So that's a skill. And I think Jordan Peterson's good at thinking on his feet. So I think, I think that's another key element here.

B (95:14)

What do you think it would be? The downfalls of a Trent, for example, you said that you thought his score should have been lower. What are some of the things that you're most critical of there?

A (95:22)

You know, Trent Horn has had some good debates where I think he performed well. He performed well against Alex o', Connor, he performed well against Matt Dillahunty, but to be honest with you, I don't think Alex and Matt are substantial challenges. So, you know when, and I don't mean this in a douchey way, but like when. So when I debated Trent, you know, I brought some really hardcore, intense technical material. I gave him a huge reading list. I don't think he read any of it. Same with Tim Gordon. I don't think Tim read any of the, of the reading list that I gave him before the debate. So, you know, I just think Trent has kind of, he lacks some of the aggression that's necessary for debate. And I think there's just sort of a level, and I'm saying this as a student of philosophy, there's sort of a tier and level of philosophy that, that if you just do kind of a surface level study of metaphysics and epistemology, which I think Trent probably hasn't had no epistemic studies at all, like you're, you're just not going to be able to deal with challenges at an epistemic level. So when I started asking him, for example, questions in our debate about self evidence or the criterion problem, I mean, those are really well known fundamental issues in epistemology. And he was kind of out to lunch, you know, had no idea really what that was. So from my perspective, I just think Trent, again, there's, he's a smart guy, there's potential, but there's areas that he just doesn't want to go into and has kind of been kind of too passive about in the last couple years.

B (96:58)

Right. And then Alex o', Connor, because he's kind of seen as the guy on the atheist side these days, he's sort of, it's almost as if he's taken the mantle from the likes of Dawkins, Harris and, and these guys. However he is probably a lot more charitable to Christianity and open minded. And it seems as though he's tried to sort of immerse himself in Christianity but couldn't find the belief, couldn't find the faith, these sorts of things. So what do you think are his strengths and weaknesses?

A (97:27)

I mean, I guess strengths would be that anybody that gets a significant audience, you know, has to be able to handle, you know, quite a bit of opposition. And not everybody can handle, you know, hundreds of thousands or millions of people opposing you. Right. It's, it's, I think a certain type of person that's able to handle that. Not everybody can do that. So those are some strengths. Obviously he's an intelligent person, he's, he's a quick thinker. But just like with Trent, there's a really sort of vast lack of philosophical knowledge and depth that he, he, he doesn't have. So, you know, when he comes up against somebody like a John Lennox or somebody who's got more of an advanced training in some of these fields, it just can't do anything. And I, I think the Linux debate was when o' Connor kind of sort of started saying, I don't know if I want to do any more of these Christian debates because I was actually supposed to have a debate with him on Piers Morgan and he said I'll pass, so.

B (98:27)

Oh, really?

A (98:28)

Yeah.

B (98:29)

Why do you think that?

A (98:30)

I really wish that had happened. I think it's because, you know, I mean, I'm not saying he spends a whole lot of time watching me, but I think again, anybody with a significant degree of philosophical understanding is, is not, if you don't have that, you're just not going to perform well.

B (98:46)

Right. And so when you say he lacks, because he talks about philosophy a lot and to the untrained eye, like even to me, when I look at him like, oh, this guy looks like he knows a lot about philosophy. So what? What other areas that he's lacking?

A (99:00)

So I mean, and how can I say this without sounding like a douchebag? Like if you, if you've gotten like, if you did philosophy grad school type stuff, you're gonna notice people that may have had a few undergrad classes or, or I don't know what his degree was, but maybe he did a philosophy undergrad, I don't know. But part of this has to do with the education system though, is like a lot of the education system, even if you do a philosophy degree, I mean, there's a lot of gaps, there's a lot of things that are skipped for Example, most modern philosophy programs, you don't study metaphysics. So anybody brings like a significant metaphysical challenge, like a Roman Catholic would or an orthodox would to an atheist debate, an atheist is not going to know what to say because they don't study that. And most atheists and academics, even if they study philosophy, they probably didn't do an epistemology course. I mean, maybe they did, maybe they did enlightenment epistemology. So they're not going to know things like epistemic justification and what qualifies as justification. So those are very, they're just very huge gaps that like if, if you don't have that, you're not going to do well against somebody who knows that.

B (100:10)

Okay, so then taking it back. So we've got the basics of debate and some of the better debaters out there, some of the flaws in some of the prominent debaters worldview and their skill sets. How about just for people who are like just debate enjoyers, just debate watchers, they like to watch the streams, but they've never done any debates in their own personal life. But they look at all this around them and they want a way to be able to combat them. You get some woke HR lady or a lawyer lady or whatever who's telling you about, about her, her worldview and they want to just be able to just clap back, you know, what about for these sorts of people? Where do we start?

A (100:51)

I would start with go listen to the Bonds and Stein debate about four or five times all the way through. Take notes and you know, when you come to words that you don't understand, look them up. The first thing I did when I got into debating was that was the, the debate that got me into it. Right. So this is probably about 1999. I listened to that debate on tape, cassette tape. I think I still have the cassette tape somewhere but. And I listened to it multiple times. I started taking notes and I was like, this is, this is fascinating. I'm going to learn how he does this. How does he like you know, lead this atheist into a trap, you know, and kind of set him up. So that's one way to begin to learn. And if you just kind of, just even mimicking kind of the way that Bonson goes about it would you would be miles ahead of everybody else probably. And I'm in saying, I'm saying like for co workers and for you know, you know, family members or whoever you're arguing with or whatever, that's a good way to begin to learn to clap back. I would learn, you know, print out there's a lot of colleges that have, you know, websites that list the informal fallacies. So I would print that out and I would learn a few of those, the more common ones especially, and you'll start noticing them in ads or in people's conversations. You know, I would also, you know, you can go and watch some of the Oxford Union debates and those are good because they're more classical style. So you'll watch people like Peter Hitchens and you'll notice the way he uses rhetoric. So I would, I would learn from some of those. Obviously. You could watch some of my debates, you could watch some of Jake's debates and, and just see how we go about replying to and, and clapping back and, and one thing, for example, like if you go watch my Shabir Ali debates, one thing that people didn't notice that I think some people later said, hey, I appreciate that you did this was, you know, when you're, when you're in a debate with somebody, if it's a cross examination, for example, like if I'm cross examining him, I would ask him questions and he would spout out all of this stuff, right? And the more that he said, the more he was giving me information to hang him with, right. But when he asked me, I would give very quick one word answers. So I didn't give a bunch of blah, blah, blah, so that he could trap me with, right? So that's a tactic, but it's a, it's a tactic that's useful in these kinds of engagements or in these kinds of discourses, right? So I would say you can learn some of those kind of tactics. You can't rely totally on tactics because if you do, it's going to kind of be evident even to people that are not trained in debate. They're going to be like, you're just using, you know, tactics and tricks, dude. But you need to, you need to know some strategies and tactics even, especially.

B (103:40)

When they're used against you as well.

A (103:41)

Hey, absolutely.

B (103:42)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. I'm going to read a few more super chats then I've got a couple more questions for you if you don't mind. You, you don't have to be anywhere right now, do you? No. Cool. Thanks, man. All right, great. Where are we at this? There goes my black queen says jb Left Hand assassin sent five. Thank you. Backman said for two the goat. Tell Jake to read the Church Fathers. I'm on it, brother. Thank you. Yamaha Banshee said for Jay. Will you ever appear on Piers Morgan uncensored again anytime soon. If so, just make sure to not share a panel with the guy named Brian Shapiro or John Fusel saying, I would love to see you debate those guys. What's he talking about?

A (104:22)

I'm actually not familiar with who those people are, but I did get an email the other day saying that they would like to try to get me back on in the near future. So hopefully. But I. I never know who they're gonna have me on with.

B (104:33)

Yeah, definitely. If those guys are on there, do it us. As Brian Shapiro Fugal saying would be hilarious for Jay. I'm just getting into EO theology. First hand writings I should get into builds a good foundation. First 10 writings I should get into to build a good foundation.

A (104:54)

I would amongst church fathers, I would read Athanasius's on the Incarnation. It's very small and readable. I would read the five Theological Orations by Gregory Nazianzus. Small and readable. I would read Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Loski. It's a little more advanced. And I would read as part of Catechesis. A classic is Pomazanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.

B (105:17)

The cut says for 10 for each of you. One person you would debate past or present. Can't be a philosopher or president. Thank you to both. For me it would probably be one of the tick. It'd probably be like a tick tock goon like Harry Sisson or Dean or Parker. One of those guys.

A (105:32)

Oh, that'd be, that'd be great. Yeah. I mean I'd love to debate Ben Shapiro, Alex O. Conor Sam Harris Dawkins, any of those kind of big atheist guys. I'd love to debate them.

B (105:46)

Blaine says smash the like button. Don't forget to send in those supers. Great idea by Blaine. Left handed assassin with another five. And mighty Maximus says for the goal. Thank you, sir. Papaya Terry comes in and says I tried mimicking Jay in a debate night, got called a bsn, then punched in the face. I think I still need to learn. Yeah, proprietary is a way you got to go about it, you know.

A (106:07)

Well, I've actually been pushed and punched a couple times, so.

B (106:10)

Really?

A (106:11)

Yeah, the base can get heated.

B (106:14)

Sniper Mike sent 10. Thank you, sir. Guys, we've got how many we've got to go? We've got 10 to go. Yellow and up to get to that goal. 10, yellow and up. If you've enjoyed the debate, then let's hit that goal. Let's do it. All right, Jay, so I just want to talk to you quickly about the future of Orthodoxy, because I'm noticing a huge change. Like I was messaging you the other day after I left my, my liturgy. I don't even know if it's appropriate to say on stream, but that there was a bunch of guys who'd come up to me and, and I started talking to you because in the Orthodox Greek Church in Australia, it's very like, it's like a community and it's hard for outsiders to come in sometimes and no one talks to them because like it's all like the Greek community and then the Serbian community and the Russian community, whatever. And so people are coming in, look, staring up at the ceiling, the beautiful icons and the beautiful paintings and everything, everything. But so we're trying to make an effort to talk to people more to, to people like newcomers in the church. It's their first time. And there was like five or six just the other night that I spoke to. I was like, oh, so how'd you like had what brought you here? And they're like, oh yeah, I was just watching J. Dyer debates on the Internet. And I was like, damn, like all the way here in Brisbane, Australia. So I'm seeing a huge amount of people who are, who are looking into Orthodoxy, but maybe struggling a little bit when they're going into the church because it's like there's like no one really approach. Maybe it's just in my church, I think it's better in America because you have a lot more English speaking churches. Like in my state, there's only a few churches that do English speaking services, which I find bizarre. But how are you seeing that? Are you seeing a big shift towards Orthodoxy? And what do you think that the future of the church looks like in terms of like being able to accommodate for people in different, in different lands and places. Like your, your average Australian who wants to go on and go to an Orthodox church.

A (107:57)

Yeah, there is a pretty wild sort of explosion of this. I mean, even to the point of Associated Press reported on the other day. Wall Street Journals reported on it. I've had mainstream media outlets reach out to try to interview me. Actually, I always say no because I don't trust like mainstream reporters. So that's happened two or three times where I'm like, no, I'm not talking to you, but yeah, I mean, but they, I think they ended up, you know, talking to Father Josiah Trenum and I think they talked to maybe Pageau and some other people. But I mean there is a, an increase for sure, a surge most in America A lot of parishes are experiencing doubling or tripling. My parish in Florida, for example, I mean, we've, I think tripled in the last five years. We've had to expand, you know, space, space wise, spatially. So it is happening. You know, I don't really know what the experience of those kinds of churches is in other countries. I know that orthodoxy is expanding quite a bit in Germany. I met a lot of German ortho bros and I hear a lot about Australia. So that's good. One thing I would say is like, yeah, a lot of times, not always, but a lot of times it will be an ethnic community and they're, they're just being themselves. And orthodoxy is not like Protestantism or mega churches where it's like, oh, we're just clamoring to try, you know, to get anybody in under any circumstances. Right. So it's a very different model. And part of the reason for that, and it was a little me too when I first started looking into this, is like, they want to make, they want to make sure that, you know, you're serious. That's why you don't become orthodox, like at a Billy Graham crusade when you're evangelical, right. You just want to come on down to the altar and say the sinner's prayer, we'll give you some pizza. Like, it's not like that. Right. Like, so they want to make sure it's going to take you time and that kind of, you know, the initiative is kind of left up to you. But most people's experiences, even if it's, you know, Greek churches or whatever, like if you approach and you initiate and say, hey, I'm interested, I'd like to come to inquirers classes, whatever, that's the stage, you know, before becoming a catechumen. And usually the catechumen period is anywhere from six months to three years. So it really just depends on what they decide at that church. Church. So I would just say, you know, it's just not evangelicalism. It's more of a, you know, firewall to make sure that people are serious.

B (110:14)

Right. And so for people who are inquiring and who are interested in Orthodoxy, but maybe a little bit intimidated to go down to. It's not like the Protestant churches where you walk in, it's very sort of like, hey, how are you? Come sit down here. You know, we're going to be playing some music and everyone's, you know, dancing along. It is a little bit more serious in the Divine Liturgy. And I actually really like that because when I Go to church. It's a very deep, like serious contemplative sort of time. And I like the aesthetic beauty and the reverence and everything. I really like that sort of stuff. But it might be a bit different for people who are even just inquiring into Christianity or people who are coming from a Protestant background. So what would you say to those sorts of people?

A (110:53)

Yeah, it is different. And, and you got to give it time. So, you know, don't rush it. Never rush it. It. When I was first looking at Orthodox in 2007, I was really anxious. I tried to rush it and ended up like not being ready for orthodoxy until about 10 years later. So yeah, there's no rush. Take your time, you know, ask all the questions that you have, get all the questions out. That's really the only thing I can think of. And you know, a lot of websites have kind of church decorum or etiquette so you can look up and see kind of what, you know, the proper Orthodox Christian church etiquette is. Don't come in there praying and you know, like an evangelical service and raising your hands and hooting and hollering. It's none of that. So yeah, it's just, it's very liturgical, which means ordered ritual based service, which is how God's always been worshiped. Whether it's the Old Testament, you know, whether Jesus, when Jesus went to the synagogue, it's a very ordered liturgical service. Same at the temple. Right. And then when the church was established early on, early church was liturgical always. So that's the way that God has laid down, that he's worshiped. We believe. So anything that seems a little weird or new. I remember the first time when I was a prod, I was raised Protestant. The first time I saw a relic, I was like, this is weird. You know, over time all that goes away. It's not weird at all. So just, just give it time.

B (112:19)

Yeah. One of the things I've also noticed is that guys are coming in there and they've got their wives and the wives are really sort of worried about the community and this sort of thing, like they go to the frost and they've got the mother's clubs and everything and you know, the Orthodox churches, maybe it's harder to break into a community and maybe they're not as focused on that sort of thing. So what would you say to maybe guys who are looking into it, but their wives are girlfriends are not as interested.

A (112:48)

Yeah, that can be a challenge. I mean, when I first went to, I go to Russian Church. And it took. It took a while. It took maybe six months to a year before I really felt like, you know, I actually have camaraderie with these people. But, you know, I had a really good, providentially speaking, really good spiritual father. So we. We've always had a really good relationship, and I think that was a huge part of it. But for wives, I think you're right. Girlfriends, like, they want to meet the, you know, other girls and have community and all that. And I would say that, you know, one thing that's unique about Orthodox churches, that's a big plus in this regard, is that it may be different in the Greek church there, I don't know. But in most American Orthodox churches, like, the. The children are a huge part of the liturgy. The children sing, the children participate, they communion, they commune. So that's something I think they might be able to bond with other women about, especially is the kids. And the communion aspect of it. You don't send your children off to some other service or keep them away. But, yeah, again, you know, that might be. That might be a challenge in. In places like where you are. I'm not sure.

B (113:58)

I just.

A (113:59)

I'm only really familiar with the American experience, so I don't know what it's like in Europe. Upper Australia.

B (114:03)

Yeah. I went to Serbia a few months ago and I went to the Church of Saint Sava. Unbelievable, dude. Like, wow. Just they've got millions of. What do they call it with, like, when you put the. The paintings, but they're not paintings. They're done with the little pieces of gold and pieces of, like.

A (114:21)

Mosaics.

B (114:22)

Yeah, mosaics, yeah. But there's millions of pieces that go into all of the mosaics around. It's, like, literally unbelievable when you. When you look at it, that it was all just the amount of effort and planning that would have gone into it, and it's just beautiful.

A (114:35)

So you've probably experienced more of the world of Orthodoxy than I have, because I've only been to. We did go to a few Orthodox churches in Italy, so that was fascinating. But, you know, I've only experienced America and Italy, really.

B (114:47)

Yeah, it is fascinating. I went to a service as well in Serbia there, and the singing was on point because I've only been to a few. I've been. Been to Andrew's one, been to the Greek one where I'm from here in Brizzy, and then been to the Serbian one in Belgrade as well. And this, like, they had the choir up the back, and then they had the church and the and the priest would say something. Then the choir would say. The priest and the choir like proper, like great service. Everybody's standing. There's no seats the whole entire time. So yeah, super, super cool. Like really, really enjoy the orthodox services. So gonna keep it. Let's read a few more these super chat, shall we? Does Brian Shapiro have time for a debate? Considering he's constantly stalking Rob, says mighty Maximus, I'm sure, I'm sure he'd do it if Piers Morgan called him again. Yeah, Papaya Terry said, dangerous loaf of bread wants to know what got you pushed and punched over over in debate. Got you. I got you, bro.

A (115:41)

It was actually at a monastery and it was, it was an academic conference at a orthodox monastery. And I just, I just got there and there was a sort of big burly, sort of chunky Viking looking dude who's a professor, a libertarian professor of ethics, oddly enough, who was at this conference and he was there to present a paper and I was there and we didn't know each other, but we started talking and I think everything that I was saying, he was just kind of interpreting it in the worst possible light. And the conversation just got worse and worse. It got more and more heated and he was starting to get really red faced. And I'm this kind of person who like I, I tend to continue like a provocation, like if somebody's like in my face, like I don't like just walk away, like, okay. And I remember saying something like, you know, this is an academic debate. I'm like, what are you actually gonna do? And that set him off and he sort of. It wasn't really, it was like a, it was like a. He didn't really know what to do and he just sort of push punched me and I went sort of rolling over a table. And you had all these, all these monks and nuns or like, like just sort of like they couldn't believe that somebody punched a guy at a, at a monastery.

B (116:51)

Oh, that's hilarious.

A (116:52)

That was 2019, I think.

B (116:55)

Blaine sent 20 rattlesnake TV memberships. He's blessed 20 paws with a membership. Thank you very much, Blaine. That is greatly appreciated, my friend.

A (117:03)

That was a true story. Father Deacon Ananias was there. He can attest because it really happened. Yeah.

B (117:08)

Got beaten up by a Viking. Eddie Garcia sent five and says, I was Protestant, then atheist, then mega church, and now I'm bl. Black pilled. How can I get out? I'm in Berlin, Germany.

A (117:19)

There's a large, growing, sizable orthodox population in Germany now. So Find a good Orthodox church. You'll find some good Germanic ortho bros.

B (117:29)

Yeah, I was in Berlin as well recently and in, in. In September. And I'm. You just got to stay away from the downtown. Like, Berlin is one of the most degenerate places I've ever been to. You go down to the downtown park part and it's just sex, drugs and rock and roll down there. So stay away from those parts. It was pretty funny. I was gone.

A (117:48)

Go ahead. You know Dr. David Patrick Harry, you know, he met his wife.

B (117:52)

Yeah.

A (117:53)

Out there. I think she's from Austria. But, you know, she was the one saying, hey, there's like hundreds and hundreds of guys in Germany. They're becoming orthodox now.

B (118:01)

Yeah. That's awesome. But, yeah, I was down there at the Berlin Wall and have you ever seen that. That mural of the two guys kissing?

A (118:09)

No.

B (118:09)

On the Berlin Wall. It's like the, this, the. The. The. When the Berlin Wall fell, they did all the murals on the Berlin Wall. And one of it is a mural of these two guys kissing. And it was a Soviet guy and a Soviet communist and a German communist. And they were doing the fraternal kiss, but where they go, kiss, kiss, kiss. And then for some reason I didn't know this, but for some reason they just start kissing each other. Like, if they're like, really, like, we're in this together, me and you, bro. It's communism until the wheels fall off. They'll actually kiss each other. Like, how sus is that? And so these guys. And that's what the painting is of. But all of the. The wokies in Berlin think that when the Berlin Wall, the East and west, they got together and started kissing each other. But yeah, the fraternal kiss, it's a real thing in socialism. Sauce sas socialists.

A (118:58)

That's weird too, because the tendency for the gay stuff actually in the Cold War was. It was actually the west and the CA that were actually pushing and promoting the, you know, sexual liberation side of it. Because the official Soviet line was anti homosexuals, they're actually using that as leverage in the Cold War. I'm not pro Soviet. I'm just saying it's odd that, that it's interpreted that way now.

B (119:19)

Yeah. But I don't think it's meant to be an explicitly gay thing because they would kiss cheek, cheek, cheek, and then like they, they do this like, kiss. If it was like a, you know, I don't know. Weird. Weird. Four away from the goal, guys. We're four away, four yellows away from the Goal. We're getting very close. Sounds like Jake is a catechumen, says Octavian. And not a catechumen yet. We'll see how we go with that. Alter void for 10 says. So you're saying if I go to church, then I have to take off my pimp out?

A (119:49)

Only depends on what church you go to. If you go to a black pimp church, keep it on, buddy.

B (119:55)

Yeah, yeah. Great Scott says Orthodox Christianity is the only church that makes the New Testament real because it wrote it.

A (120:04)

I would agree with that. Yeah.

B (120:07)

Rach Wilson says for 20. Great to see Rach in the chat. Great to see you guys streaming today. It's like my big brother and my little brother doing a stream. Pretty much correct.

A (120:15)

Hey, am I the little bro?

B (120:19)

I think I'm the little bro. Amelia sent 14. Thank you very much, Amelia. Much appreciated. Yamaha Banshee says there's an Orthodox church in Japan called Nicolaido. Probably butchered it it in case you're trying to find some Orthodox Saiyans.

A (120:34)

Yeah, There is actually quite a few Orthodox churches in Japan, I think.

B (120:38)

Really? Yeah. Yeah. I was looking at. They've got that one in Alaska as well. That's kind of interesting. In. I was in. Once again, I was in Indonesia, in Bali, and I was at my kickboxing gym and I was doing pads with some guy and then he saw my cross. He's like, oh, you're Christian? I was like, yeah. And he's like, what? And I was like. I was like, I'd go to Orthodox church. And he was like, oh, you should come to this Orthodox church we've got in down the south of Bali. And I was researching one thing. I couldn't find one, but apparently there's now a Russian Orthodox church in Bali as well. And apparently in the north of Bali, there was a big con mass conversion that happened where there's a whole massive Orthodox community up there. So, I mean, lots of stuff.

A (121:16)

I never even heard of that. That's great.

B (121:18)

Yeah. Mighty Maximus came in with three times ten. Thank you, Mighty Maximus. Much appreciated. That goal has been absolutely smashed, guys. Appreciate that. QTard for 10 says thanks for the story, Mr. J. For the goal, Mr. Jake. Thank you. Sir Anthony says I struggle actually consistently going to church. Am I making excuses for myself? I know I should be there. Is this normal?

A (121:41)

I think everybody has that struggle. Yeah, absolutely. We're all going to have the same passions that we battle. I mean, some of us will battle one passion versus another, but. Yeah, absolutely.

B (121:50)

Yep. All right, Jay. Well, I really appreciate your Time today, man. Tell everybody. Your links are all in the description, everything, all of the webinars, website, YouTube, all these sorts of things. But what can we expect from you and. And where's the best places to find you?

A (122:04)

Thanks, Jake. Always have fun talking to you. Really good show. Love your content too, by the way. You can find me@jay analysis.com. you can subscribe there to the archives. You can get my books, signed copies, Hollywood 1, 2 and 3, and the philosophy text as well in the shop. You can find me on Twitter J. Dyer. You can find me fourth hour of the Alex Jones show, mostly on Fridays. You can find me Sam Hyde Show. We wrote one full season of the Sam Hyde show, so I think we'll be starting season two soon.

B (122:34)

Yeah.

A (122:34)

And then everywhere else on social media, same same name.

B (122:38)

All right, well, don't forget to like the stream, guys. I'm gonna stick around for a little bit and, and chat with you guys. But Jay, always a pleasure, man. I'll see you very soon.

A (122:46)

Thanks, dog. Have a good day.

B (122:48)

See you later, dude. How good, guys? Always fun having Jay on the channel. Always fun to pick his brains about things. What did you guys think? I want to do more interviews this year, get more into interview content. I really, really enjoy the interviews. I might do a few debates and everything still here and there, but I really enjoy the interview content. The debates are cool and everything, but I miss doing interviews, picking people's brains. Rob Nor's streaming over here or David Patrick Harry streaming as well. Let's go, dph, because you guys will probably be a bit more interested in DPH content after Jay. All right, guys, we're going to go over to dph. He's streaming over there. Thank you so much for joining me. Much appreciated, guys. Much love. Take care of yourselves.