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

I have a lot of questions to ask you if I want to begin with orthodoxy.

You are one of the most visible and maybe effective evangelist for orthodoxy, Christian orthodoxy, certainly in your age cohort, maybe in the country. You're orthodoxy. Why are you orthodoxy? What is orthodoxy?

I am orthodoxy because I went through a long journey trying to figure out what authentic Christianity is and so I was raised Baptist that took me eventually into Catholicism when

“I was about twenty twenty one, I think, I read St. Augustin City of God, I read a bunch”

of his other works and I thought, well, Baptist isn't right because I'm finding in the church fathers all these teachings that are not Baptist and so that kind of gradually took me in the realm of traditional Roman Catholicism, did that for a long time and as you get into, I think the more recent problems about it can do, post-fatic and tooth theology.

That led me to the question of how do I reconcile this with what I know the first thousand

years of Christianity teaches. So a long story short, it took me about eight or ten years, I finally came to the orthodox church about ten years ago, so that's the simplest, quickest reason is because I think the first thousand years of Christianity, I think, to most modern Christians, certainly American Christians, that's like a black hole, what does that even mean? The first thousand

years of Christianity.

“It's an area that we're not taught, I know that when I went to college, the only thing”

that we talked about from that whole period was like Augustin's Confessions and maybe maybe one other book or two.

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

Nothing about Byzantium. Did he exist? And then these people called the Medici's, make a ton of money and Italy and start funding beautiful art, and that's the beginning of civilization. So I, and I remember at college, I was like pressing the department, like why don't we

study some medieval stuff, some Byzantine stuff, and they were like, why should we? We don't care about that Christian stuff, so yeah, I think there's probably a little bit of an intentional desire to suppress that for, I mean, American education, I think it's pretty much brainwashing, so, so but yeah, one sentence, this might take between Constantine in the fourth century and the Renaissance you had Christian civilization.

The most successful empire history is the Byzantine empire from Constantine all the way up until the fall of Byzantium to the, to the, to the Muslim so why, why do you say it's most successful? That's a common sort of academic assessment, just in terms of their, they flourished on a gold standard for a really long time, they sort of clipping the gold, money clipping like the Roman Empire and the West had done before them and other empires.

So they, they fell prey to user as well. Yep. So they fell to a lot of the same issues that empires tend to fall to human weakness and like recognizable stuff, the generosity, all of that. Also, rap, rabid nationalism, how

“to tendency to break down empires as well. I like Spangler, and I think if you read”

Donald Spangler, he talks about there's kind of a life cycle, but I think the unique aspect of the Byzantium empire was that it was explicitly Christian based on Orthodox Christianity. And so in many metrics of what it is to be successful or flourishing, it flourished, but it did fall. I think again, I'm not trying to measure Christianity just on worldly success, but I do think it does play out in that way at times, right? If you're really based

around Christ, if you're, if your theology or civilization is logo centric, then it's going to play out that way. You're just going to prosper because you're aligned with what's true. You're aligned with that transcendent source. So anyway, for me, that journey ended up being eventually Orthodox Christianity. So back to the Byzantium empire, did you know what existed before? Well, I was aware that there was a Byzantine empire. No,

anything about it's out one. Not many people in the West. Again, there is a very clear, especially if you take humanities courses, the way they're constructed in college and maybe even younger private type of schools like you go from, you do the pre-secretics, you do play don't Aristotle, and then you do a Gaston, maybe a Stoic or two, and then you jump to Descartes. So you skip that whole period. And not just to say Byzantium, but also, you know,

the Latin West was, you know, explicitly Christian as well. I think that's, it's intentionally overlooked. They don't want people reading what brilliant thinkers we're doing in the Middle Ages, because this is where we get universities, universities come out of Byzantium. They come

of that whole period. So, but we are taught. We think that, you know, these are all post-enlightenment,

“you know, post-scientive revolution developments. They're not their medieval developments. So”

a lot of that suppressed, a lot of that, that kind of just read and learn of my own. I mean, medieval is an adjective, but also an epithet that's medieval. But you're trying to say, "Correct." It's ordering somebody. It's dark ages. They were dark. Like that's all Voltaire. That's all sort

of an atheistic, uh, French Revolutionary attack on what came before, uh, by design.

When did you learn that? Well, I was really interested in medieval thought, scholastic theology in college in my 20s, and so I was reading Aquinas and reading all these guys as I had all these atheists professors constantly debating with them, um, even though I did a public debate, my sophomore year with the atheists professor. So, I would be reading all those guys, starting philosophy and history,

“and then debating with those guys, and then coming to, you know, I don't conclusions about that stuff”

through just reading. So, interesting. I keep interrupting here. No, 'cause that led you to orthodoxy long stories for yet. Roundabout way I went from traditional Catholicism in my 20s to eventually, uh, took about eight to ten years to study orthodox stuff, pretty intensely. So, that would be, 'cause I'd put a lot of time in reading the Latin church fathers. So, I was reading Jerome and Ambrose and a lot of Augustin's works, and then I realized,

I'd never actually read the Eastern Church fathers. And if you get into church history and

that first millennium that you talked about, you realize that all of the seven slash eight ecumenical councils of that first millennium, they're actually all had in the East. They're all called by the Emperors, the Byzantine, the not called by the Pope. Certainly, the Pope was either there or had League guys there. So, the West was represented, but it was in its ethos. It was essentially Eastern and Eastern in its orthodox theology. So, I just decided to go on a long

reading track of reading all those guys as best I could for many many years. So, that would be like the capidotians that would be basal, the two gregaries. Since they're all valuesandria, St. Maximus confessors, St. John Demascus, those are some of the key figures in that

milieu of the first thousand years that set the tone of all of Christianity in terms of its

“most fundamental doctrines, the Trinity and Christology. Right? That's, that's what Christianity is.”

Those two doctrines are the key sort of lacepin that it all hangs on. So, the first thousand years is dominated by those topics. And that, in a roundabout way, look at what don't realize this either, that actually conditions what type of Christianity you're going to have. How it's going to affect society, how it's going to affect your life. So, for example, we've got a very truncated version of St. Evangelicalism that's only based around

just how you're saved. Right? It's not going to affect society. And so, those types of Christianity or, obviously, deviations, they're also very susceptible to being used by other groups. I know you just had a, you had a guy on talk and about Evangelical Zionism and dispensational theology because that theology is sort of based around an imminent, you know, into the world type scenario, you sort of retreat and you're not able to create a vibrant cultural effect of Christianity.

That's by design. People figure that out. They were very cunning. A few centuries ago, they realized that that's a kind of Christianity that could be useful. So, that theology, which I'm not an expert in, but I've heard a lot about in the last couple of years, is so totally incompatible with what the New Testament actually says that it makes you wonder like what kind of church could fall for that and it would be a church with a pretty thin theology and exactly right. And a

structure that couldn't do anything about apostasy. And it's also antithetical to the Christianity of the first those mirrors. And the reason I keep saying the first those mirrors is that that's not just where we get these doctrines of the Trinity and who Jesus says formulated, but we also get the Bible. The Bible itself comes out of decisions of church fathers centuries after the apostles. Yes. So, we're going to have a church or religion based on the Bible. We really already

trunque 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 average truncated versions of the religion that make it susceptible to princes, foreign governments, NGOs, thing-tanks foundations. They become essentially tools of soft power, which is what I think much of the evangelical

very easily bought off. For example, very wealthy families in the West about a hundred years ago, we're able to buy off many of the main line Protestant denominations and turn them into effectual 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 Royal 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 old-guardical interests, and that's one of the, one of the weak points. I would say of Protestant theology, evangelical theology, is that it's very susceptible to that, not to say that the Roman Catholic Church or even amongst the Orthodox Church or

“aren't 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. -Right. That, you know, Billy Bobstrant Malchurch, right, doesn't have. Imagine this sensation, if you win, 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 trough. 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 seeing it in 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 vault 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 also like, if you have the attitude of a standard sort of Protestant evangelical person, there's nothing in history settled because every generation 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 Guestner, whoever, but when you actually go and read them, they have the shifts, 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 younger guy and it was unsettling, you know, 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 narrows it down. It's either going to be Rome because also”

is a March for New Orthodoxy. But what about Orthodoxy struck you as non-Calvinists? Like, what are the differences, the big differences? So, you know, Calvinism is not just predestination and in this sort of strict, satiriology or salvation doctrines. It's also iconoclasm, which ends up at think of facting one's view of art and aesthetics, idol smashing. Correct. I was a very avid sort of iconoclastic 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 ideology. I realized that like Calvinistic sort of republicanism doesn't really match up with Byzantine imperialism or monarchy, you know, the traditional views of the church's take on governance. The Byzantine Empire is at the

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 states and a sort of under Pope of 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, symphonia is what it's called in the Greek. So that's what I had to grapple with.”

But Calvinism really doesn't see it that way. It's a lot, it's more like a more, it favors Republicanism, there were famous battles between England, for example, the Presbyterians and the monarchists. So they actually had a huge fight within the history of the English Reformation as to whether they would be Anglican sort of monarchists or whether they would be Presbyterian Republican Calvinists. So that was a famous Reformation battle. But long story short again, 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 notional acceptance of a set of ideas and then God's attitude towards you changes. So it's despositional but it's not focused on an actual ontological change in the person. Orthodoxyology is

very different. God's disposition is based not on purely legal stance but on your actual ontological change. So I met my physical change in you versus a despositional attitude. So maybe when

“we get too heavy in the philosophy but I do want to. What 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 an ontological metaphysical status. We're just simply classing things together linguistically in a set. The middle ages in the ancient world, the time of Paul or the church fathers, they thought very differently. They thought that things have natures. They have essences and so the words

aren't just terms or nominal. Name is them. They actually describe what's really there in them metaphysically. Okay so there is human nature and in Orthodoxyology Christ is soon. Who

“did deny that? In the middle ages it begins with people like William Valkham. So Arkham is the first”

nominalist and the narrator exactly. He's known for that and he challenges some kind of established ideas of essentialism, 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 essentialism and essences and then you get another guy named Gabriel Bial 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, you know, menstrual rags, as I say, as a performer said, then how could God call you righteous up being a liar? What enter in nominalism and nominalism is able to say, 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 in 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 of a Hicoberman." And the whole thesis of that book by Lutheran is that Luther had to use nominalism. So so we're also the moving away, not just from theological squabbles, but the idea that things have natures. And that's this is how we get to

David Hume and Kant and these Enlightenment figures which give us the, you know, scientific revolution supposedly. This is how we get to, there's no male and female. So you can see kind of the logical

or objectively, because everything's just a name. So I can just name myself, he, him, Zerzy.

I'm not trying to go too fast or too far in the sense of like, you're notology, but I'm saying there's that 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, it's interesting that an adult could believe in something like that. I mean, having lived your life, known people, known animals, seen nature and 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, it's that's right. To be a”

doctorate into believing some sort of, I remember Terrence McKenna, you remember the site of not Terrence McKenna, I remember reading it one time. And he said something like, this is I'll 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 there. 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 worshiped in the land, Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fleeing their homes, amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocence are lost and without hope,

“fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them”

who's real agendas 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 were 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 of $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit SaveWestBankChristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That saveWestBankChristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. Yeah, and that's just its kind of apathy. The gender insanity is just the most obvious.

But it has a precedent in this right theology. This theology debate which was amazing. I've never

heard that before. I'm sorry to hear that about Luther who I've always loved. There's a lot to love about Luther. It's a character for sure. Quite a robust man and a happy family life and everything about him I like. But that is impossible to defend on just flies in the face of reality. Yeah, and even modern scholarship in the Protestant world is a great book by Alistair McGrath out

“of England. I think he's anglic and it's called "Ustisha 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 understanding of salvation that preceded the reformation was that people had to be changed in their essence in order to be said. So there's an actual participation in what the theology calls, the uncreated energies. So we believe that God has infinite divine energies and operations attributes as it's called in the West.

And for Orthodox theology and this is the patricic teaching as well, we participate in that. So we're not just changing a legal status. We're actually participating in the life of God himself, which when you go back and you read the new testament, you're like, "Oh, actually, what 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 the vign glory, so unless you think God has created parts, which would be polytheism or some form of vodology, uncreated grace has to be a reality that's a participable thing. Well, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will flow into people

Mediterranean. So absolutely, this is what Peter says in his epistle, right, that we become part takers of

the divine nature. So very strong language in the New Testament and the epistles for what we call theosis and the Orthodox Church. Paul says, for example, Thessalonians, that it is the doing a mess or the power of God that is at work in him. So the actual power of God, which can't be a created thing or created grace, which unfortunately, even in Latin, Roman Catholic church and millages 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 us off to human nature and incarnation and that Jesus deified the human nature that he assumed with his own immortality, grace, and uncreated energy. 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. Yeah. But in the Orthodox Church, it's a liturgical document. Correct. What does that mean? The tourgos 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, ancient Hebrew texts. It was part of, for example, David Psalms, those were Psalms

that David wrote to be sung at the Temple Liturgy. Right. So liturgy is a sort of structured form of worship that Orthodox, you know, Roman Catholics, Anglican's Episcopalians. They have a very structured form of worship that is called Liturgy. But originally, it just means sort of offering and even impoling epistles like the Book of Hebrews, you know, towards the end of in chapter 13,

“Paul talks about Christians have an altar that they eat from that. The Jews have served the”

Tabernacle, have no right to eat from, because our altar is the true altar, which is the liturgical locked, 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 desecralizing 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 has always worshiped

at an altar, at least the biblical God. So for us, the reformation and represents a form of turning away from that as a form of sort of duty-ized thing. It's a form of returning to a form of rabbinical, rabbinical theology. And many of the reformers were actually very influenced by rabbinic theology by the Talmud, even. So so the so the reformation has a stream of influences, Renaissance humanism, all those things play into that. And it's just very,

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 Neoplatonic text. And so there was also some, there's also some evidence that scholars have pulled up that suggests that Luther might have an interest in her metastasism. I'm not saying to that dominates his idea, but more so with Calvin and some of the Swiss reformers, they were a little more directly influenced

why rabbinic theology and Talmudism, but not so much Luther know. Luther was very anti-immediating like Moses. He said, I like to punch Moses's teeth out. So Luther didn't even like the Old Testament at times, but again, he's a boisterous sort of, you know, he certainly was a satirical character at time. So it's hard to know exactly. The most hilarious Theologian in history was very hilarious.

So it's hard to know exactly when he's always being literally much to be joking around, but

not only to miscarriage, because I know Luther wrote about the Jews and their wise, so it'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 monks and even later Lutherans were very involved in the founding of Rosa Cricutianism. Johann Andre is believed by some scholars to be the author of the Rosa Cricutian manifesto for what exactly what is called, but so that is

“there and a lot of that has to do with a couple of stick ideas. Who are the Rosa Cricutians?”

This was an Enlightenment era secret society of sorts, which in the 1670s, there was a lot

you had certain laws that would for Indian Catholic countries as well. They would forbid

“participation in secret societies. They would forbid practicing of the occult in varying various ways,”

but you also had court alchemists and people that would kind of like John D. He was the, you know, court astrologer to the queen. So they would kind of do these things on the down low, secretly.

And so you get a rise of these secret societies. This is where some of the first specular Masonic

law just start to pop up in the 1500s, 1600s in Europe, but you also had a very interesting confluence of hermatic and covalistic groups that were popping up, particularly Spanish rabbis that were very popular in Spain seemed to be involved in some of the rise of covalistic influence in the West. And that I think contributes in part to the Rosa Cricutians who, according to, there's a great book by a Dame Francis Yates called Rosa Cricutian Lightment. She actually argues

that the Enlightenment itself was heavily influenced by Rosa Cricutian 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 other 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 the sense of Orthodoxyology. But so all of these, there's sort of different strains and strands, the basic and aromatic world. Yeah. Yeah. 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. Do you know that?”

No. Yeah. So the 007, which is two balls in 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 Ian Fleming consciously took that from John D. But my 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. It wasn't. I mean, he might have actually done some rituals. But it was also very useful as a tool for sending messages to the lesbath that other people couldn't decode. Inflation makes credit card statements, particularly scary. You work 40, 50 hours a week just to buy groceries and gas, things you, you should 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 underwater, 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 up front fees are obligation to see how much you can save. Give American financing a call, 800, 685, 5696, as 1,800, 685, 5696 are visited American financing.net/tucker. America is home for home loans. So in the orthodox tradition in the church,

“the Bible is read aloud. Yeah. Are orthodox encouraged to read the Bible on their own?”

Sure. I mean, Saint John Chrysostom actually said famously that the lady have more need of reading the scriptures than even the monks for the priest because monks and priests

live in the liturgy, which for those who don't know. And the Orthodox Church, basically every aspect

of the liturgy in the liturgical calendar is Bible. It is scripture constantly. It's like every aspect of it. And so Chrysostom's 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 Chrysostom 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 thing. So the one of the reasons there was a 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

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-vatic and

two Roman church and the orthodox churches. The orthodox always put it in the vernacular.

Everything. The liturgy homilies are supposed to be in the vernacular of the people. In fact, the vulgate itself was originally the vulgar Bible. It was the Bible of people. And so yeah,

“I think there was an element to wear the Latin church. The Roman church had just sort of solidified”

into a kind of a tradition that'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-vatic and two. But interestingly, after Vatican II, there were both Protestant and orthodox influences on the reforms of the Roman Cali Church,

and thus Rome then became emphasizing that they began to emphasize a vernacular after Vatican II. What is, you said you were an iconoclast, a smasher of idols, 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, you know, 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 4th and 5th 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 written 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 world that I search, 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 is basically saying, "I was

“talking to Moses. I'm God." That's what the Pharisees want to stone 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, if he was called Jesus, the icon, IKON, 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 Duro-Yuropo synagogue in Syria. I think it's from the early 200s. It's lined with images, paintings of Old Testament scenes in imagery. So the orthodox church, if you look at the Duro-Yuropo synagogue, is the most natural development of,

if Christianity was going to open up to the Gentiles. It was coming out of the temple and synagogue liturgical system. It was exactly what it would look like. It would look like an orthodox church

“and low in behold. That's what orthodox church is look like. And by the way, I remember 23,”

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 room. 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 right in Italy. And so we went to the catacombs in Rome. And lo and behold, when the Christians were persecuted and they're underground in the catacombs,

the first thing at the third century. By the way, you could never see all the catacombs. Like,

we spent a whole day just in one of the catacombs in Rome. There's allters. There's images

had imagery. Plenty examples of this. The church fathers also write about it as well. So those are

huge. I would say differences between. And remember, the people couldn't read back then. Most most Roman Empire was to litter it. So when they would go to these services and the catacombs

“wherever, 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 from 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 of the scripture itself in terms of like

how the church decided what books go in, which once don't, was what's called the lecternaries. Lecternaries are the daily liturgical readings and the churches. So when the church fathers were having these councils and they were meeting and the canon of scripture doesn't actually get solidified, at least for the Orthodox Church until the 6th and 7th 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 Soulscriptura, the idea that liturgical tradition play this huge role in the dissemination of the canon make it very difficult to say that, you know, we're based on scripture alone, Soulscriptura. So orthodoxy is not based on just the Bible. Now we would, we would say the orthodox church is based on the idea of Apostolic succession that the apostles appointed successors in various districts and 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 churches. Whereas, you know, 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 community 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. You know, there might be a high church Protestant or Anglican community that would have some similarities with orthodox church, but I think, you know, 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? I would just abstaining from certain foods, the lent is a little more rigorous for the orthodox nowadays 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 and the church. So obviously some people could take that to the extreme. We're

not Hindu yogis, you know, sitting out under a tree trying to, you know, roll around in poop or whatever, but we do think there is virtue in training the body to be subject to the will so that the

“body's desires and passions don't control us. So that's why fasting has an important role”

basically learning to control the passions is what that's part of. I'm not the best at fasting

because I have a really weird gut-bion issues, so I don't fast as much as I should. It's very very challenging, but there's also people like there's nuances for medical issues. But the orthodox church fast quite a bit, usually from various meats and stuff like that. But it's not just fasting, it's different. I think for the orthodox church, it's not just about food. Fasting is also almost giving, because you're sort of, it's self-denial that's not just about diet. It's also

for example, during lent, it would be appropriate to confess more. It would be appropriate to give more than you normally would. So we make a pretty big deal about things like almost giving.

“Whereas, and I'm not saying that other groups don't give, but I think that's stressed a lot more”

than orthodox church, and it is perhaps in Protestant churches or other domains. But I mean,

I mean communion is a lot more serious than the orthodox church. You don't commune in the

“last year orthodox, you can't, like 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 and the orthodox church in terms of communion, usually within the liturgy, the priest says, you know, all who are baptized Christians who have prepared themselves through confession and may have approached the table, because we take it very serious. So we think it is actually, you know, the body blood soul and uncreated energy of Christ.

So we don't, we don't want to treat that lightly. And I'm not saying that Protestants don't have a reverence for their version of the sacrament, but it's, it's just a lot more serious than the orthodox church and it is elsewhere. But we do have some of the sacramental principles like confession to a priest that Protestants don't have. So again, there's, there's a whole milieu of wide scope of differences between. Everybody wants your attention. Think about

all the apps, the shows, the podcast, the websites that compete for your attention every, you can't keep up with it. You're probably wasting a lot of your life. Hello is not a waste of your life. The Hallow app can make your life. How is the world's number one prayer app in a constant topic of conversation in my family? Literally, every day at dinner, we should come over. This July, Hallow is 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, Siri, 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. All things we advertise, we know this works. Hallow app 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 worth a exchange review of government and its role? That's an interesting question. When I was a Calvinist, I was more like a sort of 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

we'll maybe Republicanism isn't like the highest form of government. 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,”

they have a vested interest in the public. No, but there were liberal in the best sense, mind to people who believed in inalable rights, who argued that a Republican form of government self-government democracy would devolve into tyranny. True. I played a rope 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 bot 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 gets 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

type of governance because he has this, I guess I'm going for memory, maybe it's symposium or the other one, but he argue 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 is stupid to 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, like, he's a Plato's talking about like Henry Kissinger's

form of like secret stuff, like secret stuff. Like secret stuff. Like secret stuff. I mean, we devolved to the level of Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, exactly. Cody Island. Exactly. Yeah, but it's all the same thing. It's just to, I mean, Jeffrey Epstein was an idiot, which no one wants to say, but he was, obviously when he read his writing. And so it's sort of our version of that. So I noticed that the enthusiasm for liberal democracy, whatever that is,

but our system of government that has produced 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.

“So that suggests 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, um, and that happens through a semi-sacrimental service called

a Coronation Service. So, you know, the Orthodox Church always coronated emperors, Zars, Kings.

Some of the most famous, you know, Kings in the history of Orthodox Church, you know, fought massive bottles. 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 a tendency in the Calvinist, you know, libertarian type of tradition, the classical liberal ethos, is there was a famous Russian statesman, a Pubanazi ever wrote a book, Reflections of a 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 I have two 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 that sucks in and runs things." And you're always going to be governed by religious fanatics.

So the question is, which really, what's a good one? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I've noticed that just from knowing people who run the country is like they're all deeply religious people, most wanted to admit it. Yeah. McCrone is not religious, who he's very religious. It's not your religion.

“Yeah, some other, like Luciferia. Yeah, exactly. I don't know what. Yeah, so, yeah, I think 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 symphony that we talked about. And then you get, and it's a confluence of interest. It's not just ideologues like Martin Luther,

whatever. In fact, maybe the reformers had a very powerful... For example, Luther's

Reformation wouldn't have succeeded without the German prince of the same height. Also, he, of course, they were resentful because they didn't want to spend the money. And they didn't want to be on the pope. They were tired of the papers. And Germany was emerging as the great power in Europe. And I like why would you want to be ruled by Italy? Exactly. So there was a lot of resentment. Paypal 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 Cornicherell quickly even Protestant and Jewish banking interests funded the French Revolution massively. And he's got a great chapter on the rise of the Parry Boss 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 Zarrist attitudes,

towards Russians, or towards Russian Jews. And Lord Rothschild wired one million rubles to be islanden. I knew about other like the warbirds and the shifts. They had funded Lenin and Trotsky, but I did not know that Cornicherell, Morton, they'd actually wired Lenin, 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, I think, conflict to some extent. I mean, obviously. The Lord Rothschild said that he said we've got to, we will make the Russian Christians 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. I knew nothing about it three or four years ago.

“Now it seems, I don't know, a sentence, but it certainly seems popular. Why is that?”

The internet has an interesting positive and negative effect that can have on all these domains, so I think in one way, what, you know, I started looking at apologetic stuff around 2001 and back then, it was, you would listen to people's cassette tapes, you would listen to a little MP3 on Windows, Media, Amper, whatever. But now it's everywhere. You know, the debates fear, which is something that kind of grew, not just from me, but I mean, other people like, well, you know, crowd are used

to go do this sort of come convince me to pay people. And then Ben Shapiro would go to pay the,

you know, college kids, the prepared weirdos. So that's a lot of low hanging fruit. Like 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 plan to do or anyone planned. It was just, I remember years ago somebody said, hey, would you debate this atheist guy was libertarian guy? Yeah, sure. So we did it on a whim. Then another guy,

hey, would you debate this other, you know, French Canadian ate this guy? Yeah, sure. And then it's sort of snowballs into, you know, a pretty regular thing of doing online religious political debates,

“it's got 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 wanted to debate your ideas, you want to have them 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, you know, 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. And 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, you know, debate their ideas for sure. And increasingly it's not a feature of our society. Exactly. We're talking in breakfast, you were a debate, participant champion in school. I was too. That was normal. I don't normal, but it wasn't, as we weren't seen as weird. No, now I don't even know that that exists. Yeah, it exists only. And so people are gutted. The kids, 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 an 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, too, the says quote. Nicely put. That's absolutely right. So, but people have been

on the internet debating religion and orthodoxy's gotten hearing for the first time. Maybe

ever in American history. Yeah. And the result is, I think, I mean, 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 what a reason being 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. It's not, they don't evangelize. So there's only been a few Jewish guys that even wanted 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're the most fun. If you

had to pick a Muslim atheist feminist, they actually have a lot of similarities, believe it or not, but Muslims are not very fun to debate. I wouldn't say that they're the most fun. I mean, atheist 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 did a lot of comedic stuff. So when we debate cult leaders, which we've

Are there any atheists left in the United States? Is that there was, and you know, he has a move that was very popular in 2000s. And I kind of think they ran out of steam. The worse 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 sign up, like 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. So atheism kind of loses steam. A lot of the YouTube atheists that were big YouTubers just kind of petered out one of them was sticking bananas in his butt, and they're just like, who cares? That's gross. Yeah. Weird stuff. So, and then other ones end up like marrying dudes that are women. So people begin to see, like, this has nothing to offer. I remember vividly someone telling me that Sam Harris, the famous atheist, was like,

really, really smart. Really smart. And I listen to Sam Harris once I said that that could

“start smart at all. Like if that's your, like our standards, I think have changed, maybe.”

And then I think it's gotten higher. Yeah. Well, I think people said Sam Harris was smart. Oh, yeah, in fact, I mean, I think the the tail end of that period was those debates with Jordan Peterson, and Peter, some was really critiquing atheists presuppositions. I think it 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? You know, even that wasn't enough really to like help. Like the atheists didn't have even enough response to sort of basic internal critiques, which is a very effective way of debating and doing, doing worldview debates is to do an internal critique where you show the fundamental contradictions within another person's worldview. Yes. That is one of the most devastating

“ways to go about debates. And I think Peter, some was was aware enough to do that with those guys,”

whether it's hit Sam Harris or Matt Dillon to your in the atheist, that that was kind of the nail on the coffin for the atheist, and then we had COVID, and then people were just like, "All right, we need explanation for frickin' demons." Yeah. These guys say there aren't demons. Obviously there's absteen demonic level shit going on, so probably God exists, right? Yeah, I think that's literally the path. Yeah. A lot of people, I don't think that's actually what happened for a lot of people.

And as an interesting that some of these high-level so-called atheists are flying with Jeffrey Epstein, and going to... 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've been wondering times like, are they even atheists? Maybe they have other kinds of commitments? Of course not. I mean, I don't... I look at Sam Harris in frequently, but whenever I run across Sam Harris, he seems like a

full-blown religious fanatic to me. His religion is whatever it is, humanism, resignism, or whatever, but his commitment to it is instantly recognizable as religious faith to me. Mm-hmm. Right? Yeah, I think, you know, the approach that I take to all those debates is world view-based, and that what that means is that it's not primarily one side stacking up evidences versus the other side stacking up evidences in which one way of. 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... Well, 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 this 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 faith, 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... Tell me the thesis, tell me where you wrote it,

and give me some examples. Well, when I was doing undergrad work, I had multiple interests,

not just philosophy and religious stuff, but also I've always been interested in film,

blood movies, grew up in a small town, so we didn't have much to do other than drugs and movies.

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 bring them all together, send the size of”

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 that 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 Ian Fleming, how he would take sort of his own personal

experiences and black ops and intelligence, and then put that into the character 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've got literature,

you've got movies, you've got intelligence stuff, and all kind of playing together, and how they used

“that as a kind of tool of Western propaganda during what I think is a dialectical, you know,”

false Cold War dialectic. But it's very instructive on many levels, how, you know, we were somewhat icons earlier, but Bond is a kind of icon of sort of Western, a nihilistic Nietzsche and Superman, 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 or sort of self gratification, on one side, and then over here, you've got the side of the U or 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 Hegel and Hegelian 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 Hegel was also influenced by a cobbleistic ideas, so you have the two pillars of mercy and severity, and 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 globally writers like Jacques at the Lee, he'll talk about Cold War being two pillars of two sides of the dialectic, but you sort of manage the middle ground, and you can synthesize them bringing 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, cult, and symbology and film, and how powerful at least in the last century Hollywood was for giving us our religiosity, whether we know it or not. We mentioned the myth making, and we

mentioned Plato, and Plato talked about the noble lie in the Republic. We thought we were in a secular society, but we were actually given an entire religious mythology through Hollywood. You know, Edgar Bernace said Hollywood is the greatest engine of propaganda the world has ever seen, at least in the up into that time. And that was obvious to me, even in such 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. 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. This is more of an analysis of like, you know, wise, wise, shut, perhaps a window into something like Epstein before we knew about Epstein,

“that kind of stuff. I think that's fascinating to me. I'm not saying that that was Cuba's intention.”

But sometimes the arts, this is really, really crucial with like Docyowski. Like the arts can

predict things, even at a time. No, 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. But, well, it's outside just as mystical matters, outside the realm of chance, for example, how many times the Simpsons predicted coming events. Like, what is that? I have no writers

I have no idea what that is, but I just noticed that it's, it's happened. It does have two

different phenomena that for one, like, if you read Docyowski 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 up, 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. 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 that's 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 that conditions”

people too, getting used to, you know, being surveilled, getting used to, having all their lives on the internet, live stream. I'm saying that there's broader components to these types of stories that do condition us. 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 CIA is 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, make them more suggestible. Everybody's probably heard about subliminals. Like all of that is related to our adjacent 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 have the official secrets 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 and Summer Somalum, and these different characters. Graham Green. Graham Green, exactly. They would go on, and then, of course, Ian Fleming, they would they would write into the stories what they'd actually been up to. Could write our man in Havana, but you couldn't actually write what you did in Havana.

Exactly. And then you'll find these fascinating nuggets, you know, Joseph Conner has the secret agent,

which was one of the first, there was one revolutionary era of spy story every of the name of it,

but his is sort of the most well known in the secret agent. And you've got like the states using anarchists, there's a false flag of it. Like you've got these principles in these fiction stories, which seem to match up to reality. So I just found that fascinating 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 what or not, but I don't think all plays in fiction are bad. I'm just saying, people don't go to or go to realize they're watching propaganda, but they're watching propaganda.

“Does that make sense? Of course. Yeah. 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, suggestible people who don't know their 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 unmonounced to him at the urging of some other groups or Hansar 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, people talk about Murray's vendor

I mean, you could say Oswald perhaps was, 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 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 were some weird

things with that in terms of usually political ideologues of religious ideologues are very useful

for these types of operations. Yeah, I think especially with JFK, even you've got

significant evidence. If you look at the person in Mangleton, if you look at what came on the JFK files, like he was literally just passing all kinds of information to the massage. It's in the JFK

“files. There's only four pages were about his secret relationship with the massage. I think there”

was a confluence of interest, as you said, with the 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 organized crime. I mean, murder ink began as 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 yourself. So yeah, that's well known. I think if you look at operation underworld or the CIA, it was using organized crime for many years. How much evidence is or that the CIA do you think has an active 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 press. But I would have passed it out. I was certain and we that the United States, US politics has been influenced by

“Intel. 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's like 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, like steering committees and the CFR, the trilaterals,

like it's not accidental that Epstein was literally David Rockefeller's lead gate on the trilateral commission. He was a commissioner for it. I mean, that's not they created that Fort Burzinski. Right. It was Kissinger who went to David Rockefeller and said, we did this good Burzinski would be great for trilateral. They created it for him. And so for Epstein to essentially be at that level, which is not, I don't think we'd knew that until that, you know, banned and interview came out

and Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, I was on the chat. I was going to say no, I was up there with David Rockefeller. Yeah, that's one of those details that's, I mean, do you ever suspect that the sex, 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? 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

there's so many crazy examples. Like, you've got, I mean, you got high level finance, money laundering is part of that. You've got weapons trafficking is a huge part of that because if you read what new web is book, right? Like it's the Adnan Koshogi operation, which also included like filming people on 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

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. We're just something that Ian Fleming had, Spectre doing all the time. So I suspect Ian Fleming 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, moving early, buy up resources, et cetera, because the chaos coming. They did it about Kenya,

happened to buy up after it collapsed, right? 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 Aranda Rothschild. It's funny that they called the, you know, the thousand years after the

fall from the Dark Ages has 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, you know, 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. I've had all.

And if you, I mean, I just first noticed this on the LGBTQ and I can barely pronounce it.

A gender question where the commitment to that was like more than just, you know, compassion for, you know, discriminated against gaze. It was like this religious fervor. Yeah. And that was the first sign to me that actually I think we're dealing with a faith here. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, there's the, you know, you find elements of these types of ideas in various tumbatic texts. For example, the idea of aliens. I'm not saying that there might not

be an explained phenomenon. I think there is, I think there's a demonic component to it. But the IDS specifically of, uh, there's one of the track tastes that discusses the 18,000 worlds. So it's,

“it's an older, traumatic idea that, uh, there are these other life forms. And I think that,”

just, you know, 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 the movie, the whole thing was like, no, they're actually your friends. They're sort of alien-saviors. It makes that case. Yeah. It's kind of like, don't think it's demonic. This is more of a cell-difficult type of thing. Um, so I think that's propaganda. So we welcome our new alien overlords.

Much like Chalda's in. And if you've read Chalda's in, you know, the Orzrisi Clarke who is butt buddies with Crowley, right? They're actually promoting this idea that Carallan, 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 of your, of your children. And then he takes some off and nooks 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. Uh, if we just let you be, and I'm just giving those one example like famous, you know, propaganda in sci-fi, H. U.S. was a huge propaganda. It's about the same of the stuff, too. He was a high level. Uh, he described himself as a Luciferian. He says in his book, "God,

the Invisible King." He says, "You might think that in the coming, technocracy, brave in the world, you're going to be atheists." No, no. So we have a different deity. He's Lucifer. Uh, he will be the deity of the future. So he's a promethian. You could say, but he was also, like, one of the chief propaganda for this sort of, um, Rothtail, Milner, Fabian circles that we're promoting, uh, socialism is agnocracy. Back, you know,

the 1800s, late 1800s, early 1900s. What are the consistent lies that this propaganda tells? Like, 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 up is that all this is secular. It's all science-based. It's, it's materialism. Yeah. Like nothing. There's no spooky supernatural. I can't 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 what all we do in the last 10 years is, like, we pick various presents key, H.U.L.s, Jocatoli, curl quickly. 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, you know, five or six

“commandments of the elite. Yeah. 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 Closh Wobbs, fourth and us revolution book. That whole book, they came out right before COVID was about how the coming

you know, sky net type stuff. And that leads to rationing and, you know, austerity, all that kind of

“stuff that we've seen pushed by these people for so long. But I think, you know, some of the most”

telling books are like, "Jack, I've to leave the book brief history of the future." That book was written in 2006 and he was the sort of Kissinger to, you know, the presidents of France, Macron, and people like that. Maybe even Mithoron over here, 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 brain. It's the gallum."

He calls it the gallum. We're all going to, a LinkedIn, you'll lose your individuality when you're

linked into the global brain. He says, "At the spearhead of all of us is the transhumanist. Transhumanism

is, as Julian Huxley coined the term, the future that we're going into." And so those are the

“elements, one-wheel-religion, one-wheel-currency, one-wheel-brain. Everything is sort of unified.”

And if you read Huxley, I wrote a bunch of Huxley's books. He says, "Not just embracing the 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, but we're all sort of blended into one giant thing." And this controlled exact same thing that

hundred years later, almost a jack-out to Lisa's. In his books about the global gallum, like that's the goal is to create this sort of homogenized control of it. 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 Arducy Clark. Everybody remembers 2001 space Odyssey. And he co-wrote that and help that come to the, to the big screen. But they also wrote another book that was also a movie, which is very enlightening called 2010. Sorry, it's 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 pre-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 Hertzfall, or he's even said this kind of stuff. So the singularity, all that kind of ideology, which is not new to Kurt's while actually, a Hegel head of version of this, that he called 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? Tear to Shardin, the excommunicated Jesuit God. He talked about the, 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 the 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, priest-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, they have, like you said. That is sort of a competing eschatology. It's a competing eschatology. That's nicely put. But the goal, so the Christian eschatology is God returns

in the pagan eschatology as I'd become God. Exactly. So, and now some of those writers were actually revised and reinterpret Christianity, and you mentioned earlier, Rosa Christians. Some of those dramatic groups actually had this idea that Christianity is just sort of a allegory for immortality and resurrection through some sort of noces or knowledge or technology. It's your place, man, God with yourself. Yeah, Crowley. Crowley is a great example of this,

Rosa Crowley was a huge proponent of this idea of man achieving Apotheosis through not just tech,

but through sort of magical view of tech, which Isaac Asimov expresses in his three laws of magic or whatever magic and technology, or other C-clarg same ideology, he's hanging out with the

“Cirline 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 millionaire Fabian Rothschild circles, they were promoting Mountable Vatsky heavily. She was a Fabian Socialist, and Crowley was a huge fan of her, in fact, he told people to read her writings to understand. Out of the Ocephi. Yes. So if the Ocephi is another great example, this kind of religion of the future that Father Saraphim Rose talked about. In fact, he highlights the Ocephi as

one of the key elements in his famous book, Orthodoxy and the religion of the future, St. Saraphim Rose now. But very predictive, very accurate, that this is essentially demonic. He wrote that in the 70s, basically, saying where this, you know, HD was sort of idea would would eventually take us

by our day, and he was spot on the book's kind of amazing. If you read it, literally predicting

everywhere that we're at, but he says, you know, this Bavasky satanic typology is what, for example, popularized yoga throughout the West. We wouldn't have yoga everywhere, every Instagram chick, you know, doing yoga. If it wasn't for Madame Bavasky and then Crowley. With respect, Madame Bavasky from the surviving photographs is 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 in my wife, just she just 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 philosophies, and I'm 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 serious, I'm not talking about people that just sort of stretch and do Pilates, but like the actual

process of yoga is intended to initiate you, and basically you're, you know, the base of your spine,

you're your shockers and all that. That's supposed to like essentially possess you. Now, I'm not saying everybody does yoga is possessed. I'm saying that that's the purpose of it is you're invoking entities to begin at your butt stuff and like go up and open up your third eye.

“So it's essentially an initiation process, 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? It's like really gross sex stuff. Like, the actual tantric Buddhism when you get into like the depths of what that's about is, and it's actually 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 enable. So it's kind of a

nichey and idea of like, I mean, the worst thing you could think of. You've got to eat like feces, you've got to do incest. Like you do all the worst things to not just balance the good side, but also the evil side. So it's the left hand and the right hand path have to be transcended. And so their idea-- This is a common idea, not just a-- This is the inner teaching of like tantric Buddhism. Like if you were to-- Like not just tantric Buddhism, I mean, there are other

groups of adopted Buddhism. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. You can see what Crowley saw that. It's a plan of monkey to sawter. Hey, exactly. Kabbalistic echoes there too. But the core ideas you have to go as far out as you can. Yes, inversion. The principal of inversion, and we talk about this a lot of times. And you know, people in our sphere, my buddy Mark Hackard, 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 Bokeye. He was very interested in sort of ice-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 like also to promote in society like degeneracy because that has the print that can revolutionize society. But it, that's true. It is. In fact, one of the key 60s kind of cultural revolutionaries will

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 decided. It's a very common, it was a very common idea. So the old fashion communists, you know, Stalinists were pretty dish. They were against the guys stuff. Totally against it. But in the Bolsheviks had been the pre-stalline period, had embraced that, Stalin pushed back against it. And then in the United States, in the late

50s and 60s, a bunch of revelations showing movements, believe that, the SLA. Yep. Charles Manson, you know, there was all, or G's. But that, the ethos of the 60s counter-cultural culture 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 phabian social, for example,”

1890s, some of the phabian socials like Beatrice Sidney Webb, they actually understood that if you promoted, for example, Beastiality in public art, this could undermine and destroy the UK's sexual ethos at that time. So they were way out of the curve, like in 1890s, Bertrand Russell was famously a pansexual, like, you know, Charles 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 mass scale. To unleash 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 tantric's understood that, they actually understood that you're actually sort of taking on sort of more, more demonic energy versus the, you know, God's uncured 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 worship him. Like it's, it's real. There is a real demonic power that can, yes, be tapped into. Yeah.

“So that, 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. Yeah. There's a reason that people worship demons, not because they're inherently perverse, but because it works short-term. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Absolutely. Um, and again, that, 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. And 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 a Michael Aquino, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, everybody, you might have heard of his, he wrote that, uh, mine were to sidewalk, you know, which, like, the army's doctrine of psychological warfare back in the 80s or whatever, it wasn't even wrote that, but he wrote another book called,

um, 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, and that kind of, the see I even had a whole program. I want to send the 70s kind of adjacent to Project Stargate, where they were studying, saying, as I'm in the occult, to sort of weaponize and try to understand these ideas and see how far they could go with them. We're didn't nuclear technology come from.

Do you think? Uh, I mean, you, open-hymer described himself as, to a degree sort of engaging in a matter of how serious he took it. And I've also read some interesting critiques of open-hymer that that argue that he was perhaps more of a propagandist and an actual scientist. So, in a lot of these domains of, like, high as a Turk science, I don't know, 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 propaganda

“than he was an actual scientist. I think that was true of a lot of the scientists. Yeah, in the”

next time. So, it's not clear what they were creating. Right. It's very clear that they were used to create the illusion that they were creating something. Yeah. But it may have pre-existed them. I'm just, just throw that. Well, you know, one thing that's interesting is that the way that's some of the early people involved in those chemical sciences that you probably heard of Jack Parsons, he was, you know, Crowley. And they would sometimes describe what they were doing as a kind of ritual.

So, they saw the idea that you could split that, and it's kind of a ritualistic principle of

the demonic aspect of releasing and controlling, trying to control the energy.

“Well, it raises like a question, which is like, where does the act of creation come from?”

So, the act of creation is God, you know, that's God's domain, God's domain. Right. And say, it's destruction. But the act of creation, like every person who's ever, every person, really, who's ever engaged in a creative activity knows that there's what we call this moment of 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?

The 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. This is what I'm saying. Yeah. And that's true for good things, but it's also true for bad things. Is it not, 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. The other comes from you and your own sort of innate spirit and creativity,

which God gave you, or comes from God, or 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

Logismo, which is sort of fought forms that can sometimes occur. Usually those are in the Orthodox

“traditions spoken of sort of as demonic influences. But you're right, too, 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 willing 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's 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 majest as I make sense. It does make sense. I just as I get older I have come to believe that there that

were 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 that those are really the defining moments of our life. We either accept or reject things presented to us from outside of us. I guess it'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, I guess you could say, until I got deeper into

Orthodox tradition where they go pretty deep into understanding that's kind of stuff. Because if you think about it, like, I don't want to diggerate the office too much, but like a priest or the ox priest, they're 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?”

I see you're going to understand, you know, 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 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, orthodoxy in the religion of futures that he warned about coming mass delusions and what would sort of

doop 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, you know, the domain of

charismaticism 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, you know, ancient sort of Hindu practices. That's the type of Christianity that's growing in Africa, lying in South America,

it's rampant, it's a massively powerful delusion because it replaces traditional Christianity with

charismaticism in the way that anything that you experience trumps what's in divine revelation or

“what's in church tradition, like 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, Anne Lee, or the founder of the Quakers, and Lee thought that her ecstatic experiences were God telling her that women should be pastors, women should be profitists, 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 the dialing, 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, you know, but the shakers, just be clear to them, the shakers, not the society of friends. You know, that would, so she comes out of the, right, she's a schism out of the Quaker, a sighted friend's buttery career. Yeah, and they were

“big in Maine, 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 counter-intuitive to say that that's very similar to the 60s counter-cultural revolution, but it's not because the whole idea of, you know, 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 one of the minor prophets, almost it's like Ames or Jose, like there's actually mentioning that the curse that you will get is the sterility that you desire. Does that make sense? Yes. So when 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 the

powerful effect in terms of not just creating destruction, but also creating a scenario that's then more easily. Man is one control from cutting oligarchical types of elites. Yes. And it also infuses them with dark spiritual peace. There's just no question about it. It's not just the desire to get rich or the desire to control their people. It's that they are filled. Yes. I mean, when Justin Trudeau systematically destroys his nation, which he did. Yes.

If 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 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 like the right spiritual component, but they're also a verse to all ideas of subversion and conspiracy. Oh, 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. They're actually perhaps consciously malicious. Of course. Or they're, or they're, or they're tools of or tools of the higher, more power, but it's not, 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

large is country in the world with the most national resources, if any place on planet earth, you 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 let, want to 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”

with the end times. And given recent events, I think a lot of people are starting to think about history as a linear track, because like, you know, there's a beginning and end to history. Like everyone feels that that's true. And there's going to be an end to all as soon as 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

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 the Holy Spirit. It's generational not passed away before.”

I confess. And we believe in what's called partial preturism in the church father, especially Christ has some emphasized in his sermons on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that the destruction of the temple in 78 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, right? 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 argue what the Orthodox church is. There were our church possesses those things in here and now. So sometimes in theology is called the already not yet principle. So the kingdom of God,

the end times are here now. They began at the first event. So for us, for example, the book

Revelation, most people most evangelical, because that's in the world and that's, don't hate you. No, seven what moons of Israel, no, no, it's now like we live in the astrological reality when you go to the Divine Liturgy that is heaven on earth now. It's not a post-poned end of the world. There is an end of the world, but Jesus brought the end of the world at his first event. And one way that we know this is that most of the time when you ask,

“you know that type of evangelicals, honest or what, when does the reign of Christ begin?”

Oh, when he comes back. But every time Psalm 1 10, which is set that way at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool, every time that sight in the New Testament, it's sighted 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 and the Psalms, the talk about the conversion of the Gentiles,

that began when Jesus sent his apostles out throughout the Roman Empire. You have 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 is an end to the world, but we don't sit around 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 ascathon in the here and now. Does that make sense? It does. It does make sense. So that kind of like changes your responsibilities as a crescendo. Exactly. Exactly. And it also doesn't make us worship some atheists nation state in the Middle East that was created by the Rothschilds in the UN in 1948. Oh, that's not in your liturgy. No, I'm saying like my duty is not to

“John Hague's show far and the blood moons or whatever blood moons. What are blood moons?”

You who John Hague is? Yeah. Well, he I don't they he always tries to play on whatever

I can never be mad at John Hague because he just seemed so lost sad. But he's a deceiver. Yeah, but I mean he he was doing this big thing a couple of years ago about the blood moons are visceral in times or signify by the blood moons. So I just made the joke of blood moon pies because it's not, you know, it moon pie is it's like, you know, because he's a poorly fellow, but he is yet he's at the moon pie. Should just that. But it means then the orthodox are not waiting

for the next life. They're like engaged in this one. What's above and? Right. So it's not that we focus all of our time in energy on here in the now or politics or the social order. We have sort of I guess tiered responsibilities. I mean, obviously, you know, 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, the Latin church, this idea that, well, to be celibate in single is good. But if you're married, that's somehow bad or less, right? We would say there's many goods versus this idea of a sort of a strict good or good or evil. That comes out of the dialectics that I guess, and I guess not a very specific idea that just has an example, he said, the marital sex

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 soda life, but it's not inherently somehow holier than if you're married. And a lot of orthodox monastics will even admit that a lot of marry people can achieve a higher

“level sanctity even than some monastics because just sacrifice in itself is not, I mean,”

I desire 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 roaming Catholic attitudes of like sex and marriage. What a conversation. Thank you. Very much. Thank you very much.