TUCKER CARLSON + JAY DYER Watch Party - OPEN DEBATE! Prots SEETHE!

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Jay’sAnalysis – "TUCKER CARLSON + JAY DYER Watch Party – OPEN DEBATE! Prots SEETHE!"

Host: Jay Dyer
Guests/Co-hosts: Regular contributor “Father Deacon,” callers/listeners
Date: July 21, 2026

---

Episode Overview

Jay Dyer hosts a lively, unscripted watch party and open debate reacting to his recent high-profile interview with Tucker Carlson, which provoked significant controversy and backlash—particularly among Protestant and liberal circles online. This episode blends Dyer’s trademark humor, biting cultural commentary, and deep dives into theology, philosophy, and conspiracy analysis. The majority of the discussion centers on the fallout from his interview, Protestant critiques, the role of nominalism, and the historicity of Orthodox Christianity. Interspersed throughout are audience call-ins, tangents, and reflections on broader cultural issues.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Tucker Carlson Interview Fallout

• Jay recounts the context, content, and chaotic aftermath of his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, noting the millions of views and particularly "meltdown" reactions from Protestant and academic critics.
• Tone: Playfully combative; Jay frequently mocks critics for ignoring substance and obsessing over trivial errors or generalizations.
• Notable Moment: Immediate jump in subscribers after the episode aired ([12:30]–[13:56]).

2. Protestantism, Nominalism, and Church History

• Major argument: Protestantism’s philosophical problems stem from nominalism—a denial that things have inherent essences—ultimately paving the way for postmodern relativism and social constructivism.
• Jay references academic texts (Heiko Oberman, Alistair McGrath, etc.) to support claims that Protestant Reformation theology accidentally set up the framework for today’s identity debates.
• Memorable Quote:
  • “Nominalism is the presupposition for Protestant justification by faith alone. Okay? … It’s not saying that Luther literally created trans people. … There’s a long trek of ideology from nominalism to the point where people are saying, you know, postmodernism. Right. It’s just all created narratives and you make up your reality anyway.” —Jay Dyer ([47:15]–[47:56])
• Jay and Father Deacon debate the meaning and impact of nominalism, moderate realism, and their relevance for how Protestants see authority, hierarchy, and sacraments.

3. The Western Suppression of Byzantine Christian History

• Jay breaks down how mainstream education skips over a millennium of Byzantine/Orthodox history, yielding an “intentional desire to suppress” Christian civilization before the Renaissance ([25:02]–[32:43]).
• Orthodox Christianity is depicted as the only continuous, unbroken “logo-centric” tradition, in contrast to fragmenting Protestant sects.
• Memorable Quote:
  • "If you're really based around Christ...if your theology or civilization is logo-centric...you're just going to prosper because you're aligned with what's true." —Jay Dyer ([28:37]).

4. Critique of Protestant Theology and Culture

• Emphasis on the weaknesses of "evangelical Zionist"–style Protestantism: susceptible to NGO soft power, lacking robust ecclesiology, and increasingly used for political purposes.
• Jay asserts Orthodox Christianity offers structural integrity and normativity against state or NGO capture.
• Notable Segment:
  • Protestants portrayed as “energy vampires” for their online behavior ([05:09]).
  • Dismissal of Twitter “spurg nerd Protestant goobers” for nitpicking generalizations instead of addressing substantive points ([19:17], [73:39]).

5. Protestant Reformation: Kabbalistic and Hermetic Influences

• Jay introduces historical research pointing to Jewish Kabbalistic and Hermetic (esoteric) influences on the formation of Reformation-era Protestantism, especially second/third generation Lutherans' involvement with secret societies like Rosicrucians ([79:53]–[85:22]).
• Jay and Father Deacon explain how conspiracy ideas about elite societies are both academically validated and often misunderstood in "conspiracy world".

6. The Bible—Devotional Guide or Liturgical Document?

• Jay contrasts the Orthodox view of scripture as "a liturgical document" against the Protestant tendency to treat the Bible as a purely devotional or personal guide ([73:31]–[75:30]).
• He addresses Protestant anger at this generalization, clarifying it is a broad trend, not a rigid stereotype.

7. Eschatology: Millennialism and Orthodox Perspectives

• Jay answers call-in questions about postmillennial and amillennial interpretations, noting Orthodoxy doesn't have a fixed timeline but rejects literalist readings of the “thousand years” ([86:31]–[89:14]).
• Emphasis that Orthodoxy is flexible on eschatology, except for a firm rejection of chiliasm (belief in an earthly, literal 1,000-year reign).

8. The Radical Reformation and Atomization

• Discussion of how Protestant radicalism (“the priesthood of all believers”) birthed the kind of individualistic, Gnostic, anti-hierarchical spiritual chaos typified by Quakers, Anabaptists, and modern “mega-church” Christianity ([92:00]–[93:57]).

9. Philosophy: Universals, Realism, and the Nature of Authority

• Callers engage Jay and Father Deacon on moderate realism, Homerism, and the way universals are conceived in Orthodox theology ([91:08]–[98:15]).
• Deep dive into how development of philosophical categories affects doctrine and community life.

10. Reason and Faith

• Explicit distinction between Orthodox and Western (especially Catholic/Scholastic) approaches to reason and faith.
• In Orthodoxy, reason is seen as fundamentally faith-based; there’s no stark division ([147:03]–[150:11]).

---

Audience Interaction & Notable Quotes

• On dealing with critics:
  • “Dude, nobody gives a about gay ass dialectics from Victor Hagel, dude. … You can’t footnote every statement in a two hour podcast, you idiots.” —Jay Dyer ([19:17])
• On ancient history education in the West:
  • “The only thing we talked about from that whole period was, like, Augustine’s Confessions. ... We’re pretty much brainwashing [students]…” —Jay Dyer ([25:21])
• On Protestant outrage:
  • “All of these spur nerd Protestant goobers are coming out of the woodwork to pick this apart, and they don’t even know what books I’m citing…” ([19:17])
• On Kabbalistic influence:
  • “The Protestant reformers were even accused by a lot of their Catholic opponents…[of] Judaizing, in the sense that you have a tremendous impact of Judaic and Kabbalistic theology during the time of the Reformation.” ([40:48])
• On secret societies:
  • “It’s not even controversial that there were Kabbalistic rabbis in Spain. … The rise of Kabbalistic influence in the West ... is a factual, academic thing, whether you believe it or not.” ([83:00]–[83:46])
• On the contemporary meaning of faith and reason:
  • “I actually think reason itself is a faith commitment.” —Jay Dyer ([147:23])

---

Important Timestamps

• [12:30] – Jay describes working with Pavel Shailen ("Russian Peugeot") for a new series on Western civilization.
• [16:01–19:17] – Breaks down the controversies and social media debates sparked by the Tucker interview.
• [25:02–32:43] – Extended reflection on the suppression of Byzantine Christian civilization in Western history.
• [34:18–35:22] – Deep dive into the sociopolitical uses of Protestantism in American soft power.
• [40:13–43:22] – Protestantism, Judaizing, and Kabbalistic/Rabbinical influence.
• [47:15–47:56] – Nominalism as root of Protestant justification.
• [56:17–57:34] – Theosis vs. legal justification; Orthodox vs. Protestant soteriology.
• [73:31–75:30] – The Bible’s function in liturgical vs. Protestant traditions.
• [86:31–89:14] – Q&A on Orthodox eschatological flexibility.
• [91:08–98:15] – Technical discussion of universals, realism, and Orthodox theology.
• [147:03–150:11] – Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic approach to reason and faith.

---

Memorable Moments & Humor

• Jay’s riffing on “booger whistle flute” and playful mockery of Protestant Twitter.
• Running jokes about Protestant academia, grandpa socks, and powdered wigs.
• Audience call-ins that blend sincere theological questions with Dyer’s quick-witted, sometimes irreverent replies.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich, highly opinionated exploration of Protestant theology’s roots and cultural impact, the dynamics of online debate and critique, and a defense of Orthodox Christianity's depth, historicity, and philosophical solidity. It’s essential listening for those interested in the intersection of religion, philosophy, and culture—delivered in Jay Dyer’s distinctly polemical, satirical voice.

---

For further reference, see the following timestamped segments:

• [25:02]–[32:43] — Suppression of Byzantine history
• [40:13]–[43:22] — Kabbalistic/Judaizing influence on Protestantism
• [56:17]–[57:34] — Orthodox vs. Protestant justification
• [79:53]–[85:22] — Rosicrucians, Enlightenment, secret societies
• [147:03]–[150:11] — Faith, reason, and epistemology in Orthodoxy

---

Notable Quote (Jay Dyer, [28:37]):
"If you're really based around Christ...if your theology or civilization is logo-centric...you're just going to prosper because you're aligned with what's true."

---

For a detailed walk through the topics, or for particular debates and philosophical tangents, see the timestamps above.

Transcript

[Jay Dyer]

If the world were like a sleep

[Father Deacon]

number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time, and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm gonna grab me a little blonde

[Father Deacon]

hair, blue eyed white boy and put him on the white side of town, you know.

[Jay Dyer]

And if that ain't good enough, I'm

[Father Deacon]

gonna grab me a little chang ping pong playing China boy and put him on the Asian side of town.

[Jay Dyer]

Whoa, dude. Damn, bro. They based as hell over cholo church. They making freaking white dude drugs. Making Chinese drugs, bro. They don't even give a. How do all of the cholo women like they were fat before everybody was fat, dude. It's like cholo women were just always like a circle, dude. Like they was bored coming out like a circle, bro. Like they didn't even go through like a transformation where they were like high when they were young or whatever. Like they was just straight a circle

[Caller/Listener]

the whole time, bro.

[Jay Dyer]

The spheres, bro. That's the orbs that Sams was talking about and how could you refute me

[Father Deacon]

or whatever solo church

[Jay Dyer]

that booger whistle. Let's see. Marks and traits of the cult guru. They do not typically like you doing well. What they are persecuting me. They do not have spiritual eyes to see. Therefore they must take down what they do not understand. That's that booger whistlebug. They're energy vampires. That's that booger whistlebag. I got a booger whistle flute. They're energy vampires. That's that booger whistlebag. Oftentimes the communal living that the guru demands doesn't match up to the guru who's driving around in a freaking Rolls Royce. How many swamis got a dang Rolls Royce?

[Father Deacon]

What?

[Jay Dyer]

I asked vision Last night the ascended masters came down to me. They said swami or to get roll Royce. I said booger wh their energy van purge. That's that booger whistle, baby. I got a booger whistle flute.

[Father Deacon]

Their energy.

[Jay Dyer]

I got a feels that's a season I'm on the slide this out you not be.

[Father Deacon]

Get over here now.

[Jay Dyer]

I got a hex stars. Now you gonna punch that bitch in the gut right now. Get over here on now somebody heaven I not the plum shin the good

[Caller/Listener]

bitch she got a.

[Father Deacon]

I got a

[Jay Dyer]

feel that's a season I'm on a slam the out of sh get over here now I got a hex stars now oh he don't punch that in it girl right now get over here now somebody heaven I not the p and the good. She got a de but in a cruel she got a deod in a

[Father Deacon]

PR I'm about a de got a

[Jay Dyer]

be put in a prime.

[Father Deacon]

I got a feels that's a season

[Jay Dyer]

I want to slide this out you

[Father Deacon]

nappy get over here now I got

[Jay Dyer]

a hex stars now you going to punch that in the good right now get over here on now somebody heaven I not the plum shin the good

[Caller/Listener]

bitch

[Father Deacon]

she got a dema dinner cool

[Jay Dyer]

tonight she got a deeper deeper down she got a deeper deeper down you gotta be. I got a feel that's a season now I'm on a slam the out of sh get over here now I got a hex stars now oh you don't punch that and it go right now bitch get over here on now somebody heaven I'm not the punch in the girl o. What's up? Welcome. We had a wild adventure. I don't just mean the Tucker interview. We're going to go ahead and get to that. We had a another wild adventure with the Russians. You may be familiar with Pavel Shailen. We have filmed the first three episodes of a series that I will be doing in terms of deep discussions about western civilization and the demons of western civilization with Pavel. If you don't know, he is the Russian pageau they call him. And I've hung out with these guys a few times now. Really cool guys. They even call him the Russian Peugeot. If you type in Pavel Shailen, it comes up as Russian puzzle. I am the Russian puzzle. So this is his channel. I'm not sure exactly what all is and isn't translated into English often simply see

[Caller/Listener]

this.

[Father Deacon]

We build our relationships on a transactional model. Well, let's say I'll do something and I'll receive something.

[Jay Dyer]

Pavel is a Russian intellectual, really cool guy, and he gets accused of being a CIA guy and I get accused of being a KGB guy. And so we had an excellent

[Father Deacon]

first

[Jay Dyer]

three episodes of our installments of our show that are gonna premiere. Not exactly sure when, but we filmed three in Nashville and we'll be filming three next Saturday. Yeah, we did get a nice bump so far from Tucker, which is good. We've got. I think. I think we gained about 2,500 subs since yesterday, which is a good bump. It's nice. Maybe it was 15, 1500, 2000 somewhere in there. I don't recall. But we're gonna have a good lecture series with Pavel. We might turn that into sort of a master course. He just did. I think a discussion with our buddy John. Hears they discussed the Supra.

[Father Deacon]

I feel like you're trying to get me to.

[Jay Dyer]

You guys should know what the Supra is.

[Father Deacon]

At least that's what happens at any real Supra table.

[Jay Dyer]

And this is. Some of these are dubbed because it's for English audience and some of them are not for the Russian audience.

[Father Deacon]

So

[Caller/Listener]

our.

[Jay Dyer]

Our show will obviously be in English. Welcome, everybody. Thank you, guys. Hope you guys enjoyed the Tucker episode. It's done really well so far. On X. We are within 15 hours, we crossed a million views. Impressions, whatever. On X, every time I open up X some I see people talking about it in the for you section, which I hate the for you. But this is the one, Tom. And I'll make an exception because I'm seeing. I'm seeing people talk about the Tucker episode. Yeah, this. The subscriber boost again has been. Has been good. I hope it continues growing. I mean, we've worked our ass off for 10 years to get to, you know, 215, 000, whatever we're at. So anyway, let's get to this and let's comment on it. I'll stop and I'll discuss a lot of. Y' all thought I went on Joe Rogan. I don't know why. I said very clearly, I never said very clearly that it was Joe Rogan. So I don't know how y' all came to that conclusion. Y' all just be making up, you know what I'm saying? Y' all just be tripping, you know what I'm saying? The other thing I didn't expect from this discussion because of course, as I may have mentioned, I don't know, I think what they do on. In the Tucker sphere is they like to have the guests not have a perfect idea what's going to be discussed. So it's a little raw, it's a little fresh. And so initially I suggested six different topics. Lexi was like, yeah, what do you want to talk about? And I was like, well, here's things I talk about a lot. And did I do a Jesse Lee Peterson impression? I don't remember if I did. Maybe I need to.

[Father Deacon]

I don't know if.

[Jay Dyer]

He may not know who. Who that is. I don't know but so I suggested like six different things, and they were like, okay. And I was like, what do you want to pick? Like one or two? Because any one of these could conceivably be, you know, a whole two hour podcast. And she was like, yeah, well, whatever, we'll see. And then so it ended up being basically all the things I suggested. I think the only thing that I put on the list that we didn't discuss was tag. And I was like, that's probably too, too high tier philosophy technicality for the audiences anyway. And the Stephen DeYoung father. Stephen DeYoung's episode had done really well with, you know, discussing the sort of demonic, esoteric type subject. So they were very interested in the, you know, the Hollywood occultism stuff. But what I did not expect was, and I had no idea we'd talk about this at all. The first hour is basically Tucker's questions about Protestantism and problems with Protestantism. And so I had no idea where we're gonna do that. Totally unexpected. It didn't bother me because it ended up being a really great discussion. But that then led to all of Protestant Twitter basically having a meltdown today because of this interview. So all of these prot. Commentators who are like, know it alls. I didn't realize how annoyingly know it all. All these people on Twitter are. Because I don't ever follow the. For you, I try to avoid a lot of the bait. And these people have nitpicked the most annoying, ridiculous imaginable. Namely, when discussing giant swaths of history, you're discussing the last 2,000 years of history or the last thousand years of history, you're going to make broad statements. And I've seen dozens of large Protestant. Here's the weird part. Protestant and liberal profiles are picking this apart because I didn't properly attribute the precise definition of Hegel's version of dialectics, and I gave the inaccurate ficta version of that. I'm like, dude, nobody gives a about gay ass dialectics from Victor Hagel, dude. It's like. And I'm like, what exactly was I wrong about? Oh, it's not thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's position, opposition, reconciliation. That's the same thing. Second, you're. You guys are crazy. So all of these spur nerd Protestant goobers are coming out of the woodwork to pick this apart, and they don't even know what books I'm citing. Like, they don't even. They've never heard of Hiko Oberman's book. It's a famous book. So this was the first thing. Let's see you open this up. This is all I see. Dude, Bud Bundy gave up chasing women for chasing crackbot theories about late medieval philosophy. Like, what does that even mean? And this defiant ghost guy, I don't know who this is, but I appreciate him clipping the out of this because he's the one that has clipped all these different clips that have enraged all the pro.

[Father Deacon]

That's.

[Jay Dyer]

This is awesome. So the most annoying, though, is this Catholic guy, this kid. Where's he at? It's not even worth finding this kid.

[Caller/Listener]

It's not.

[Jay Dyer]

It's. He's just using. He's using AI, right? So he's just replying to all my stuff with AI. He's like a. A Catholic philosopher who's like 20. And then we've got Aon McIntyre. He says my analysis is comical. Let's see if he'll come to bait. I bet he won't. I didn't make this up, first of all. Okay, this is a very well known academic book in terms of Protestant history and theology. So Heiko Oberman is a famous Lutheran scholar and he wrote a book called Harvest of Medieval Theology, and it's about late medieval nominalism. And it's tracing the influence from William of AAM and Gabriel bile B I E L to Martin Luther. And this is not that crazy of a theory. This is not. It's pretty well known. So they're all acting, like I said, Martin Luther caused trans people because of nominalism, which is so. Because that's not what I said. And if you watch the whole interview, it's covering within one. The first hour. 2,000 years of church history. You're gonna make Sweeping statements in 2000 Years of church history. You can't footnote every statement in a two hour podcast, you idiots. You didn't provide the proper sourcing for. Yeah, well, that's why you're not on Tucker, because you're a dork and you're gonna always be in some small, tiny pocket with no audience and no relevance because you don't actually understand how to communicate to people. When I give sweeping statements like that, I usually have a book in mind. And this is the book that I had in mind when I said Protestantism with Luther is invariably influenced by nominalism. This is not even disputable because of his doctrine justification. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was a trans dude. Martin Luther didn't even conceive of this, obviously. But when you, you. When you remove the idea of things having essences and that's what nominalism did. Individuals are just individual objects or subjects. They don't have any common quality or trait that unites them. There's no metaphysic that makes them kind of the same thing, other than they're just part of an individual class of things. When you get rid of essences, then it's only a couple steps away from, well, then where? What are they? Oh, they're. They're social constructs. Oh, well then in that case, I can socially construct a new identity that obviously logically follows. That's why I cited Terence McKenna, who talks about magical thinking. So I don't think any of these people have read any of these books because half of the replies are like people trying to act like they're like academics and know it alls. And they're actually just replying to me with AI, like, everyone knows the M dashes and your replies are AI, you idiots. So then I started thinking these people are just mad because they're not on Tucker. And Tucker's, I noticed, got a large Protestant audience. And that's something I didn't even really think about when I went into, you know, this episode, because I assume we would mainly talk about what we talked about in a second half of the show, right? So if you don't know, the way it works is you go, you fly, they fly you there, and then you. You basically have breakfast the next day with Tucker and you talk for a couple hours about everything. We ended up talking about a lot of media stuff, a lot of geopolitics, a lot of espionage type stuff. And then, then you film the show and then you just kind of hang out there at his sort of Law Hunter's lodge, looks like a cabin sort of studio. So you basically hang out with. With Tucker for the day and, and talk about everything. And we ended up talking about orthodoxy, mostly. That was most of his questions and, and queries were about that, which I figured we would talk about that some, but I would say that was probably 60, 70% of the questions that inside and outside the interview he asked me about. We talked a lot about geopolitics and espionage and all that stuff, which he's very, very fluent in, very cognizant about. So I think he knows all about, maybe even more than he lets on about all those subjects. And so I, I prepped thinking that we would mainly just be talking about geopolitics, espionage, you know, that kind of. That kind of stuff. And then I got there and I'm like, yeah, I assume you Want to talk about geopolitics and espionage. And he's just like, I'm over it. I'm over it. Yeah, I'm kind of over it. I'm like, okay, so what are we gonna talk about? What's about Orthodoxy? What's up with this Orthodox? Like, okay, let's talk about it. So it was not what I expected, but, hey, it ended up great. And then in the second half, we tied in all the stuff that I did think we'd talk about. So, all right, let's watch some of this. We'll get to it, and I'll comment on things that. So I didn't expect him right away to say, why Orthodoxy? That was like. That threw me for a loop 10 years ago. So that's the simplest, quickest reason.

[Caller/Listener]

First thousand years of Christianity. I think to most modern Christians, certainly American Christians, that's like a black hole. What is it again?

[Jay Dyer]

I realized then that I guess there's a large Protestant. And I mean, America's Protestant evangelical. So largely. So it makes sense that I guess that would be what makes up a lot of his audience, even mean the

[Caller/Listener]

first thousand years of Christianity.

[Jay Dyer]

It's an area that we're not taught. I know that when I went to college, the only thing that we talked about from that whole period was, like, Augustine's Confessions and maybe. Maybe one other book or two, and

[Caller/Listener]

we have something called the Dark Ages, and nothing happens.

[Jay Dyer]

Nothing about Byzantium didn't even exist.

[Caller/Listener]

And then, like, these people called the Medicis make a ton of money in Italy, start funding beautiful art, and that's the beginning of civilization.

[Jay Dyer]

So I remember at college, and no, I did not have the balls to do the Tucker laugh in person. I had the balls to do the Alex Jones in front of him, but I didn't have the balls to do the Tucker in front of Tucker. I was, like, pressing the department, like, why don't we study some medieval stuff, some Byzantine stuff? And they were like, why should we? We don't care about that Christian stuff. So, yeah, I think there's probably a little bit of an intentional desire to suppress that for, I mean, American education. I think it's pretty much brainwashing. So.

[Caller/Listener]

So, but one sentence. This might take. Between Constantine and the 4th century and the Renaissance, you had Christian civilization.

[Jay Dyer]

The most successful empire in history is the Byzantine Empire, from Constantine all the way up until, you know, the fall of Byzantium to. To the. To the Muslims.

[Caller/Listener]

So why do you say it's the most successful?

[Jay Dyer]

That's a common sort of academic assessment just in terms of their. They flourished on a gold standard for a really long time. They started clipping the gold. Money clipping, like the Roman Empire in the West. Money clipping, baby, done before them and other empires. So they fell prey to usury as well. Yeah, so they fell to a lot of the same issues that empires tend to fall to.

[Caller/Listener]

Human weakness and weakness, like recognizable stuff,

[Jay Dyer]

degeneracy, all of that. Also rabid nationalism had a tendency to break down empires as well. I like Spangler and I think if you read Osha Spangler, he talks about there's kind of a life cycle. But I think the unique aspect of the Byzantine Empire was that it was explicitly Christian, based on orthodox Christianity. And so in many metrics of what it is to be successful or flourishing, it flourished, but it did fall, I think. Again, I'm not trying to measure Christianity. You know what's funny too is like again, I don't know how many Protestants actually watch the interview. I think maybe they're just watching these clips and so they're seeing a clip of like a minute and they're acting like I'm just have no idea what I'm talking about. And the other thing is that they're calling me Terence Howard. So the Protestants are acting like I'm literally the equivalent of like schizo brother on Joe Rogan. I mean, what at all between what I said is comparable to the type of stuff that Terence Howard says. I think there the. These Protestants are just enraged, dude. And that's why we can't find any of them that will actually do debates. I mean, the only one who's actually been willing to get to. To step up to debate now is David Wood, who just learned about orthodoxy a few weeks ago. And none of these Protestant dudes will actually step up to do a formal debate, but they're happy to sit and whine and on Twitter nitpicking some nuanced minutia of about the Middle Ages that's not even controversial. Or that I misquoted Hagel, which I didn't misquote. Hagel does not actually say so what? It's the same idea you idiots like. It doesn't matter, man. This is why you guys are ridiculous. This Protestantism is so ridiculous, man, just on worldly success. But I do think it does play out in that way at times. Right? If you're, if you're really based around Christ, if your, if your theology or civilization is logo centric. No, I know they're not going to debate byzantium I mean, debating their positions about what? Whatever.

[Father Deacon]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

Because obviously this has a flashy, sexy title. It says Demons in Hollywood, CIA Secret Societies, Lone Gunman Epstein Attacks on Christianity. So it has like every hot button topic and then the first half is basically just going after Protestantism. So it's kind of a tr. It's kind of a bait and switch. Then it's going to play out that way. You're just going to prosper because you're aligned with what's true. You're aligned with that transcendent source. So anyway, for me that journey ended up being eventually orthodox Christianity.

[Caller/Listener]

So. But just real quick, back to the Byzantine Empire. Did you know it existed before aware that there was a Byzantine Empire? Know anything about its outlines?

[Jay Dyer]

Not many people in the west. Again, there is a very clear. Especially if you take humanities courses, you know, the way they're constructed in, in college and, and maybe even younger private type schools. Like you go from, you do the Presocratics, you do Plato and Aristotle and then you do Augustine, maybe a Stoic or two and then you jump to Descartes, so you skip that whole period. And not just to say Byzantium, but also, you know, the Latin west was. Yeah. I mean these people act like. I mean, could you imagine any of these goobers, these know it alls being on like the biggest podcast out there and then having to speak for two hours essentially without any breaks. Would they be able to not make general. You can't talk without making generalizations, man. It's just so stupid. It's like no one can converse without generalizations. These are the same people, by the way, that will. When other people make generalizations or, or when they, when people say they shouldn't make generalizations.

[Father Deacon]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

Your average sort of normie conservative. Excuse me, it's impossible to speak without making generalizations. And then I make a generalization and they're like, oh, this man thinks Martin Luther calls the tranny, you know, explicitly Christian as well. I think that's it's intentionally overlooked. They don't want people reading what brilliant thinkers were doing in the Middle Ages because this is where we get universities. Universities come out of Byzantium. They come out of the west, by the way. That's not even controversial. I saw these Muslim. There was a Muslim saying university come from Muslim woman. In year 800 Muslim women create hospital university. What are you talking about?

[Father Deacon]

About.

[Jay Dyer]

So do hospitals. So some of these very fundament. Science itself actually comes out of that whole period. So. But we are taught, we think that no, these are all. A black woman invent hospital, a black woman Muslim invent inventions. You would have no invention without black woman inventing inventions. Enlightenment, you know, post scientific revolution developments, they're not, they're medieval developments. So a lot of that suppressed a lot of that. I had to kind of just read and learn on my own.

[Caller/Listener]

I mean, medieval is an adjective, but also an epithet that's medieval by design. Quartering somebody. There's dark ages, they were dark.

[Jay Dyer]

Like that's all Voltaire. That's all sort of an atheistic French revolutionary attack on what came before by design.

[Caller/Listener]

When did you learn that?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I was really interested in medieval thoughts, by the way. I had no sleep before this because we ate this barbecue joint and it totally messed up my gut. I didn't go to sleep until 4 in the morning and then we had to get up at nine. So I had five hours of sleep. That's what I look like. Classic theology in college in my 20s. And so I was reading Aquinas and reading all these guys as I had all atheist professors who were constantly debating with them. I even did. I did a public debate my sophomore year with the atheist professor. So I would be reading all those guys studying philosophy and history and then debating with those guys and then coming to, you know, my own conclusions about that stuff through just reading. So interesting.

[Caller/Listener]

I keep interrupting yourself.

[Jay Dyer]

I think a lot of people ask, you know, where did you get your education? Where did you. It was not largely from call. I mean some obviously exposure came through college professors and university classes to probably mainly to the things that I would not have read without being forced to otherwise. Right. It's not even a mullet, dude. Get out of here. Otherwise like I wouldn't have read Bertrand Russell or David Hume, you know, that kind of stuff. But beyond that, most of the education is actually just from reading myself. So I think that's the key to actually understanding and knowing stuff is not what classes you had. It's just do you actually read or not?

[Caller/Listener]

Does that led you to Orthodoxy?

[Jay Dyer]

Long story short? Yeah, roundabout way. I went from traditional Catholicism in my 20s to eventually I took about 8 to 10 years to study orthodox stuff pretty intensely. So that would be because I put a lot of time into reading the Latin Church Fathers. So I was reading Jerome and Ambrose and a lot of Augustine's works. And then I realized I'd never actually read the Eastern Church Fathers. And if you get into church history in that first millennium that you talked about, you realize that all the 7/8 ecumenical councils of that first millennium, they're actually all had in the east. They're all called by the emperors, the Byzantine, they're not called by the Pope. Certainly the Pope was either there or had legates there. So the west was represented seven slash, eight ecumenical councils, excuse me, there is nine. But it was in its ethos, it was essentially Eastern and Eastern in its orthodox theology. So I just decided to go on a long reading track of reading all those guys as best I could for many, many years. So that would be like the Cappadocians, that would be Basil, the two Gregory's, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus, Confessor, St. John Damascus. Those are some of the key figures in that milieu, the first thousand years that set the tone of all of Christianity in terms of its most fundamental doctrines, the Trinity and Christology. Right. That's, that's what Christianity is. Those two doctrines are the key sort of linchpin that it all hangs on. So the first thousand years is dominated by those topics. And that in a roundabout way, a lot of people don't realize this either, that actually conditions what type of Christianity you're going to have, how it's going to affect society, how it's going to affect your life. So for example, you have a very truncated version of say evangelicalism that's only based around just how you're saved. Right. It's not going to affect society. And so those types of Christianities, or I would say deviation. Oh, now I see why the Protestants are all losing their mind. He's straw manning Protestantism. He's straw manning Protestantism. Oh, really? How have the Protestant societies fared? Well, look at America.

[Father Deacon]

It's the process.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. How's it doing? They're also very susceptible to being used by other groups. I know you just had a. You had a guy. I'm talking about evangelical Zionism and dispensational theology because that theology is sort of based around an imminent, you know, end of the world type scenario. You sort of retreat and you're not able to create a vibrant cultural effect of Christianity.

[Caller/Listener]

That's.

[Jay Dyer]

Now I specifically said what type of Protestantism I was talking about. So how am I straw manning Protestants when I specifically speak of the sect of evangelical Zionists and the Rapture ideology? By design people figured that out. They were very cunning a few centuries ago. They realized that's the kind of Christianity that can be useful.

[Caller/Listener]

So that theology, which I'm not an expert in but have heard a lot about in the last couple of years, is so totally incompatible with what the new Testament actually says that it makes you wonder like what kind of church could fall for that. And it would be a church with a pretty thin theology and.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Caller/Listener]

Right. And a structure that couldn't do anything about apostasy.

[Jay Dyer]

And it's also antithetical to the Christianity. The first thousand years. And the reason I keep saying the first thousand years is that that's not just where we get these doctrines of the Trinity and who Jesus is formulated, but we also get the Bible. The Bible itself comes out of decisions of church fathers centuries after the apostles.

[Caller/Listener]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

So we're going to have a church or a religion based on the Bible. We really notice by the way, none of the Protestants are actually addressing the critiques that I actually leveled against Protestantism like the canon etc, liturgical worship. All the Protestants are bitching about is some like minutiae issue. He misquoted Hagel already truncate Christianity because the Bible itself in our ethos is a liturgical document. It's actually part of a liturgy. It's not a personal devotional book primarily. So divorce it from that context, divorce it from the community that produced it is what produces sort of aberrant, truncated versions of the religion that make it susceptible to princes, foreign governments, NGOs, think tanks, foundations. They become essentially tools of soft power, which is what I think much of the evangelical Protestant world today. Not indicting the individuals, but the groups. The. No wonder the Protestants are so mad. I was like I said I was operating on five hours of sleep and just sort of. I don't even remember all the shit I talked about. So now watching this back, I'm like, oh, okay. Now I see why Protestants are getting mad because I'm literally calling out their whole religion as an ngo. This is great. No wonder good cope and see loons denominations, they're very easily bought off. For example, very wealthy families in the west about 100 years ago were able to. This is so good. This is like no wonder they're like losing their mind. Dude, I didn't realize. I forgot how much of a. Because my memory was kind of like. I mean you fly in five hours sleep, spend all day with Tucker, you film and then you. You fly back. So I'm like, I don't even remember all the stuff I talked about. Buy off many of the mainline Protestant nominations and turn them into effectually NGOs. Just one example, the Rockefellers. And they're not the only family, but they're one of the families that invested very heavily in not just the UN but also the World Council Churches to create a sort of a supra dude. So many Protestants. And by the way, you know, the only people I see whining about this interview are liberals and Protestants. I see a bunch of academic shit lives that are defending the trans stuff whining about this interview and then a bunch of Protestants. That's it. But they're not actually making any arguments. They're just whining and bitching and saying that, you know, I got my toenail crooked and you know, that's the funnies. The Internet will like go crazy over a broken toenail and then ignore the actual points you're making. Right. So like you could have like a two hour lecture, devastating, you know, amazing points and then, oh, you actually gave the wrong date for the book that you cited in your footnote. Therefore everything you've ever said is now discounted. International version of the un that would be for religions. And they were very explicit in their biographies about how this was to basically make it kind of. This is, this is in the raw, this is in the authorized bargain of the Rockefellers. We've covered this like for 15 years. There's an entire chapter on funding and creating the Royal Council, Georgia. Yeah. So make Christianity into kind of a form of soft power for American interests, really oligarchical interests. And that's one of the, one of the weak points, I would say of Protestant theology, evangelical theology, is that it's very susceptible to that. Not to say that the Roman Catholic Church or even amongst the Orthodox Church aren't people that are susceptible to. Yeah, I mean, this is an issue that's a problem for everybody. But Protestants are losing their mind over this because probably they'd never even heard this. The same types of subversion. But I think it's a lot more difficult when you have an ancient historic type of church that has certain structural, structural integrity and normativity to it.

[Caller/Listener]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

That, you know, Billy Bob strip mall church. Right. Doesn't have.

[Caller/Listener]

Imagine the sensation, if you will, of going to sleep feeling like you're floating, then wake. But what about orthodoxy struck you as non Calvinist? Like, what are the differences? The big differences.

[Jay Dyer]

So you know, Calvinism is not just predestination and the sort of strict. So by the way, I saw a lot of Protestants and Calvinists are like, he's straw man Calvinism. He doesn't understand Calvinism. I went to Bonson Seminary. I know what Calvinism is. What are you talking about? I've read the entire 1559 Institutes of John Calvin. I was a Westminster Confession believing Calvinists. I know Calvinism better than most Calvinists. Your salvation doctrines. It's also iconoclasm, which ends up I think affecting one's view of art and aesthetics.

[Caller/Listener]

Idol smashing.

[Jay Dyer]

Correct. And I was a very avid sort of iconoclastic Calvinist when I was young. It's also very rigid in terms of its view of social structure, church and state. The more I read the Church Fathers, the more I got into that kind of theology. I realized that like Calvinistic sort of republicanism doesn't really match up with Byzantine imperialism or monarchy, you know? Yeah. I mean this is another reason why they're getting mad is like, you know, part of the Calvinist ethos is republican governance. And like now, dude, that's the. Where is that in church history? Oh, you mean the monarchies in the Empire? No, I mean the Christian Republic. Of what? The Christian Republic. That's. That's faking. Get that faking gay out of here, dude. Traditional views of the church's take on governance.

[Caller/Listener]

The Byzantine Empire is a theocracy.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, well, yeah, pretty much. What's interesting is that there are spheres, right? So you have basically, if you think about the Byzantine double headed eagle, that symbol is one body of the people, but church and state as two. That's a Freemason symbol. That's the Masons was run in the Byzantine Empire head. So there's spheres of authority but one body that they share, which is the people. So and then the west to a degree had this until the Middle Ages when you get sort of a rise of the 11th. Oh, this is something people don't understand. You guys are right in the comments. And I do mention like Kabbalism. It does come up eventually in the interview. But Protestantism is Judaized.

[Father Deacon]

Absolutely.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean that's. The Protestant reformers were even accused by a lot of their Catholic opponents. For example, when Luther is debating John Eck X says you're Judaizing even though Luther didn't like Judaism. It's judaizing in the sense that you have a tremendous impact of Judaic and Kabbalistic theology during the time of the Reformation. This is a academic publication that Anthony Westgate put out. This is the Hagel and Hermeticism, hermetic tradition thing that I put up. Occult Renaissance Church of Rome Hoffman is another good text on this. Jewish Influence and Christian Reform Movements is another academic book on this. So this is not really debatable or either. But Protestants, they just, they're not, they don't get nuances. This is like it's either black and white. I don't care about your nuances. Century papacy, which becomes also the state. So you get a papal states and a sort of a. Under dictators. Poppy is the famous document that says the church is also a state now. But until that time the norm was church and states were working in unison. Symphonia is what it's called in the Greek, so that's what I had to grapple with. But Calvinism really doesn't see it that way. It's a lot. It's more like a. More it favors republicanism. There were famous battles between, in England, for example, the Presbyterians and the monarchists. So they actually had a huge fight within the history of the English Reformation as to whether they would be Anglican sort of monarchists or whether they would be Presbyterian Republican Calvinists. So that was a famous, you know, Reformation battle. But long story short, again, like, you know, Calvinism I think is just. It's antithetical to the first thousand years of Christianity. Not so much because of those aesthetic or cultural issues. It's also Christologically errant in that the whole idea of what salvation is is ultimately one's legal standing in terms of what's called justification by faith alone or penal substitutionary atonement. This idea that you're justified by God. No wonder the Protestants are getting mad. I don't even remember talking about all this. I was just like, I remember taking my methylene blue and I took a nad and so I just like machine gun all of this out with five hours of sleep. And then looking back, I'm like, okay, no wonder that we're only 15 minutes in and we're just like literally going after the heart of prosanism, sort of notional acceptance of a set of ideas. And then God's attitude towards you changes. So it's dispositional, but it's not focused on an actual ontological change in the person. Orthodox theology is very different. God's disposition is based not on purely legal stance, but on your actual ontological change. So metaphysical change in you versus a dispositional attitude. So maybe we don't get too heavy in the philosophy, but I do want to.

[Caller/Listener]

What's the difference between the two?

[Jay Dyer]

Basically, there's an idea in the Middle Ages called nominalism. Have you heard that?

[Caller/Listener]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, so nominalism is the idea that there are only names to things, not essences. So there's no human nature. So again, when you're doing a two hour podcast, the biggest podcast in the world, next to Joe Rogan, you're Going to make generalized statements. It's literally impossible to do this kind of a conversation without general statements. And the amazing level of gagry on X in the last two days is kind of blowing my mind. And I'm realizing that Protestantism's main failure isn't all this academic stuff. They're just a bunch of gaggots. Like, that's the, like the being fake and gay is the main protest problem with these people. And they also feel very inferior. They feel very insecure about the positions, which is why none of them will actually come and defend or debate them. But I'm going to show you guys the book because I have it right there and I'll show you where I'm getting this idea. Nominalism wasn't a thing in the ancient and medieval world. And I actually say this in the talk, right? So how is nominalism going to. How would you have justification by faith alone as a purely legal standing in the ancient medieval world, when the ancient medieval world literally never divorced word from essence? It's not possible. They didn't have the framework, philosophically, the toolkit to make that the case. Thus justification by faith alone is even. It's just philosophically impossible in the ancient medieval world. And it's not even. I mean, there's Ustia day by Alistair McGrath, famous Protestant scholar who's already admitted, you know, in his book as an Anglican. Like, yeah, nobody taught sola fide as this purely legal position until Luther. So again, it's not, it's. You got an Anglican, top Anglican scholar, you got top Lutheran scholar with Heiko Oberman. But these people don't even know this. Like, they have no idea what history of medieval philosophy is, whether they don't know. Like Protestants have no idea what metaphysics even is. These people are just out to lunch on all this, this stuff, but they're very quick to, you know, hyper fixate on generalizations, like a freaking libtard. That's exactly what lives do. There's no dog nature. When we talk about natures or classes or sets of things, we're not giving a an ontological, metaphysical status. We're just simply classing things together linguistically in a set. The Middle Ages in the ancient world, the time of Paul or the Church Fathers, they thought very differently. They thought that things have natures, they have essences. And so the words aren't just terms or nominal name ism, they actually describe what's really there in them metaphysically. Okay, so there is human nature. And in orthodox theology, Christ assumes. Who would deny that in The Middle Ages. It begins with people like William Baum. So Occam is the first nominalist. And by the way, none of this is controversial. So again, show you guys what I'm talking about. So this is a famous book called Harvest of Medieval Theology, Gabriel Bile and Late Medieval Nominalism by Heiko Oberman. Oh, look at that. See, there's the proof with the foot with the stickies. Actually read this book. And I wrote some articles on this book too, by the way. If you, if you go back to my website, I don't know, 10 years ago, I wrote some interesting, I think, articles on, on that book. And then I have Eustia Day around here somewhere. But again, like, what's. It's weird to me too. Something that you'll notice when you do these sorts of podcasts, like, this is things that you think are kind of givens, things that you're not even aware of as being controversial. Those are the things people will hyper fixate on. And then the things that you think people are going to be talking about are not. Like, I did that Kat Von D interview, and like, all these comments are talking about my socks. And I'm like, did y'.

[Father Deacon]

All.

[Jay Dyer]

Y' all didn't listen to the interview? You just want to talk about my grandpa socks? So people will fixate on this, the silliest stuff. Where is that book at? I know it's right here somewhere. Anyway, so. But I mean, the main book that I'm taught that's relevant for this is. I mean, he's arguing that really Luther could only have this positional sort of legal standing idea what justification is when you have the. The severance of the term or the name from the reality. So the question is, well, how could we be made righteous in God's sight if we're actually still filthy rags, right, in the Luther conception? Well, nominalism provides that because Luther says, well, God decides and declares it to be whatever it is. So even if you're righteous, if God said if you're wicked, if you're filthy rags and God just declares you as righteous, then you are that regardless of what you metaphysically actually are if you're wicked. So that's why nominalism is the presupposition for Protestant justification by faith alone. Okay? It's not saying that Luther had a nominalist view of every single thing. It's not saying that Luther literally created trans people. I mean, this is so insane. It's like people didn't even listen to what I said. There's a long trek of ideology from nominalism to the point where people are saying, you know, postmodernism. Right. It's just all created narratives and you make up your reality anyway, so you can make it whatever you want.

[Caller/Listener]

The racer.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. He's known for that. And he challenges some kind of established ideas of, like, essential essentialism, that things have essences. And so he also goes up against this idea of universal. So there's no such thing as a universal class or essence of a thing. None of that's even controversial. So people are, like, losing their mind over me talking about nominalism. And literally nothing I said is even controversial. And that have been kind of the norm since Plato and Aristotle as well. But so you get a denial of essentialism and essences, and then you get another guy named Gabriel Bile, and he's very influential on Martin Luther. And so when the Reformation kicks off there. Oh, yeah, see, nobody even talked about that. I literally named the names. Nobody even talked about this. Luther is not a nominalist. Yes, he is. About how could you be called righteous if you're not, in fact, righteous? So if as a human being, you are, you know, menstrual rags, as Isaiah says, as the reformer said, then how could God call you righteous about being a liar? What? Enter in nominalism. And nominalism is able to say, ah, because things don't have. Actually have essences, they just have names. And so if God calls you that, you are that legally, even though in actual fact, you're wicked. So that was. Yeah, that was. And Luther was very happy to utilize that nominalistic approach. And by the way, this is not just my theory. This is famous Lutheran scholars. There's a book called Harvest of Medieval Theology by Heiko Oberman, and the whole thesis of that book by Lutheran is that Luther had to use nalism. So. So we're also, though, moving away not just from theological squabbles, but the idea that things have natures. And that's. This is how we get to David Hume and Kant and these Enlightenment figures which give us the, you know, scientific revolution. Supposedly. This is how we get to. There's no male and female. So you can see kind of the logical train here. If things don't have essences. Well, then they don't. Well, yeah, I mean, I'm actually correct about this. All of these people on Twitter are losing their mind over this. And again, it's all. All it is is all of these people wanting to give this impression that they're, like, really intellectually sophisticated. Excuse me. There is no direct train of ideals from the Middle Ages until today. Because ideas do not have consequences. No, there are ideological trains and chains of causation, but from one bad idea to the next. And to me it's bizarre that people don't think that or like they wouldn't know that. So you don't think there's any connection between one idea and a related idea going even further? That seems kind of obvious to me. But I actually have genders.

[Father Deacon]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

Objectively. Because everything's just a name. So I can just name myself.

[Father Deacon]

He.

[Jay Dyer]

Himsrs. Yeah, I think this is actually hits at the root of the problem of Protestantism. That's why they're so mad, is that. Yeah. No, you actually do have a role in the rise of postmodernism and the idea that reality and meaning are social constructs. Because you literally started your whole theology and your pivot away from classical Christianity on this idea that nothing has, in essence, nothing has a real ontological status other than the name that you give it. That is what Gabriel Biles ideas gave to Martin Luther. So by the way, you notice I actually cited the text. Not a single person that's whining and bitching even referenced the book or even referenced the idea.

[Caller/Listener]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm not trying to go too fast or too far in the sense of like ology, but I'm saying there is an ideological sort of progression that you can get from nominalism to where we are now with postmodernism and then with. Essentially.

[Caller/Listener]

It's interesting that an adult could believe in something like that. I mean, having lived your life, known people, known animals, seen nature, and arrived at the conclusion that nothing has an essence. Everything is just what we call it, like that. That flies in the face of your experience. It has to.

[Jay Dyer]

Right, what's that saying that you have to be an academic to be really stupid?

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, I mean, that's right, yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

To be indoctrinated into believing some sort. Remember Terence McKenna? You remember the psycho? Not Terence McKenna. I remember reading it one time and he said something like, this is all just magical thinking. And I like literally Terence McKenna's idea of magical thinking. He says you create reality with your mind and that this is the inheritance of, you know, the post, you know, enlightenment world or whatever.

[Father Deacon]

That's.

[Jay Dyer]

That's exactly what is the point here. So I was making a joke about Terence McKenna and all of these people are like, look at the schizo. He goes from Terence, he goes from Martin luther to Terence McKenna. He's a schizo. Again, this is all in the academic literature, which none of these people actually read. So you should day famous book. Alistair McGrath, very famous Anglican teachers at Oxford wrote the book Justification, the history of this doctrine. And he comes to the conclusion that nobody in the first thousand years of Christianity or first 1500 years could have taught or taught justification by faith alone. It's a made up doctrine. So you've got two great Protestant books, Harvest of Medieval Theology by Heiko Oberman and Ustia day by Alistair McGrath. Oh, oh, no wonder the Protestants are mad.

[Caller/Listener]

You know this.

[Jay Dyer]

If you take the shroom, you're going to see that things don't have essences, that things just have names. And you just. People were citing me in this impression that I misquoted and made up a quote from Terence McKenna. This is an impression, dummies. Obviously Terence McKenna didn't literally say if you take the mushroom, you can make up real. It's a joke. Like people are so stupid, man. This is insane. Like the, like what to watch the reactions to these clips when I'm obviously I'm laughing and people are like, this bad. Is making up quotes from Terence McKinna. How dare he change the name. And I'm like, that's the gender idea right there.

[Caller/Listener]

Christians ought to be safe in the Holy land of all places, but they are.

[Jay Dyer]

That's in Food of the Gods. That the, the chapter where I'm making fun of Terence McKenna is in food of the Gods.

[Father Deacon]

But there's.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, literally people are like, like fact checking jokes, dude. And they're. They're not libs. These are like the Protestants are fact checking jokes turn.

[Caller/Listener]

Today they're helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities with their ancestors. Christians in the West Bank. Who's looking out for them? Nobody. Well, they are. A monthly gift of $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit save westbankchristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began that save west bankchristians.com we are proud to partner with them. Thank you. Yeah, and that's just, it's kind of apogee, you know, the, you know, the gender insanity is just the most obvious.

[Jay Dyer]

But it has a precedent in this right theology, this theology debate. Yeah. So this is where Terence McKenna says that he talks about magical thinking and he says you create your reality. And this is kind of the inheritance of where we've progress to in Western civilization, obviously because of all the stuff I'm talking about. So it's weird that people don't, I mean people can't even figure out when you're making a joke. So I don't know what's going on, man.

[Caller/Listener]

I'd never heard that before. Huh. I'm sorry to hear that about Luther,

[Jay Dyer]

who I've always loved.

[Caller/Listener]

There's a lot to love about Luther, for sure.

[Jay Dyer]

He would actually chase the double away with farts, which I think is great.

[Caller/Listener]

Quite a robust man and a happy family life and everything about my like. But that is impossible to defend on. Just flies in the face of reality.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

And even modern scholarship in the Protestant world is a great book by Alistair McGrath out of England. I think he's Anglican, it's called Eustachia Day. And his book was kind of a landmark in Protestants coming to the table and saying, okay, look, Luther's doctrine of salvation is not in the first 1500 years, unfortunately. So.

[Caller/Listener]

So this, the understanding of salvation that preceded the Reformation was that people had to be changed on in their essence in order to be.

[Father Deacon]

Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

So there's an actual participation in what orthodox theology calls the uncreated energies. So we believe that God has infinite divine energies and operations, attributes, as it's called in the West. And for orthodox theology, and this is the patristic teaching as well, we participate in that. So we're not just changing legal status, we're actually participating in the life of God himself, which when you go back and you read the New Testament, you're like, oh, actually that makes more sense because Jesus says in John 17 that he came to give us a share in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. So divine glory can't be a creature. And so Jesus is equating grace with divine glory. So unless you think God has created parts, which would be polytheism or some form of idolatry, uncreated grace has to be a reality. That's a participable thing.

[Caller/Listener]

Well, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will flow into people and change them. Right. And that happens.

[Jay Dyer]

Spirit's not a creature because then you would be anti trinitarian.

[Father Deacon]

So.

[Jay Dyer]

Absolutely. This is why Peter says in his Epistle, right. That we become partakers of the divine nature. So very strong language in. In the New Testament, in the Epistles, for what we call theosis in the orthodox Church, Paul says, for example, in Thessalonians that it is the dunamis or the power of God that is at work in him. So the actual power of God, which can't be a created thing or created grace, which unfortunately, even a Latin Roman Catholic Church in Middle Ages, created grace becomes a normative Thing where what you're getting is just another form of created. The Orthodox church thing. No, no. The incarnation itself tells us that the uncreated united itself to human nature and incarnation and that Jesus deified the human nature that he assumed with his own immortality, grace, and uncreated energy.

[Caller/Listener]

The role of the Bible in the Protestant world versus the Orthodox world you described.

[Jay Dyer]

Dude, I don't even remember talking about all this. I mean, like I said, like, I just remember being super tired. I had a horrible meal that upset my tummy, my tum tum. So I was just laying. I had to take a melatonin gummy. A. More like a mel. I had to take a melon and gummy. I was like a melatonin gummy just to go to sleep. And that didn't kick in until like 4 in the morning, so. And then you're up at 9 to

[Father Deacon]

have

[Jay Dyer]

eggy waggies with Tucky Wucky. So, man, I don't. I don't remember saying any of this stuff. I mean, it's coming back to me now, but like, no, I was. I was drugged in the sense of melatonin. By the way, if you do want to call in, you can call in right here. I was trying to change the time on the Twitter space, but I couldn't get it to change. So here is the call in right here if you guys want to call in right there. Yeah, I kind of went on all. Tucker is my handler, obviously now. So he. He used the trigger words to bring out my alternate personalities that could handle the interview on the spot even though I was like, super tired. So if this, you know, this always happens when we travel because I have such a terrible stomach diet issue when we travel, I have to find some local place to eat, and it's always like the worst. And then. So I. I can either not eat and be like frail and out of my mind, or I can eat and have like explosive IBS issues and then try to do interviews. But anyway, by the way, if you want. If you want to call in if you have questions, comments, debate topics, the Twitter space link is right here. By the way, I'll be going on Father Ivanov's podcast here in a moment, Transfigured Life. As you guys know, we've. I think we've done two or three episodes of Transfigured Life, so I will be going on with those guys here in hour and a half. So here is the link. We might have to do a couple installments of watching this, this Tucker episode to get. Get through the majority of it. But there's the link. If you want to call in and hit request to speak, I'll bring you up and you can ask your. You can ask your questions, you can offer a challenge. You can tell me why I don't know anything and I have not mastered Hagel. Like, who cares about mastering Hagel anyway? Trey, what's up, dude? Like this one Protestant professor dude, he was just going to crazy over imprecise sourcing of hagel, and I'm like, who cares, dude? Nobody cares about. Hey, Cole. What's up, man? Trey, on you, trader. What's up, bro? What's up?

[Father Deacon]

What's up, Jay?

[Jay Dyer]

What's on your mind?

[Father Deacon]

Hey, I'm. I'm really curious with.

[Jay Dyer]

Are you bi curious or just curious?

[Father Deacon]

Just curious.

[Jay Dyer]

I try to keep it trinitarian. What now with.

[Father Deacon]

With father Steven DeYoung going on Tucker and now you on Tucker and Father

[Jay Dyer]

Josiah too, by the way.

[Father Deacon]

Oh, that's true. I forgot about that. Is. Is there a possibility that, like, Tucker's legitimately curious or is he going to stay pretty WASPy for the foreseeable future?

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, like I said, I would say 60% of the whole day that we spent with him was questions about orthodoxy. So I would say he's genuinely open and interested. I mean, he said things like, in his experience, the only real Christians that he's met are. They tend to be orthodox, the ones that actually display the fruits of spirit. He's said stuff like, you know, he's open to it, but he still struggles with issues of icons and sola scriptura. So, yeah, pray for Tucker, but that's. That's where he's at in terms of all of his specific issues. John, what's up, man? Darius Rucker.

[Caller/Listener]

What's up, man?

[Jay Dyer]

Darius Rucker. Adams, what's on your mind, dude?

[Father Deacon]

Yes, sir. Just want to say you did a good job on there. And one of the things that not a lot of people understand about giving interviews and being able to convey information is you have to compact things down.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Father Deacon]

Because, like, even though, like, we. We in the time that we've known each other, we've literally had six hour long discussions.

[Caller/Listener]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

But most people aren't even going to do that. So, like, you might be able to be afforded the leisure with people that you talk to or people who are, you know, immediate fans of, you know, doing live streams and things like that, but the people who are going to be listening to Tucker, it has to be condensed down information. It can't just be, you know long jags about history and, and you, I think you did a good job of doing that too, by the way. So I just want to tell you that.

[Jay Dyer]

Thanks, John, appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, like I said, we've had some epic six hour podcasts with me and John and Chris back in the day, but this was, and anytime you're doing an interview like this, very similar to like when you're, if you're, if you go on Piers Morgan, you know that when you interject, you're going to have a limited space of anywhere from one to two to three minutes to answer any specific question. So there's no way to actually give some sort of like exhaustive, academic sourced footnote answer to these types of questions in this format. But a lot of people I think, who've never done, you know, long form podcasts and long form interviews, they don't even realize that. So you've got a lot of academics and know it alls that are just sort of whining and bitching, losing their minds on Twitter. Man, it's just crazy all the stuff they're saying.

[Father Deacon]

I mean, I, I know a lot of people who listen to Tucker and they don't even know who Heigl is. It's not something, I mean, a lot of the information is going to pass through. I mean, maybe somebody might listen to the interview and then say, oh, hey, I'm gonna go check out what the problem reaction solution, you know, scenario is. See, I didn't even give it the correct name right? I, I even took it a step.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh no, did you not say, oh, you use the wrong ficta definition. So you are disqualified and no one should ever listen to you again. So this is so annoying. Dude, let's look, take a look at this. So first of all, I've had entire class on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. It's the most insane, annoying, ridiculous book. Nobody would should take that book seriously. It's just crazy. It's really irrelevant. And what I said isn't even technically wrong. So there's this inner Hegelian dispute. Whether or not you can say thesis into this is synthesis because that comes from ficta, but it's ficta's interpretation of Hegel. But let's look at what the Hegel and Hermeticism book actually says right here. Further discussion on the nature of the process is in order. As is well known, Hegel claims there's a necessity to dialectical transitions and a completeness to the system. What makes these features possible? In Hegel is his use described in chapter three of the triangle and the symbolic forms governing the fundamental architectonic of his system. The necessity of Hegel's dialectical transitions is displayed in the triadic structure. It is frequently pointed out that the structure often portrayed as a process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. So first let's note that it's admitting that in Hegel you have these trinities and these triads. And that's because Hegel thought that you could take the doctrine of the Trinity, which Christianity was just sort of this low IQ cloak for this super mystical Hegelian trinity of position, opposition, synthesis. Okay, who cares whether you're using the words position opposition synthesis or thesis antithesis synthesis or problem reaction solution, it doesn't matter. It's the same idea, right? Some have suggested that the triadic form of the dialectic is a Hegelian myth. It should be discarded. As we have seen, however, Hegel places a special emphasis on triad as an element of the Philosophia Perenna supreme philosophy. Recall this remark about Kant and the triadic form in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, which again, I had a class on phenomenology of Spirit. I'm not even saying stuff that's controversial, but the book is important. It's impossible to read that book. The triadic structure of dialectic may be described as follows. Idea, which is thoroughly suggests it's opposite and an opposing contradictory idea. And then the third reconciliation of these two. So thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Exactly like. This is so stupid, man. And it was so weird to see like these professors who have oh, we got a gotcha on dire. We've got the gotcha. And I'm like, how is this even a gotcha when it's just con. It's different term for the same idea. So it literally defines the triadic structure as position opposite synthesis. How is that any different from thesis antithesis synthesis? Let's fict those term. I don't care. Who cares? It's literally just losing your mind over like Spurgatron 5000 nuance that nobody even cares about, dude. And here's what this professor wrote to me. I don't know what positions you were referring to. The book that you are citing contradicts your claim that Hegel said thesis said to the synthesis. Dude, it's an interview. You're gonna say Hegel's idea of thesis into this? Hegel didn't actually use the terminology. Who cares, dude? It's the same idea whether he used the phrase or not. This Is Protestantism. Now, whether this guy's a Protestant professor, this guy here. So people lose their minds over, like, phrases in words, as if the concept isn't the same. It literally is defined as the same concept. Position, opposition, synthesis. That's the triad. Father Deacon, did you want to say something?

[Father Deacon]

We'll talk about missing the epistemic force for the epistemic trait.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Father Deacon]

First of all, you're correct. It's a. It's a word concept of like. Okay, so the concept's there, but how does that change the overall argument? Right.

[Jay Dyer]

It doesn't.

[Father Deacon]

Suppose he. Yeah, like, it's ridiculous. It's like, classic example of missing the bigger picture because it's like. Well, actually, you misspelled this word, actually.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, yeah, right.

[Father Deacon]

Your argument's false. You didn't add a comma.

[Jay Dyer]

I didn't see the semicolon in the right place. Therefore, I discard everything that you've ever said in your entire life. You are clearly a suede. A false intellectual. Because I didn't see the semicolon. Alex, what's up, dude? Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Alex, what's up? Unbelievable. Alex, you want to unmute?

[Father Deacon]

I feel like you did such. You did so well in that interview. I feel like something unique about you that. That I don't have. I feel like if I made the exact same points and say the same thing, there's something about me that people be like, oh, this is too academic. And I don't understand anything he said.

[Jay Dyer]

Because you're not a diva, dude. You're not a bipoc diva. I could. I could speak to the people.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah,

[Jay Dyer]

Alex, you're on there.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, obviously. Good job. Jay. You were very winsome in that interview.

[Jay Dyer]

It was very.

[Father Deacon]

The Year of Love.

[Jay Dyer]

It was great. But, yeah, just all this whole reaction just shows, like, how severely insecure a lot of these people. Exactly, exactly.

[Father Deacon]

They'll make this. Like you were saying, like Father Deacon

[Jay Dyer]

was saying that they're putting form over substance.

[Father Deacon]

Like, substantively, you're saying the same thing, but because, you know, it's not the right word or something.

[Jay Dyer]

Now they can go and feel smart

[Father Deacon]

because they corrected this guy that was on Tucker. And it's like.

[Jay Dyer]

Like, it's so pedantic, and they're just such small people. And it's really sad what academia has come to like.

[Father Deacon]

This is a university professor that's making these distinctions.

[Jay Dyer]

Like, these people need to grow up. Exactly. And, you know, this is, unfortunately, the divorce that people in academia. And I'm not talking about you, Father Deacon. I think you're really good at sort of bridging that gap. But people in academia are so in their own little bubble that they're completely divorced from what's relevant to the rest of this, of society and the rest of the world. Tucker's audience is not going to ever care about whether Ficta's reading of Hagel or Hagel himself meant whatever, like they don't care about that. But to fixate on something so niche and bizarre, it just shows the out of touch nature of academics with the rest of society. So anyway, I'm gonna play a little bit more here. I want to remind you guys that I'll be speaking at the Ludwell conference. You can get Tickets. This is September 12th in Kentucky. Our buddies, Jim Jotras will be there. Dr. David Bradshaw, the esteemed Dr. Bradshaw will be speaking. Buck Johnson will be there. Our buddy Ben Dixon from Univers Union of Orthodox Journalists will be there. Uh, Dr. Clark Carlton, uh, will be speaking. Uh, I'm not. You guys know we've been recommending his books for many years. I've never met Dr. Carlton, but he will be speaking. So Ludwell is again in Kentucky this year. September 12th, falls of rough, Kentucky. Never even heard of this place. I've been to Kentucky my entire life. Never heard of Falls of Rough, but it sounds like a made up place. So we'll be having the Leadwell conference at a completely fictional made up town in Kentucky. Hopefully you can find it it since it doesn't exist. But also I'll be at DebateCon with two or three debates, maybe four. I'm not even sure how many debates we're gonna do. This will be this weekend. No, I'm sorry, not this weekend. July25 and 6. I'll be debating Jake the Muslim out of position again. I'll be debating the Quran only Muslim dude named Naim. And I'm going to be challenging God logic in person to a dance off. Cleave and I were discussing whether I should troll God logic by trying to challenge him to a dance off because we all saw his church dance. And I gotta say, dude, for a black dude like myself, I mean he was kind of herky jerky dude. He was. It wasn't really that smooth of a dance if you ask me. I honestly feel like I could dance better than God logic at this point. So we'll see where it goes. Let's get back to Tucker here. I gotta read some super chats here in a second. We'll do some more calls.

[Caller/Listener]

I think you said In Protestant Christianity, the Bible is seen as like, a tool, as a. What's a guide? Of course, the guide. The only guide, really. And it is a devotional.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Caller/Listener]

But in the Orthodox Church, it's a liturgical document.

[Jay Dyer]

Now, notice right here, Protestants are already bitching about this. Did I say that in the Protestant world it is only and ever a devotional book? No, I said it tends to be that. It's a generalization. So all of these same conservative Protestants who lose their mind. Right. When people say, like leftists say to them, you can't make generalizations, because they make generalizations all the time. They're literally being leftist, losing their mind because I made generalizations in the center.

[Father Deacon]

I knew they were going to do that, and I was really proud of you that you actually did qualify. I'm like, oh, I hope he qualifies that. Primarily, it's a liturgical book. And then you added the second addendum to actually say, of course you can, you know, study it.

[Jay Dyer]

You can do that.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, a little. Your home is a little church and stuff. So they don't care.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it's everything. Because everything's either or. So it's like, oh, you think that the. The home is a little church. So you're saying I don't need the church because the home is a little church. No, it's obviously also, a lot of

[Father Deacon]

them have never even heard of that idea that it would just be, you know, it would be primarily a liturgical book. Like, nobody's even heard of what the word liturgy is.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, a lot of the evangelical audience here. Yeah, exactly, has. This is all sort of probably new to them, but I didn't realize. But again, like I said at the beginning, before you guys got here, like, I guess I should have thought about this, but probably the majority of Tucker's audience is evangelical and Protestant because that. That makes the most sense. I mean, I'm sure he has a. A decent Catholic audience, but since he's sort of the. Probably the biggest conservative commentator, obviously America being sort of Protestant, evangelical, largely. Now I see why they're all enraged.

[Father Deacon]

A lot of people migrated over from Fox News.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly right. By the way, there's the one thing I didn't expect either is that. And I don't know if Tucker does this, like, because he was journalistically trained to do this, or this is just his vibe, but you can kind of see it here. The entire time that you're talking, Tucker stares at you with, like, one. One eyelid is a little down, and he just looks at you like this and he's like sort of frozen. So it's, it's a little off kilter. It puts you a little off kilter. And I don't know if that's like a journalism technique or something, but, but I mean it didn't bother me. It was just a little, it was formal. I'm not used to, I guess when you have pot. Usually podcasts are informal conversations and this was much more of like a formal interview. So the, the, the. You can see right here his right eyelid is a little lower down. That's, that's the like the death stare that he gives you the entire time that you're talking.

[Caller/Listener]

Correct. What does that, what does that mean?

[Jay Dyer]

The tour ghost has to do with the, the Greek word of offering or offering of thanks, offering of praise. But it, in the Hebrew tradition, we think that that was proto Christianity. The ancient Hebrew texts, it was part of, for example, David's psalms. Those were psalms that David wrote to be sung at the temple. Liturgy, right. So liturgy is a sort of structured form of worship that Orthodox, you know, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, they have a very structured form of worship that is called liturgy. But originally it just means sort of offering. And even in Pauline epistles like the book of Hebrews, you know, towards the end of, in chapter 13, Paul talks about Christians have an altar that they eat from that the Jews that serve the tabernacle have no right to eat from from because our altar is the true altar, which is thus a liturgical altar. That very chapter he discusses the liturgical thanks and offering at the altar. So from the earliest days, Christianity had this sort of altar based form of worship. Again, another reformation distinctive. All this by the way, was targeted at the Protestant audience that they begin to move away from the idea of an altar towards a. I mean, I didn't realize it was as big of a Protestant audience, but I was like, all right, I'm going to try to, I'm going to, I'm going to troll these Protestants a bit.

[Caller/Listener]

Table.

[Jay Dyer]

Right. So you have sort of a desacralizing of the worship space to not be a eucharistic offering but a shared meal, which, and we're not totally oppos the idea of it being a shared meal, but it's first and foremost a, a worship offering. If you go back to Abraham, Abraham built an altar. God is always worshiped at an altar, at least the biblical God. So by the way, that's another proof that Islam is false because Islam removes an altar and has no, no conception of that for their Worship. For us, the Reformation then represents a form of turning away from that as a form of sort of Judaizing. It's a form of returning to a form of Rabin Rabbinical, by the way. So there you go. I said Protestants are Judaizing and Judaized. That's another reason why they're so mad. Theology. I mean, the Reformers were actually very influenced by rabbinic theology, by the Talmud, even. So. So. So the Reformation has a stream of influences, Renaissance humanism, all those things play into that. And it's just very well, Luther was

[Caller/Listener]

not in that category though.

[Jay Dyer]

No, he was not interested in rabbinic theology, but he was influenced by what's a text called the Theologia Germanica, which was a Neoplatonic text. And so there was also some. There's also some evidence that scholars have pulled up that suggests that Luther might have an interest in hermeticism. I'm not saying that that dominates his idea, but more so. Yeah, this is. I remember reading this when I was a Roman Catholic, that Luther fell under the influence of the Theologia Germanica and some of the other mystical texts and that helped him, in his mind, reconcile some of the obvious sort of contradictions or problems in the theology. So you get an appeal to this sort of mysticism. But. And that's. Now I see why Anthony Westgate shared this post, because I didn't even remember, remember bringing that up. I wasn't sure 100 sure if I did. But that's why Anthony said here, this is the reading that you should do for my Tucker discussion. So Hagel and the Hermetic Tradition, which is a Cornell University Press, not a conspiracy book. Impact of cabal in the 17th century. This is a Brill academic publication. Jewish Influence in Christian Reform Movements by Louis Newton and then Michael Hoffman's Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. All those are good sort of background for what we talk, as well as the Alistair McGrath book and the Heiko Oberman book. Calvin and some of the. The Swiss Reformers, they were a little more directly influenced by Rabbinic theology and Talmudism, but not so much Luther. No, Luther was very anti. I mean, he didn't like Moses. He said, I like to punch Moses teeth out. So. So Luther didn't even like the Old Testament at times. But again, he's a boisterous sort of, you know, he certainly was satire, satirical character at times. So it's hard to know exactly.

[Caller/Listener]

The most hilarious theologian in history.

[Jay Dyer]

He was very hilarious. So it's hard to know exactly when he's Always being literally meant to be joking around. But no, I don't mean to mischaracter because I know Luther wrote about the Jews and their lies. That's a famous text that he wrote. So I'm aware of that. But just in terms of the general, you know, trends of the Reformation outside of Luther with Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, even later, Lutherans were very involved in the founding of Rosicrucianism. Johan Andre is believed by some scholars to be the author of the Rosicrucian Manifesto. I forget what exactly what it's called, but by the way, this isn't even. I mean this is well known in academia. I'm not saying it's true because it's in academia, but a lot of people were losing their mind because I said that early Lutherans were involved in. It's like the second third generation Lutherans. I mean, Dame Francis Yates has a famous book on Rosicrucian Enlightenment. She was a scholar. This is not a conspiracy book. It's literally like Penguin Scholar or Rutledge Classics academic publication. I read this book like 15 years ago. Okay, Rose Christian Enlightenment, very famous book. Now you could disagree with it, but it's like it's, it's not something I was just making up. Like people are acting like that one Protestant who was calling me Terence Howard. Right? Because I'm like, well, first of all, he mistake, he just mistake one bipoc person for another bipoc person probably. But this is an academic text. Rutledge Classic Dane. Francis Yates traces the influence of John D. And Hermeticism into the founding of the Rosicrucian movements. And it appears, she, she argues, and it appears that the author of the Rosicrucian Manifesto is or could be Johan Andre, which was a Lutheran theologian. And I don't think that the loot. So some people make this argument too from Lut, the Luther Rose his symbol maybe. And, but I don't know if Luther him. I wouldn't say Luther founded Rosicrucianism and I never said that. She doesn't say that. She just says later generation, second, third generation Lutherans were into hermeticism and mysticism and Johan Andre is the key character here. So again. But I'm citing historical academic texts for all of these ideas here. So that is there. And a lot of that has to do with Kabbalistic ideas.

[Caller/Listener]

Who are the Rosicrucians?

[Jay Dyer]

This was an Enlightenment era secret society of sorts, which in the 1600s, 1700s, there was a lot of these that were Popping up everywhere. Because you still had. In Protestant countries, you had certain laws that would end in Catholic countries as well. They would forbid participation in secret societies. They would forbid, you know, practicing of the occult in varying various ways. But you also had court alchemists and people that would kind of like John D. He was the, you know, court astrologer to. To the Queen.

[Caller/Listener]

So they would.

[Jay Dyer]

Dame Francis Yates's first chapter is on John D. So that's why I cited John D. Because I'm just remembering the. The course of this text. I still have the book. Book, again, everybody should read this book. If you're not familiar with. And it's interesting because she wasn't an apologist. She was just sort of tracing influences on the Reformation. And part of that. Excuse me, the Enlightenment. Part of that influence is Reformation theology, particularly Rosicrucianism, out of the Lutheran circles, kind of do these things in on the down low secretly. And so you get a rise of these secret societies. This is where some of the first speculative Masonic lodges start to pop up in the 1500s, 1600s in Europe. But you also had a very interesting confluence of hermetic and kabbalistic groups that were popping up. Particularly Spanish rabbis that were very popular in Spain. Seem to be involved in some of this. Is Isaac Casabon. This is. Is. It isn't even controversial that there were Kabbalistic rabbis in Spain. So people were acting like I was. I'm a schizo because I talked to them. This is an academic text, man. This isn't schizo. The rise of Kabbalistic influence in the West. And that I think, contributes in part to the Rosicrucians, who, according to. There's a great book by Dame Francis Yates called Rosicrucian Enlightenment. She actually argues that the Enlightenment itself was heavily influenced by Rosicrucian ideology. So they were Neoplatonists, they were into magic, alchemy. So they were really interested in the idea of transmuting. And this is what the Protestants are calling schizo. They're calling me insane for talking about what's in all the academic literature. It's not even whether you believe it or not. This isn't like, controversial. It's factual, whether you believe it or not. Eureka. What's up, man?

[Father Deacon]

You know, the thing about that book, Jay, what is when I first read that book, I probably read it like 15 years ago too. And it moves you out of the realm of like. Because when you. Like when I first heard about Rosicrucians, you hear about it in the conspiracy world.

[Caller/Listener]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

So which. That's really like. Oh, that's, that's really like the, like a level of Freemasonry at that point.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

Post Albert pike they have the, you know, the order of the Rosy cross or whatever. But that's a good book to put it into the sense of that it was involved with Protestant religion because I didn't even know that. I just thought it's like.

[Jay Dyer]

No, it absolutely is. She shows that with Frederick the Palatine elector and all those people.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah. So you, you move out of that realm where it's like the shadowy Freemasonic order. Right. You know, 1800s or whatever, or the group that sends you, you know, the mystical life of Jesus from San Jose, California.

[Jay Dyer]

So yeah, those later sects in California or people that were trying to reinvent and recreate the so called ancient Rosicrucian order, but the ancient Rosicrucian order itself was just a made up thing at the time of the Reformation. Metals, you know, into the philosopher's stone, which some people thought was. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot. I was going to.

[Father Deacon]

Hey, John. I was thinking about it. Guess I'm. I'm actually in California right now. I was thinking about you and all the old places, man. You're. You're so lucky. Yeah, yeah, I'm so lucky. By the way, I haven't been to Los Angeles and like downtown in over six years. It was bad. It's a million times where it is literally Grand Theft auto. Like I couldn't believe it. Like, like straight up apocalypse movies. But so obviously this is where you guys want to move if you're not in downtown la.

[Jay Dyer]

I was looking for my copy of Rose Christian Alignments around here somewhere, but yeah. Bruce, what's up man? Go ahead.

[Father Deacon]

Hey, what's up J, man? Good job on Tucker.

[Jay Dyer]

Thank you. What's on your mind?

[Father Deacon]

I. So I got your books, man. Thank you again for signing them. That's great. I'm curious, coming from the Protestant reform perspective, I'm not really seeing like the eschatological discussion on the millennium. It seems like most are Amil. But like is there any room for post mill in the orthodox framework for eschatology? No.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, there is. Yeah, I think there is. I've made that argument many times.

[Father Deacon]

Oh, for post. Sorry, I thought you said something else.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I mean, I mean there's some. I mean, yeah, there's no, there's no. We don't have a set position. Except that you can't be pre millennial

[Father Deacon]

because that, that's what I thought you said. I thought you said.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I mean Premill is condemned at cost, not the number one, because it attempts to assign a time frame to the kingdom of God, which there is. There's no thousand year. You can't be Achilles, but you could be Amel or postmill.

[Father Deacon]

Absolutely. Yeah. So I actually use some of those arguments against people for years as a reform person. But. So like the idea that we're in the church age doesn't really reflect or contradict with the postmill position for the Orthodox Church.

[Jay Dyer]

No. Why would it? What do you mean?

[Father Deacon]

I'm just trying to understand how they, how they work out. Like where the, where the end time, like so in other words, like there's this destruction idea that I said. I read in some participant readings around the destruction of the earth and then it comes new. New heavens. New earth is sort of a consummation. But many post mill don't see it that way. Right. It's more of a, I guess like a full sanctification.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, but I mean there's nothing about the idea of, of the kingdom coming to fruition and permeating the entire earth that is antithetical to Orthodoxy. Nor is that itself some statement about the exact order of the events at the end. So in other words, you could have a permeation of Christianity throughout the earth and then an apostasy. So any of those sequences are possible, but there's nothing about the idea that Christ Christianizes the earth and then eventually returns whether there's an apostasy or not. I think there will be an apostasy though.

[Father Deacon]

Okay. All right, well, any books to read on that specifically?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, my godfather published James Jordan's three volumes Commentary on the Book of Revelation. You could read the little book called Apostasy and Antichrist from Jordanville Monastery. It kind of makes the same types, Right? Because one of these things that you guys point to is a conversion of the Jews, right? So Paul says eventually the Jews will convert. That will be like the whole world undergoing a death to life scenario. So you could have a Christianizing that occurs very quickly. We don't know the exact sequence of those events, but I don't see any reason why there couldn't be some. I, I think people take post millennialism to be like this entire schema when it's just simply saying that there is a Christianizing of the world and then Christ comes at the end. Whether there's an apostle or not is not essential to post millennialism. Eureka. What's up? Did you cover the theory of Universals. The, the whole. Like the debate. The discussion with Tucker is not about universals. I mentioned this in passing. There's no. No, the Protestant world is not going to care about some medieval debate about, you know, like middle. Like a middle position of realism or media realism. They don't care about that. Billy, what's up, man? I would say we're not nominalist or strict realist. I would say we have a. Probably a media realism type of position. I think that's how you would have Christology and orthodox scheme. You got to have universals. You can't have no universals. So if Christ is going to assume universal, human nature has to be universals. But that doesn't make us Platonic realists. That's a whole thing that, you know.

[Father Deacon]

It's called Homerism.

[Jay Dyer]

Called what?

[Father Deacon]

Homerism. Homer. Whole, like a hole. The universe of the whole. So contemporary orthodox theologians from Saint Maximus just coined the term of what Saint Maximus was talking about, that the universal is in the particular.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, exactly. That's right.

[Father Deacon]

It's a. It's a denial of Platonic realism and Rustilian moderate realism. It's like you said, the in between.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, well, there's another term, term that is used by. In scholastic philosophy that's intending to signify the same thing, but I'm forgetting off the top of my head what the name of that term is, but it's referring to what you're referring to. Billy. What's up, man? Moderate realism is the term I was trying to think of, I think. Go ahead, Billy. You want to mute. Last chance, Billy.

[Father Deacon]

Fda, can I ask you a question?

[Jay Dyer]

Okay.

[Caller/Listener]

Sorry about that.

[Father Deacon]

I didn't press my button. I'm an idiot. How are you? Good.

[Jay Dyer]

What's on your mind?

[Father Deacon]

So I can't point to a book or a reference source for this. It's very experiential, just from my point of view. And I sort of wanted to know if there was a formal name for the phenomenon that I'm talking about. But it seems to me as just a regular idiot in the world that the idea of turning all the believers into a priesthood that sort of Lutheranism and Protestantism created, it changed people into sort of a seeker mentality. Like I can discern the divine truth myself and I don't have to listen to anyone else. And it seems to me that that opened the door at the very least to the Gnosticism and mystery school mentality. Sure. That you even see in like the Quakers and like Anabaptist groups like that.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, that's why I've been arguing, I've been arguing for, I've been arguing for a good while now that the Reformation, in terms of the classical reformers, they didn't actually win. What ended up winning was the radical Reformation, which is what you're talking about.

[Father Deacon]

So the radical Reformation is what that phenomena would be referred to as.

[Jay Dyer]

Absolutely, yeah. In fact, when you mentioned the Quakers, I mean, they come out of the radical reformers and they were all over the place. But this is the Anabaptists, this is the Hutterites, this is all of those people who thought that by the time you get to Quakers and the people who have the inner light or whatever, they, they basically just say we don't even need church or scriptures at all. It's just the inner intuitions that is God speaking to me directly. So I don't need your book. So in other words, the logical process falls out with not even when you go from souls, when you go from church to sola scriptura with classical reformers. And then you get all these radical reformers saying, well, why do we even need sacraments at all? Why do we need baptism or Lord's Supper at all? I just need me and my, my text. And then you get people saying, why do I need the text? I just need me and God. Right, Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

I don't remember who came up with the phrase, who coined the term, but I remember hearing something, it was a sucker. Spiritual vacuum.

[Jay Dyer]

That's a good way to put it. Yeah. I mean, I think that's the point is like there's a connection between nominalism and the denial of hierarchy. Right. So there's no such thing as authority or hierarchy because all of these are bottom up. They're all from the people. Just like I construct my identity, it's a social construct, so I can construct it from the bottom up. I don't. Nobody can impose upon me that I have to be a white dude, I have to, to be a man, I can create my own identity or gender or whatever.

[Father Deacon]

Right. I see it as a very dangerous philosophy or ideology that a lot of people fall into because it, it caters to pride and vanity. If it's the priesthood of the believers, then every believer gets to dictate the faith to themselves and those around them.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

And it's just we, we see the, the rewards that that reaps in everyday life. Most of the things that we. Well, people like yourself that you point out all the time seems to be the reward of that, which is this misunderstanding of what it truly means. What the divine truly is, and that if. If I can decide that something's divine, then it is divine. That's. That's. That's Gnosticism. That's.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it's Gnostic. It's chaos, it's anarchy. It's all those things. And Father Deacon, what was the term you used? Because I found it. So this is. Moderate realism is a philosophical position that universals exist, but not in a separate realm of abstractions or abstract objects. Instead, universals exist within the particulars. What was the position you said?

[Father Deacon]

Homerism. So moderate realism is the Aristotelian position. And we don't entirely agree with that

[Jay Dyer]

because universals, well, they're not just particulars. They have more than just particular reality. Like they exist.

[Father Deacon]

What I'm saying the moderate realism says that universals are created in the mind. They exist objectively and universally. So it's not nominalism. That's why it's modern. But it's not Platonic realism that they exist in a Platonic kind of realm, the eternal apart from you. So our position is like an in between, and it's called Homerism.

[Jay Dyer]

Are you saying. Are you saying the word whole and then merism, Like Mariology, like parts and holes?

[Father Deacon]

Yes, exactly.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, but I'm not. Can you explain to me how that's. I'm not trying to fight with him. Just how is that different from moderate realism?

[Father Deacon]

Modern realism refers to Aristotle's position, and we don't have the Aristotelian position. We don't say that universals are simply just created by our minds from the particulars.

[Jay Dyer]

But moderate realism doesn't say it's just created by the mind. It says that they. No, it says they exist ontologically real in react, but only in particulars.

[Father Deacon]

Oh, well, then there's just an equivocation over. Typically we would call. And maybe it's this. Maybe moderate realism is just kind of more of a general term that says it's not Platonic realism.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

And then Aristotle is a type of moderate realism and would be another type of moderate.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

[Father Deacon]

But I just. I don't use that term because I don't want people to get confused and be like, oh, we're restitution. Like, no, not really.

[Jay Dyer]

No. Yeah, no, I mean, it's got to be more than that. In fact, Aristotle's metaphysic is a problem for Christology because for him, the only universe. This Sherrard has a great critique of this because Aristotle's philosophy would actually undo Christology because Christ is only A particular. So the human nature that he assumes isn't and can't be linked to all human nature. So it has to be more than the Aristotelian conception of a nature, because the. The universals have to be actually really ontologically common, but they're not in another realm, they're just in all of the particulars.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, I mean, how would that work if universals and the Aristotle position only exist in a particular human being's mind as real? But how is Christ assuming a universal human?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, no, it would be impossible. Yeah, that's.

[Father Deacon]

That was, I think, basically incarnate. Is each hypostasis.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, exactly.

[Father Deacon]

Of each human being ever.

[Jay Dyer]

Pulse, what's up? Yeah, great, great.

[Father Deacon]

I'm glad. I'm glad you guys cleared that up because I was just gonna go on Twitter and call you out for making mistake, so. Good.

[Jay Dyer]

Please, please do. Please. If you don't use the exact precise terms and state everything perfectly, then everything you've ever said is now disqualified and you should basically retire and go home. Go and go away.

[Caller/Listener]

Pulse.

[Jay Dyer]

What's up, man?

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, good to talk to you again. I was wondering, so again, Protestant background for myself and we always hear about, you know, the second coming of Christ. We're all waiting for the end times, thousand year reign, etc.

[Jay Dyer]

Etc.

[Father Deacon]

Is there parallels between that what we or the Protestants are kind of banking on coming into Byzantine Empire.

[Jay Dyer]

Wait, say that again. Is there a parallel between what the

[Father Deacon]

waiting of not necessarily the end times, but the thousand year reign and the Byzantine Empire, which was just a touch over a thousand years, where Christianity basically, from my understanding, ruled most of Rome?

[Jay Dyer]

And no, I don't make. I don't think there's any sense in which the thousand years is literal. So are you saying, like, is there a connection between a person who thinks of the Byzantine reign as a thousand years compared to. And by the way, it was like 1100, but.

[Father Deacon]

Right? Yeah, yeah, it was just over 1100. It was.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, you're right. So. And then also, you know, all forms of killism are rejected. So we would just simply say that the thousand year reign is the same type of phraseology as like, God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. It doesn't mean that he doesn't own the cattle on Hill 1001. It's just a way of speaking in the prophets of a long indefinite period of time. So you see that elsewhere in scripture. Thus there's no reason to think that, you know, the thousand year reign is like literally only necessarily exactly 1000 years. It's just. And again, Constantinople, one condemns the idea that the kingdom of Christ has a temporal significance. So you can't believe in any kind of Killianism. And post millennialism, by the way, is not saying that Jesus comes after the one literal 1000 year reign. No, it's saying that whenever the kingdom is historically right. And we have that in Paul where he says then the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father. That's at the eschaton. Right. So that's not saying that the kingdom has a limited temporal. It's an eternal kingdom, but it's an eternal kingdom in time and space. But there is a period when it is delivered up to the Father at the eschaton. Because Paul says that. But that doesn't make it a purely temporal kingdom. Like, you know, judaizing would tend to think. Kyle, what's up? That's another thing with Killism. Is this Judaizing. Kyle, what's up? Saturday.

[Father Deacon]

Okay, so you've already mentioned a lot of this, but it seems that the opposition from like the Protestant God Bless America position is that this Eastern Orthodox thing is contrary to it. But in. In that opposition, what seems to be apparent is it's not theological. It's like a cultural opposition.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly. Yeah. It's a big part of it.

[Father Deacon]

It's like a lot of you already said that too, like just assuming terms. But what's. I know, like there's a jurisdiction issue with. With America too. What? I don't know, what's your kind of take on American?

[Jay Dyer]

What do you mean a jurisdiction issue? You mean because there's a bunch of jurisdictions.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, and more. The. There's been like cultural resistance and, I don't know, the. The basically like the cultural versus the theological divide from east and west and all.

[Jay Dyer]

A lot of this has to do with like the influence of the State Department and the CIA and all that coming out of the Cold War. So there is no easy answer to that. But one reason that we don't want one giant jurisdiction, which would be the norm, at least if you go back to like Constantinople and all that, is that if, you know, the EP is really a adjunct of the State Department, we don't want everybody being under the ep. I'm sure that they would love that because that would be, you know, tremendous amounts of wealth and power for them. But even though it's not normative, we don't actually want one giant jurisdiction because a lot of the jurisdictions serve as a kind of a firewall against that sort of, sort of version. But Great question. And I think you're absolutely right that a lot of people's critiques. You'll notice this, too, when you people. When people say why Orthodoxy is false, they're. They'll say stuff like, because that's, you know, a bunch of Greek stuff. That's for Greek people, that's for Russian people. Well, you might have Russians and Greeks in those churches, but what does that have to do with whether or not the theologies right or wrong? I mean, you have the same ideas and problems in Protestant stuff, too. You have countries that are Protestant countries. Right. I'm from Switzerland, and we're a Protestant Geneva, Calvin, Protestant country. There's Roman Catholic countries that consider Catholicism their identity. Mexico, Poland. So it's not like that's bypassed by. I mean, American evangelicalism is wasp. So is that supposed to not fall under the same type of criticism?

[Caller/Listener]

It's just.

[Jay Dyer]

It's just silly criticisms that are, like, shallowed. They're not very, very substantive.

[Father Deacon]

We. We have the lineage of the powdered wig, man.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, and they freed us up. They freed us up from that.

[Father Deacon]

Yes. So we're not going to be able to give that up.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Father Deacon]

I don't know. I don't know if I'm going to be able to give up my powdered wig. I don't care how many arguments Father Deacon tries to make against this. Just, the powdered wig wins in the

[Jay Dyer]

end because they sprinkled that powdered wig dust on the founding documents and it gave it that power that it has.

[Father Deacon]

That's why it still stands today.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, there's no other explanation for it. Exactly.

[Father Deacon]

250 years strong.

[Jay Dyer]

Can you. I mean, there's no other documents that have lasted more than 250 years. So there you go. City on a hill, dude. J. Rome, what's up, man? I've smudged up my glasses now. It's driving me crazy. Hey, Jamie, could you bring me something to wipe my glasses off? They're all smudged up with my snot from my snot rag. What's up, dude? I'm you, J. Rome. Last. Last chance. All right, moving on. Moving on up.

[Father Deacon]

Moving on up. Still running from the powdered wig argument.

[Jay Dyer]

I am running from it because. Could you bring me something to wipe. These are all smudgy. And I used my snot rag to wipe my glasses, which was a mistake. What's up, Rez?

[Father Deacon]

Oh, yo. Hey. How are you?

[Jay Dyer]

I'm great, dude.

[Father Deacon]

What's up? Hey, I have a silly question, but I've been wanting to ask you and sorry if it's off.

[Jay Dyer]

I love silly questions. Go for it.

[Father Deacon]

Also, I was, like, atheist my whole life, and I really knew much about Christianity and ended up becoming Eastern Orthodox. And, you know, everybody, you know, growing up would say, like, don't say the Lord's name in vain. I don't say, like, oh, my God and stuff. And I was just curious if you could tell me, like, because I've noticed, like, in Eastern Orthodoxy, a lot of people, like, including yourself, seem to say it. Like, I don't.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't say that. I don't say that in vain. If I say, oh, oh, God help us, I'm being serious. I don't ever say that in vain.

[Father Deacon]

Okay, maybe I misheard.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, maybe I did one. Maybe I did one time, and I don't remember because, you know, I've talked for thousands of. Of hours in the last 10 years. But typically, no, I don't think we should do that. And if I did, then I was in. In error and I made a mistake and I send Nico Deos, what's up, man? If I say, if I'm watching a video and it's something awful, and I say, God help us, like, that's. I'm being ser. I'm being 100% serious. What's up, man?

[Father Deacon]

So I was watching Roots of Griffith the other day when he interviewed Metropolitan Saba, and you asked him about Western, right, Orthodoxy, and I just wanted to know your opinions on that. Specifically the parishes that use the Orthodox adapted Anglican Common Book of Prayer.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't know about that. I've been to one Western right parish in St. Louis, and it was good. And that priest is solid and based, but I don't know anything about adaptations of, like, Anglican stuff. What did Metropolitan. What did Metro. What did Metropolitan Savage say about it?

[Father Deacon]

From what I recall, he said he hopes to sort of expand it.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I. I don't know enough about that, honestly, to. I mean, I spent 10 years in Latin Mass, so. Or almost 10 years, eight years. So when I converted to Orthodoxy, like, going to a Russian liturgy, Slavonic literature, like, it wasn't that, to me, it wasn't that different. And in fact, in the Russian Church, it takes forever because we do every. Almost every part, including the homily in sylvanic and in English. So, I mean. Or a lot of it, I should say. So to me, it was really not that different than, you know, going to the Latin Mass and then following along in the missile. So. But I think maybe for, like, American converts, that Might be a little weird, but. Sean, what's up? So I. I just. And once I started going to, you know, Antiochian and. And Rocort churches in my. I mean, I've been to other Greek churches and oca, but to me, it was just like it never even was a thought to me. Sean, what's up?

[Father Deacon]

What's up, brother? How you doing?

[Caller/Listener]

Good.

[Jay Dyer]

What's your mom.

[Father Deacon]

A good interview. Thank you. A couple questions, if I can remember them. You brought up how the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology were like, the two main linchpins of, like, errors, where they went wrong.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. Everything in Orthodox theology flows from those two things.

[Father Deacon]

Right. Would you also say that the doctrine of original sin and the error in that is also one of the biggest

[Jay Dyer]

ones in the West?

[Father Deacon]

Yeah. How they change from ancestral sin to original sin, like us taking on Adam's guilt.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but that's. That's an outflowing of an anthropological and trinitarian Christological error, too. So the only way that you could get the Western Protestant doctrine, even the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, is to collapse nature and the person in Adam. And if you collapse nature and a person into Adam, that's how you get the mass down, not a doctrine which is the same as the Protestant Reformers.

[Father Deacon]

Gotcha.

[Caller/Listener]

Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

And to collapse person into nature in anthropology comes out of collapsing person into nature in the Trinity. And that's the Augustinian Thomistic perspective, so. That's exactly right. You're 100. Spot on, Joseph. What's up? That's what all these silly online Latinizers don't even realize, either. They don't realize that it's not a question of citing some Anglicized text from Dositheus. It's a question of are you distinguishing nature and person properly? Because if you do, and you understand Maximus is motive willing, then you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that sin is natural or that sin is a state of being is stupid. Joseph. What's up, Joseph? Last chance. All right, hunchback. What's up, dude? Tell me about Notre Dame. You enjoying all the Muslims up there in Notre Dame? You up there hunching up at the top of the Notre Dame. What's up, dude?

[Father Deacon]

Yes, sir. Hey, great interview, Jay.

[Caller/Listener]

Thank you.

[Father Deacon]

So I want to start this off by letting you know I'm coming from an angle of complete respect. You know, I've been pretty agnostic a lot of my life, but you've turned me on the orthodoxy I've actually been to for divine liturgies. And it's been amazing. I just had a question about your tag argument and it's pretty much where the, where do we get the jump from?

[Jay Dyer]

Because I. Yeah, I have a video from, From Tag the Trinity. Go watch the video from tag. That's gonna suck all the air out of the room. Just watch that video, dude. Sparky, what's up, man? So we have a, we have a nice large audience right now and Father Deacon is right here. Take your tag questions to FDA because we got over 2, 000 right now. If I start going into this tag discussion, we'll immediately have 1000 people and then 700 people and then 500 people. Sparky, what's up, man? Hey, I wish that debate.

[Father Deacon]

That was really good. Or not debate. The conversation you had with Tucker.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, thank you. What's on your mind? And so you talked about like orthodoxy and then like kind of more of like the not conspiracy stuff, but it's

[Father Deacon]

like all the evil people kind of more or less influenced the world in large ways. It's more like, no, we know this. What do we do now?

[Jay Dyer]

Like, what's the next thing? I mean, going. Becoming orthodox is the next thing. So that was the whole point of that interview. I mean, are you asking for like a political solution? There are no political solutions, dude. Now, I'm not saying you can't be involved in it or analyze it. We talk about geopolitics, macro, you know, big level stuff. I think the, you know, GOP Democrat, theater puppet, WWF puppet show. Stupid. So if that's, if you're looking for a political solution, I don't have any answers for you. Silly. What? Go ahead, John.

[Father Deacon]

One question. Jay. Sure. So when, when, when he starts to talk to you about the, the Lone Gunman, you. Oh, wait, you haven't re. Watched the whole thing yet, right?

[Jay Dyer]

I have not, no. I just. A lot of this is coming back to me because like I said, I have five hours of stuff sleep before this interview because I couldn't sleep.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, because you guys start talking about Lone Gunman and you know, he asks you like, what you're. What you think if there's ever been a proof of like an MK type person. Now this, that's interesting. I, I thought that was an interesting thing because I was thinking about this because he really comes out of a world where like that type of stuff was never ever talked about. And if it was, it was done in like probably hushed quarters. But, you know, you're not discussing that on the news. You're not.

[Jay Dyer]

No. And, and I Think Dick Carlson would have totally been like, that's so.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah. And so. So I. I think about that because he. He does have guests on, besides yourself who have alluded to that type of stuff. And that's always interesting because not only one in academia or. I mean, similar to the thing where these guys are, you know, getting butt hurt about the, you know, Rosicrucians or something.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

It's like, it's so weird that that stuff exists and it's actually provable. But then you get a guy like him. And I remember back when he. The first time he went on Jones, like back in like 2012 or something.

[Jay Dyer]

Yep.

[Father Deacon]

I mean, at least he was thoughtful enough to be able to go, you know, see what he has to say. But you did see him start to take in, like, what Jones had said to him on. On that interview and say, like, you know, that's weird because I am actually seeing these things play out in reality and come to the conclusion that they, like, news people are really cut off from, like, reality.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes.

[Father Deacon]

You know, to where they won't. They would never even entertain the idea of, like. Like, like there was a good part. Like, a lot of times people will just say, like, okay, every single person is in on something.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

You know, whatever. Whatever the conspiracy of the day is. It's like all the news people have to be in on it, too. It's like, actually they don't.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

Because they. They don't live in a world where people even entertain that as a possibility. So.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I think that one thing I noticed with. With this type of stuff, like, and I think. I don't know if I said this in the interview or if I said it to Tucker when we were just eating breakfast or whatever, but I think that, like, the level of the information when you. When you. And I'm gonna turn a brag, but like, if you read Brzezinski and Kissinger and Jacques at Ali and, you know, Klaus Schwab and, you know, David Rockefeller, and when you read those types of texts and you read, you know, white papers, ran corporation stuff, you're. You're reading at a level of a Brzezinski or a Kissinger, which is a very high type of level. So people that, for example, get like an international relations degree, they might read one or two of those texts, but they're not constantly reading those texts. So the type of discussion that you would get at that level back in the 1960s and 70s would be something that would be more like a classified, you know, trilateral commission level discussion. It's not going to be the level of discussion even that bureaucrats or, you know, embassy heads or whatever, like those people are not reading at that level. They might have had some minimal exposure to that type of material. So what I'm trying to do, what we're always trying to do is integrate a much larger scale type of stuff. Now when it comes to this and, and I remember this point in the discussion because I imagine what was in Tucker's mind was Charlie Kirk. But when he asked about Lone Gunman and stuff like that, my first thought was JFK and Sirhan Sirhan. Right. Just because I, I've not had the, the Kirk stuff on my mind lately. So I wasn't thinking about Charlie. He might have been thinking about Charlie Kirk when he mentioned it, but it seems like I remember him mentioning Sirhan Sirhan to me. And I do think that if there

[Father Deacon]

were

[Jay Dyer]

so of all of these people that might have been a handled sort of person, I don't really think it would be Oswald. I think he was a patsy. I don't know exactly what went down with jfk, but I do think that there was a Middle Eastern, you know, Israeli involvement that's I think evident from James Jesus Angleton and the back door relationship that he had with Mossad that came out in the JFK files. That was my first thought when he asked that question, was to go to that. But he was probably thinking about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson. My take on that by the way, is as I've been saying, I've never been convinced that there's significant evidence that there was no Tyler, you know, trans group involvement. They were all bragging about it on Twitter and whatnot. My thought, and again it's, this is a theory. I can't prove this. I do think it's plausible that you could have these types of discord groups used by other people, be it a foreign nation or whoever. But I can't prove that. So I don't have a, I don't have some hard set position on Tyler Robinson. And one reason for that was I felt like probably the trial would give a lot of information. I don't think Candace has been vindicated in her, in her kind of all over the place theories. I think it's the evidence is pointing in the other direction. That evidence however, does not prove or disprove other entities benefiting from it or being involved. But I can't prove that. So, so I think everybody sort of thinks that you have to immediately have some theory. And I know when I first started looking at like a lot of these big high profile events. I would fall into the same mistake of thinking that, oh, I need to immediately jump on the wave to have the first theory. And then you get everybody with their pet stupid theory about Charlie Kirk and they're just doing that for the algorithm to get all this traction. So there's a lot of conspirator stuff. Stuff that I absolutely think is crazy about the Kirk stuff. I don't think there's tunnels or any of this exploding microphones, like all this stuff. Just silly to me. But I am not opposed to the idea that there are high profile foreign involvements. That's very possible. I cannot prove that though. So I think it's wise to hold off at times because in the. Guess what? In the past I've jumped on high profile events thinking that I figured the whole thing out and I was wrong. Now I don't think I was wrong about a lot of them, but I think I've been wrong about some of them. I'm thinking back to like, I think I might have been wrong about the. There was an event where a Muslim dude attacked. What was that one? Chattanooga or Knoxville. People already forgotten this one one. And I think I probably got some things wrong about that one. That was like 10, 12 years ago. Nobody even remembers that one. But. And part of that has to do with like, I don't think all the events are fake and staged. I do think there's a significant reality to Muslim people popping off. Now that doesn't mean that those groups aren't handled by other types of groups. And we've actually seen that borne out. But I, I did the exact same thing when I was kind of coming out of a lot of normie thought back in the 2000s when I started questioning the Big Nine event. My immediate thought was, well, the Muslims are all patsies, so Islam must be some tool that.

[Caller/Listener]

Or.

[Jay Dyer]

Or some scapegoat that isn't as bad as the west makes it out to be. That's one in the. I'm some in the 2000s, right. But I didn't know anything about Islam. I didn't believe Islam. I was never interested or tempted to become a Muslim. But I'm just saying, like I did not studied it. I didn't know what the Quran really said. I knew that they taught, you know, Jesus was a prophet, he wasn't divine. I knew, I knew they were anti trinitarian. I knew all that stuff. But what I'm saying is I think Tucker's at That stage which some people go through. I remember going through this thinking, oh, if 911 was not exactly what we were told, there's a lot of questions about it. Oh, then maybe the Muslims aren't as bad as were told. I don't think that anymore. So I changed my position on the note.

[Father Deacon]

Since you brought up Brzezinski, I mean, wouldn't you say that if you saw the Big nine and then you went and read Grand Chessboard and or got a hold of the penac documents, that that wouldn't be something that you could refer to in hindsight and say, oh, this seems to me like somebody's alluding to something that's going to come out in the future.

[Jay Dyer]

You mean what specifically? What in the future?

[Father Deacon]

Well, both Pack and the Grand Chessboard allude to a Pearl harbor type event that's going to happen.

[Jay Dyer]

No, that was, that was some of the strongest things that convinced me that it wasn't true. 911, what we were told.

[Father Deacon]

Right, okay. So, yeah, that's what. So I, I would, I would say. But you wouldn't. But then I, I'm saying, like, you wouldn't necessarily qualify those statements as like people within the higher ranks having foreknowledge of something and maybe giving off a kind of, you know, tipping their hand kind of thing.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I do. I think, I think that people at that level had planned and did know what was going to happen on the big night event. What I'm saying is that my initial thought after coming to believe the Big Nine event was an inside job or was arranged by that level of people was to then think, so then they're using Islam and Islam is a scapegoat. But what I'm saying is, like, that didn't make me pro Islam, but I was, I didn't realize Islam was as bad as it actually is. And I'm saying that you can have both of these positions be true. You can believe that Islam is a terrible, horrible cult that's being used to import. Be imported into the west and believe that 911 was an inside job. I can believe both of those things. Why? Because Islam is not a single monolithic entity. There's a lot of sacks, much like Protestantism, where these different groups and sacks can be used by Western intelligence. And I think that's been proven now with al Qaeda, with ISIS. Those are essentially Western proxies. I think that's what, 100% provable. So that's the explanation. But it's, it's not all of Islam that's Either good or bad is what I'm trying to say. So to study Islam helps you understand, I think, how Islam can be bad and it can be used by intelligence agencies and be the patsy for the 911 event. Because I think Bin Laden was a cutout. He was, I think, was always probably working for Western intelligence. So in other words, it's not mutually exclusive. But I think most people wouldn't even be able to make. They wouldn't be able to say that Islam was used on 911 as a patsy and Islam's bad. It's like people are caught in dialectics of thinking. I have to choose between Hamas or Zionism. No, they're both bad. Why can't I choose both of those? That's bad. Does that make sense? Do you guys understand? Am I being too wordy? Am I not making.

[Father Deacon]

No, I mean, you make sense to me. The, the point. I think one of the point I was, I was drawing out of it was that it wouldn't miss. I mean, the. There's a contingency now. Like, if you look at the discussion, let's, let's just say hypothetically around the Charlie Kirk thing is that it's getting a lot harder to ask questions like, hey, I read this in the Grand Chessboard. Do you think that this is something that force is foreshadowing what happened in hindsight. Right? So it would be. That's not considered to be. In certain circles. That wouldn't be considered to be something that you would do any in. In this particular case with, with Charlie Kirk. Like, you're not. You see what I'm saying? Like, if some, if somebody says. Points out that Harrison Smith had the text message that he had. Right. And then the thing happens in the text message. That's weird, right?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, No, I, I think that's an interesting piece of evidence that points in the direction of possible foreign involvement.

[Father Deacon]

Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So. So I think, I think people do go off the deep end. Obviously, the entire Internet goes off the deep end with theories and all of that type of stuff. But just because people do that doesn't mean that something else isn't happening.

[Jay Dyer]

No, no, I was just using that. I agree. And I was just using it as an example to say that a lot of times it takes time for more information to come out to be able to substantiate what's probably the case. Right. So like with jfk, a lot of people thought for a long time, Michael Collins, popular, wrote, you know, Final Judgment, talking about Israeli angle and Israeli involvement. But There wasn't even better substantive evidence until the JFK files had multiple, you know, files that discuss Angleton's relationship with the Mossad. That was crucial. So that helps substantiate that that theory has credence to it. Right. And I'm saying the same thing with people immediately saying, oh, I know what happened with Charlie Kirk and this, this, this, this. And I'm like, I don't know that you know that yet. Maybe that will be substantiated. And I'm just saying that a lot of the theories have not been substantiated. I think a lot of the evidence has pointed in against what Candace has argued. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's not foreign involvement. I like I told you, John, you were in the chat group. I said right away, I was like, I think that certain foreign entities probably used these discord trans groups because that's a repeat pattern of people in discord groups very easily being goaded into or prompted into these kinds of actions. It's also not even necessary to have that. I mean there's, there's enough people in the public that have been mind with MK Ultra that you don't even need to have some handler managing an entire operation. However, with a high profile situation, I think you could have that. So I'm being very measured because I honestly can tell you, I don't know. I was texting with Kurt Metzger for like two hours yesterday and we were going back and forth about this because he's all on board with like, you know, Jimmy Dore and Candace type position. I'm like, look, that may be the case. I just, I've not seen yet the substantive proof of that. And I don't think the trial is pointing that direction. They'll say, well, but trials can be, you know, mismanaged. Look at Alex Jones. I understand all that, but I'm just saying it's going to take time probably before I have a solid position. But I can tell you what my intuitions are like the Harrison Smith attacks points to that seems to be a plausible scenario to me. But I'm just saying I can't. I don't have 100 proof on that. I don't have 100 proof of exactly what went down on 9 11. But I don't believe the official story. And I think that the strongest evidence. Here's another point I want to make too about this. People get all obsessed with 3006 and bullets and physics and dude, half these, most of these people have no idea what bullet Ballistics physics. I don't know about that. People don't know about that. Yes, there might be some Green Beret, Navy SEAL dude who knows about that. But between 10 different Navy Seal Green Beret dudes accounts of ballistics, how am I supposed to know which one of those is correct? I don't know. But I do know that Harrison Smith's text is a pretty interesting piece of evidence. I do know that Grand Chessboard is a great prior to the big nine event predictor or indicator of big nine event. I know PNAC is a massive piece of evidence. I think those are very solid pieces of evidences and getting law. Remember at 911 everybody's getting lost in this debate over the physics of how fast a building collapses. Who the knows about building collapse physics except people that work in demolition? Very few people. But I'm supposed to go read all of these reports and NIST debunks it but then they get debunked by these other people. I don't believe nist, but I'm saying like the physics stuff is a distraction from in terms of convincing people of the case. That's a huge never ending spiral. Like who can actually engage with Richard Gage's crazy arguments about physics? I'm not saying he's crazy, I'm saying people debating about thermite and the chemical composition of the physics of thermite and the chemical. You know, nobody knows that except for like minuscule experts. But what I do know is that Brzezinski's books point to foreknowledge and for planning, PNAC points to that. So I'm saying people lose sight of the real strong pieces of, of data and evidence and they get hyper focused on stuff that will lead nowhere. That's what I'm trying to say. And as soon as I say this to dire trying to cover up for the ballistics proof that we have, maybe you have it. I just, I don't get why that's, that's never going to prove anything to anybody. If you're going to prove it, it's going to be the Brzezinski type stuff, the PNAC type stuff. Not in court. But I'm saying proving it to like sensible people who will look at strong pieces of evidence. That's what I'm saying.

[Father Deacon]

The way the Internet operates now is a result. And we talked, we talked about this years ago. Not even in relation to anything currently happening is the reason people think everything's fake or think they're you know, the average person now. Whereas something we would have thought 20 years ago, you know, when you're a newbie getting into conspiracy theories, the average person is capable of making those connections now in some capacity.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

It might not be the correct thing. They might think UFOs are real or, you know, there's skin walkers or whatever, I don't know. But the reason is, is because there was never answers given for anything in past.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes. Well, another. Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

So when people start to see answers not being given and you know, just like, like, especially in the Charlie Kirk

[Jay Dyer]

thing, it's like they're gonna jump on the first attempt at an explanation.

[Father Deacon]

Right. I mean, it's not anybody's necessarily anybody's fault that you could pin it down to, but it's just like literally Trump has no interest in like the Charlie Kirk thing. He never talks about it. He never, he never even discusses his own attempt. He addressed it in AI video.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

Wasn't he like an AI video when he addressed it?

[Jay Dyer]

Who?

[Father Deacon]

Trump?

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, I don't know.

[Father Deacon]

Well, really weird.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, another thing too that I noticed is so back when we were writing about a lot of this stuff, you know, in 2012, 1314, with Patrick Henningson, and we covered a lot of these high profile events, Patrick always made this point, which I thought was very important at that time, that what everybody wanted and expected what the system wanted at that time was trial by media. Right. So mainstream media had a lot more power back in 2011, 12, 13. And so what they wanted was the ability to not go to trial and have this stuff like adjudicated in a court, because that's a lot more difficult to mess with or screw up than it is to do it through media. They wanted everybody to just accept the media's assessment. And one of the things that was very sus about a lot of high profile events was that the FBI would come in, they would immediately say it's a terror event. And then, then, then there's no more. You can't look into it. The FBI would basically classify the event. And so we could never know exactly what was going on. We just have to go by the narrative that.

[Father Deacon]

And they literally tell us to stop asking questions.

[Jay Dyer]

Right. And then. And that makes people more suspicious. And now what I think is happening is because mainstream media has basically lost a lot of its power now they want trial by social media mob. And so everybody can just than have the most popular theory. And that's supposed to be the thing that convicts people. Well, that's not how our system works. You're not convicted by either mass Media or by social media mob. I mean, when I see the retarded people say about me, I don't want these people convicting me of something based on the theory. Like they go to me being in a silly joke picture with Wicca phase and they say that I'm a Satanist because we stood in front of a B movie set and that's supposed to be prove that I'm a sa.

[Father Deacon]

Good music. He's. He's all right. He's good. He's got good music. I wanted to ask you a question. It's kind of off topic a little bit with Charlie Kirk stuff. Okay. It's more about like Hollywood and movies.

[Caller/Listener]

Okay.

[Father Deacon]

I know you're a big David lynch fan, right?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I like David Lynch.

[Father Deacon]

Do you think that like he knew cuz like you? I think you pointed out in there was like sigils or like, like in the background of.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it's in season one and two of Twin Peaks.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

Like early. Yeah. So did you. Did you watch the Return?

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

Did a whole video Wrote an essay on it.

[Father Deacon]

Okay. You did? Okay, I gotta find that. But my question is, do you think that like, being orthodox and like being spiritual, does that, like being interested in horror a lot, does that like seep in your subconscious and like with your. Your head spiritually?

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, I think if you made it into something that you were like, obsessed with or you, you know, overindulged in that kind of stuff. Yeah, and I mean, it depends. Like a lot of times Jamie and I will turn off movies if they're too gross or degenerate or too, you know, I don't like body horror. That's really, you know, like, obviously I have limits, so. But no, I don't think that horror. So I mean, the Book of Judges is a horror movie. So I don't think a horror itself is necessarily the problem. It really just depends on, you know, your time spent or too much time spent with it. Ember, what's up? I've seen conspiracy people be wrong a lot. And I've been wrong in the past, so I want to avoid that. And if people can't handle the fact that, you know, I want to reserve judgment. Like, why? What's wrong with me reserving judgment on some event that we don't even have the details for yet? That's more. I think that's a wiser position than immediately jumping on. I mean, just look at Candace's theories. Like they've evolved from like one crazy thing one week to the next crazy thing. In the next week, the next crazy thing. I mean, everything was hinged on Mitch Snow for like, like two months. Like I was a total fraud. That was totally obviously ridiculous. And nobody even talks about Mitch Snow and the Fort Wachuga meeting of the generals, which is all retarded. Like if you're going to plan a high level unaliving event, you're not going to be meeting with 11 generals and Erica Kirk at a military base. And we just supposed to take this dude's word for it. And that guy was exposed as total fraud. And now, oh, forget about all that. Let's just go on to the next next, you know, no, it's the people in the tunnels this week. Oh no, next week it's the time traveling, you know, CIA technology of whatever she got from Project Camelot. I mean, it's just that shit's stupid, dude. And I mean, I don't know what Candace's motivations are. I don't have any personal qualms with her. I've never talked to her, never interact with her, except that she called me that guy, which was funny to me because Tim Gordon got his documentary eventually sold on her website. I had nothing to do with that, by the way. That was all Tim Gordon because he's friends with her. Her husband, I forget that guy's name.

[Father Deacon]

But.

[Jay Dyer]

So when Candace played the clip with me on there, she was like, like that guy said. I was like, so you, you don't want to just say like Jay said, but whatever. Ember, what's up? I'm.

[Father Deacon]

How are you?

[Jay Dyer]

Good.

[Father Deacon]

Kind of off topic, but I found something that Tucker said was interesting and it kind of doves tales with what you've been talking about where we're kind of reaching the limits of classic liberalism.

[Jay Dyer]

That's really what I was trying to get at. Like I wasn't even thinking about this being a thing that would make all the Protestants mad. I was really just trying to critique classical liberalism, but go ahead.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, and that's. I found that pretty telling that he right at the end goes, I don't think anybody favors dictatorship, but I think we've reached the determinus of what liberal democracy and classic liberalism provides. And my question is kind of like, you know, you brought up that maybe Byzantium maxing is a multi generational project, but like how do you see that happening, you know, in a generation from now? Is there going to be a delineation between, I would say hypothetically like the apostolic churches versus the Protestants? Like who in that situation? Situation kind of takes power in a

[Jay Dyer]

situation like that, is there?

[Father Deacon]

Have you even thought about that? I know it's mostly conjecture.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I think it's a multi generational project to permeate the empire exact same way that the Christians permeated the empire. But again, our project is not first and foremost political. So you know, it took us what it took Western civilization several centuries to get to where we are probably going to take several centuries to move in a more, a more holistic, flourishing direction. So that's why your offspring, your children, those are the things that you think about and change. We got to think like Lord Rothchild thought, right? Like Lord Rothchild was successful by taking over the west by thinking in terms of like two, three, four, five generations down the road. Biography says that. So we have to think that way and not be coaxed into thinking that the, the solutions are going to be some sort of like political election. You know, we're going to fix Western civilization tomorrow by having the right, right wing government. And none of that's going to work, dude. I mean in the short term, it's going to be a long term project. Right arm. What's up? By the way, Jacques even says this, he says that but when we put all this into place, he says we have to worry about the Christian reaction and Christian theology. And he says Christian theocracy, which he means any form of like Christianity speaking to the culture and to the civic environment. He says that's the last thing the global elites want. They want Christianity just being a, you know, you, private relationship with you and Jesus. They do not want anything that speaks to culture and society. The Rothschilds themselves even said that they were big promoters of religious liberty and religious freedom precisely for that reason, to remove Christianity's cultural influence. That doesn't mean, I'm saying that we're engaged in a giant Byzantine political project to take over the West. Like every time you say this stuff, people are so dumbed down and stupid, they automatically assume that you're saying so you're saying that you're a Christian nationalist who's trying to take over the government and enforce a fascist theocracy to force everybody to convert to Orthodoxy. Never said anything like that. What's up man? I'm you aj.

[Father Deacon]

I liked your appearance on Tucker. Hey, did he, did you at all talk with him afterward about, you know, him being a Protestant and you criticizing his positions or anything like that?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, for immediately after. The next hour was just about the.

[Father Deacon]

Oh, that's awesome. So I, I have a question and just keep in Mind, I'm a slow boy. How do you sort of defeat Agrippa's trilemma? The whole tag argument?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, Well, I did a whole video with Cooley talking about how Agrippa Strilema is bypassing the epistemic question. So that's an ancient philosophical dispute before you have modern epistemology. And epistemology is asking a prior question to Agrippa's trilemma. So if you go watch the video that I did with Cooley, it's answering that whole thing. It's like 30 minute answer to that question because he asked me the same question. Luigi, what's up? Luigi on you. So I. I think we'll have to do a part two because we've only gotten like 30 minutes into this. So I have a show. We're gonna go live here in a little bit with Father Ivan off on Transfigure Live to discuss it, and then I'll probably do another stream to finish the rest of this Tucker show later. What's up, man?

[Father Deacon]

Hey, Jay, Congrats on your Tucker appearance.

[Jay Dyer]

That was awesome. Appreciate it.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, I just had a question about. I still have a lot of classical liberalism, I guess, ingrained in me, and I have a question about specifically, like the American Constitution. Like, say in your, I guess in your ideal government or your ideal nation, what would. What would your critiques, I guess be of the, like the Bill of Rights and stuff like that?

[Jay Dyer]

That's really my question. Got like probably 10 podcasts where we've done that. So if you come over here to fourth of July, we did a podcast where I critique and they can admit that because right here called Americanism the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, Hellfire Club and Mack and me. So. And I refer to the older critiques that I did of Jordan Peterson's classical liberalism. So I would say check out any of those. Fda, do you want to say something? Fda, do you want to say something? Father Deacon, are you there? All right, guys, again, we're gonna go in about 10 minutes. We'll be live over here with Father Ivanov on his channel, Transfigured Life. As you guys know, we've done some podcasts with them and he's done a couple debates, so he's a good guy. And we will be talking about Protestantism being mad, big mad over, over the Tucker interview. So look for that here in a moment. I know we got a lot of super chats. I don't think we'll have time to read all these super chats. So I'm gonna tell Everybody to come back because this. Their podcasts are usually 40 minutes to an hour. So we'll do an hour with them, and then we'll come back over here and we'll do the part two to this, and then I'll do the super chats for you guys. I don't want you guys think I'm not going to do them. I will. Zoomer, what's up, man? Zoomer, you want to mute. Zoomer? Last chance. I'm mute. Drizzy.

[Father Deacon]

What's up,

[Jay Dyer]

Drizzy?

[Father Deacon]

Hey, what's up? How you doing, dude? Good.

[Jay Dyer]

What's up? Doing pretty good.

[Father Deacon]

I just wanted to ask you about the deaconess scandal that happened in 2024 under the Alexandria Patriarchate in Zimbabwe. So I've been like. I've been reading some articles about it, and, like, I understand, like, some of

[Jay Dyer]

the history behind the deaconess and whatnot.

[Father Deacon]

And from what I've seen, like, it seems like there really hasn't been a final judgment or conclusion. And I was just, like, wondering if

[Jay Dyer]

you knew whether there's deaconesses or. On his case in that specific instance.

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, that specific instance. Like, either she was corrected, and, you

[Jay Dyer]

know, I've heard that they were, but I don't know if that's the case. But, I mean, what would one errant bishop prove or disprove? What does that have to do with anything?

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, I just wanted to ask because I had a friend of mine ask me about it, like, I'm an Orthodox Christian, so I just wanted. I was just looking into it and just figured I'd see if you knew anything about it.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't know the resolution, but obviously it's not part of the tradition of the church. I mean, you could look at the. That we did a whole talk with Father John Whiteford on my channel about that whole issue theologically, and he has a really good assessment of it. Fda, do you want to say something? Fda, you want to mute?

[Father Deacon]

Yeah, sorry, I was having some problems. I'm with you. As far as I heard, because of the backlash and stuff like that, that the priest under. That the Alexandrian patriarch, did get in trouble.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, that's what I heard. I don't know, though, but I can't

[Father Deacon]

pull up the document right now or whatever, that. That's just what I heard. Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

And again, deaconesses in the early church had nothing to do with a sacerdotal role. They were basically just people that were helping assist women be balanced, baptized. That was about the extent of the role. There's no evidence that it was anything to do with the Eucharist or a sacerdotal, you know, level of, of ordination. And everybody knows that the whole push for that is to get women priests. That's the whole purpose behind it. What's up, man? K. Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

Hey Jay, one question. Can you give me your perspective on faith and reason? Because I'm, how to say, influenced by the scholastic hyper rational idea and what is the right balance in orthodoxy for this and especially on mathematics?

[Jay Dyer]

I mean I don't know how to relate that to mathematics, but I don't think there's self evident truth. So I don't think that there's such a thing as this enlightenment idea of like, or shoot me, like the Protestant pietist idea of a leap of faith. I think that faith itself, excuse me, reason itself presupposes some religious commitments. So, and I bring that up to Tucker. So I actually think reason itself is a faith commitment. If you watch the debate that we did with that college guy, that guy doing his degree in ethics, the majority of that debate ended up being that very question. So if you want a real good debate version of what I think on that, scroll back down here to the debate that we had with Jack Sazer. The he's doing, I don't know if it's a master's or PhD in ethics. We had a really good chill conversation and I ended up arguing that his whole secular ethic is a religious commitment, meaning. And he tried to make the argument that no, I don't believe in faith. I believe in pure, pure reason. And I was like, no, your, your commitment to pure reason is 100 theological. And I think I demonstrated that in the debate. It was actually my highest percentile win I think I've ever seen it. I'm not trying to brag, I'm saying like the, the stats were 84, 85 that I won. So I don't think I've ever gotten that high in a, in a debate poll. But he was actually a really cool chill guy to have the debate with. I don't think he won at all, but I think he was a nice guy. And you know, a lot of these sort of secular agnostic, atheist type people are not nice, they're, they're nasty to deal with. But this guy was pretty chill about it. So it was a, a good demonstration in my perspective of what I think about the place of faith and reason actually is. Ellie? Nick. Yeah, go ahead.

[Father Deacon]

Well, you and I talked about this. You have to understand that part of the Western paradigm and you certainly see this spelled out in Roman Catholicism is when it comes to knowledge, it puts faith and reason and kind of dialectical.

[Jay Dyer]

Exactly.

[Father Deacon]

Tension. Aquinas does say they do overlap, but they would never. Aroma Catholic or Thomas would never say faith grants you access to knowledge and knowing something. Something they say grants you maybe, you know, access to the object or something. But they have faith, specifically not knowing. It's a different kind of mode or something like that. And I think it's important for us to point out, as orthodox, we don't have that view of faith and reason. Does that make sense?

[Jay Dyer]

You and I talked absolutely.

[Father Deacon]

The way Aquinas, you know, spells up and.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I mean, Atomas would. Thomas would never say that. That reason is faith based.

[Father Deacon]

They would never say that and vice versa. That faith gives you genuine access to knowing something.

[Jay Dyer]

Eli, what's up?

[Father Deacon]

What's up, man? Once again, that was such a fantastic interview. I've listened to you for a long time and it's just so cool to see you get your flowers like this. So congrats on that.

[Jay Dyer]

Thank you.

[Father Deacon]

You know, one of the big things is your discussion about nominalism. Nominalism and the way that you laid that out. And I saw in the timeline a lot of angry Protestants who were not understanding the connection between Protestantism and nominalism. And I think, you know, through listening to your content and actually understanding its problems on the face value, something that doesn't get brought up a lot. But, you know, when you're having a debate with a Protestant and it gets down to offices and authorities and the seat of Moses, they. They have this paradigmatic level idea that these things were just linguistic titles slapped onto the person who happened to be in charge, you know, and not. Not an office with an actual real spiritual ontology.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Father Deacon]

That's instantiated by the person, but not identical to the person holding it. And, you know, just for any of the Protestants listening that are super confused about how Protestantism relates to nominalism, I think that's one of the major points where Eos and Protestants talk past each other, you know, when we're having those debates with them. And I. It's, it's, it's when they don't understand nominalism, they don't understand this distinction, you know, that there's a real office separate from the person who holds it. And I just wanted to kind of get your thoughts on that, because I don't see that implemented in debate as much.

[Jay Dyer]

Somebody called in earlier, before you got in here with that exact same point, that Protestantism also applied these principles to Hierarchy, including the priesthood and the bishops. Right. So Protestantism fundamentally denies apostolic succession and the episcopacy and their whole idea of doctrinal succession out of the classical reformers, which has really been dispensed with because, you know, Protestant evangelical theology in America, it's not classical Reformation stuff that's like 0.1% or you know, it's very small. I was looking up how many conservative Calvinists there are in America. It's like 01 to 3% of the population. So they're, they're really irrelevant. They might have a vocal presence through James White online or something like that, but it's not really. Or Doug Wilson, but it's not really effective or, or significant in the actual, you know, spheres of demographics and culture. So I wanted to add something. Yeah.

[Father Deacon]

Because I saw, I've been seen on

[Jay Dyer]

Twitter and I realized what I want to say before you go to that. So what's actually come to the fore is radical Reformation. Most of Protestants in America is non dominational mega church, radical Reformation people who think that, you know, God's like directly speaking to them through their emotions and charismatic jibber jabber. So that's what is the ultimate manifestation of this nominalist rejection of hierarchy in, in the church and then even in the state. Go ahead, Father.

[Father Deacon]

Well, I want to say I saw on Twitter and social media bunch of Protestants calling you out like, oh, you're a liar. This is a straw man about the nominalism. And I made the same argument too and had some. Dude like losing his mind, like he's lying, blah blah blah. Westminster Confession says this. They're not understanding. First of all, I don't even know if they even know what nominalism.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't think they do. My Protestant pastor didn't know.

[Father Deacon]

I'm not saying that every Presbyterian.

[Jay Dyer]

You're cutting out. Apologize. We can't hear you, Father Deacon. So you're cutting out. Yeah, we're not saying everybody explicitly affirms nominalism in the denial of universals. The argument in again was from Heiko Overman's book Famous Lutheran Scholar that Gabriel Bile and William of Occam significantly influenced Martin Luther's doctrine of justification, which allowed him to have a severance between the name and the actual reality, between being justified or righteous and you being filthy rags. That's the argument. Not that everybody's self consciously a nominalist, but I don't even think most of you people even listen to the interview. So guys, we're immediately going to transition over here to Father Ivanov's podcast. We'll be discussing a lot of the same topics. So if you guys want to hop on over there, there's the link in the chat, and then I will be back after that tonight, this evening to do part two of this interview. Thank you guys for hopping in. So come back later. I will do the super chats. We got several of those. I gotta.