Jay Dyer Demons in Hollywood CIA Secret Societies Lone Gunmen Epstein Attacks on Christianity

Hei, mitä sä arvostat vuokra-asumisen saa? Kero se meille viides toista elokuutaminen sä? Ja oot mukana kolven saran euron lahjakortin arvonnassa? Pisa tietoa osoitteesta N2-KODIP-Piste-V Muista N2-M2-K Lähitapillaan henkivakuutuksen asiakas-edulla saat nyt 80-5% alennuksen. Henkivakuutuksen myöntää lähitapilla keskinäinen henkivakuutusyhtiö. Asiakas etuja sen määrvahvi sitä tan vuosittain. Lähitapillaan samalla puolella. tämänıyorhjoutechn죠ge instituernaami on he~! Hainlooraan Akku: "Juuh ultiorunoista dopata" Ne Wake-uposa kacheering ja huCEe valtako on mitä étaient yohtajia.! Ja niin se onuta kenkaєmenteukaan et Milei seuthantiaFi ja Twe Ent Sitt bright Sen stamina οire mitä Using lla itse impatient et poner ça tommista kerääntöä tämän tämän kertaa, jota ei ole päättysä, ja se on tämän kertaa. Se on niin, että kertaa me niitä valmiin edelleen. Ihmäko on tämän edelleen? Ja se on tämän edelleen. Ja se on tämän edelleen, että on saa minun kertaa, että se on tämän edelleen. tämän keskaltuus. Sitten se on jatkan. Ja tämä on tämän kautta. Se on jatkan. Sitten on jatkan, tosi on. Sitten on jatkan, tosi on jatkan. Se on jatkan, tosi on jatkan. Se on jatkan. Eli ei ole ollut ajata sitä. Olleet niitä on tämän kautta. Onko jatkan, kautta? Se on jatkan, kautta? Ja se on jatkan, kautta? So if we're going to have a church or a religion based on the Bible, we really already trunk a 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 in dieting the individuals, but the groups, the denominations. They're very easily bought off. For example, very wealthy families in the West, about a hundred years ago were able to buy off many of the mainline Protestant denominations and turn them into effectively NGOs. Just one example of 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-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 an NGO. 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. Hey, what are you doing? I'm Cox. I'm Cox. Yxy. Cox. Call me. Nelia. The people of the Christian family are very strong and they're very strong. The Christian family is very strong and they're very strong and they're very strong. They're very strong and they're very strong. Not to say that the Roman Catholic Church or even amongst the Orthodox Church are people that are susceptible to 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 integrity and normativity to it. That Billy Bob Stripmall Church doesn't have. Imagine the sensation if you will of going to sleep feeling like you're floating, then waking up rested with no soreness from a hard or stiff mattress. That is the daily experience of people who use Brooklyn bedding. We can probably guess what you're thinking. A mattress like that is super expensive. Only Bill Gates uses a mattress like that. It's probably made in Bangladesh anyway. Oh, wrong on all counts. Brooklyn bedding is an American company with a seriously impressive 650,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Arizona. The company started a guy called John and he built it from the ground up right here in the US with no college degree, by the way. Brooklyn makes mattresses for every sleep style and body type. Plus, uses temperature regulation to make sure you stay cool throughout the night. They offer a hundred and twenty night sleep trail many nights. So you can return your mattress if you don't love it. Don't expect that to happen though because Brooklyn bedding has been a word the best mattress by CNET and the best hybrid mattress by wire cutter. People love it. Check for yourself. Brooklyn bedding.com use the promo code Tucker at checkout for 30% off site wide. Everything on the site, 30% off. That's Brooklyn bedding.com promo code Tucker 30% off site wide all summer. Because unlike Billy Bob's strip mall church, the 2000 year old church can say, wait a second, we've never believed this. We've never done this. Why would we be changing? There is a sense of continuity. There is. There's also like if you have the attitude of a standard sort of Protestant evangelical person, there's nothing in history settled because every generation kind of has to reinvent the wheel. They have to redo all the same controversies and crises all over again because they could have all been wrong. Nothing is settled right because for Protestant evangelical Christianity, the Bible and the apostles are kind of like the end. I know that a lot of Protestants would say, well, we like Athanasius. We like, you know, Santa Gustin or whoever. But when you actually go and read them, they have bishops. They have relics. They have the Eucharist. They have all these elements that don't align with Protestant reformation. So I was an avid Calvinist. I was super into John Calvin and all that stuff when I was a younger guy. And it was unsettling to read these guys and realize, well, they don't teach Calvinism. So what am I going to do here? Either not be a Christian or I can align myself with whatever the first thousand years of Christianity actually is. And I say the first thousand years too because Catholics and Orthodox share that first thousand years. So we both have that in common. So I think that narrow is it down. It's either going to be Roman Catholic also is a more spending Orthodoxy because what about Orthodoxy struck you as non-Calvinist? Like what are the differences, the big differences? So Calvinism is not just predestination and in this sort of strict, so tearyology or salvation doctrines. It's also iconoclasm, which ends up, I think, affecting one's view of art and aesthetics. Idol smashing? Correct. I mean, I was a very avid sort of iconoclasmic Calvinist and 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 father's and more, I got into that kind of a theology. I realized that Calvinist sort of republicanism doesn't really match up with Byzantine imperialism or monarchy, the traditional views of the churches take on governance. The Byzantine empires of theocracy. 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 separate heads. 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 century papacy, which becomes also the state. So you get a papal state and a sort of underpup, a dictatus 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 symphony, is what is 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 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 monarchist or whether they would be Presbyterian republican Calvinists. So that was a famous, you know, Reformation battle, but long story short, again, like 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 crystallologically 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 through a sort of noional acceptance of a set of ideas. And then God's attitude towards you changes. So it's dispossitional, 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 a metaphysical change in you versus a dispossitional attitude. So I don't maybe we don't get too heavy into philosophy, but I do want to read difference between the two. Basically, there's an idea in the middle ages called nominalism. Have you heard that? Yes. Okay, so nominalism is the idea that there are only names to things, not essences. So there's no human nature, 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 clashing 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, name is them. They actually describe what's really there in them metaphysically. Okay. So there is human nature. And in Orthodox theology, Christ assumes in the middle ages it begins with people like William of Occam. So Occam is the first nominalist and the racer. Exactly. He's known for that. And he challenges some kind of established ideas of like essentially it's called 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. And that had been kind of the norm since Plato and Aristotle as well. So you get a denial of 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's this debate about how could you be called righteous if you're not in fact righteous? So if as a human being, you are menstrual rags, as Isaiah says, as the reformer said, then how could God call you righteous as being a liar? So 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. There's famous Lutheran scholars. There's a book called Harvest of Medieval Theology about Hike of Obermann. And the whole thesis of that book by Lutheran is that, yeah, Luther had to use nominalism. So, so we're also, though, moving away, not just from theological squabbles, but the idea that things have natures. And that's this, 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 actually have genders, right? Objectively, because everything is just a name. So I can just name myself he-him-zerzy. Right. I'm not trying to go too fast or too far in the sense of like, you're not. You're not. But I'm saying there's, there is an ideological sort of progression that you can get from nominalism to where we are now with postmodernism. And then with essentially, you know, just interesting. Something that an adult could believe in something like that. I mean, having lived your life known people, known animals, seen nature and arrive 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, right? What's that saying that you have to be an academic to be really stupid? Yeah. I mean, I guess that's right. Yeah. To be indoctrinated into believing some sort. I remember Terence McKenna. Do you remember the psycho-not Terence McKenna? I remember reading it one time and he said something like, this is all just magical thinking, you know, if you take the shroom, you're going to see that things don't have essences, that things just have names and you just change the name. And I'm like, that's the gender idea, right? Christians ought to be safe in the holy land of all places, but they are not. Keep in mind these are the descendants of the first converts, the first people who followed Jesus, people whose families have worshipped in the land Jesus walked for centuries for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fling their homes amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocents are lost and without hope, fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them whose real agenda is to move them out of their actual homeland. We think that's wrong, we think that's evil, in fact. And so we've looked far and wide to find a group that is actually supporting Christians in the Middle East. And we found one. It's called the Vulnerable People Project, VPP. It's one of the very few groups consistently helping vulnerable Christians throughout the holy land. They deliver food and water to Christian communities trapped in Gaza, for example. They help rescue civilians. They provide emergency aid to families who have nowhere else to turn. Today they are helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities where their ancestors worshiped Jesus. There should be a lot of groups doing this and trust us. We have looked for over a year now and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing exactly that. And there makes an amazing difference in people's lives. A gift of just $33 helps provide a day of protection and support for the vulnerable Christians in the West Bank. Who's looking out for them? Nobody. They are a monthly gift with $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit savewestbankchristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That's savewestbankchristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. Yeah. And that's just it's kind of apagy. You know, the gender insanity is just the most obvious. But it has a precedent in this theology. It's the algebraic, which is the most amazing I've never heard that before. Huh. I'm sorry to hear that about Luther who I've always loved. There's a lot to love about Luther. He's a character, for sure. Quite a lot. He would actually chase the devil with farts, which I think is great. Quite a robust man, right? And a happy family life and everything about him I like. But that is impossible to defend. It just flies in the face of reality. Yeah. And even modern scholarship in the Protestant world is a great book by Alistair McGraft out of England. I think he's Anglican. It's called Eustisha 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 this, the understanding of salvation that preceded the Reformation was that people had to be changed on in their essence in order to be safe. So there's an actual participation in what Orthodox, the Algae 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 patricity teaching as well, we participate in that. So we're not just changing illegal 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. Well, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will flow into people and change them. Right. And that happens. Spirit's not a creature because then you would be anti-Tranitarians. So absolutely, this is why Peter says in his epistle, right, that we become partakers of the divine nature. So very strong language in the New Testament and the epistles for what we call theosis in the Orthodox Church. Paul says, for example, in Thessalonians, that it is the dune of myths 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 a 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 saying, no, no, the incarnation itself tells us that the uncreated United as self to human nature and incarnation and that Jesus deified the human nature that he assumed with his own immortality, grace and uncreated energy. Hey, hey. What is the meaning of the word "the Holy Spirit" in the term of the Holy Spirit? The role of the Bible in the Protestant world versus the Orthodox world you described it this way, 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. But in the Orthodox Church, it's a liturgical document. What does that mean? The tour goes has to do with the Greek word of offering or offering of thanks, offering of praise, but it's also in the Hebrew tradition, we think that that was proto-Christianity, the ancient Hebrew text. It was part of, for example, David's Psalms. Those were Psalms that David wrote to be sung at the Temple Liturgy. 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 it in chapter 13, Paul talks about Christians have an altar that they eat from that the Jews of the Tabernacle have no right to eat 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 that altar. So from the earliest days, Christianity had this sort of altar-based form of worship. Again another reformation distinctive is that they begin to move away from the idea of an altar towards a table, 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 opposed to the idea of it being a shared meal, but it's first and foremost 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 for us, the Reformation then represents a form of turning away from that. It's a form of duty-izing. It's a form of returning to a form of rabbinical theology. And may the reformers were actually very influenced by rabbinic theology, by the Talmud even. So the Reformation has a stream of influences, Renaissance humanism, all those things play into that. And it's just very. Well, Luther was not in that category, though. No. He was not interested in rabbinic theology, but he was influenced by what's a text called the Theology of Germanica, which was a neopatonic text. And so there was also some evidence that scholars have pulled up that suggests that Luther might have an interest in hermaticism. I'm not saying that dominates his idea, but more so with Calvin and some of 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-Emean, he named it like Moses. He said, "I like to punch Moses T, though." So Luther didn't even like the Old Testament at times, but again, he's a boisterous sort of satirical character at times. So it's hard to know exactly. The most hilarious theologian in history. He was very hilarious. So it's hard to know exactly when he's always being literally, might just be joking around, but not only to mischaracter, because I know Luther wrote about the Jews and their wives. That's a famous text that he wrote. So I'm aware of that, but just in terms of the general trends of the reformation, outside of Luther with Calvin's wingly, Malanxan, even later Lutherans were very involved in defending a Rosicrishanism. Johan Andrey is believed by some scholars to be the author of the Rosicrishan manifesto, forget what exactly what it's called, but so that is there. And a lot of that has to do with with cobblistic ideas. What, who were the Rosicrishans? 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 for and in Catholic countries as well. They would forbid participation in secret societies, they would forbid practicing of the occult in 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 the queen. So they would kind of do these things in the download secretly. And so you get a rise of these secret societies. This is where some of the first speculative Masonic law just start to pop up in the 1500s, 1600s in Europe. But you also had a very interesting confluence of hermatic and cobblistic groups that were popping up, particularly Spanish rabbis that were very popular in Spain seem to be involved in some of the rise of cobblistic influence in the West. And that I think contributes in part to the Rosicrishans who according to, there's a great book by Dame Francis Yates called Rosicrish Enlightenment. She actually argues that the Enlightenment itself was heavily influenced by Rosicrishan ideology. So they were neoplatonists, they were into magic, alchemy, so they were really interested in the idea of transmuting metals, you know, into the philosopher's stone, which some people thought was real thing you could do. And others thought, well, that's just an allegory for how to undergo transformation into your better self or to become God in a literal sense, not in a sense of Orthodoxyology, but so all of these different strains and strands, but basically the hermatic world's craft. Yeah, you can say that. Yeah. Huh. A form of it. But again, that's all very diverse. I mean, I think in the case of John D, for example, he's the first 007. Did you know that? No. Yeah. So the 007, which is two balls and a cane, which is two bullcane, that's how John D would sign his secret letters to the queen, because he was one of the influences on James Bond. So that's where we get 007 from. That's and he and Fleming consciously took that from John D. But I my thesis and other people think this as well as that when he created this sort of magical angel language that he called Enochian after Enoch, it was just a way to do spy codes and ciphers wasn't. I mean, he might have actually done some rituals, but it was also very useful as a tool for sending messages to Elizabeth that other people couldn't decode. Inflation makes credit card statements particularly scary. You work 40, 50 hours a week just by groceries and gas things you used to be able to afford without thinking that much about it. Then the banks charge you 20% interest. If the system is designed to keep you under water, it's working, but there's another option. Our friends at American financing are doing something the big banks despise. They are helping people mortgage rates in the fives supporting the American dream of homeownership and they're showing homeowners how to take their hard earned equity to wipe out high interest debt. Now we're against debt in general, but in this economy, most people have no choice at all. So don't go bankrupt and sleeping yourself to a lender. Average savings are about 800 bucks a month and it takes only 10 minutes to talk to a salary-based mortgage consultant. Now upfront fees or obligation to see how much you can save. Give American financing a call, 800, 685, 5696. That's 1,800, 685, 5696. Are visited American financing.net/tucker. America's home for home loans. So in the Orthodox tradition in the church, the Bible is read aloud. Are Orthodox encouraged to read the Bible on their own? Sure. I mean, St. John Christmas also said that the lay it have more need of reading the scriptures than even the monks for the priests. Monks in priests live in the liturgy, which for those that don't know. In the Orthodox church, basically every aspect of the liturgy and the liturgical calendar is Bible. It is scripture constantly. It's like every aspect of it. And so Christus' argument was, lady need to be in the Bible more than they do because they live it. So if you're not in the liturgy all the time, like those people are, the best substitute is the little church, which Christus someone calls the house. So the household is in the Orthodox idea kind of a little mini church. So absolutely, we got to be in the Bible all the time. And that shows that we're not anti-bible, like a lot of sort of Protestant evangelicals think. So one of the reasons there wasn't reformation in the first place is because the Catholic church over time began to hide the Bible from Christians. And not it was not published in the in the local language in Europe. It was in Latin. It was the full gate. And Luther's great breakthrough was to publish it in German to translate it himself into German. Did the Orthodox church do the same? Yes. In fact, this is one of the differences between the pre-Vatican through Roman church and the Orthodox church is that the Orthodox always put in the vernacular. Everything. The liturgy, homily, is there supposed to be in the vernacular of the people? In fact, the Volgate itself was originally the vulgar Bible. It was the Bible of people. And so, yeah, I think there was an element to where the Latin church, the Roman church had just sort of solidified into a kind of a tradition that it's not inherently wrong to maintain that linguistic heritage, but it's also possible to put in the vernacular for the people. I mean, that's the whole idea behind translating the Bible into languages of the people so that they can understand it. But that is one of the differences pre-Vatican too. But interestingly, after Vatican II, there were both Protestant and Orthodox influences on the reforms of the Roman Catholic church. And thus Rome then became emphasizing. They began to emphasize the vernacular after Vatican II. What is, you said you were an iconoclastic smasher of idols?. in assas gobierno trade elections! Pay雪 per expenses cost 165% in a small account in the same expense He actualed to the final space in the same expense. orthodoxy famously incorporates icons, paintings on wood into its worship. What is that? This is again a huge misunderstanding that we would argue we believe is part of proto-Christianity, it's part of Hebrew proto-Christianity. So when you go back to the book of kings, when you go to the book of Exodus and you see the way that the tabernacle and then later the temple are described, they are tremendously ornate. You've got gold images of angels and you've got the Ark of the Covenant with angelic imagery on it. So we don't believe that real Old Testament Christianity or Old Testament Judaism you could say, not rabbinic Judaism, we think that's something different that developed in the fourth and fifth century. What is something different? Yeah, but proto-Christianity or the Hebrew tradition was not iconoclastic. They were against idols, but not all imagery. In fact, And this is something that really changed my mind when I was Calvinist. If you think about it, the Bible is a book, but words are just iconographic versions of image. They're a type of image. Of course. And so the more I thought of it and word, yeah. The more I thought about that, it's like, well, you can't actually say all images are bad because capital F-A-T-H-E-R, that's a type of an image. In the Orthodox Church, we don't typically image God the Father. We think that, as Jesus says in the book of John to the Pharisees, he says, no one has seen the Father at any time. And he's quizzing the Pharisees there because he's saying, so who do you think Moses was interacting with, on Mount Sinai, if no one saw the Father? Because it says Moses saw God face to face. Jesus basically saying, I was talking to Moses. I'm God. That's what the Pharisees want to stone him in that chapter because he's saying he's the face of God that was interacting with Moses. So this is why the book of Colossians, what he was called, Jesus the icon, I-K-O-N in the Greek, the image of the Father. This enrages the Pharisees. So we think that iconography directly flows out of the incarnation of the Son being the image of the Father. Thus throughout the early church, you have the development of the liturgy, even the first and second century. And this has been shown through archaeological evidence through people who study liturgy. They're called liturgists. Even Protestant-anglican liturgists note that the early church had altars. They had imagery, even synagogues in the first and second century. One of the famous cases is the Dura-Europos synagogue in Syria. I think it's from the early 200s. It's lined with images, paintings of Old Testament scenes and imagery. So the Orthodox church, if you look at the Dura-Europos synagogue, is the most natural development of if Christianity was going to open up to the Gentiles and it was coming out of the temple and synagogue liturgical system is exactly what it would look like. It would look like an Orthodox church in low and behold that's what Orthodox churches look like. And by the way, I remember 2023, my priest, who's a great Russian Orthodox priest, Father Vladimir, he took us on a pilgrimage to Italy. And I was like, where are we going to Italy? That's in that Rome. Well, there's a thousand years of Christianity prior to the rise of the medieval papacy in Italy. There's tons of Orthodox places that you could go to in Italy. And so we went to the catacombs in Rome and lo and behold, when the Christians were persecuted in their underground in the catacombs, the first and third century. By the way, you can never see all the catacombs. We spent a whole day just in one of the catacombs in Rome. There's altars. There's images that they painted in the first and third century. So even the catacombs church had liturgy, had imagery. Plenty of examples of this. The church father's also right about it as well. So those are huge, I would say, differences between. And remember, the people couldn't read back then. Most of the Roman Empire was illiterate. So when they would go to these services and the catacombs were ever. They would be hearing the word of God. That's why Peter says, this is the word of God, which was preached to you. Paul says to Timothy, pass on all the things that you heard. For me, in the presence of many witnesses. So that oral teaching, that oral hearing of the liturgical worship was the norm. And then one of the things that really cracked it for me as a Protestant, when I left Protestantism was when I learned that. By the way, I learned this from evangelical scholars. One of the things that developed the canon in the scripture itself, in terms of how the church decided what books go in, and which ones don't, was what's called the "lectionaries." "Lectionaries are the daily liturgical readings in the churches." So when the church fathers were having these councils and they were meeting, and the canon scripture doesn't actually solidify, at least for the Orthodox church, until the sixth and seventh century, they would say, "Okay, which ones do we have a tradition that says Paul wrote or Matthew wrote? Which ones are in the daily electionaries?" And if you're a Protestant, you believe in Soul Scriptura, the idea that liturgy and liturgical tradition play this huge role in the determination of the canon, make it very difficult to say that we're based on scripture alone. Soul Scriptura. So Orthodoxy is not based on just the Bible? No, we would say the Orthodox church is based on the idea of apostolic succession, that the apostles appointed successors in various. Bishop Rickson sees throughout the Roman Empire. It's based on the tradition, which could include the lives of the saints. It could include liturgy. It could include all kinds of rides of the church fathers, canons of the councils. Those are traditions and the Bible. So all of those elements go into what the basis of the Orthodox Church is. Whereas in the Protestant world, you have elected elders or something like that, but you don't have this sort of three-tiered stool of apostolic succession, tradition and Bible altogether. What are the practical differences as a weekly, communican and an Orthodox church? How is that different from being a Catholic or Protestant? Well, certainly we would have more similarities to a Roman Catholic than most Protestants, or evangelicals. There might be a high church, Protestant or Anglican communion that would have some similarities with Orthodox Church, but I think for the Orthodox world, fasting is a lot more integrated into what we do than most fasting. Yeah, there's a lot of fasting days in the Orthodox church calendar. What does that mean? For you. Just abstaining from certain foods. The length is a little more rigorous for the Orthodox and it is for. Why fasting? Well, we think that Jesus and the apostles and people like John the Baptist kind of set the tone for retaining an element of asceticism in the church. Obviously, some people could take that to the extreme. We're not Hindu yogis sitting out under a tree trying to roll around and poop or whatever, but we do think there is virtue in training the body to be subject to the will so that the bodies, desires and passions don't control us. That's why fasting has an important role, basically learning to control the passions is what that's part of. I often do fast. I am not the best at fasting because I have a really weird gut biome issues, so I don't fast as much as I should. It's very challenging, but there's also people that. There's nuances for medical issues, but the Orthodox Church fasts quite a bit, usually from various meats and stuff like that. It's not just fasting, it's different. I think for the Orthodox Church, it's not just about food. Fasting is also almsgiving because you're sort of. It's self-denial, it's not just about diet. It's also. for example, during a lent, it would be appropriate to confess more. It would be appropriate to give more than you normally would. We make a pretty big deal about things like almsgiving, whereas. I'm not saying that other groups don't give, but I think that's stressed a lot more in the Orthodox Church than it is, perhaps in Protestant churches or other domains. These are just. there's immense differences, I would say, between. The communion is a lot more serious in the Orthodox Church. You don't commune unless you're Orthodox. We don't have what's called open communion, so Roman Catholic can't come or Protestant can't come and just commune. Most churches are way more open about that. It's very strict in the Orthodox Church in terms of communion. Usually within the liturgy the pre-sense, all who are baptized Christians who have prepared themselves through confession may approach the table because we take it very seriously. We think it is actually the body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy of Christ, so we don't want to treat that lightly. I'm not saying that Protestants don't have a reverence for their version of the sacrament, but it's just a lot more serious, I think, in the Orthodox Church than it is elsewhere. We do have some of the sacramental principles like confession to a priest that Protestants don't have, so again, there's a whole milieu of wide scope of differences between. Everybody wants your attention. Think about all the apps, the shows, the podcasts, the websites that compete for your attention ever. You can't keep up with it. You're probably wasting a lot of your life. Hallow is not a waste of your life. The Hallow app can make your life. Hallow is the world's number one prayer app and a constant topic of conversation in my family. Literally, every day at dinner, we should come over. This July, Hall was releasing a study on saints, figures like St. Paul, Ruth, Joan of Arc, real people, real struggles who wound up turning their lives toward Jesus in a way that saved them forever. Paul's story is amazing. It's an amazing story. Probably the most effective persecutor of Christians in the ancient world murdered them. And then one day, famously on the road to Damascus, Syria, he met Jesus and everything changed. You can't read that story enough. Each of these stories will help listeners unlock what God sees in their lives. Now that summer is here today is the perfect time to take a step back with Hallow. It really will change you. Of all the things we advertise, we know this works. Hallowapp at hallow.com/tucker. Three free months. Again, that's hallow.com/tucker and get three months completely free. You will love it. How is it since the religion you described was originally tethered to a government and empire? How is becoming more than exchange your view of government in its role? That's an interesting question. I was, when I was a Calvinist, I was more like a sort of a libertarian, you know, get the state out of everything. It is the religion of libertarianism, isn't it? But as I got more into historic Christianity, I sort of realized that maybe republicanism isn't like the highest form of government. Like maybe it's not necessarily the best. And I'd never read any critiques of republican governance and whatnot, but it turns out there have been quite a few people, especially after scientific revolution. There were conservatives and right wingers who were writing pretty, I would say, substantial critiques of republicanism. I think even members of rural families were writing pretty good critiques of. Well, naturally. Yeah. They have a vested interest in probably that. But I mean, no, but there were liberal and the best sense minded people, people who believed in inalienable rights who argued that a republican form of government, self-government democracy would devolve into tyranny. True. I played Oro even back in his day that. And he was, of course, a proponent of republicanism, but he wrote that the more decentralized in the sense of democracy, he didn't like democracy at all. He thought that that would eventually lead to mobocracy and the rule of the passions. Because the oligarch in that type of a democratic setting has the incentive to appeal to the biggest number at the lowest basis, lowest common denominator. And then it becomes incumbent upon him to really play on the passions of the mob. So why not debase the people because they're easier to control the mob? So there's an incentive that even Plato noticed back then. I think he writes in the republic, if this happens, they're going to legalize weed. They're going to legalize everything to do with butt stuff. Yep. So it becomes faking gay. So he saw, I think, in various ways, even as a pagan philosopher to try to figure out some way to have a society based on sort of objective, almost mathematical principles. By the end of the republic, it's sort of like you get the impression that he thinks that you need to go study mathematics on the top of a mountain for 20 years. And then you come back and then you sort of instantiate mathematical forms into the society. And it's interesting because later on by the end of his life, he seems to progress towards more of like a secret society type of governance because he has this, I guess I'm going for remember maybe symposium or the other one, but he argues that there's this council of night in IGHT, which is a governance board of like spy chiefs. Yep. And so they meet at night because the public's used to but they know what's going on. So which is just weird because it reminds me of like I'm reading something about Kissinger talking about the wise men and like he's a play does talking about like Henry Kissinger's form of like secret like secret government. And we devolve to the level of Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, exactly. Tony Island. Exactly. Yeah, but it's all the same thing. It's just a, I mean, Jeffrey Epstein was an idiot, which no one wants to say, but he was, obviously, when you read his writing. And so it's sort of our version of that. So I notice that the enthusiasm for liberal democracy, whatever that is, but our system of government that has preached our culture, enthusiasm is waning for that. Like I don't know many people who I don't know anyone who wants to take their ship just to be clear, but I don't know anybody. I literally don't know anybody who thinks the current system is working. That suggests it probably won't last. So what comes next and what should come next? Yeah, there's no easy answer to that. I mean, I think again, when you look at Christian history, even in the West or in the Orthodox East, you have a pretty normative tradition of kings and queens, preferably kings, but and that happens through a semi-sacramental service called a coronation service. So the Orthodox Church always coronated emperors, zars, kings. Some of the most famous kings in the history of Orthodox Church fought massive battles. They went to war. So I think one thing that ties into this idea of a decrystionizing of the state, which is part and parcel with that sort of tendency in the Calvinist, libertarian type of tradition, the classical liberal ethos is there was a famous Russian statesman, a Publionauts, you have here at a book Reflections of Russian Statesman around 1890s. And he said, when you decrystionize the state, you don't get liberty. You get another cult that runs the state. Exactly. And he noticed that when before the Bolsheviks, right? So really, yeah, he had looked at the French Revolution and prior examples. And he said, you just get another cult, this upset and runs things. You're always going to be governed by religious fanatics. Yes. So the question is, which religion? One good one, or at least some of that. The nicer ones, or yeah. I've noticed that just from knowing people who run countries, like they're all deeply religious people, most won't admit it. Yeah. Macron is not religious. So he's very religious. It's not your religion. Some other religious, yeah, Luciferian. Yeah, exactly. I don't know what. Yeah. So, yeah, I think the, the Reformation, whether it intended to or not, ultimately kind of severed the relationship that the church had already sort of normalized between church and state. That's something that we talked about. And then you get, and it's a comprehensive interest. It's not just ideologues like Martin Luther or whatever. In fact, many of the reformers had a very powerful, like for example, Luther's Reformation wouldn't have exceeded without the German Prince of the Beam Heide. Also, he's, he, of course, they were resentful because they didn't want to spend the money. They didn't want, and they didn't want to be on the Pope. They were tired of the papers. Of course. And Germany was emerging as, as the great power in Europe. And I'm like, why would you want to be ruled by Italy? Exactly. So there was a lot of resentment of people stuff going on. Same with Henry VIII. He didn't want to, you know, be under the Pope's rules about his ladies. So those combinations of interests, by the way, there's also a Jewish influence on the Reformation as well. In fact, there were, according to Carol Quigley, even Protestant and Jewish banking interests funded the French Revolution massively. And he's got, he's got a great chapter on the rise of the Paribas system in France, which is the Rothschild banking system. And then I just read in the Rothschild's biography the fact that they had a long-term vendetta with the Zaris attitudes towards Russians, towards Russian Jews. And Lord Rothschild wired one million rupils to be islanden. I knew about other like the warbirds in the shifts. They had funded a linen and trosky, but I did not know that, according to the Morton, they had actually wired a linen million dollars, so to speak. And he was supposed to pay it back, but he never did. Well, I think the Bolshevik Revolution was ideological, but I think it was also ethnic conflict to some extent. Obviously. Rothschild said that. He said, "We will make the Russian Christians pay for what they did for many centuries in his mind." Yeah. Well, and they did. They made him pay. No one's paid more dearly, actually. So Orthodoxy, I mean, a lot you just said I didn't know because I know so little about Orthodoxy. You knew nothing about it three or four years ago. Now it seems, I don't know, ascended, but it certainly seems popular. Why is that? The internet has an interesting positive and negative effect it can have on all these domains. So I think in one way, what, I started looking at apologetic stuff around 2000, 2001. And back then, you would listen to people's cassette tapes. You would listen to a little MP3 on Windows, Media, Amp or whatever. But now it's everywhere. The debate sphere, which is something that kind of grew not just from me, but I mean other people like, well, you know, Crowder used to go do this sort of come convince me to debate people. And then Ben Shapiro would go to debate the college kids, the prepared weirdos. That's a lot of low-hanging fruit that Ben Shapiro would do. But they're also sort of accidentally almost came about a pretty intense 10 years or so of online religious debating, which again, it just sort of happened. It wasn't something that I planned to do or anyone planned. It was just I remember years ago somebody said, hey, would you debate this atheist guy? It was a libertarian guy. Yeah, sure. So we did it on the whim. Then another guy, hey, would you debate this other, you know, French Canadian atheist guy? Yeah, sure. And then it sort of snowballs into, you know, a pretty regular thing of doing online religious political debates. It's gotten very popular throughout many outlets. And I think that is a huge contributor because especially if you're a young guy, who's interested in ideas, you want to debate your ideas, you want to have him challenged, you want to know if your position is solid or if it's weak. The older you get, the less you want to do that, then people tend to be sort of solidified into their views. But younger guys are more interested in that. So I think that's when you buy a cable package. I think that it's it's very, it's very natural. I think to people in the West to do that, to debate their ideas. It's it's not a feature necessarily of every other society. No, debate their ideas for sure. And increasingly, it's not a feature of our society. Exactly. We're trying to break this. You were a debate participant champion in school. I was too. That was normal. I don't know normal, but it wasn't we as we're seen as weird. No, now I don't even know that that exists. It exists only internet. So people are going to do it. The schools are not encouraged to debate. Right? No, in fact, I think I remember years ago when I was doing undergrad in the grad school, they were already sort of trying to phase that out because we had a debate team when I was in undergrad. And then by the time I was in grad school, there was no debate team anymore didn't exist. Because the premium was on obedience at that point. Yeah, because they don't want you critically thinking through your positions. Because then you might notice patterns, which are not amenable to the SES quo. Nicely put, that's absolutely right. But people have been on the internet debating religion and orthodoxy's gotten a hearing for the first time, maybe ever in American history. And the result is I think it's not the only contributor, but it did play a huge role in the rise of Orthodox converts in the last five, six, seven years for sure. And again, just all of that I would, I guess, is providential because again, nobody in our sphere, our circles plan to do this. We thought it would be fun to do. I do a lot of different things. I don't just debate. So it's just sort of one of the side things I enjoyed to do at times. And that ended up for whatever reason being a lot more popular than I would have expected. So, you know, we've debated many of the top atheists, Muslims, Jews are not huge on doing apologetics. They don't evangelize. So there's only been a few Jewish guys that even won to debate. We've done a lot of political debates, feminist debates that have been pretty, pretty big, I mean, in terms of viewership. So I think that we were the most fun if you had to pick a Muslim atheist feminist. They actually have a lot of similarities, but Muslims are not very fun to debate. I wouldn't say that they're the most fun. I mean, atheists can be fun because they get really triggered with certain entailments. But probably the funnest debates are some of the more idiotic cult types of people. They actually end up being very comedic. So I do a lot of comedic stuff. So when we debate cult leaders, which we've debated several, those tend to be really funny. So they're the most entertaining. Are there any atheists left in the United States? Is that there wasn't any atheism movement? There was. That was very popular in 2000s. And I kind of think they ran out of steam. The worst things got in the West, the less appealing atheism was because it has no explanatory power. So when people start, especially after COVID and all that side up, people noticed, okay, there's some really evil shit going on in the world. We need some explanation and these guys are basically saying there is no explanation. Nothing means anything. Right. So atheism kind of loses steam. A lot of the YouTube atheists that were big YouTubers just kind of Peter Dowl, one of them was sticking bananas in his butt. And they just like, who cares? That's gross. Weird stuff. And then other ones end up marrying dudes that are women. So people begin to see, this has nothing to offer. I remember vividly someone telling me that Sam Harris, the famous atheist, was really smart. He's really smart. And I listened to Sam Harris once and said that I'm not smart at all. Like, our standards, I think, have changed. Maybe. I think they've gotten a higher. Well, I think people said Sam Harris was smart. Oh, yeah. In fact, I mean, I think the tail end of that period was those debates with Jordan Peterson and Peterson was really critiquing atheist presuppositions. I think I felt like he could have even gone harder on those guys because they were already sort of losing the ground publicly. But even Jordan Peterson is just sort of simple lines of questioning. Well, how do you know that? What's that mean? Even that wasn't enough really to help the atheist didn't have even enough response to sort of basic internal critiques, which is a very effective way of debating and doing world view debates is to do an internal critique where you show the fundamental contradictions within another person's world view. That is one of the most devastating ways to go about debates. And I think Peterson was was where enough to do that with those guys, whether it's Sam Harris or Matt Dillan to your into the atheist that that was kind of the nail in the coffin for the atheist. Then we had COVID and then people were just like, all right, we need an explanation for frickin demons. Yeah, these guys say there aren't demons. Obviously there's Epstein demonic level shit going on. So probably got exists. Right. Is that more like I think that's literally the path for a lot of people. Yeah, I don't think that I mean, I'm think that's actually what happened for a lot of people and isn't interesting that some of these high levels so called atheists are flying with Jeffrey Epstein and going to. So sure and have religious level devotion to all kinds of stupid causes so like they're the most religious people of all. Exactly. But I also I even wonder at times like are they even atheists? Maybe they have other kinds of commitments. Of course. Yeah. I mean, I don't I look at Sam Harris infrequently, but whenever I run across Sam Harris, he seems like a full blown religious fanatic to me. His religion is whatever it is, humanism, resign as or whatever, but his commitment to it is. Is instantly recognizable as religious faith to me. Right. Yeah, I think, you know, the approach that I take to all those debates is worldview based and that what that means is that it's not primarily. One side stacking up evidences versus the other side stacking evidences in which one way it's more so analyzing our fundamental commitments or our paradigm through which we interpret the world. That's a lot more effective if you can destroy the person's paradigm. For getting them to actually change their mind. Right. So one of the threads that connects everything your first I would say you've been thinking about. Faith in a serious way much longer than most people your age, I think this was a pretty secular country or I thought it was. But you were thinking of the stuff early and maybe that's why you have an advantage over a lot of us. But I've now concluded that like everything is a manifestation of religious failure. And it just goes by different names and so we missed it. We thought we lived in a secular country. We actually live like all countries. It's a very religious country. You wrote a book on what called esoteric Hollywood, which is basically revealing analyzing and revealing the religious symbolism within popular art. Yes. What is telling the thesis telling me why you wrote it and give me some examples. Well, when I was doing undergrad, grad work, I had multiple interests, not just philosophy and religious stuff, but also I've always been interested in film, love movies, grew up in a small town. So we didn't have much to do other than drugs and movies. So I always gravitated towards that towards the arts. I enjoyed performing, doing comedic type stuff, always wanted to be involved in some way in media. So it was only natural, I think to also take a lot of film classes, study a lot of lit and then sort of bringing them all together, synthesize all these ideas. And just for a long time, I was just blogging for fun as I was doing undergrad grad school. I would blog about movies I was watching. And I was also studying like propaganda, psychological warfare, how the overlaps with intelligence agencies and how that overlaps with Hollywood. So the book ended up being the product of just a lot of college and grad school research, particularly about figures like in Fleming, how he would take sort of his own personal experiences in black ops and intelligence and then put that into the character of James Bond. I mean, he's not the only influence, but he's one of the main influences on his character. And then how Bond was such a powerful iconographic image to do cold war propaganda. So I just always found that relationship fascinating between all these domains. You got literature, you've got movies, you've got intelligence stuff and all kind of playing together. And how they use that as a kind of tool of Western propaganda. during what I think is a dialectical false cold world that war dialectic but it's very Instructive on many levels how you know, we were talking about icons earlier, but bond is a kind of icon of sort of Western nihilistic Nietzsche and uberman right that Was used in the Cold War to contrast against Soviet ideas of the collective man the new man the you know Versus the individual man You've got Capitalist sort of self gratification on one side and then agree we've got the side of the you are a property of the state Both of these are dialectical opposites right and usually the way dialectics work in terms of big term strategy is to synthesize these so I was also studying Hagle and Hagellian dialectics in college and how that that's and he does say that there's thesis into the synthesis There's a good academic research which I think demonstrates that Hagle was also influenced by a copillistic ideas So you have the two pillars of mercy and severity and then you have the synthesis of those two extremes That can be a way of managing and controlling And people have got this down to a science. It's not just my speculation You can read like global elite writers like Jacques at the Lee you'll talk about Cold War being two pillars of two two sides of the dialectic that you sort of manage the the middle ground and you can synthesize and bring them together so essentially what I argue in that book is just through a lot of different essays that I wrote analyzing Kubrick and Spielberg and David Lynch and Hitchcock a lot of different directors in the first book Not all negative just sort of doing analysis. I'm not saying that everybody's involved in a grand conspiracy It's more of a concentrated essays on different themes and topics relating to sex cults and Symbology and film and how powerful at least in last century Hollywood was for giving us our religiosity whether we know it or not You know, we mentioned Myth-making and we mentioned Plato and you know played us out of the noble lie in the Republic We thought we were in a secular society We were actually given an entire religious mythology through Hollywood You know, but Edward Bernays said Hollywood is the greatest engine of propaganda the world had ever seen at least up into that time And that was obvious to me even as a child in the 70s what was not obvious was that it was religious propaganda Yeah, I didn't realize this was our religion. I mean maybe not overt, but it's there right? It's it's a subtle way to indoctrinate people into various types of basically just anti-Christian Ideology, I mean the book is not just like a low-tier thing saying that Hollywood's evil and it's anti-Christian everybody knows that It's this is more of an analysis of analysis of like you know Was eyes wide shut perhaps a window into something like Epstein before we knew about Epstein that kind of stuff I think that that's fascinating to me. I'm not saying that that was a kubrish intention But sometimes the arts this is really really crucial with like Dosey Epsky like the arts can predict things even had a time I'm not with such recurring frequency that you think is this what is this? This is almost a kind of a prophetic spirit almost Yes, or you know, it suggests that like we're just acting in a drama who's script has been written I don't know I mean I've literally no idea I should but Well, it's outside just as statistical matter outside the realm of chance for example how many times the Simpsons predicted Coming events like what is that? I have known writers on the symptoms Simpsons. They're not Yogi's they're not Mystical figure. I mean, I don't I have no idea what that is, but I just noticed that it's it's happened It does happen two different phenomena that for one like if you read Dosey Epsky and some of his novels he would write almost with precision I think not because he was in on it, but because he was actually kind of Genius like he would write about he was a genius. He would write about Years before what the Bolshevik revolution would do and what the socialists would do in Russia and almost with accuracy in terms of like the number of skulls that would be melted up That I think it's prophetic in the case of a lot of what went on in Hollywood in the last you know several decades that's more so propaganda this intentionally Conditioning us Especially with a lot of like tech Gadgetry, you know the Bond films actually introduced a lot of people to Sort of spy world gadgetry that would then become day-to-day normal American living, right? I mean even cell phones like the internet itself is just old school cold war cryptography that turned into Everybody's form of communication You know a lot of the spy surveillance gadgetry or whatever you see going on in James Bond This begins to be a thing the conditions people to getting used to you know being surveilled getting used to having all their lives on the internet Livestream I'm saying that there's broader components to These types of stories that do conditionists. I don't mean to go full skits over here. I'm not saying they're like everything All I would just plan. I'm just saying that The deeper that you go into it you do realize for example that See how he's consulted on movies forever forever like all the way back to even before You had famous actors and actresses that were spies I mean a lot of people don't know this stuff. That's just kind of level one of this stuff But it even gets more sophisticated into like studying the effects of early slasher films that are had on people It would put people in like a catatonic state to make them more suggestible Everybody's probably heard about subliminals like all of that is Related to our Jason to the type of things that we're discussing here like this is it's a very niche, but well-studied branch of how to use fiction To condition people and one element that might be a little more accessible to people is that if you go back to the turn of the century last century in the UK Especially as they eventually had the official secret act you couldn't say What you did when you worked for British intelligence or whatever, but you could write fiction novels that kind of loosely told those stories And so a lot of British authors that are now famous, you know formerly wrote Or formerly working British intelligence and then like William Summers of Maul him and these different characters Graham Green Graham Green exactly they would go on and then of course he and Fleming they would they would write into The stories what they'd actually been up to you could write our man in a van But you couldn't actually write what you did in a van exactly um And then you on you'll find these fascinating Nuggets, you know Joseph Conrad as a secret agent, which was one of the first There was one revolutionary arrows spy story every the name of it, but his is sort of the most well-known the secret agent and you've got like The states using anarchists. There's a false flag event like you've got these principles in these fiction stories Which seem to match up to reality So I just found that fascinating that that you would have all this In fiction and then that sort of blurs the line between reality and fiction Sometimes intentionally because audiences will watch things and it will sort of embed in the subconscious And I'm not trying to be again, I'm not being skit so about like you're getting programmed whether you know it or not But I don't think all Plays and fiction are bad. I'm just saying People don't go to Argo to realize they're watching propaganda, but they're watching propaganda Does that make sense? Of course, and that's why it's effective so one question That appears in fiction And raises speculation in real life and it's a very specific question and you may know the answer Is there evidence that intelligence agencies of any country have used or criminal organizations in any country have ever successfully carried out assassinations Using crazier suggestable people who don't know they're participating in it Which is to say like Lone gunman shoots public figure Lone gunman is actually a tool of some other organization doesn't know he's a tool of the organization He committed the murder, but he did so Maybe unbeknownst to him at the urging of some other groups or Hans or Han for example Is there any evidence? Do we know that's actually happened ever? I think it's Very obvious that it has happened. I don't know What the standard of evidence is would be to say with absolute certainty in a specific case You know people talk about Marius Vanderloeb that he was right used, you know for the right side We people talk about as you said sir Han. I mean you could say Oswald perhaps was If there is such a thing as false like recruitment Which is where people recruited into thinking that they're working for this group. They're actually working for this other group That's correct. So that does occur and I think that if you study assassinations and how they're conducted They don't happen often, but They do tend to use you know Crazy people are or people that are very suggestible So I think that's definitely probably 100% goes on. I mean We had what was Shinzo Abe was one of the most recent Other than Charlie Kirk obviously, you know assassinations that there was some weird weird things with that in terms of Usually political ideologues or religious ideologues are very useful for these types of of operations um Yeah, I think I think especially with JFK even you've got significant evidence If you look at the person of Angleton and if you look at what came out of the JFK files like he was literally just passing all kinds of information to the sod It's in the JFK files. There's like four pages worth about his secret relationship with him Assad. I think there was a confluence of interests, as you said, with organized crime, CIA and Israeli interests all sort of had the motive in regard to JFK. But I think that's a recurring pattern is to absolutely contract it out to either organize crime. I mean, murdering began as a Jewish assassination squad that was used by not just Sicilian mafia, but also at times the US would contract out and use these people for operate. If you want to get rid of somebody, just use the gangsters. You're not going to do it yourself. So yeah, that's well known. I think if you look at Operation Underworld where the CIA was using organized crime for many years, how much evidence is there that the CIA do you think has an act of role in American politics now? My research has mostly been past decades of that relationship. So I'm not the most up to date on President Obama's. I would have passed his rule. I was concerned. I was worried that the United States, US politics has been influenced by intelligence. I mean, I think when people talk about the deep state, we're talking about a sort of break away national security apparatus that has a tremendous amount of influence and control on domestic and foreign policy. Absolutely. I think that superstructure that is international, that is, you know, people talk about the five eyes and all that kind of stuff. I think that they do coordinate. I think it's very clearly when you get up into that level, even above intelligence to say, Hey, when you get up into that level of like steering committees and the CFR, the trial ad rules, like it's not accidental that Epstein was literally David Rockefeller's leagueate on the trial lateral commission. He was a commissioner for it. I mean, that's that they created that for Prasansky. Right. And then, the Kissinger who went today, Rockefeller said, we do this. God, Prasansky would be great for trial lateral. They created it for him. And so for Epstein to essentially be at that level, which is not, I don't think we knew that until that, you know, ban and interview came out. And Jeff Ripsey, yeah, I was on the trial. I don't know. I was up there with David Rockefeller. That's. Yeah. That's one of those details that's, I mean, do you ever suspect that the sex is the sexual components of the Epstein story, which I don't want to minimize because they're awful. But do you ever suspect that maybe they're also a distraction from bigger questions? It's much bigger than that. Yeah. I mean, in a lot of those emails and text messages and things that came out, you've got like, I've got so many crazy examples like you've got, I mean, you got high level finance, money laundering, it's part of that. You've got weapons trafficking is a huge part of that because if you're waiting in the web's book, right? It's the Adnan Kishoggi operation, which also included like filming people in that yacht. That becomes kind of a pattern for also the way that Epstein would do his stuff. So you've got weapons trafficking. You've got the high level blackmail. You've got human trafficking. You've got money and finance. And you've also got planned chaos in certain areas that you move money to prior to the chaos to benefit from the destruction, which is something that the inflaming head specter doing all the time. So I suspect the inflaming was talking about the sort of Epstein level, Rothschild level gaming of different markets because that's a huge part of what they were doing where he's basically emailing around the Rothschild and he's saying there's going to be a huge conflict over here, move in early, buy up resources, etc. Because the chaos is coming. They did it about Kenya or Shumie Somalia. There was emails about how to do this with the Greek debt crisis when that happened to buy up after it collapsed. So that's a huge component. And we know that that's nothing new because the Rothschild's biography that I was just finished reading by Morton brags about how they did the same thing at Waterloo. They crashed the London stock market on the basis of false information and then bought it up when it crashed when they figured out that the information was false. So that's exactly what the same thing that Jeffrey Epstein was doing in the emails with Aran Daraachal. It's funny that they called the thousand years after the fall of Rom the Dark Ages as compared to this. It's also crazy too that we think that there's no religious component to the world today when we seem to have all kinds of very demonic activities going on which suggests secret societies, cults, you name it. So I think that the world really operates in this way versus the sort of secular mythology that we were taught. Yeah. I mean, I don't see anything secular happening really in the United States at all. And if you, I mean, I just first noticed this on the LGBTQ, I can barely pronounce it, agenda question where the commitment to that was like more than just no compassion for, you know, discriminated against gaze. It was like this religious fervor. And that was the first sign to me that actually I think we're dealing with a faith here. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, you find elements of these types of ideas in various Talmudic texts. For example, the idea of aliens. I'm not saying that there might not be unexplained phenomenon. I think there is. I think there's a demonic component to it. But the idea specifically of, there's one of the track dates that discusses the 18,000 worlds. So it's an older Talmudic idea that there are these other life forms. And I think that this recent films like Disclosure Day, Spielberg's ethos that kind of, I think that plays into that idea that no, there's not demonic stuff because if you watch that movie, the whole thing was like, no, they're actually your friends. They're sort of alien savior. This closure day makes that case. Yeah. It's kind of like, don't think it's demonic. This is more of a salvific type of thing. So I think that's propaganda. So we welcome our new alien overlords. Much like Childhoods in. And if you've read Childhoods in, you know the Ortheres of Clark who is butt buddies with Crowley, right, they're actually promoting this idea that Kerala who's this, he looks like a demon, right? But he's our alien savior. And he comes to earth and gives like medical advances and technological advances. And then he says, oh, by the way, I need your first generation, your, of your children. And then he takes them off and nukes earth. So it's like, I'm going to save you by taking your kids and destroying the rest of you because you're all going to kill yourselves. If we just let you be, I'm just giving that as one example, like famous propaganda in sci-fi, A.C. Wells was a huge propaganda. It's about the same, the stuff too. He was a high level. He just wrote himself as a Luciferian. He says in his book, God, the invisible king. He says, you might think that in the coming technocracy brave new world, you're going to be atheist. No, no, no. So we have a different deity. He's Lucifer. He will be the deity of the future. He's a Promethean, you could say. He was also like one of the chief propagandists for this sort of raw-tailed millenar Fabian circles that were promoting socialism and technocracy back in the 1800s, late 1800s, early 1900s. What are the consistent lies that this propaganda tells? What connects all of the, one of them, I'll just start by saying one of them, one of the main lies that they're committed to convincing you of is that all of this is secular. It's all science-based. It's materialism. Like nothing, there's no spooky supernatural. You can notice that. Yeah. One of the things I've done on my YouTube channel last 10 years is what I call the Global Elite Book Series. And all we do in the last 10 years is we pick various Presensky, ACLs, Jacques Attali, Carol Quigley. I mean, you just go down the line and we read through the text and then I do a talk on them. And what we've noticed, we've done dozens of these, is there's a consistent pattern of, I say there's like five or six commandments of the elite that you have to be on board with. And there seems to be recurring pattern of because humanity's overpopulated, we must have global governance. We must have a United World Religion eventually. We must have full spectrum dominance, control area of life, everything's surveilled. All the way up to, we did, even did, remember, Klaus Schwab's Fourth Industrial Revolution book, that whole book, they came out right before COVID was about how the coming crises will bring about this sort of globalized one world order ruled over by Internet of Things, Sky Net type stuff. And that leads to rationing and austerity, all that kind of stuff that we've seen pushed by these people for so long. But I think some of the most telling books are like Jacques Attali's book, Brief History of the Future. That book was written in 2006 and he was the sort of Kissinger to, you know, the president of France, Macron, people like that. Maybe even Mithir Rana, forget who he was consultant to, but he was the Kissinger of France, huge Neocon type person. And in that book, he says towards the end of it, he says, we've progressed to the point where we're going to have a global marine, it's the Gollum because of the Gollum. And then you're going to be linked in, you'll lose your individuality when you're linked into the global brain. And he says, at the spearhead of all of this is the transhumanist, transhumanism is as Julian Huxley coined the term, the future that we're going into. So those are the elements, one-world religion, one-world currency, one-world brain, everything's sort of unified. And if you read Huxley, I wrote a bunch of Huxley's books, he says, not just in Brave New World, but he wrote another book, people don't know about, called the perennial philosophy. And he says, people don't realize that any theology, or ideology that allows you to have a significant degree of individuality has to be erased so that we can create the blob, the big amorphous blob, where we're all sort of blended into one giant thing that's controlled. It's the exact same thing that 100 years later, almost Jacques Atalice says in his books about the global golem. Like that's the goal is to create this sort of homogenized control of the world. And the goal of the, and of course, and that's the point of mass migration, eliminate distinctions. But the goal of all of that is what, the destruction of people? - I do think that there's a pretty consistent pattern of belief amongst a lot of these people who are technocrats and transhumanists. They think that technology will, even to go back to Arthur C. Clark, or everybody remembers 2001 Space Odyssey, and he co-wrote that and helped, you know, that come to the big screen. But he also wrote another book that was also a movie, which is very enlightening called 2010. It's not as good of a movie, but in 2010 it becomes more explicit that the Cold War was about producing a dialectical synthesis where the scientific elite from the Soviets and the West come together and they create the technocratic scientific priest class that rules us, that allows us to achieve apotheosis. And then in 2001, that apotheosis happens through union with AI and tech. So basically the idea is presented, I think in those books that we become God through technology. Rick Hertzvall, or he's even said this kind of stuff. So the singularity, all that kind of ideology, which is not new to Hertzvall, actually, Hagel had a version of this, they call the Omega Point, where all the dialectical oppositions eventually synthesize into everything in his view becoming spirit, which is everything becoming some sort of transcendent unified reality. It's Huxley's blob, it's, you know, I think who's that crazy, Teardishard N, the excommunicated Jesuit God. He talked about the new, everything becoming the newosphere and that actually influenced some of the early developers of the internet. They talked about creating this hybridized merged idea where everything becomes essentially the net, basically. So I think that that's how they see these things because they worship this idea of evolution. And I'm not saying there's not degrees of like adaptation in nature, but this idea that there is a determined, controllable pre-class that can steer us towards some sort of transcendent singularity Omega Point. That's sort of their religious, that's their eschatology. So they have, like you said, - That is right. - A competing eschatology. - That's right. - It's a competing eschatology that's nicely put. - But the goal, so the Christian eschatology is God returns. And the pagan eschatology is I become God. - Exactly. So now some of those writers were actually revised and reinterpret Christianity and you mentioned earlier, Rosa Christians. Some of those hermetic groups actually had this idea that Christianity is just sort of a allegory for immortality and resurrection through some sort of nocy, sort of knowledge or technology. - He should place man with God with yourself. - Yeah, Crowley. Crowley's a great example of this because he's a figure who by the way was also working for British intelligence. Alcer Crowley was a huge proponent of this idea of man achieving a pathiosis through not just tech, but through a sort of magical view of tech, which Isaac Asimov expresses in his three laws of magic or whatever, magic and technology are their C. Clark same ideology. He's hanging out with the Crowley in circle. So I think there's also an overlooked sort of satanic component to a lot of this ideology that people don't think about. But if you look at, for example, to go back to like the millenor Fabian Rothschild circles, they were promoting Madame Blubatsky heavily. She was a Fabian socialist and Crowley was a huge fan of hers. In fact, he told people to read her writings to understand. - Out of the Asophie. - Yes. So The Asophie is another great example, this kind of religion of the future that Father Sifram Rose talked about. In fact, he highlights The Asophie as one of the key elements in his famous book Orthodoxy in the religion of the future. St. Sifram Rose now, but very predictive, very accurate. That this is essentially demonic. He wrote that in the 70s, basically saying where this HD will sort of idea would eventually take us by our day. And he was spot on in the books kind of amazing. If you read it, literally predicting everywhere that we're at, but he says, this Bavaski satanic type ideology is what, for example, popularized yoga throughout the West. We wouldn't have yoga everywhere, every Instagram chick, doing yoga if it wasn't for Madame Blubatsky. And Crowley-- - With respect, Madame Blubatsky from the surviving photographs does not look like she practiced yoga? - I would not want to see her in yoga pants. - No. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I am a nasty person. Why yoga? - Well, there's a lot of reasons. I think that, and my wife just-- she did a whole bunch of podcasts on her YouTube channel about yoga and tantric Buddhism. There's a lot of reasons why Eastern philosophy-- and I'm not saying everything about Eastern philosophy is necessarily bad, but elements of Eastern philosophy is a lot more collectivist in the way that they approach who man is and what he is in the world. So yoga, I think, is a way to-- if you take it seriously, I'm not talking about people that just sort of stretch and do Pilates, but the actual process of yoga is intended to initiate you and basically the base of your spine, your shock, or everything, all that. That's supposed to essentially possess you. Now, I'm not saying everybody does yoga's possess. I'm saying that that's the purpose of it is you're invoking entities to begin at your butt stuff and go up and open up your third eye. So it's essentially an initiation process of what's supposed to be. That's what it is in the Hindu and the tantric tradition. But in the tantric tradition, it's actually a lot of really gross stuff, which people don't know that. But-- - What does that mean? - Like really gross stuff. Like actual tantric Buddhism when you get into the depths of what that's about is-- and it's probably absolutely just borrowed this for his whole process of pushing yoga. You have to do all of the worst possible actions to kind of get beyond good and evil. So it's kind of a niche and idea of like-- I mean, the worst thing you could think of, you gotta eat like feces, you gotta do incest. You can do all the worst things to not just balance the good side but also the evil side. So it's a left hand and the right hand path have to be transcended. - Right. - And so their idea-- - This is a common idea, not just in-- - No, this is the inner teaching of like tantric Buddhism. Like if you were to-- - But not just tantric Buddhism. I mean, there are other groups have adopted the same thing. - Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah. You could see why Crowley saw that as a plethora. - A plethora of things. - Aeg exactly. A couple of stick echoes there too. But the core idea is you have to go as far out as you can. - Yes, inversion. The principle of inversion, and we talk about this a lot of times. And you know, people in our sphere, my buddy Mark Hacker, he's written a bunch of articles about Orthodox theology and philosophy and Soviet history. And he's talked about some of the early, for example, Bolsheviks, one guy named Gleb Bokeyi. He was very interested in sort of eyes, white shut inversion stuff as a way to revolutionize society in terms of the Bolshevik revolution. There was-- - So committed atrocities. - And but not just like killing, but also to promote in society like degeneracy. Because that has the-- That can revolutionize society. - But it, that's true. - It is. Like one of the key 60s counter-cultural revolutionaries, Wilhelm Reich actually had the idea that in order to have a successful cultural revolution, you would have to have total open sexual pan relationships because that would remove patriarchy. And then with the rise of the goddess and the feminine principle, that would allow the actual socialist revolution. That was his idea. - Very common, it was a very common idea. And the old-fashioned communist, you know, Stalinists were-- - Prudish. - They were against the gay stuff. - Totally against it. But the Bolsheviks had been the pre-Stalin period, had embraced that, Stalin pushed back against it. And then in the United States, in the late 50s and 60s, a bunch of revolutionary movements believe that. The SLA. - Yep. - Charles Manson. You know, there was all orgies and-- - But that-- - As the ethos of the 60s countercultured stuff wasn't just-- you know, Ginsburg and people like, you know, coming up with crazy ideas to party. There was an earlier idea that some of the key Fabian socials, for example, in 1890, some of the Fabian socials like the Interest Sydney web, they actually understood that if you promoted, for example, B.C. Reality in public art, this could undermine and destroy the UK's sexual ethos at that time. Or way out of the curve, like in the 1890s, Bertrand Russell was famously pansexual, like one of, you know, Terence McKenna, a big open relationship. So they've always understood that to remove those boundaries is actually a way to invert and then change society on the masculine. Two unleashed power. Exactly. Power that comes from that, from transgression, it's demonic power. Exactly. But they never called it that. But it's clearly true. But the Tantrix understood that. They actually understood that you're actually sort of taking on sort of more, more demonic energy versus, you know, God's uncreated energy. But it's still energy. Yeah. So in Satan promises Jesus that he can have, you know, the kingdoms, he could deliver the kingdoms, like he had the power to bestow on those who worshiped him. Like it's real. There is a real demonic power that can, yes, be tapped into, you know. So that's what makes it even more compelling. I mean, there's a reason people, it's like cigarette smoking. Yeah, it's bad, but people do it. Why? Because they get something out of it. There's a reason that people worship demons, not just because they're inherently perverse, but because it works short-term. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Absolutely. And again, that principle inversion is well known way back into, you know, like ancient, I'm reading. That's why you sacrifice the Incas sacrifice children. So the Mayas and the Aztecs and the Vikings and like when you sacrifice a virgin to the rain god, it actually rains. Well, like, you know, you probably heard of Michael Aqino, right? Yeah. You know, everybody might have heard of his, he wrote that, uh, mine were to side war document, which like the army's doctrine of psychological warfare back in eight years or whatever it was. I wrote that. And then I wrote that book called Black Magic and the whole book is basically, I remember reading this years ago, it's basically taking the principles of Egyptian sorcery, but applying it to like military psychological operations. So yes, actually people do study ancient sorcery and magic and that kind of, the CIA even had a whole program. I want to say in the seventies kind of adjacent to project stargate where they were studying Satanism and they're called to sort of weaponize and try to understand these ideas and see how far they could go with them. Where did nuclear technology come from? Do you think? Uh, I mean, you, Oppenheimer described himself as to a degree sort of engaging in, I mean, I don't know how serious he took it. I've also read some interesting critiques of Oppenheimer that argue that he was perhaps more of a propagandist than an actual scientist. So in a lot of these domains of like high esoteric science, I don't claim to be a scientist, some more of a philosophy guy, but I don't know, but he could have been much more of a propagandist than he was an actual scientist. I think that was true of a lot of the scientists involved in this. It's not clear what they were creating. It's very clear that they were used to create the illusion that they were creating something, but it may have pre-existed them. I'm just just throwing that out. Well, you know, one thing that's interesting is that the way that some of the early people involved in those chemical sciences, you probably heard of Jack Parsons, he was a, you know, Crullian, they would sometimes describe what they were doing as a kind of ritual. So they saw the idea that you could split the atom as kind of a ritualistic principle of by doing this, you release energy, which is the very type of thing you were talking about with like the demonic aspect that it's releasing and controlling. Trying to control the energy. Well, it raises like a question, which is like, where does the active creation come from? So the active creation is God, you know, it's God's doing. It's the active destruction. Right. Insane, it's destruction. But the active creation, like every person who's ever, every person, really, who's ever engaged in an creative activity knows that there's what we call the small inspiration where the idea of the notion comes to you, but where does it come from? And people don't explore that question for some reason, but it's an open question. Like, where does that come from? Ideas pop into your mind, thoughts pop into your mind that you've never considered before, but that are just there. And so you're not really coming up with them so much as you're summoning them. Is this what I'm saying? Yeah. And that's true for good things, but it's also true for bad things. And I mean, does any living person not know what I'm talking about? Well, so in the Orthodox tradition, we have this idea that your thoughts come from one of three sources. It either comes from you and your own sort of innate spirit and creativity, which God gave you, or it comes from God, or it comes from the angelic or demonic realm. So there's three possible ways that you could get that inspiration. The term that's used in the Greek is low geathsmoey, which is sort of thought forms that can sometimes occur. Usually those are in the Orthodox tradition spoken of sort of as demonic influences, but you're right to that, I think that that idea of inspiration and then putting it into your work. If you look at it from the evil perspective, that's the whole thing that Crowley talked about in magic theory and practice is that all you're doing is he says, the world and all of his actions are equalized. Everything the world is equal. There's nothing good or bad. And the true magician is the one who takes the matter or the things in the world and puts his will and intention into it and then affects an energetic change in the world. And whichever one is successful and takes on, that's the true magician. Now, I mean Crowley is a liar and a deceiver. So I'm not trying to give him too much credit, but that is the attitude. I think that a lot of people who engage in that type of an idea, they have that principle that they think that they're doing sort of magic workings in the world to affect change and that makes them the magiest. Does that make sense? It does make sense. I just as I get older, I have come to believe that they're that we're really kind of a pass through a lot of the time that we're subject to all these external forces that we don't acknowledge, we don't perceive most of the time, but those are really the defining moments of our lives. We either accept or reject things presented to us from outside of us. I guess that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I mean, really I didn't find any significant deep analysis of this type of analysis of like spiritual psychology, as you could say, until I got deeper into Orthodox tradition where they go pretty deep into understanding this kind of stuff because if you think about it, I don't want to degrade the office too much, but like a priest or the Orthodox priest, there are masters of human psychology. That's not all they are, but if you hear for decades people's confessions, you're going to be a very good psychologist if you're good at it, right? So you're going to understand, not just human weaknesses and stuff like that, but you're going to understand these other influences and hopefully have the discernment to know when the influences might be from the divine or when they might be from something else. You know, one of the things that Father St. Sir from Rose talked about in his book Orthodox, in the religion of futures that he warned about coming mass delusions and what would sort of dupe large amounts of people and one of the things that he tied into Hinduism. And New Age type stuff was also not just yoga, but the charismatic movement. And he was very insistent that this charismatic movement will continue to grow because it stresses the direct existential ecstatic experience as if that's necessarily from God when it could very easily be from the demonic. I think when you look at the manifestations and the domain of Charismatism and how that's now crept into the Roman Catholic Church, it's crept all into the Protestant evangelical world. And it ties it very closely into ancient sort of Hindu practices. That's the type of Christianity that's growing in Africa, Latin South America, it's rampant. It's a massively powerful delusion because it replaces traditional Christianity with the idea that it's something akin to voodoo basically. If you study voodoo, it's very, very similar to Charismatism in the way that anything that you experience trumps what's in divine revelation or what's in church tradition. It's all about the direct sort of ecstatic experience. And so it doesn't matter what happened or came before. Then that might sound like it's not that big of a deal, but take for example, Anli, the founder of the Quakers. Anli thought that her ecstatic experiences were God telling her that women should be pastors, women should be prophetesses, women should run the church, sexes, but she's a proto-feminist. She's a proto-women-bishop-pastor person. She started a cult. Her cult didn't grow, it's about to die. I think there's only three Quakers left, Shakers left. But it's a great example of the type of delusion that Western religionists have fallen into, which is that-- - Just be clear, just be clear, just be the shakers, not the society of friends. - No, that what, so she comes out of the, she's a schism out of the Quaker side of friends. - Shaker, yeah, they were big and mean. They didn't reproduce. - Exactly, so that's one of the downsides of like, not a long-term strategy. But it's an attack on not just patriarchy, but also attack on like good sexuality in terms of producing. - Yes. - But it's also like massive proto-feminism. So it might sound counterintuitive to say that that's very similar to the 60s countercultural revolution, but it's not because the whole idea of gay bishops or gay priests or women bishops, women priests, women pastors, it's all sterility. And so the more sterility that you get, the more your cult dies out, that's the end goal of all that is sterility. In fact, in the one minor profits, I want to say it's like Amos or Hosea, like there's actually a mentioning that the curse that you will get is the sterility that you desire. - Yes. - So what I'm saying here is like, you were talking about destruction, these actions, these inversions, they are a releasing of destructive power and the way to do that is to always invert the existing natural order. And that has a powerful effect in terms of, not just creating destruction, but also creating a scenario that's then more easily manageable and controllable from cunning oligarchical types of elites. - Yes, and it also infuses them with dark spiritual power. - Yes, there's just no question about it. It's not just the desire to get richer, the desire to control their people. It's that they are filled. - Yes. - When Justin Trudeau systematically destroys his nation, which he did. - Yes. - He gets something out of that. And it's not just like the consulting contract that comes after it's more than that. - This is what annoys me about Connie Inc. and sort of the fake conservative side of those who, they're unable to diagnose what's really going on because number one, they don't have the right spiritual component, but they're also averse to all ideas of subversion and conspiracy, all that's all crazy. But it's like, but isn't that a much better explanation of Justin Trudeau or these kind of, they're not just dummies who are like liberal, and they're actually perhaps consciously malicious. - Of course. - Or there are, or there are tools of, - Or tools of a higher, - Fancy malicious powers. - Right, but it's not, it's not a joke. It's not that they're just like stupid. - They're all like lame, effeminate, closeted gay guy runs Canada. You know, the second largest country in the world with the most natural resources if any place on planet or earth, I don't think it's an accident. - Well, when you read a lot of these global technocratic oligarchical elites, they're a lot smarter than people think. - And much more faithful. - Yeah. - You know, they're not agnostics. That's for sure. - So, when I wrap this up to go back to orthodoxy and its view of the future, its eschatology. So, like a lot of, and this is directly related to the power I think of Christian Zionism because that derives from the Christian Zionist belief about the end times. And given recent events, I think a lot of people are starting to think about history as a linear track. Is like, you know, there's a beginning and end of history. Like everyone feels that that's true. And there's gonna be an end to all this who knows when it comes. But there are a lot of people who are very focused on that. I don't know what I think of it. Probably bad, but whatever, leaving my thoughts aside, what is the orthodox view of the end times? - Yeah, one of the crucial components to contrast the Orthodox perspective to those sorts of dispensational Christian Zionist perspectives is that they've missed what the first advent in our view did. So, we don't believe that the kingdom of God is postponed to the end of the world. We think that at the first advent, as Christ says, many times in the gospel, the kingdom is here, the kingdom is in your midst, the kingdom is the presence of Holy Spirit. - This generation will not pass away before. - I can bet. - And we believe in what's called partial preridism and the church father, especially Christus, some emphasize in his sermons on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the finalizing of the reality of the kingdom coming into fruition. So, in other words, it's appropriate that the temple would pass away now that what the temple was a type of, which is the church is here. So now that the church, which is the true temple, has come, that is the surpassing of from type to anti type. So you wouldn't go back to types now that the reality has come. So much of what's in the Old Testament, whether it's the temple administration with the show bread and the lampstand and all that, those things are fulfilled in an RVU what the Orthodox church is. The Orthodox church possesses those things in here and now. So sometimes in theologies called the already not yet principle. So the kingdom of God, the end times are here now. They began at the first advent. So for us, for example, the book of Revelation, most people, most evangelicals, oh, that's into the world. That's John Hagee in the seven blood moons of Israel. No, no, it's now like we live in the eschatological reality when you go to divine liturgy that is heaven on earth now. It's not a postpone into the world. There is an end of the world, but Jesus brought the end of the world at his first advent. And one way that we know this is that most of the time when you ask that type of evangelicals on us or when does the reign of Christ begin? Oh, when he comes back. But every time Psalm 110, which is sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool, every time I sit in the New Testament, it's cited about his ascension, which happened after he died and was resurrected. It's not about the end of the world. It's about the ascension. So the church is the kingdom. And if you go back and read the prophecies in Isaiah in the Psalms that talk about the conversion of the Gentiles, that began when Jesus sent His apostles out throughout the Roman Empire. He had this prophecy in Daniel 2 that the empire under which this Messiah is born eventually becomes the kingdom of Messiah within three centuries the Roman Empire becomes essentially the Orthodox Catholic church. So we see all of that as fulfilled when he ascended and began his reign in his church. Thus there isn't end of the world, but we don't surround speculating about news headlines about when that's coming because we're already in the end of the world. Now when we go to the divine liturgy, that is the eschaton in the here and now. - It does make sense. So that kind of like changes your responsibility as a Christian living in the world. - Exactly, exactly. And it also doesn't make us worship some atheist nation-state in the Middle East that was created by the Rothschilds and the UN in 1948. - Oh, that's not in your liturgy. - No, I'm saying like my duty is not to, John Higgie's show far and the Blood Moons or whatever, Blood Moons pies. - What are Blood Moons? - You know John Higgie is. - Yeah, yeah. - Well, they always trust to play on whatever. - I can never be mad at John Higgie 'cause he just seems so lost, sad, but he's a deceiver. - Yeah, but I mean, he was doing this big thing a couple of years ago about the Blood Moons of Israel in times or signified by the Blood Moons. So I just made the joke of Blood Moons pies because if you know what a Moon Pie is, it's like, 'cause he's a portly fellow, but-- - He is, yeah, no. - He's at the Moon pies. Should just that, but it means then the Orthodox are not waiting for the next life. They're like engaged in this one. - Well, it's a both-hand, right? So it's not that we focus all of our time and energy on here in the now or politics or the social order. We have sort of, I guess, tiered responsibilities. I mean, obviously, for us, King of God would come first. The church is what comes first, but that doesn't negate, you know, the goodness of this life. So we believe in many goods, not just good or evil, right? Like, you might have in the history of the, say, Middle Ages Latin church, this idea that, well, to be celibate and single is good, but if you're married, that's somehow bad or lesser, right? We would say there's many goods versus this idea of a sort of a strict good or evil. That comes out of the dialectics that Augustine, Augustine had a very specific idea that just as an example, so the marital sex in his mind, sin, Augustine said, could never be, even though he admitted it to sacrament, he never understood how it could be a sacrament because for him, it always involves some degree of venial sin because in his view, man's will is either enraptured with God or with some creative thing. And if it's enraptured with a creative thing, like in the moment of sexual release, then you're in some way not focused on God. So he had a dialectical view of sin and good and evil and of the will. The Orthodox view doesn't have that view. In fact, we think that there's the possibility of many different goods. So married life is good and has graces, and there might be certain advantages to living a single cell of life, but it's not. inherently somehow holier than if you're married. And a lot of more orthodox monastics will even admit that that a lot of married people can achieve a higher level sanctity even than some monastics because just sacrificing itself is not I mean I just are mercy not sacrifice right so just sacrificing itself doesn't necessarily equate to a more holy status in the orthodox perspective although you might be able to do certain things that you can't do if you're married but that's a very different attitude from sort of like medieval Roman Catholic attitudes of like sex and marriage. What a conversation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.