Pt 1: Epstein, The Papacy & Tent Horn: Challenging Catholics on Vatican Claims, Coverups & OPEN DEBATE

Summary

Jay’sAnalysis with Jay Dyer

Episode: Epstein, The Papacy & Trent Horn: Challenging Catholics on Vatican Claims, Coverups & OPEN DEBATE (Part 1)
Date: February 13, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Jay Dyer scrutinizes the Roman Catholic Church, particularly its recent scandals, ties to global power politics, and what he alleges is a pattern of moral and institutional cover-up at the highest levels—including the Papacy itself. The discussion is framed around recent revelations connecting Jeffrey Epstein to Vatican officials and centering on the reluctance of high-profile Catholic apologist Trent Horn to publicly debate Jay on these issues.

Dyer also provides a critique of the behavior and apologetic strategies of prominent Roman Catholic figures, contending that when theological debate fails, the Catholic establishment resorts to piety signaling and personal attacks. The tone is combative, unfiltered, and laced with Dyer's trademark banter and sarcasm.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Vatican as a "Crime Syndicate": Allegations and Geopolitical Context

[01:09–05:30]

• Organizational Corruption: Dyer argues that the Vatican has transformed into a "crime syndicate" at the highest echelons, especially as demonstrated by chronic cover-ups and financial scandals.
  • “If I can prove that the Vatican has for a long time been co-opted and become a crime syndicate, you must now as a Roman Catholic, defend the position that Jesus wills us to be giving our children's future, giving tithe, etc. to a goblin sect, a bunch of organized crime figures.” (Jay Dyer, [01:18])
• Local vs. Hierarchical Distinction: While Dyer separates local Catholic churches (mostly "good hearted, well meaning people") from the Papacy’s upper leadership, he insists the problem is deep, systemic subversion at the top.
• Historical Parallels: Jay references past interactions between Catholic apologists, noting deteriorating relationships and an unwillingness to debate hard topics as pressure increases.

2. Patterns of Behavior Among Catholic Apologists

[03:30–12:35]

• Breakdown of Relationships: Jay recounts cases where Catholic interlocutors (Michael Lofton, Eric Ibarra) turned hostile, resorting to public and private “cancellation” attempts, like reporting people to dioceses over minor infractions (e.g., use of a slur on Discord).
  • “These tactics and techniques are so ridiculous, so leftist, and so just bad faith, that the public humility and piety signaling is the most nauseating of all of it.” (Jay Dyer, [04:30])
• Piety Signaling as Defense: Jay identifies a recurring pattern where, upon losing theological arguments, Catholic figures focus on virtue-signaling and bad behavior policing.

3. The Epstein–Vatican Connection and Refusal to Debate

[09:00–16:40, 43:58–53:00]

• New Revelations: Dyer brings up Epstein’s explicit documented connections with Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis, the Vatican Bank, and other high-level Vatican officials:
  • “Now that we’ve gotten to an actual public, biggest news story of our lifetime, release of the Epstein files that does explicitly... link Epstein to a direct relationship with John Paul II, to a direct relationship with Pope Francis, to scheduling meetings, etc.... to sharing weird architectural fetishes that they apparently had.” (Jay Dyer, [10:12])
• Geopolitics and Money Laundering: Citing emails between Epstein and Larry Summers, Dyer points to the Vatican Bank’s unique legal status enabling "elite clients to evade scrutiny." He outlines the 1970s–1990s financial crimes and mafia-esque scandals (Operation Gladio, P2 Lodge, etc.).
  • “Epstein is explaining... the inner workings of the Vatican Bank. How does Jeff Stein McEffrey know the inner workings of the Vatican Bank? Oh, because he was friends with John Paul II.” (Jay Dyer, [43:58])
• Refusal to Debate: Jay claims no prominent Catholic apologist (including Trent Horn) will publicly debate these geopolitical and financial issues, suggesting a pattern of evasion and institutional defensiveness.
  • “Every other Roman Catholic apologist... none of them will debate this topic. So it’s interesting... In the case of Trent, when I’ve asked for this debate, Trent has always explicitly said, I will not debate this topic.” (Jay Dyer, [11:10])

4. Infallibility, Epistemic Crisis, and Dogmatic Ambiguity

[13:40–31:31]

• Critique of Catholic Epistemology: Jay highlights what he sees as an internal contradiction—if the pope or magisterium have erred or covered up such grave scandals, the system’s claims to infallibility and indefectibility collapse.
  • “To show that the papacy has defected or contradicted at a dogmatic level on faith or morals, that is a system-level defeater.” (Jay Dyer, [16:40])
• "Manifestly Evident" Standard: Jay juxtaposes Trent Horn’s vacuous standard for infallibility (“defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident”) and critiques the ambiguity and lack of clear criteria.
  • “Doctrine is understood as defined infallibly, unless this is manifestly evident. That’s literally what he said. That’s all he said.” (Jay Dyer impersonating Trent Horn, [31:31])

5. Vatican II, Doctrinal Changes, and the Shift in Catholic Morals

[25:07–31:00, 40:00–44:00]

• Religious Syncretism: Jay draws a throughline from natural theology to Vatican II’s "we all worship the same God" (Nostra Aetate), framing it as perennialism and a doctrinal “defection.”
• Changing Moral Standards: Examples include the shifting Catholic teaching on the death penalty and homosexuality, which Jay regards as clear evidence of contradiction at the magisterial level.
  • “At the time of Trent ... the death penalty ... part of natural justice. And then by ... John Paul II and Pope Francis, it is now, ‘contrary to the gospel.’” ([29:00])
  • “So, now we need your three interpretations of a magisterial supposed to teaching on morals?...Why are there different interpretations ... if Catholic theology worked?” ([29:41])

6. Catholic Apologetics and Social Media: Cowardice or Caution?

[34:00–36:00, 51:00–55:00]

• Blocking Debate: Dyer argues his decision to block Horn is due to the latter’s refusal to engage on substantive grounds, not as a strategy to avoid debate.
  • “I block people all the time because I lose respect for people when they go to the piety signaling and they won’t debate. And at that point, I don’t want to interact with you anymore... I think you are a coward because if you really believe this system, if you really knew your doctrine ... it would be easy for you to come on here and make the case.” ([35:00])
• Selective Engagement: Jay claims Catholic Answers and its associated apologists police debate spaces, control narratives, and prop up the institution with PR tactics in lieu of meaningful public discourse.

7. Gender, Masculinity, and the Critique of Trent Horn’s Social Stance

[56:37–75:54]

• Jay’s Masculinity Rant: Extended critique of “male feminism,” “effeminate” attitudes, and what Jay considers weakness among Catholic (and especially Catholic apologist) men. He ties this behavioral theme to broader institutional and doctrinal failings.
  • “The root of the problem here is that Trent is an effeminate soy man. That’s the problem. Trent cannot admit because he’s so fragile, so psychologically weak. To admit any theological error... would be to crack this facade.” ([63:59])
• Personal Lives as Fair Game: Jay argues that if Catholic apologists bring up personal conduct (as in debates with Andrew Wilson), their own household and marriages are open to scrutiny—specifically referencing Horn’s wife’s public comments on forming a close attachment with a male co-worker.
• Cultural Critique Extended: He relates the piety/moral superiority signaling of Catholics to the wider malaise of Western culture—lack of real masculine virtue and “virtue-signaling” as a defensive posture.

8. Piety Signaling vs. Debate and the State of Catholic Apologetics

[75:54–106:00]

• Shift Away from Argument: Jay laments that Catholic apologists are now more likely to deflect criticism by stressing optics, tone, or personal morality (“piety signaling”), rather than addressing core issues of theology or church policy.
  • “That’s the problem here, is that the debate has shifted away from the issues and the topics into piety signaling. And once you’re there, that’s you on the ropes.” ([93:00])
• Selective Outrage: He highlights hypocrisy in selectively critiquing “mean” behavior depending on whether someone is a Catholic or Orthodox defender while ignoring comparable conduct on their own side.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Vatican and Organized Crime
  “If a better explanation ends up being that its actions are explained by geopolitical power and influence, then that means that it doesn’t make sense to think that infallibility and indefectibility were conferred upon a crime syndicate.”
  —Jay Dyer ([01:09])

• On Cancel Culture and Catholic Apologists
  “The public face of being a perpetual victim, as the meme says, as you’re stabbing people in the back and acting so fake, eventually wears on all the people that you’re around.”
  —Jay Dyer ([04:50])

• On the Pattern of Non-Engagement
  “Every other Roman Catholic apologist... none of them will debate this topic. So it’s interesting... In the case of Trent, when I’ve asked for this debate, Trent has always explicitly said, I will not debate this topic.”
  —Jay Dyer ([11:10])

• On the Vatican Bank Scandal
  “The Vatican bank status as a sovereign country... allows it to be an elite client, its elite clients to evade scrutiny for money transfers. Epstein is explaining to... Larry Summers... the inner workings of the Vatican Bank.”
  —Jay Dyer ([43:58])

• On Moral Relativism & Epistemic Crisis
  “The magisterial teachings are really whatever any individual Roman Catholic wants to be the magisterial teachings.”
  —Jay Dyer ([30:00])

• On Debate and “Mean” Behavior
  “Imagine even being at this stage where actual men in the public sphere are saying they won’t engage in a debate because people are mean. This is so fake and gay. Just that alone is faking gay.”
  —Jay Dyer ([103:33])

• On the Inconsistency of Catholic Piety Standards
  “It’s okay when Roman Catholics make immature, childish jokes, but if you do it at a certain thing that he doesn’t like... then it’s the end of the world. And they’re absolute victims. These are the people who play victim but stab you in the back.”
  —Jay Dyer ([83:40])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Opening & Framing the Issue: [01:09–05:30]
• Patterns in Catholic Apologetics – Cancel Tactics: [03:30–12:35]
• Vatican Bank, Epstein, and Deep Corruption: [43:58–53:00]
• Epistemology & “Manifestly Evident” Fuzziness: [31:31–32:15]
• Shifting Catholic Dogma & Moral Issues: [25:07–31:00]
• Masculinity, Gender, & Critique of Trent Horn’s Personal Life: [56:37–75:54]
• Piety Signaling & End of Meaningful Debate: [75:54–88:00]
• Debate Hypocrisy & Shifting Blame: [102:42–105:15]

---

Closing Summary

Dyer’s relentless critique in this episode targets both the institutional dysfunction of the Vatican and the personal conduct of its defenders. Relying on recent news events connecting Epstein with senior Vatican officials, he argues that the Roman Catholic claim to supernatural authority is fundamentally undermined by consistent patterns of corruption and cover-up—patterns that go undebated by leading Catholic apologists. He further claims that contemporary Catholic apologetics has degenerated into image management and tone policing, substituting real theological debate with virtue signaling and personal attacks. Ultimately, Dyer contends that this crisis is not only organizational and doctrinal but spiritual and masculine in nature.

---

For listeners seeking original audio for referenced debates, videos, and documentary sources, see Jay Dyer’s website and “Dire Archive” clips channel.

Transcript

[Jay Dyer]

Tax season has arrived and doing taxes.

Without the right help can feel overwhelming. Intuit TurboTax is here now to guide you through it with confidence. Match with a TurboTax full service expert who handles everything for you from start to finish. Your dedicated expert checks every single deduction.

And credit to help you get the.

Best possible outcome so you can feel confident you're getting every dollar you deserve. And the best part?

You'll see real time updates on your.

Expert'S progress right on your phone while you live your life. Plus you get unlimited expert help at no extra cost even on nights and weekends during tax season. Visit turbotax.com only available with TurboTax Full Service Experts real time updates only on iOS mobile app at Lowe's get up to 35% off select major appliances plus members get free delivery, install and more.

[Dan Morgan]

When you spend $2,500 on select major appliances.

[Jay Dyer]

Lowe's we help you Save valid through 225 while supplies last selection varies by location. Excludes Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Florida loyalty program subject to terms and conditions.

[Dan Morgan]

Visit lowe's.com terms for details.

[Jay Dyer]

Subject to change.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

Visit your nearby Lowe's on Colorado street in Kennewick.

[Jay Dyer]

In the last millennium, and in particularly in particular the last century, if a better explanation ends up being that its actions are explained by geopolitical power and influence, then that means that it doesn't make sense to think that infallibility and indefectibility were conferred upon a crime syndicate. So if I can prove that the Vatican has for a long time been co opted and become a crime syndicate, you must now as a Roman Catholic, defend the position that Jesus wills us to be giving our children's future, giving tithe, etc to a goblin sect, a bunch of organized crime figures. Now I'm speaking chiefly of Rome. I'm not talking about most local Roman Catholic churches. In terms of the people in general, they tend to be good hearted, well meaning people. The problem of course is the subversion that has occurred at the top of the Roman Catholic system in their office of the Papacy. That is not a new subversion. It is a subversion that is very easily documentable. It's very easily provable from a lot of geopolitical texts. And for those that don't know about the history with Trent Horn, this is a mirror situation of the of the history with Michael Lofton and Eric Ibarra. And you might think why is Jay so mean? Why does he just out of nowhere he just just suddenly becomes mean to these poor innocent victim Roman Catholics no, no. You see, this is many years of interacting and dealing with these people. And you'll notice that in many of these cases, the original relationships started out friendly. Everybody had podcasts together, everybody had common discourse, people made joke videos. Laura Horne made a video making fun of the realm of Catholic apologetics and Protestant and orthodox apologetics. And those videos were entertaining. They were. It was a light hearted era. Everybody was sort of quote, getting along. However, what developed was more and more bad behavior that many of those Roman Catholics wouldn't exemplify publicly but would exemplify behind the scenes. And if you doubt that, note that, for example, in the case of Michael Lofton, almost everyone that he originally interacted with and worked with eventually had that bridge burned and came to the same conclusion that he's impossible to work with. He's exceedingly fragile, he can't take any jokes or ribbing, and the lightest, softest things set him off. Now, on top of that, in the case of Lofton, as an example, if you recall, I was going to be on Gospel Simplicity maybe five or six years ago. Lofton and Ibarra tried all they could to get me canceled from going on that show and other shows. Michael Lofton emailed and called, for example, Father Deacon, Dr. Ananias's diocese, trying to get him defrocked, trying to complain because he said the R word. Yes, you heard me right. Because a deacon used the word retard one time in a discord message. This was clipped as an attempt to cancel fda. To me, these tactics and techniques are so ridiculous, so leftist, and so just bad faith, that the public humility and piety signaling is the most nauseating of all of it. To have the public face of being a perpetual victim, as this, like the meme says, as you're stabbing people in the back and acting so fake eventually wears on all the people that you're around. And when you run everyone else off, it's a good sign that maybe it's not everybody else that's the problem. In the case of the Roman Catholic domain nowadays, a lot of those figures have sort of drifted away. They sort of waned in interest. Their channels are not that popular. And now this has all sort of fallen to Trent Horn. Trent now has the mantle, you could say, I guess, of what's left of Roman Catholic apologetics. There's not a whole lot there. We have lunatics like Sam Shamoon, obvious mental problems, absolutely unstable. And much like all the other characters, literally has run off every single person who's been kind and tried to work with him. There's not a single person, even his last leather daddy friend, William Albrecht, has been run off due to whatever their recent faking gay scandals were. Now, the reason I'm bringing up character and behavior is because we don't usually talk about that. This isn't a drama channel. That's not what we focus on. But I've noticed the pattern that when the theological and position arguments start to fail, the inevitable shift turns to the bad behavior and piety signaling. Could there be times when people deserve to be called out for bad behavior? Sure. For example, Voice of Reason, one of their rising star apologists. Everybody sort of had inclinations and called out Voice of Reason as very sus. Something was going on. And lo and behold, this chief piety signal or person himself, this vast a. A castle of piety defenses. I mean, he was one of the. The most nauseating piety signalers. Well, it turns out he's engaged in absolutely horrendous private activities. And that all comes out. And does he cease being a, quote, minister? No. Now he does everything on Patreon, on the back end of things. And lo and behold, we are still the bad people. The orthodox are still the nasty, disgusting people, according to him and his grifter buddy roots of orthodoxy. Now, in the case of Trent Horn, again, the mantle seems to have fallen to him to be the present voice of Catholic apologetics. But Trent Horn himself is no stranger to this same shifty sus attitude. And everybody falls for the public pretense of niceness and piety and all of this. And then once again, it always begins in a very friendly, charitable way. But as things don't go their way, they then turn to more and more nefarious backdoor activities. And I'll give you some examples. So in the case of Trent Horn, when I've asked for this debate, Trent has always explicitly said, I will not debate this topic. I will not. I can't debate you. It's not my topic. Now, every other Roman Catholic apologist that I've gone down the line, including Roman Catholic academics and historians that I've messaged and reached out to, none of them will debate this topic. So it's interesting to me that they will not debate this topic. And now that we've gotten to an actual public, biggest news story of our lifetime, release of the Epstein files that does explicitly, in multiple instances, link Epstein to a direct relationship with John Paul ii, to a direct relationship with Pope Francis, to scheduling meetings, etc, even to sharing weird architectural fetishes that they apparently had all of that must, including, by the way, Jeffrey Epstein's intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Vatican bank. Again, suggesting this close relationship. Again, I'm not claiming that there's explicit evidence that John Paul II did something in that abuse case scenario, although he has been called out for many, many years by many, many, many Roman Catholics for covering up the abuse crises. What you'll notice is that the Roman Catholic world isn't concerned with is that true? They're concerned with covering it up. There's a pattern here, and Cleave very perceptively noticed this, that, for example, when he in his weekly shows has called out the insane LGBT trans skittles, all that stuff in the Roman Catholic domain going on everywhere. You have priests doing gay marriages, you have actual ones, you have blessing the couples, you have everything that you could think of, including blasphemous artwork, you know, Sacred Heart. That's a pig heart. I mean, just all this insane, blasphemous stuff. And when Clee brings it up, do you have Roman Catholics wanting to cleanse that church and expose that? No. They immediately go into cover up mode. So we're going to be looking to see, is Trenhorn concerned with the truth of the Vatican bank and its scandals, the truth of the role of the papacy in geopolitics? And is there perhaps smoke where there's fire? Is there fire where there's smoke? I should say, rather, it seems that he immediately has gone into lawyering mode. Papal lawyers. You know, we talked about this years ago with Eric Ibarra. It seemed as if Ibarra was more and more and more becoming a legate or a legal defense character for the papacy versus a seeker of what's true. Now, notice I'm not arguing that the Orthodox Church doesn't have geopolitical corruption. Of course it does. Whoever thought that there wasn't a persecutory relationship, for example, between the Soviet state and the Orthodox Church in Russia? Everybody knows this. Roman Catholics themselves should be aware of the. The fact that their own theologians, like Eve's Congar, admit that the Gregorian reforms was a century, a period when there was a tremendous amount of German Germanic state influence on the papacy. And who would be the pope? So much for Cicero. Papism, because that's papalo. Cesarism. Same position. But when we come to Trent Horn, Because there is a nicer face on the front of this, there's this tendency, I think, to assume that anyone who critiques or comes after Trendhorn must be evil and must be nefarious. And I'm going to show you a consistent pattern of absolute inability to admit even the slightest error. Are you a fraud paying American? It's a fact that one in four honest, hard working tax paying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. With Lifelock Identity Theft Protection though, if your identity is stolen, they fix it guaranteed and get you your money back. Last year the IRS flagged over $16 billion in refunds for identity fraud. That's billions of dollars that could come from your salary, overtime or second job.

But this year you don't need to stay a victim.

LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. And if your information does fall into the wrong hands, only LifeLock has US based restoration specialists who are backed by the million dollar protection package. Because this tax season, fraud paying American is, is something no American should have to claim. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% off. @lifelock.com iheart Terms apply if you're an.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

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

[Jay Dyer]

Now why is that a big deal? Well, if you look up the traits of narcissism, and I'm not trying to do one of Those low tier YouTube psychoanalysis things, I'm just giving my own personal opinion. I've met a lot of people over the years who literally cannot admit that they even made the slightest error at all on anything. That tends to be a characteristic of a narcissistic type of person. In the case of a family member, for example, I have a family member who I think has this. And they've almost never admitted in their life that they've ever done anything wrong, even the slightest thing, which is just a bizarre. It's almost like it's, it's like it's removing your humanity. Because we all know that surely at some point in your life you did something dumb, got something wrong. Surely you needed at some point in your life to apologize. But to people that have A very fragile, narcissistic type of attitude. They are absolutely incapable of ever admitting that they made a mistake. And I don't just mean making a video pretending to say, I got this wrong. And I want to admit, because you can do a lot of those types of things for public consumption. I'm talking about actual deep, heartfelt, man, I really screwed up, man. I've got a problem here. I made a mistake. And I think anybody in the Orthodox Church knows that. As you begin to try to fight the passions, as we talked about with Father Turbo today on that podcast, you, you are very quickly going to see not just how many mistakes you've made, but how difficult it really is to defeat the passions. It really takes the grace of God to defeat the passions. And it's a lifelong struggle. But when you have people who consistently double, triple and quadruple down on things that eventually even become common public knowledge, it's very odd, it's very bizarre. And I think that speaks to the root of what the problem is here that most people are missing. People jump into the debates, jump into the comments. I saw dozens of comments that were. They looked to be bots because it's like Roman Catholic profiles with no followers, hardly any tweets. And they suddenly pop up to comment on all the Trent stuff out of nowhere, like, what? Where is this? Who are the what? Who, by the way, has a profile that only comments on like a Trent Horn thing and nothing else. It's just really weird. And no followers. It's bizarre. I don't. I get proved that it's boded, but I would not be surprised because Catholic Answers is, of course, part of this organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church that at all costs must triple down, quadruple down to defend the hierarchy at all costs, no matter what. And this is really the problem of this system. When you have systemic level corruption from the top down in that type of autocratic system, it becomes very difficult for the members within that system to go after the head of it, especially if the fish is rotting from the head down. Because it then almost everybody intuitively knows that if we give up this papal thing, then the whole thing falls. It's a house of cards. Especially if you read Vatican one. And in the last several years, most Roman Catholics that have converted to Orthodoxy that I've talked to or interacted with, almost all of them have said to me, jay, when I actually went and read Vatican one is when I understood the arguments and the position, then I understood why it's a system level defeater. That's why we're not arguing that the Russian Orthodox Church has no corruption. The Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church. We are not arguing that. Nobody would be so silly as to argue that our church has no corruption. Yours has moral corruption. Again, the argument is that to show that the papacy has defected or contradicted at a dogmatic level on faith or morals, that is a system level defeater. And you can't apply that argument, copy and paste to the Orthodox system because it doesn't have that position. It does not argue that the EP or any of the individual bishoprics are infallible or that they can't defect. In fact, many of them have. The EP has, in many cases in church history, defected and become heterodox. So from our system, we don't have a problem saying Rome is heterodox. And Then also other Cs can be heterodox, including the EP. Roman Catholics think that the Orthodox are a sort of want to be papacy system, and so their ecumenical patriarch is a sort of little pope or there's five little popes now. They don't even understand that their own system in the past has already recognized the pentarchy as a normative structure of the church. I'm going to talk about why I blocked Trent Horn in a moment. Has nothing to do with the recent. Well, it does have to do with the recent discussions, but people are saying, how are you going to have a debate when you blocked him? Trent has already declined debate. Do you not understand this? I block people all the time because I lose respect for people when they go to the piety signaling and they won't debate. And at that point I don't want to interact with you anymore. You, you have lost respect in my eyes. I don't. I think that you are a coward because if you really believe this system, if you really knew your doctrine and your dogmas, it would be easy for you to come on here and make the case. You could request. Jay, I want time to talk about my position. Give me two, five minutes to state my position. I would give you that. We've done that for many people who've called in over the last eight, almost 10 years of call ins. That's easy to do. No, you're just gonna mute people. You're gonna mute people. There's. I don't even hit the mute button. I might boot people, but I don't mute people. There's no need to mute people because in almost all of these cases, except for the rare Chance occurrence when we get a knowledgeable Roman Catholic, which is pretty rare. Most of you guys end up hanging your own cells. When I ask you a series of questions, I don't have to mute you. When after about five minutes of questioning, I can easily pull out of you the contradictions. Because I know this system so well. I lived it intimately for almost a decade. None of the people who come on, by the way, have ever even investigated the information that I've sent to them. Now, I still, like many of the Roman Catholics that I'm friends with, like Tim, Joe Enders is a good guy. Anthony from Avoiding Babylon. Those are good guys. But all of these people I have sent reading lists, books, suggestions to for all of these years, and none of them have even scratched the surface of the material. What does that tell me? That tells me that they're not actually that interested in the position that we're putting forward. Now, the way I approach debates, and the reason that I don't lose debates, is that I always want to know the material as good as my opponent or better. That was a dictum that Dr. Bonson always recommended. If you want to win a debate, if you want to know how to always win, know the opponent's position to his satisfaction and you'll never lose. Now, obviously, you have to know your position, too, but it's a great principle for debate, and we all know that. When I debated Trent Horn, whom I've already debated, for those of you that are saying you're scared to debate Trent, I've already debated Trent, and all of the polls, even Roman Catholics for the majority, admitted that Trent did terrible in that debate. In fact, a Roman Catholic today was saying, hey, look, I'm not happy with this recent kerfuffle, but you did beat. You did beat him in a debate. Okay, well, that's fine. But let's talk about the topics and the issues, because ever since that debate, Trent has had a bit of a dilemma with me. He's had an issue with me. And since that debate, I've said for months, years, where it's been years, four or five years since we had the debate, I said, trent, let's do a debate on the geopolitics of the papacy, because I actually believe that's a kill shot. Here's why he won't do it. He will not do it. So why would. By the way, why would the Catholic apologist, who's the top apologist now, why would he not debate the argument? That is, I think, the kill shot argument? Why would he not well, to be fair to Trent, he does admit that it's not an area that he's very knowledgeable in. Well, if this is becoming a consistent argument that people opposed to you are making, maybe it's time to become familiar with it. Now. Years ago I sent Trent four books. I said he should read. I said, you should read the Gladio text you should read by Paul Williams. You should read the John Courtney Morey text you should read. I forget what else it was. A couple other geopolitical texts related to the same, same material. No interest at all. So again, if people are not interested in engaging the line of argument that we're making, and if Trent Horn always falls back on just wanting to debate the papacy, which by the way itself is ambiguous. Right. Remember in the debate with Tim, with Tim Gordon, do you orthodox deny the papacy or did Jesus set up the papacy? Well, that's a equivocation because what the papacy means in the post Vatican one system is not the same thing as papacy in the orthodox system. Of course, orthodox and Catholics both believe that Jesus said of a quote, papacy, AKA Bishop of Rome. But what the extent of his powers, the natures of that power are, is where we disagree. So a lot of this debate, a lot of these things trade on ambiguities. And to go back to the Trent Horn debate, if you recall, Trent wasn't familiar with basic epistemic issues and debates. So when I brought up the criteria question, self evidence and circularity, Trent was lost. In fact, he appealed to Descartes Cogito as if that was actually a good argument. It's a terrible argument and I called all of that out.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

If you're an H vac technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Why choose a sleep number Smart bed. Can I make my site softer?

[Jay Dyer]

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

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

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

[Jay Dyer]

And you'll notice. Where did that natural theology debate lead? Exactly where I wanted it to go, which was in the direction of showing that the Roman Catholic position logically leads you to say that the Old Testament doesn't teach the triad, it teaches a Unitarian deity. And where did Trent go exactly there? He admitted the very point that I wanted to come out of that debate and that caused a lot of reaction against Trent's position. Trent admitting that the Old Testament doesn't teach a triad was a huge defeat because that shows that the natural theology position logically leads to some kind of perennialism and or syncretism. Well, lo and behold, what does Vatican II teach? Nostratate teaches that very thing. And Pope Francis and Pope Leo have reiterated that Nostra aetate absolutely means it in that way that we all worship the same God, not just the quote monotheists, but also Hindus. Exactly. As I argued on Tim Cast to Tim Gordon and to Temple. So Francis reaffirms my reading of these texts. Leo reaffirms my reading of these texts. But the Roman Catholic apologists all know better than their popes, which is amazing. The actions of the papacy demonstrate and signify how they understand this by praying in mosques towards Mecca, by participating in Hindu religious festivals, by participating in the Assisi festivals back in the 1980s where all the religions come together at at Assisi to pray to whatever generic God they're praying to, lo and behold, that's the basis for the document, the Declaration on Human Fraternity and Religious Freedom, according to the joint statement between Francis and the Grand Imam that became the basis for the Abu Dhabi Faith Center. Now, who's going to tell me that if the Abu Dhabi Faith center, which is the generic theism of natural theology, of the, quote, monotheistic religions, if that's what they build on the basis of Francis's document of philosophy from Vatican 2, how are you going to tell me that that's not what Vatican II means? It becomes utterly absurd to anybody with any discernment. But the problem with Roman Catholic apologetics, and I know because I was one, I was in this world for many, many years, is that you are stuck coming up with making squares fit into round holes. It does it, you force it in. You, you push it in to make it work, and you come up with whatever you think might make it work. Remember when I first brought up to Trent a long time ago, the death Penalty. I said, Trent, how could the death penalty at the time of Trent and the Council of Trent talk about it being something part of natural justice? And then by the time of the new catechism, John Paul II and Pope Francis, it is now, quote, contrary to the gospel. How can we have at the time of Pius V and Trent the statement that homosexuality is liable to the death penalty to be handed over to the state. And now all the way up to today, we have the blessing of and the allowance of gay priests in the Italian diocese. Now I understand they're, expected to, quote, be chaste, but as Father James Martin said, who is now supported by Pope Leo openly, the difference here is that we're not going to say that identifying as a homosexual bars you from the priesthood. It used to and now it will not. So that is a specific change in the Italian diocese and Leo agreed with that change. These are obvious clear changes in Catholic morals. Do you remember what Trent said in his video as to how to make that work? He actually said there's a lot of different things that you could do to make this work. Wait a minute, I thought Catholic theology worked. Why do we need to construct things to make it work? Why are there different interpretations as he said? I think he said something like there's three different ways you can interpret this. So wait a minute. The purpose of the magisterium is to make clear Catholic doctrine so that we have clear answers. This is the population Catholic apologist selling point that they always give you guys. And yet when it comes to a very basic moral issue, should there be the death penalty? Should we have that? Trent says there's three ways to interpret the Pope's statement on the death penalty. Wait a minute. So now we need your three interpretations of a magisterial supposed to teaching on morals. The epistemic issue is so crucial and so devastating that once you get the epistemic issue, it's pretty much over because you realize that the magisterial teachings are really whatever any individual Roman Catholic wants to be. The magisterial teachings. Let's give an example. Because when Trent was asked, by the way, people said, you're not being fair. Because this is a, this is a clipped, clipped comment. This is all he offered in the video. Go watch the full video.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

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

[Jay Dyer]

Support is available 247 with VRBoCare.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

We're here day or night, ready whenever you need help. Because a great trip starts with the right support.

[Jay Dyer]

When asked a specific epistemic question, which he still does not get, Trent what tells us the criteria for when something is infallible and binding in your system? Give me the criteria. I don't want the things that you think are binding. What's the criteria for when we know that it is infallible and binding? Magisterium. And let's hear Trent's answer once again.

Doctrine is understood as defined infallibly, unless this is manifestly evident.

That's literally what he said. That's all he said. By the way. You clipped it or you clipped it. Yeah, it's clipped because that's all he said. He said a lot more words, but there was no other argumentation as to what that even means, because he goes to canon law. Now, as far as I'm aware, most Roman Catholics do not believe canon law is infallible. For one, it's time bound to a degree, it's changeable, it, it's updated. And so you could say it's binding, morally binding, but not necessarily eternally time bound, eternally binding and infallible. So there's some flexibility there with the rulings. You could say that the papacy gives through canon law, but it may be still flexible. But. So you went to a thing that's now fallible, as far as I can tell, in your system. And again, Roman Catholics even debate what that even means to say that it's, you know, who knows what the actual status is? This is always debated. Let's say for the sake of argument that it's fallible. You're going to a thing that's fallible to tell me a generic principle manifestly evident for identifying amongst stacks of thousands of documents the things that are infallible. Who does not see how absurd this is? I mean, am I in a loony bin and everybody else is loony? Am I actually the Brad Pitt character in 12 Monkeys and I'm like, eating bugs and like, like, am I just hallucinating reality that nobody else can see, that this is absolutely ridiculous, Just, just so fundamentally ridiculous? At a basic level, you don't need a PhD, a THD in epistemology and philosophy and theology to, to get this basic question. And you guys will recall every Roman Catholic so called apologist that I brought this up to absolutely has a meltdown when I bring it up. When I brought it up to what's that guy's name? Feels guy. What's his pine SAP? Pine SAP has a meltdown. And so you're a little man. You're a pathetic little man, bro. All I asked you was what's the criteria? Pathetic little man. You're a pathetic little man. This is all they have is a spewing forth of insults. Now when we say, well dire, you're the worst. This isn't actually even the case when we talk about domain something of jokes and insults, right? And remember when they're on the ropes, when they're flailing, they immediately shift away from the doctrine of theology arguments and the philosophy arguments to the bad behavior of all the ortho bros. This is what they do. They've been doing this move all the way back to 2016, 17, 18. Do you remember I used to, I used to say, lofton, it's not going to work to keep building people in your church to just say and whine about ortho bros, to whine about the fat joke I made about Ibarra eight years ago. Like how do you think that's going to keep people in your church? The only people that that keeps in your church are the most low information, lowbrow people who don't care about what's true. And maybe that's what they're after. Maybe they just care about the numbers. That's all that matters is the big numbers. Because many of them actually think that's pro. That proves their church. They actually think that numbers prove the truth literally. And they think that winning battles proves the truth. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They don't even realize their own greatest saint of the patristic era, St. Augustine, wrote an entire apologetic City of God arguing that you can't prove or disprove the true faith on the basis of political success and battles, you idiot. Because Rome said that Christianity caused the Roman Empire to fall. So Augustine wrote City of God saying this is a stupid argument. The whole book is about that. It's an apologetic against that argument. Most of the online Roman Catholic idiots literally repeat the pagan argument. Ha. Bro, you lost. You lost. You fell, dog. We owned you, dude. It fell when it was union, you idiot. So that's an argument against you, your own argument that when you lose a battle disproves your church, means that Roman Catholicism is false because Byzantium fell when it was Roman Catholic, you idiots. Now, on that geopolitical point, the reason this matters is that all of these things in our worldview are connected. It's true that you don't have to have all of your geopolitics straight to be saved or to be whatever. That's not the point. The point is that when you are a public figure and when you push various ideologies and ideas, and even if you don't explicitly know morals such as stabbies and masking up, you are taking a stance on a very controversial issue. And I suspect I can't prove it, but I've asked Trent, I said, why did you delete all of your past social media stuff? All of his tweets up until recently were all deleted and he put up this thing saying, oh, I'm pious and so I'm leaving social media. Which he didn't actually leave because he's out here tweeting all the time. So it's. That was all performative. But I suspect that being pro life, he says, means that you want it to be illegal to directly kill innocent human beings. So he's arguing, I firmly support stabbies and masking up. Thus, Trent was trying to morally one up people who would doubt what was not actually a stabby. It was a experimental genetic stabby. He apparently didn't know that and probably still doesn't know this, because even today when this has been brought up, he can't admit that he's at all. He cannot admit any error even on this. Now, why do I bring this up? Because there's a lack of discernment at a global level about spiritual realities that affect the temporal sphere. If he were to admit that he was wrong about KUF stabbies and lockdowns and masks and social distancing, this would also implicate his papacy once again in failing to see a very basic moral principle. And of course, the papacy openly promoted the stabbies and the lockdowns and UNESCO and Davos. Now, when all that was brought up, what was Trent and Jimmy Akin's reaction? The conspirators with their tinfoil hats believe that there's a global elite. In fact, the first childish joke that Trent Horn made about me. Now remember, Trent Horn is so pious, he's above making childish jokes. The first thing he ever said about me was that I'm a Jack chick comic come to life. I'm a low tier fundamentalist idiot conspiracy Theorist. That was his portrayal of me, Jack Chick come to life, low tier fundamentalist level, tinfoil hatter. This was what he was arguing about me before our natural theology debate. After doing the debate, I think he regretted that arrogance that he had. Now, did he ever, even a little bit perhaps move the needle and admit I was wrong? Of course not. Because Trent fundamentally can never admit that he's made a mistake. And isn't that funny because that's the system of the papacy. The Papacy is a massive super fragile system. And like his Pope, to ever admit any defection in teaching and theology, to admit error truly, sincerely, from the heart, would be for them the undermining of their so called papal perfect system. They are like the thing that they spiritually commune with. And so the reason that, for example, we make a big deal about who we commune with and they don't is precisely because there's a spiritual dimension to this where you are linking yourself to these people and participating in their spirit. And so if you are communing with Francis and Leo, even if you're critical, you're still communing with that spirit. You are taking on this delusion and thus forcing yourself by kind of spiritual contract to defend at all costs and cover up at all costs significant degeneracy and wickedness in that system. And I am not just saying that. It's a question of, oh, do you say the corrupt bishops? Corrupt bishops? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying way beyond that international crime syndicate level evil Epstein level stuff. That's what I'm talking about. That's way beyond. Was the bishop stealing money? Was the bishop secretly gay? Did he touch butts? It's more than that. It's inverted satanic elements that even some of their own trad cats have called out over the last 50 years. Ritual abuse. The first book that I read on this, which Trent thinks is so funny, was from a Roman Catholic journalist in 2004 when all of this started breaking in the news, especially on the Internet. And he wrote this book, Lucifer's Lodge SRA in the Catholic Church. William Kennedy all this book is, is a collation of news articles and journals and papers. That's it. Now there's some areas where he speculates on how did this come into the Church in America? Etc, but the overall thrust of that book is a Catholic journalist writing about problems within Rome. And that came out when I was a trad cat. So when I was a track at reading that, that shook me. Not because I thought, well, I'm going to immediately leave Catholicism. But I thought, well, at least this guy's calling this out. We got to deal with these problems. And in the 2000s, when I was a Roman Catholic, a triad Catholic became a Roman Catholic in 2003, I noticed the tendency was constantly amongst priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the pope to constantly cover these things up to move people like Cardinal Bernard Law that were massively involved in this around, to cover it up, to protect, move the priests around. Does that exemplify the attitude of, for example, St. Paul when he writes to the church at Corinth? Does he say cover it up or does he say get him out? What's the proper attitude? Everybody should know what the proper attitude is. So the question then arises, why would they do that? Why wouldn't they purge the institution? Well, our good buddy, or John Paul's a good buddy.

[Podcast Host]

I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

[Jay Dyer]

Hey.

[Dan Morgan]

How's it going today?

[Podcast Host]

It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.

[Dan Morgan]

I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.

[Podcast Host]

That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.

[Dan Morgan]

Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[Jay Dyer]

Awesome.

[Podcast Host]

So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?

[Dan Morgan]

Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247 365.

[Jay Dyer]

Wow.

[Podcast Host]

Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's large injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.

[Dan Morgan]

Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.

[Jay Dyer]

There's nothing like the American Express platinum card. Find out your welcome offer after you apply, which could be as high as 170,000, 5,000 points. Learn more and find out your offer@American Express.com explorer Platinum terms apply. Jeff Stein McFrey has a indicator as to why that is and that is in the Vatican bank email. We're going to see why this matters and why they don't want to talk about it. This is Epstein's email to Larry Summers, the Clinton era viper banker hey Jamie. She may not be in there. The most important change in the Vatican may not be Pope Benedict's sudden retirement, but the change in leadership at the Vatican Bank. Because the Vatican bank status is a sovereign country, it is exempt from transparency rules not only of Italy, but also of the eu. This status allows it to be an elite client, its elite clients to evade scrutiny for money transfers. Epstein is explaining to a Clinton era high level banker, Larry Summers and Viper who helped loot rush Russia, the inner workings of the Vatican Bank. How Does Jeff Stein McEffrey know the inner workings of the Vatican Bank? Oh, because he was friends with John Paul ii. As we said, The status allows its clients to evade scrutiny. It's a money laundering operation. The Vatican Bank's president, Ator Tadeshi was fired after Italian authorities investigated his bribery schemes in which he allegedly was involved. He had 47 dossiers, etc and then this was the background to the real reason Benedict XVI stepped up, according to Epstein. Now you could disagree with the theory of Epstein here, it doesn't matter. But what it shows is a knowledge of the inner workings of the Vatican bank, just like we talked about in the Gladio lectures in the Gladio books. So this is Epstein basically saying this is, this is the Gladio. So this is how it works. It's an organized crime black market bank. And that's the whole story of Bano d', Ambrosio, Roberto Calvi and the collapse and stealing of the Italian people's pensions. This was huge news back in the 70s. It came out in the early 90s. They didn't know it was Gladio yet, but that's what this was. And they had compromised a large portion of the Italian cardinals and prime members of parliament, etc, whatever their government system is in Italy. They were basically compromised. And this is the entire book by Catholic FBI consultant John Williams. Again, not a conspiracy theorist. Okay, so these things indicate and point to what I'm talking about, what I've been talking about. And they don't want to talk about that. Their immediate mode of operation is to downplay, to downplay, cover it up, downplay. And they've always done this. The book is Operation Gladio by Paul Williams. And if you don't want to get the book, the entire book is on YouTube on audio. Paul Williams, Operation Gladio. Now that's just one text. We've actually lectured through many, many texts on Gladio. And you, you might want to know as well that these relationships, this history isn't even controversial. You can find this in mainline history that for example, the Mossad established a very close relationship with John Paul ii. That's why John Paul II had so many overtures and actions towards promoting Rabbinic Judaism, promoting Nostratate, all of those things that are so controversial. John Paul II was the champion of that. He did more for that than anyone else in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. So all the Bayes Trad cats that want to make this some sort of Bayes Trad, anti Jewish, anti Zionist thing, that's not your papacy. Your papacy is a Zionist thing. Explicitly. I'm not talking about political Zionism, it's about the theology of it. Yeah, I'm sure you could say, well, Francis and Leo, they've criticized the, the operations in Gaza. Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about were they ever critical. I'm not talking about do they oppose Desert Storm? I'm talking about the theological admissions to not proselytize. And you notice they lie when they say proselytism doesn't mean making converts, it means forcing them to become. That's not true. Total bull crap. The word has never meant forcing people to become converts. They just make up stuff. They just lie like crazy. Just like them saying that you blocked Trent Horn so that he couldn't debate you. No, no, he's already said three times he won't debate. What are you talking about? Here's his email, his, his Twitter post saying, I will not debate. Now you can make all this fuss and smoke and mirrors all you want, guys, but again, why will none of your Roman Catholics debate the geopolitical kill shot argument that I make? Why won't they do it if it's such a weak argument? It should be very easy for any competent Catholic apologist or scholar or historian to come on and simply debunk this. Do you know what they all say in response to that? You're too mean. I'm too mean? Really? Now what are the things that characterize the too mean thing? Well, let's look at that. Does Trent Horn engage in childish argumentation? Well, we saw yesterday that he was gloating about a ratio. Haha. I ratioed Jay Dyer a ratio to. No, there's Nothing more immature and 4chan level speak than talking about a ratio. And by the way, the other post that I put up ratioed him. So like, so what now? The first thing that Trent Horn said about Andrew Wilson in his video was that Andrew Wilson can't open a pickle jar. Huh? He's not a man. Like implying Andrew isn't even himself manly because there was this pickle jar. Now, I know people don't know this, but when you go on the whatever podcast, that room is freaking 100 degrees. It is hot as hell in there. Super hot. And so, yes, you are sweaty. You sweat the whole time you're in there. It's in California. And so the fact that Andrew couldn't twist the pickle jar because it was hot as hell and he was sweating in there is the most ridiculous thing to go to to prove that Andrew isn't manly or whatever. Total bullcrap. That's all they have. But isn't that immature? Trent, I'm confused because we're not supposed to engage in making fun of people, but it's okay for the Catholics to do it. They have a free license to do it. They do it all the time. Michael Lofton used to make fun of me. Michael Lofton would put up ridiculous thumbnails of me. Who cares? Guys don't really care about that level of stuff unless you're very fragile, very sensitive, and you can't deal with banter. The reason Tim Gordon and I are still friends and we can banter and joke around is that he's a normal guy. These weirdos are not normal dudes. There's something off with them that makes them sensitive and soy to where the slightest joke, the slightest reference turns them into women. They become effeminate, catty women. Now, let's listen to Andrew to Trent's comments here. And remember, this comes on the heels of the last video a few weeks ago, blaming all the ortho bros because debate is now no longer worth it. No, it's. It's evil now. Debate is bad because J. Dyer, Andrew Wilson, they've ruined debate. Well, first of all, bloodsports debate does not come out of the theology domain. This was something that Andy Warski started with JF to have drama streams and to have these weird sort of hash outs. It also included, at times, people doing theological debates and cultural debates. But originally it came out of the gaming and Warski sphere. I was right there at the thick of that. It went through a phase of being associated with Ralph what's His Face, and then it became the thing that's associated with Andrew. And ironically, Andrew upped the game and the status of the debate by actually putting on way more formal debates on the Crucible than anything like what Andy Warski put out. Those debates were absolute chaos, just degenerate. Everybody cussing, everybody out, screaming. It was just pure drama. The Andrew era has produced Mostly formal structure debates. I'm going to be debating Monday against Gnostic Informant. It's a formal debate. We're going to be debating his. I know it's crazy. I thought he was agnostic with a name like Gnostic Informant, but apparently he's a pantheist monus or something. So again, formal debates are the tendency there. I've never seen a problem with going into the sphere of whatever or whatever and having those other types of debates because I came out of that domain. It doesn't bother me to have a heated exchange. But keep in mind that Trent Horn only thinks of debates in a very formal, structured way. And that's. That's fine. Like that still exists. Nobody says you can't do that. But nobody ruined debate because there was always the low tier, bloodsport yelling types of debates. That's always existed. And to blame that on me and other people is just kind of ridiculous that we all ruined debates. Debates are. Debates are all about image and debates are all about the way it looks. Well, Trent, if that's the case, then why are you focusing on the optics of behavior in people who debate and not focusing on the arguments? So you're doing the very thing that you say is the problem in modern debate. It's become about optics and gotchas and behavior and not about the argumentation. That's what you've been doing in your last several videos. It's all about the optics. And who said a mean joke. And it's just so gay, dude. Trent, this is so gay, dude. It's just so weak and freaking gay, dude. And that's what is so annoying to so many people are actually going to see that the root of the problem here is multiple, but it's a spiritual problem and it's a masculinity problem. And according to Trent, the ortho bros are toxically masculine. You can't make this up because Trent, I'm not kidding, is a male feminist.

[Podcast Host]

I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

[Dan Morgan]

Hey, how's it going today?

[Podcast Host]

It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.

[Dan Morgan]

I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.

[Podcast Host]

That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.

[Dan Morgan]

Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[Jay Dyer]

Awesome.

[Podcast Host]

So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What what would I do if I got into an accident?

[Dan Morgan]

Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247365 wow.

[Podcast Host]

Dan Morgan from Morgan Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.

[Dan Morgan]

Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.

[Jay Dyer]

In the debate with Tim Gordon, he defends earlier feminism. Voting for women is necessary and essential according to Trent Horn. Now, being a conspiracy theorist, I don't put a whole lot of stock in voting, but I certainly don't take this ridiculous normie position that we can actually benefit from women voting when women vote for the worst stuff in massive numbers. It's a preposterous position. And I, I hope Trent really does debate Andrew on that topic. I hope it comes about. But you have to keep in mind other Roman Catholics who aren't even SSPX State of a contest trads. Other Roman Catholics take huge issue with Trent over these issues. So this isn't just a ortho bro versus reasonable Trent position. Large numbers of Roman Catholics think that Trent is ridiculous on this position. This is why he has this debate. Tim Gordon on male feminism. And keep in mind too, he debated Pearl on the same topic of defending male versions, early versions of as a male feminist defending the early waves of feminism. All the waves of feminism are bad because all the waves of feminism are a form of gender dysphoria. And Tim is 100 correct on that. Tim has consistently showed in older papal teaching that the popes held Tim's position. So the fact that modern Roman Catholic apologetics and lectures and talks support this idea of equal submission is preposterous. And the reason people call that out in Trent's personal life is that it shows the problem. You're just being mean. You're just attacking him. Dude, you know how many Roman Catholics have come after me and my wife for 10 years and said the worst imaginable stuff? It happens all the time. I'm not saying that's good, but I'm saying you're gonna have people looking at your private life, your personal life, and they're gonna see, does this match up to what you're publicly saying? You're publicly moralizing all the time? That's the thing that is so disgusting from these people. It's not that they take a moral position. It's not that it defend their positions. It's that they moralize and they constantly want to one up you spiritually and morally. And it's nauseating because dudes know that. It's just weak. It's weak sauce. To constantly whine about a man saying something in a debate that hurt your feelings. To constantly say he shouldn't make jokes about fake bishop Tilda Swinton. That's mean. Are you serious? You would rather tone police for an a rabid, anti white Marxist fake bishop? He's a con man. You would rather tone police for that guy? Well, that guy deserves to be trolled. That guy deserves to be laughed at. He's a ridiculous person. And in the debate on Piers Morgan, it showed he was a ridiculous person. He's a complete idiot. But all. I'm actually kind of amazed that the only thing Trent found was me calling Tilda Swan. Whatever. I don't even know what his name is anymore. I just think of as Tilda Swinton, which I thought was a funny joke. And I will always troll and make ridiculous jokes like that. But imagine harping on that as a moral one up. That is so gay, dude. It's just freaking gay. At least find something better like me calling a bar of fat. That's a more morally appropriate thing than me going after some fake con man activist that your own church agrees isn't a bishop. That means he's a fraud, a con man. But I'm bad because I made fun of him and called him Tilda Swinton, which everybody agrees was a funny joke. It's just so weak, dude. Now, I have plenty of criticisms of Pearl, but I'm going to mention just this little clip because people were not attacking Trent Horn over his wife. Now maybe gripers were. I didn't follow that stuff and I didn't even talk about any of this. But I'm bringing it up because it shows the discrepancy between the things that he says male feminism will do and his own life when his own wife dis disrespects him. And by the way, she retires from social media after this event. Trent has a video where he tries to explain this away and say, no, no, she didn't cheat. Nobody says she cheated. The point was that she formed a bond with a man that was not you. And she talked about it on a podcast, which is somewhat humiliating. And they played the victim after all of this. And that deflected from A lot of these criticisms, he's not addressing the main point that people are making now. Maybe some of these gripers were going too crazy and saying awful stuff. Yeah, but the main point is, Trent, you're moralizing hyper moralizing constantly. And you're doing that more and more and more recently. And that's really nauseating when people don't see that in your own life. This is exactly what happened to Voice of Reason, hyper moralizing, piety signaling non stop. And of all people, I have many disagreements with Pearl. She can even as an outsider to the religion, recognize that the people that constantly morals morally piety signal, signal. All these E girls, they do the exact same. The E girls, Sarah Stock constantly moralizing about how moral she was because she was getting married. She beat everybody else, she won the contest, all the thoughts lost and it was total hypocrisy. That's the point here, is that when you base your channel and your apologetic on the moralizing. What happened with Voice of Reason? He starts out debating ubi, debating Protestants and Orthodox on actual theological issues, then he shifts into all about that piety signaling, baby. When you see that shift, there's usually something else going on and it's usually a matter of time before they get exposed. So why am I saying this? You're being mean to Trent. No, I'm not being mean. Because the root of the problem here is that Trent is an effeminate soy man. That's the problem Trent cannot admit because he's so fragile, he's so psychologically weak. To admit any theological error, any geopolitical error, any error on history or papacy in his mind would be to crack this facade. And he's wrong about all of it. He's been wrong since we had the debate on natural theology. He's wrong about the Old Testament. He's quadrupled down on Muslims, Christians and Jews worshiping the same God. And he doesn't care about the various fallacious critiques that we made explaining how that's not possible. He doesn't even care about the quantifier shift fallacy. He just repeats the papal system as if that were an argument to just repeat the papal doctrine. Look, people that don't believe in the papacy are not going to just buy you repeating the papal theology and the papal arguments and assertions over and over. We need an actual argument as to why it's the case, not just the papal positions. So why is this a root problem in the household?

Oh, saying that men need to get married. You know, the sleeping ground is Men, it's not women doing it. And I just knew sometimes my super simp radar goes off, right? I'm like this guy, his wife is.

Running the relationship because of how he thinks and his super simp tendencies. This is accurate. And I'm saying this because Trent himself says, my wife chooses my friends for me. You may play you the video. I might, I might have unshared it. I can't remember if I shared it or not, but. And this is not just, you know, again, I'm sure a lot of people dislike Pearl. Only reason I'm playing this one is because she has the clip of the three hour Matt Frad podcast. And I don't know where in that three hour podcast this is. I'm certainly not going to watch a whole three hour podcast talking about all this nonsense. So we're going to listen just to the, this brief section where she discusses this and then we're going to listen to what Dr. Jordan Peterson, who is absolutely spot on about male feminists. This is, this, this is the psychology, the psychology of a male feminist. Now, I think this was the guy.

Who hosted it, Pints with Aquinas.

And again, this is the challenge you.

Get with the religious men. It's, it's like what they do, what they have a tendency to do is they virtue signal morality. So they say, I am so moral. But how moral can you be as.

A man if you are afraid of your wife?

Yet, like, if you fear your wife, you're officially a woman now. You have the same morals as a woman because you're going to defer to our morals. And, you know, we don't have morality. You know, we don't have.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

Okay, so here we go. So I got super close to a male coworker.

[Jay Dyer]

Make sure this isn't on 2x.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

Okay, so I got super close to a male coworker and I share this testimony. And we used to do like a marriage encounter weekend. And I shared this testimony and I got two close to him. And you start, I wouldn't say developing feelings and Trent knows all this stuff, but you, I think that's how affairs happen. They happen very slowly. It's not like you, you know, just have an affair with someone. You get to know them, you're attracted to their temperament, they see the best side of you. And like, Trent was very uncomfortable with it. And I was like, well, we're just friends, but he's not a jealous person at all. So he was like, you know, I'm just asking that you don't do anything that you wouldn't be uncomfortable with me doing with a woman. Like, you have that same standard. Like, if I was, like, talking to a co worker often and joking around with that person and they were, you know, like, getting.

[Jay Dyer]

So she's talking publicly about how she wanted to smash another dude.

And now, again, the reason I'm playing this is because it shows the discrepancy between Trent's picturing of how feminism and male feminism is supposed to work and why it actually is a good thing and why it's the Christian way to go.

[Podcast Host]

I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

[Jay Dyer]

Hey.

[Dan Morgan]

How's it going today?

[Podcast Host]

It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.

[Dan Morgan]

I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.

[Podcast Host]

That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is an insane number.

[Dan Morgan]

Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[Jay Dyer]

Awesome.

[Podcast Host]

So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?

[Dan Morgan]

Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24, 7, 365.

[Jay Dyer]

Wow.

[Podcast Host]

Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's large injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.

[Dan Morgan]

Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.

[Jay Dyer]

And yet, in the real dynamics, what's going on to everybody who has any sense can see that's not how that works. Women do not respect male feminists. Women do not respect weak, simply effeminate men. They do not. And it eventually will make them resent the man, and they will want to find masculinity elsewhere. I don't care how Christian you want to say you are and pretend like the reality is the biology oftentimes overrides the professed things that come out of people's mouths. Now, we're all liable to those temptations. So I'm not trying to be mean, not trying to be unfair, but Trent wants to go hard. He wants to come at me constantly now. Okay, let's do it. Let's talk about what masculinity actually is. Let's talk about what the real problems are. Let's talk about behavior and hypocrisy, because that's where Trent wants to go. Now, what does Jordan Peterson say about men who identify as male feminists? And Jordan Peterson? I think he's got his issues as well, but he is very perceptive and correct. And you see this in the history of many scandals. Think about all the men, public leftists. Joss Whedon, for example. Right. And there's been some other cases of very prominent Democrat famous leftists who identified as male feminists. And lo and behold, it comes out they are absolute moral savages. They're, they're absolutely involved in some crazy stuff. Why is that? Am I saying that Trent is some crazy, immoral. I don't know Trent personally, but when you get people like that, like your wife going on podcasts and admitting things that are humiliating to, to the man, it's, it's, it's. People are not wrong to say this is weird. Same with Candace. Where's Candace's husband in the midst of her spouting all this insane nonsense? Does she not have a husband with some degree of guard and care for what her, her, his wife is saying? It's just weird. It's bizarre. Right? And if Jamie went on a podcast and started talking about how she was developing, possibly developing feelings or whatever on the road to developing feelings, because they want to qualify this a million times. Because that's what Trent does in his Cope video where he tries to explain this away. He says, my wife didn't cheat. It wasn't anything. Well, why would she say that on a pod? It's just weird, dude. It's bizarre and it is humiliating. And what came out of all this? Victim. Trent plays the victim, as always. It's a Roman Catholic pattern. Ibarra, Lofton, all of them, they're always victims, never wrong, never making serious mistakes. In fact, surprise, Voice of reason hasn't said that he's a victim, that the poor chicks were texting him too much and he was the victim in this scenario. It's not only women that engage in, as I said, it's female type antisocial behavior. But men can engage in reputation savaging too. And some of the worst of those are the men that ally themselves, so.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

To speak, with feminists so that they.

[Jay Dyer]

Have a sneaky way into popularity with girls. There's no shortage of that kind of appalling psychopathic behavior either. Well, yes, some of the bitchiest behavior I've seen online is from men.

[Grainger/Sleep Number Announcer]

And most of them identify as male feminists, but they can be quite misogynistic.

[Jay Dyer]

Peterson is absolutely right. As a lifelong person in the realm of psychiatry and diagnosing and studying these things, can disagree with, you know, a lot of his positions, as we do, Gnosticism and all that, but he's absolutely right here in the tendency to think that you're going to get an in, you're going to, you're going to be popular, that the women are going to like you when you pretend and when you signify that you're a male feminist. It is absolutely pathetic. And all of us out here in this sphere who have been normal dudes and have spent time dating various women or understanding female nature and understanding the reality of the world do not fall for this. That's why it's so popular to call out simping, simping behavior, which is exactly what Trent exemplifies in these, in these cases, does not actually show a person who is virtuous, who is pious. That's the intention. It actually shows a weak inability to understand and admit female nature, female biology and the reality what's going on. It's a form of lying and delusion. When you read the Proverbs, do you think Solomon has a male feminist attitude at all? Of course not. Now that's not just Solomon, but even according to the New Testament, the Proverbs are inspired literature. So the Holy Spirit is actually speaking through the proverbs. And how do modern feminists and male feminists and people in the so called church say that Proverbs should be treated as an old outdated text when it comes to gender? In other words, I don't care what the Holy Spirit said through Proverbs, I have a new updated theology of masculinity which is femininity. And if you think I'm wrong about that, you realize that this is the very argument that Tim Gordon makes against Trent. This is Tim's line of argumentation, not so much about Proverbs, but he's saying that the papal system has already stated that the attitude and the relationship between men and women is much more accurate in the ancient medieval world than the post 1960s feminist revolution and post even first wave feminist suffragette revolutions. These people all want to defend the first waves because they think that was rational, that was reasonable, and that's true male femininity, or, excuse me, male feminism, male feminists are frauds. And I can tell you that 100% right away. Every dude that has good testosterone levels recognizes this semper and this weakness that is the root problem. It's not just going after. So you have to go after him because you don't have any arguments. We've already spent seven years doing the arguments. What are you talking about? I've got hours. I've got at least 20 hours of video refuting point by point, Trent Horn. In fact, we collated together one hour. We wanted to make it underneath. One hour on the clips channel here at Dire Archive. One hour refuting every single low tier theological argument from Trent Horn. So don't give me this nonsense, you ain't got no real theology argument. You gotta go after him personally. No, we never did that. Never even talked about him at any personal level until now because he's decided to do that. So let's watch his video and see is he consistent with what he's saying and arguing. And then we're going to open it up to calls to anybody who has any questions, challenges. You want to come on and refute me, you're more than welcome to. You can have as much time as you want. You want to talk for five minutes, be my guest. Just indicate that at the beginning.

[Podcast Host]

I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

[Dan Morgan]

Hey, how's it going today?

[Podcast Host]

It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.

[Dan Morgan]

I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.

[Podcast Host]

That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one 20 billion is an insane number.

[Dan Morgan]

Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north, probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[Jay Dyer]

Awesome.

[Podcast Host]

So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?

[Dan Morgan]

Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247 365.

[Jay Dyer]

Wow.

[Podcast Host]

Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's large injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.

[Dan Morgan]

Thanks for having me. Visit for the people.com for an office near you.

[Jay Dyer]

So here's the most recent video. I remind you too that the previous video is him saying that debate is no longer good. He's above debate now. He's. He's too pious for debating because the theological area has been Absolutely dominated by the orthodox the last few years. Every one of their debates they go into the polls, say orthodox, majority win. Orthodox majority win. Orthodox majority win. Me versus Tim the last few years. Luigi Pineapple, Alex Sain, whoever. I'm forgetting. I apologize if I'm forgetting it, but over and over and over, Trent Doherty, huge debacle, just absolute chaos. Not going good for the rcs. So where are we at now? Well, the mantle has fallen to Trent and Trent's basically at a position where he's not going to engage. It doesn't sound like given that he's better than debate now, he's not going to engage at the debate level anymore because evil Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer have ruined it. But apparently he also has got a lot to say about Tim Gordon and the Roman Catholics as well who disagree with him.

Recently, Eastern Orthodox cultural commenter Andrew Wilson criticized me as a virtue signaler who is too critical of political Christians like him that are actually trying to fix.

The culture, though it's actually correct. You are a virtue signaling, piety signaler and his Andrew is spot on there.

[Andrew Wilson]

Those people to me are like the lowest of the low of the low. You know, reps like Trent Horn, people like this.

[Jay Dyer]

So in today's episode I'll talk about where I agree and disagree with Andrew and the difference between being a strong, assertive Christian and a bad, overly aggressive one. And to make sure I didn't misunderstand.

Anything I met, don't be overly aggressive. Please make sure you and up your estrogen levels. Please make sure and get a full dose of gay juice today and drink your soy milk.

Andrew and showed him this script so my reply incorporates some of what he wrote to me in our exchange. First, let's take a look at Andrew's comments on the Patrick Bet David show.

[Andrew Wilson]

Most of my criticisms don't actually come from leftists, though many of them do. They actually come from a particular brand of Christian virtue signalers. Right? They're always trying to signal their virtues and it's always like, oh my God, you smoke, you smoke cigarettes or you drink beer. Real Christians don't drink beer. Like, it's always petty criticisms. But anytime there's controversy around me or a clip taken out of context or something like this, these are the first people to rush in and give me universal condemnation, mostly so that my enemies will look at them. And these are leftists, right? They want leftists to look at them and think you're the good Christians.

[Jay Dyer]

This is exactly what I just. I've not seen this clip yet, by the way. So this is exactly what I was saying and exactly what Jordan Peterson said about the psychology of the male feminist. It's a weird low tier thing to think. If I show how much I'm on the side of these insane people and the women and the leftists, they'll like me and I'll get a big crowd and they're going to love me.

Andrew may be speaking of critics more generally here, but I don't have a problem with drinking beer or smoking. I have a hard time justifying habitual smoking, but if other Christians want to smoke or drink, I'm not going to say they're sinning. I do think smoking can come off as an embarrassing LARP when people lean into it as part of their identity as a Christian influencer. And I think Andrew would agree that no one is above criticism. In a previous video which I'll link to below, I praised Wilson for for using shrewd debate tactics that resulted in Matt Dillahunty rage quitting their debate. In that debate, Andrew playfully kept calm and got Dillahunty to flip out by bringing up stuff that was personal to him, like Dillahunty being in a de facto same sex relationship.

Well now wait a minute. So Trent is okay with bringing up personal life contradictions with the way that you live, yet he seemed to have a very big problem with people calling out the seeming inconsistent inconsistency between what he says about feminism and the relationship between his wife and the guy at the the place that she worked beginning to form that relationship or possibly forming that relationship. So if that's the case, then he should have no problem with people calling into question the very thing that he made a response video saying not to call into question about. Now again, I'm not talking about people who quote attacked his wife if they did that, that's separate from people calling out the inconsistency in what Trent says male feminism will produce versus his own personal life and relationship. As the head of a household attempting.

[Andrew Wilson]

To lie to people who claim men can be women isn't human flourishing. Why, you ask, would people be this over the top stupid? Well it's simple.

[Jay Dyer]

The good is the good man.

[Andrew Wilson]

We have to do what's good for human society and human flourishing. And if you don't call these strange lunatics something they obviously aren't, they might self terminate. So in order to avoid that, we need to make everybody on planet Earth lie to them.

[Jay Dyer]

This guy's not serious and I'm leaving. James, if you want to refund you.

[Andrew Wilson]

Well, good day, sir.

[Jay Dyer]

And so Andrew won the exchange. But on the Whatever podcast recently, Andrew was generally seen as losing this part of an exchange with a feminist who used the same tactic against him. She calmly brought up a legal fact about Andrew's wife and then Andrew aggressively responded to her.

Your wife has three baby daddies and has been married twice before and you under and you look your religion.

[Andrew Wilson]

Huh? You look.

[Jay Dyer]

What is that?

[Andrew Wilson]

You're a Don't talk about my wife. You stupid Shut your mouth. Shut your stupid mouth.

[Jay Dyer]

Your wife with the three baby.

[Andrew Wilson]

What did I just say? Sorry$ I'm sorry. Is she morally inconsequential in comparison to.

[Jay Dyer]

Your licking now in a five so notice Trent has no problem highlighting and calling out what he sees as inconsistencies in people's personal lives and what they say on the debate stage and publicly. Which is exactly what people did in regard to Trent and his own wife's inconsistency when it came to the Matt Frad Pints with Aquinus podcast talking about her beginning to develop an affection and a relationship with a guy that could have become inappropriate. So again, there's a lot of of hypocrisy that we're going to see in Trent Horn because it's the same with the jokes. It's okay when Roman Catholics make immature, childish jokes, but if you do it at a certain thing that he doesn't like or a certain way or over his line, then it's the end of the world. And they're absolute victims. These are the people who play victim but stab you in the back like.

The meme our discussion with people insulting you. It's not uncommon to lose your cool. We're all only human. But this kind of aggressive behavior isn't uncommon for Andrew and other people in his orbit. So it's fair to point it out and discuss the merits of acting like this. Like any public proponent of Christianity, there's good and not so good elements to Andrew's approach. In our email exchange, Andrew said sewing circle Christians tend to focus on why the person who is moving policy and people's minds on policy isn't acting in a pure enough way and often will actually side with the critics of that person affecting change in order to purity signal.

Now I this is true.

It's cringy when some Christians do everything they can to please non Christian critics, even by taking unnecessary potshots at fellow Christians. It's a kind of ideological simping, similar to male feminists who throw all men under the bus. To appease women.

Oh, you mean like you as a male feminist? Because you identify as a first wave male feminist. So does that include you or what is this talking about?

But my criticisms aren't because of how other people complain. They it's because God's revelation has said we shouldn't engage in these behaviors. And I definitely care about appeasing God.

[Andrew Wilson]

And it's like the whole time. So in other words, the whole time these people are burning the whole forest down around our ears, right? And I say, hey, put those matches down. Hey, don't say the F word. I'm like, well wait, we got a bigger problem here. We got.

[Jay Dyer]

Now it's important to note that Trent's longtime still, as I understand, good friend Tim Gordon says the F word constantly. Tim says it all the time. I've not yet seen Trent call out Tim Gordon on a public video for saying the F word. Did you want to say something? Hello? Are you, Are you talking to me? Yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead. What happened in the debate? What's that? Call out? Oh, I totally forgot about that. Remember when Trent Dougherty lost his mind and just screamed and cussed me out and, and then streamed and cussed cleave out. So again, this standard is not applied to their team. This is all very team based stuff. And it's like, yes, we have this standard, but we pull, we pull this when we need it, when it's an ortho bro, when it's, you know, whoever. But we're not going to say it about Trent Doherty who was an absolute disaster for them. We're not going to say it about Tim Gordon who says the F word all the time. So it's very convenient sort of rolling this out when it needs to be rolled out. And what happens again? Andrew's point right here is absolutely correct. What's going on right now? The biggest news story of our lifetime with Epstein stuff. And what's Trent's concern? Who's saying the F word on a PBD podcast? Trent's concern is let's rebut Epstein and the Vatican. So immediate cope and cover mode.

Why?

Why is that the concern in the midst of the biggest scandal of our time? This is what is so ridiculous. This proves Andrew's point about sewing circle Christians is that the world will be burning down around them and they're capitalizing on piety signaling over the freaking F word. It's just insane. Now I'm going to see what he thinks he can do to rebut the absurd conspiracy theories. About the Vatican and note he's still quadrupling down that after Epstein, there's no global conspiracy. There's no tinfoil hat stuff going on. Remember him and Jimmy Akin put out things saying Davos is not involved in a globalist elite conspiracy for a technocratic order. They put out information during Coke during the KUF when he was pushing stabbies and masks. This dude is the ultimate normie. A bigger problem here.

[Andrew Wilson]

Nope, you said the F word. Yeah, that's no good.

[Jay Dyer]

I agree with Andrew that being overly puritanical about language, I. E. What I'd call true tone policing is lame. I cover this in my episode on Christian swearing where I said profanity in itself isn't wrong and it could be justified in some cases. I use the example.

Yeah, because he knows that that's exactly what Tim Gordon argues.

Stephen Colbert engaging Philip Zimbardo, who said that God was wrong and the devil was right. When Colbert gave him the correct theology on the matter, Zimbardo said, you learned well in Sunday school. To which Colbert epically replied, I teach Sunday school, Mother Effer. But that's different than just drop.

Oh, it's different. So when Colbert, who is an absolute disgusting, degenerate Catholic goblin, uses it in a comedic way, it's acceptable. But if I make fun of Bishop Fake Bishop Tilda Swinton, a radical, anti white Marxist activist, I'm the bad person. So even right here within this stupid video, he's already contradicted his own allowances, which shows you that there's no consistent application of some moral puritanism about holy speech. It's just arbitrary to figure out when and where it's applicable. What do you mean? I mean, Colbert at least used to say he's Catholic. I don't know whether he is or not, but he's identified, at least in the past, as a member of the the Catholic Church, I think. Could you give me a espresso and also water? Thank you.

Popping an F bomb to insult somebody like Andrew does in this clip.

[Andrew Wilson]

I will never be able to convince you of my worldview, Charlie. I just think, honestly, you're too stupid to understand them.

[Jay Dyer]

St. Paul repeatedly says that overseers in the church must be gentle and not quarrelsome or violent, and that all Christians must put away anger, wrath, malice, slander and foul talk from their mouth. Jesus said in Matthew 5. 22, whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, you fool, shall be liable to the hell of fire. And second Timothy, chapter two said, yeah.

The text is not Making a joke or making fun of people. The text is accuses his brother and thus liable to the council. So that's some Roman Catholic translation. But regardless, there's many places in scripture where we're told to actually identify the fool. And it is appropriate to call people fools. In fact, most of the church fathers, when dealing with persistent obstinate heretics, call them demons, idiots, morons, devils, dogs, morons, etc. Over and over and over, this is a common refrain. Cyril of Alexander, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem says in the catechetical lectures that all heretics should be hated. They should be loathed for their system and for their error and for their theology. Now, again, does that mean that we can't also, at the same time love them? No. It is possible. It is possible to have disdain for someone and at the same time love them, wanting the best for them. But sometimes what's best for people, especially exceedingly wicked frauds like Bishop Tilda Swinton, they should be publicly called out and rebuked. And that's the only thing. It's amazing actually to me that that's the only thing that he could find to call me out on. Now.

[Podcast Host]

I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod. Say hi, Dan.

[Jay Dyer]

Hey.

[Dan Morgan]

How's it going today?

[Podcast Host]

It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.

[Dan Morgan]

I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.

[Podcast Host]

That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion wonder. 20 million is an insane number.

[Dan Morgan]

Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.

[Jay Dyer]

Awesome.

[Podcast Host]

So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?

[Dan Morgan]

Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take. Take your call. 24, 7, 365.

[Jay Dyer]

Wow.

[Podcast Host]

Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's large injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.

[Dan Morgan]

Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.

[Jay Dyer]

There's nobody worse at this than Scam Shamu. Is he gonna apply this to his own Catholic apologetic buddy? I'm assuming that they're buddies in the sense of the Same church, his own ally in Catholicism. Scam, Shamu. Or is this only selectively applied? When Trent decides that you can say the F word when it's Stephen Colbert in a joke setting against an atheist or something like that, you can't say it against another person. Okay, so he's interjecting his arbitrary standards to justify his own moral stance. And this whole thing is about his moral position, why he's moral and nobody else matches his morality. That's the problem here, is that the debate has shifted away from the issues and the topics into piety signaling. And once you're there, that's you on the ropes. That's the last legs of the defense of your system. Because you've got nothing else to come at in terms of the system. You can only come after the perceived moral infractions and why you're morally superior. That's why we've seen the last couple days just a flood of Roman Catholic bots. Piety signaling like crazy. Why? My thesis is they are concerned about the attachments of Epstein to John Paul II and the Vatican. Why is that such a big deal if it calls into question the sanctity of John Paul ii? And that's the key point here, is that Epstein identifies himself as getting special gifts, particularly architectural novelties from John Paul ii. And because associates and allies of Epstein say in the emails that Epstein spent significant time at the Vatican. And because we do have vindication of Epstein being blessed at the Vatican during that time period, this means that the sanctity of John Paul II would obviously be in question. And that means that sainthood in the Roman Catholic system would fall apart. That means Roman Catholic dogma would fall apart. Because sainthood is part of the ordinary universal magisterium.

As the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome, but kindly to everyone. An apt teacher forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. Now, if I were to just tell people all of this without citing Scripture, they'd probably say I was effeminately tone policing them. So I appreciate when Nick Fuentes admits he thinks this way about the Bible itself.

Rockshaka sent $20.

[Andrew Wilson]

Those nerds and simps seem to forget. Biblical masculinity involves Samson killing 100 people.

[Jay Dyer]

David killing a giant, and Jesus whipping people. Yeah, they forgot that they worked out in the Bible.

They did deadlifts, they ate raw eggs.

And they beat people up. Biblical masculinity is based. Typical.

Let's just be honest, biblical, masculine, like.

By the way, I'm not seeing a lot of Nick Fuentes in a while. But that's funny that. I guess I'm not the only person that does a retard voice. But I'm sure Trent would call out that it's mean to say the word retard.

The Bible tells men to be feminine.

Like, let's be honest. Let's just be honest. Typical, bro said $20. Hey, Nick, let's not cope about it.

The Bible is not a story of, like, men being jacked and going to the gym. But that's only true if you think masculinity is raw power that doesn't give an F about anything, instead of seeing true masculinity as controlled strength that submits to God and patiently endures hardship.

Yeah, but your own church, Prior to the 1960s, in Vatican II, Trent did not teach that first wave feminism was an acceptable Roman Catholic masculinity or femininity. In fact, pre Vatican II teaching actually says what Tim Gordon says, which is that the role of women is to not at all supplant the role of men. And that includes gender dysphoria of thinking that women should in any way predominantly be in masculine roles. Now, I don't necessarily agree with every single point of Tim Gordon, but Tim Gordon is way more correct in Catholic teaching and Catholic theology, traditionally speaking, than what Trent Horn is pushing. But Trent Horn is a modern neo Catholic that absolutely supports all of the Vatican II nonsense that he has to. And so it only makes sense that he would support today's Vatican, which tends towards skittles and gay feminist theology.

First Corinthians 16:13. Paul even says to be strong and Andretha say literally act like men because men are the standard of strength.

[Andrew Wilson]

And so those people to me are like the lowest of the low. Well, I mean, if you want specific names.

[Jay Dyer]

Specific names. If you're comfortable saying who are some of them.

[Andrew Wilson]

So I would say people like Lila Rose, representatives like Lila Rose, I would even say, you know, reps like Trent Horn, people like this. These are people who they themselves may not necessarily levy the criticism directly, but it's the influence that they have over the various audiences that they have that then go and direct these criticisms towards you.

[Jay Dyer]

Got it. And this is correct because this is the same critique that Tim Gordon makes of all of these same Catholics. And I don't have to necessarily agree with every single position of Tim Gore. I'll give an example. I disagree. Tim thinks that Proverbs 31 is like, uniquely some sort of Hebrew Jewish queen text and it only applies to Jewish queens. No, it's It's a pattern, I would say, for the godly woman. It's not just for Hebrew queens. So I disagree with Tim on that point as an example. And so it's not necessarily wrong in my view, for a woman to do a side job or if she can not at the expense of the children, if she wants to have a part time job or something like that. Again, that doesn't jeopardize the household or the man in that relationship first and foremost. Or the children first and foremost. Right. So that's one area of minor disagreement I would have with Tim Gordon. But in the main, when it comes to the Roman Catholic system, you have to keep in mind Trent doesn't seem to be aware that pre Vatican II popes already spoke on this. They already talked about at the time of the suffrage movement, the problems of suffragism and why suffragette ideology coming out of the French Revolution is just an older form of liberalism that today's conservatives think is a conservative position. Just like the people that defend democracy and last year's, you know, like the Democrats and the Republicans. Right. We talk about this. The, the GOP is defending, you know, the, the liberalism of 20 years ago, the Democratic Party as now conservatism. Well, guess what? The tradcat apologists are defending the liberalism of the French Revolution as traditional Catholic conservative values. That's how ignorant these people actually are.

[Andrew Wilson]

Though I never.

[Jay Dyer]

Tim has multiple places and examples where he goes through those older papal minds and papal quotes. I don't even care to do that. It's boring to me. I used to do that, used to live that world. But there are multiple pre Vatican 2 papal teachings on the appropriate role of men and women and why suffragette nonsense is an earlier version of feminism. That is, by the way, what Trent Horn openly defends. He says he's a male feminist. But Rachel Wilson is absolutely correct in her book A Cult Feminism, where she says you could not have today's trends without all the waves of feminism, including the first one even. The first one was a intentional social revolution to upend male female dynamics. And as Tim has hammered home, and as Lila Rose and these other people like Tim Trent Horn don't get is feminism is the original gender dysphoria not because it's teaching the TR&Z stuff explicitly, but because it's beginning to plant the seeds of women taking the role of men and men taking a step back. Hands off. Let the women, let the slay queens.

[Andrew Wilson]

Do their bro or actually see these people in the arena debating these social issues with anybody. They'll do abortion debates, things like this. But I never see him surrounded with a panel of like the worst degenerates on earth debating all of their worldviews simultaneously. But they have tons of criticisms for people who do.

[Jay Dyer]

And I'm like, well, where are you now?

I'm sympathetic to some of Andrew's criticism. For example, I'll get people who criticize how I debate non Catholics like Gavin Ortland or Alex o' Connor and say I'm too nice or I'm not blunt enough. To which I say, okay, then why don't you debate the best defenders of Protestantism or Atheism and show us how.

It'S done, by the way, I've tried that. And Alex o', Connor, funny enough will not debate me and decline to debate me on more than one occasion. But he will debate Trent Horn. What does that tell you? That tells you that there are certain people that they're so soft that they're not afraid to debate with. But everybody knows that they will not debate me, including Trent Horn, who won't do a new debate with me. You blocked him, so how could he debate you? I blocked him because he already said months ago he won't debate and I have no interest in interacting with him anymore.

That's why Andrew's criticism is similar. Don't critique how I engage people unless you're willing to engage them yourself. But I don't see how this criticism applies to me. In particular, I used to do debates surrounded by college students and now I focus on just engaging the best defenders of other worldviews in one on one debates.

But Trent, you just said in your previous video that you don't like debates anymore. So are you going to do debates or are you not going to do debates? And why would you not debate the position that I've been hammering for several years now, which is causing quite a few people to leave your church? In fact, I'll show you comments of people saying that they are now leaving the Roman Catholic Church because of the arguments that we're making, including the geopolitical arguments. Why do none of the Roman Catholics want to address this issue? And you can keep pretending that, oh, it's a dumb argument, I don't want to listen to it. Good, keep pretending that. Because that's not going to keep people in the Roman Catholic Church, I assure you. Nor will the constant piety signaling and moral signaling that will keep the lowest tier people there. But maybe that's what you want.

I've applied to beyond Jubilee. And I'm open to being on panels with hostile opponents, but I don't want to engage in a fruitless shouting match. I'm also not sure if I want to do something like a Whatever podcast discussion, because one of its main effects is just giving free publicity to OnlyFans pornographers, though it can be a good place to evangelize these people. But even in environments like the Whatever podcast or Jubilee, there are political Christians like Charlie Kirk or Michael Knowles who have done well without resorting to the more aggressive tactics that Andrew Wilson uses.

[Andrew Wilson]

And where are you, by the way, when anybody wants to debate you on why it is that you're so inactive when it comes to the culture war and social issues? Right? They turn all that stuff down. They refuse to argue with the red pillars. They refuse to argue with any of these people. They literally just refuse to engage. Tons of criticisms. Absolute refusal to engage.

[Jay Dyer]

And the same thing applies to the apologetics domain from this whole crowd of moral piety signalers. Yes, Trent did a debate with me five or six years ago, but he won't do it again. And what has been the constant refrain and the excuse, oh, he's too mean. He's too mean. He's too mean. Again, an effeminate excuse to not debate when we've already shown that in a formal setting, I can absolutely be civil to you and we can have no meanness. There was no meanness in the debate that I had with Trent Horn, so he knows that there was not. There's no. There's no infallible necessity to me being mean to him. And imagine even being at this stage where actual men in the public sphere are saying they won't engage in a debate because people are mean. This is so fake and gay. Just that alone is faking gay.

So culture war issues. I'm not sure what Andrew means. I did a discussion with Alex, a Playing with Fire on premarital sex, which was fruitful. And I debated Pearl on men and marriage, which felt like banging my head against a wall. How do you think a man should.

Approach the subject of headship in their marriage? What does that mean? Mean?

I think it's more that women should be obedient to their husbands in all things.

Do you agree with Trent, though?

So long as it's rational. I. I see a lot of women.

Weaponize that, but yeah, yeah.

Just as husbands should correct their wives if they have a really bad idea that could hurt the marriage, wives have that same role because husbands sometimes get pretty bad ideas that can be harmful yeah, but who, who determines it? The human. The person with a rational brain in the marriage. Yeah, so the men. Yeah, so I guess so. What's nice is in this, in this debate, we know which side is the more rational one, right? In our message.

Trent thought that was an own. No, Trent, I don't think you understood that actually wasn't unknown. Like whatever you think of Pearl. Pearl was correct in that statement, in your attempt to try to equalize the idea of headship, which is this equalitarian position that many Roman Catholics take. That take Tim Gordon is so vehement to oppose. I mean, bro, did you not catch that? Now again, Roman Catholics have said, jay, you clip Trent, you clip Trent. What has Trent done throughout this whole video? Oh, he clips 10, 20 second clips of people. So I'm confused. Is it dishonest to clip people or is it actually okay? Because many, many Roman Catholics went after me for my short, calling out Trent, saying that the way that we know Catholic dogma is when it's manifestly evident they said, well, you shouldn't clip him. This is so dishonest. Trent is clipping. What do you mean exchange?

Andrew said that Christian apologists don't focus on dating, culture, world affairs, policy, politics and prescriptions. Well, in many cases that's because our own audience and critics tell us to stay in our.