This week we're joined by John C. Wright and Max Dean Esmay to discuss religion, entertainment, and the importance of narrative.
John C. Wright's website: www.scifiwright.com/
Red Pill Religion: https://www.youtube.com/user/deanesmay
Website: http://www.redpillreligion.com/
Heidhrun's Website: http://www.freefolk.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freofolc/
Support: https://paypal.me/freefolk
My Discord channel: https://discord.gg/5RCvXX3
My website: http://www.staresattheworld.com/
My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini
My Gab: https://gab.ai/DavisMJAurini
Download in MP3 Format: http://www.youtubeconvert.cc/
If you feel like tossing some coins in the hat, I take BTC, BTH, ETH, LTC, & XMR as well as Paypal: http://www.staresattheworld.com/donate/
Or, you could back me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DMJAurini
Lord, thy protection, and in protection, strength, and in strength, reason, and in reason, knowledge, and in knowledge, truth, and in truth, justice, and in justice, the love of God and the love of every living animation.
Amen.
Amen.
Folks, thank you very much for joining us on this live stream.
I am, of course, joined by my co-host, the lady Haythrun.
And I have a very eminent guest, man.
I'm a huge fan of his work, the science fiction author, John C. Wright.
How are you doing today?
A pleasure to be here with you.
Very excited to have you on.
And we're going to have Max Dean Asme.
He'll be back shortly.
He'll be here in about five minutes or so.
But what we're going to be talking about tonight, I'm sure we're going to be delving into some theology.
We're going to be talking about fiction.
Specifically, I wanted to start with Star Wars.
Because, right, you are a series of posters absolutely eviscerating the new movie, The Last Jedi.
So you weren't a fan of it, I take it.
No, no.
In fact, I think it was how bad it was grew and grew on me as I pondered and pondered until my ponderer was sore as to the atrocity known as The Last Jedi.
I slowly came to the conclusion that it was a deliberate, not just reversal of fan expectations, which I sort of don't mind, but a deliberate slap in the face to the fans, a deliberate obliteration, deconstruction of every ideal hope and virtue that the original movies were playing toward.
And in fact, an attempt to destroy the canon.
It was an anti-Star Wars film.
Because everything was so badly done that I stopped believing it was done badly by a mere mischance, mistake, or incompetence.
Ryan Johnson, the director, did a film called Brick that I thought was just brilliant.
So I know he's skilled.
But in my analysis, it looked to me as if every single thing for which characters like Luke Skywalker lives are shown to come to nothing in this film.
And almost every character's actions come to nothing.
And every expectation that it's set up comes to nothing.
It's not a surprise.
A surprise is when you go into an Italian restaurant and you order the Ministry Soup and it's twice as delicious as you thought it was because he added oregano or Tabasco sauce.
That's a surprise.
This was a disaster.
You go into the Italian restaurant and the waiter throws the soup in your face or there's a dead frog in it or something.
That's not a surprise.
That's just an insult, a trauma.
So I was traumatized by this film.
I've been emotionally scarred for life, quite a lot.
It wasn't just an attack on Star Wars.
It was an attack on storytelling.
There's no bloody story there.
Correct.
It's very similar to certain existentialist coans.
They don't call them coans.
Certain existentialist stories and tales where the point of the story is that life has no point.
It was waiting for Godot as Star Wars.
I was spared this trauma, thankfully, by my friends who warned me of how terrible it was.
So I still have some fond memories of the Star Wars that was.
You are wiser than I.
I saw it free of charge on, well, on Netflix, and it was an evening when I had nothing else to do and there was no one else in the room.
So I thought I could just watch it.
And I thought maybe I could just see what was wrong with it to help me in my own writing of space operas because it's in my genre.
And it was so, so much worse than anything.
I had steeled myself for the blow, but no, I fought the dumb, the dumb one.
I was hammered like a tent peg into the ground by the sheer stupidity hammer that came leaping out of the screen at me.
And it was just over and over again, scene after scene.
I would analyze it for several hours, but I've already done that in my life.
And it's on my blog in a 16-part rant that is called The Last Straw.
This is about The Last Jedi.
This was the last straw.
Hey, can I suggest, by the way, everybody should go check out sci-fiwright.com, where John Wright has regular blogs and there's a bunch of links to his books and stuff.
He's award-nominated and winning science fiction and fantasy.
Great guy.
So be sure to check him out.
And by the way, since I have him here, also come check me out on redpillreligion.com, me and the crew, because we got a quieter group going.
Sorry.
Hey, I'm back, guys.
Welcome.
We haven't gotten into theology yet, but we are talking about Star Wars, which is the theology of modern America.
Now that we've let me tell you, one of the reasons the original Star Wars worked is that even though George Lucas was, I think, over-enamored of Joseph Campbell, a lot of people are.
Joseph Campbell was at least interesting and he got the base mythic elements right.
And so when he did Star Wars, all the base mythic elements were there.
But see, there was also a spiritual component implied that was really always there in the first three episodes.
They stripped it, you know, in the original three, they stripped it and made it a materialist concept with the Midichlorians, which is stupid, because otherwise that was a very spiritual film.
And the first three films, very, very, very spiritual.
And they like tried to wring the supernatural out of it.
And then they've just gone further than that.
There is no spiritual element.
And by spiritual, I mean things that don't correspond to the laws of time and space, kids.
Things that are outside that, things that matter, like honor, integrity, virtue, wisdom.
Chivalry, please.
Chivalry.
Oh, chivalry is controversial because some people get chivalry wrong, in my opinion.
And I'd love to talk about that sometime, but because there's heretical chivalries.
But yes, chivalry, redemption, all of these are spiritual, supernatural concepts, and moderns reject them all.
And so all they have left is the will to power, the will to succeed, the will to self-actualize, the will to ultimate happiness, whatever it is, or the ultimate.
That's all they have.
And they're not even conscious of it, but it's all they're able to produce because of their atheist worldview.
And it's worse than you said because not only is that all they have, they have it only in terms of a context of where all groups are divided either into the oppressed group of whom nothing bad can be said and the oppressor group of whom nothing good can be said.
So there's no such thing as an honorable enemy.
There's no such thing as chivalry or honesty between those two groups.
Oh, yeah.
The oppressed group is allowed to do anything they can under the emergency situation of overthrowing the oppressor.
And the oppressor group is not allowed a hearing, not allowed to respond, not allowed to defend themselves.
And that's their worldview.
And intersectionalism is merely the idea that anyone can claim to be a member of the oppressed group except for white, drape, male Christians.
Yeah, at the moment, yeah.
Although this has been played out in other societies in the last century, that it wasn't always, yeah.
But no, exactly.
That scapegoating like that.
And don't forget the scapegoating of religious people because that's the way it goes.
And that's also why there were no heroes in The Last Jedi, because the idea of a hero cuts against the idea that there is an oppressed or an oppressed and no good oppressors and no bad oppressed.
And if you do see anything resembling a religion or anything else, I don't know if that ever came up in these films because I haven't seen them all, but usually this type of fiction, this drak, if religion is portrayed at all, it's just portrayed as a madness and evil and something that has to be destroyed.
All of which is part of Marxist dialectic, of course.
I was going to say, can it be argued that the neo-Marxist ideology is their religion?
It is.
And it's an explicitly atheist religion.
And once you see that, you can't unsee it because that's actually what's at the core of the Marxism, is the atheism.
I phrase it this way.
I say their first dogma is the dogma that they have no dogboats.
They pretend they are merely reaching the conclusions that every honest, open-minded man reaches.
And so by that dogma, they think that any opposition to them must be unreasonable or closed-minded, based on ignorance or moral turpitude.
But it is.
It is, yeah, it's a false effects frame that they use to interpret the world.
And when the world doesn't agree, they never adjust the frame.
They just ad hoc away the world.
They just explain away the world.
You know, the movie strikes me as terrible as it is, it does have a very, very distinct theme to it.
And this is.
Nihilism.
Yes, nihilism.
The theme is nothing matters.
The theme is there is no story.
The theme is there is nothing you do will succeed.
I'm sorry, my insanity is burbling up.
I apologize for interrupting.
All that came before was false and must be destroyed so that we may progress.
Destroy the past.
That was the theme of the past.
Destroy the past and obey women.
There's those two major stories.
I respectfully disagree.
While it might seem at first that this is a pro-feminist propaganda piece, since all the women's decisions in the movie are stupid and lead to nothing, I think if that was his intent, that it failed to do that.
We have to obey the woman.
We have to collaborate because this is something Hey Thrune and I talk about a lot on here.
Give her the first comment, though.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, the lady's trying to get in, but that's okay.
I will respect the host.
Go ahead.
Just let me get this point out.
We talk a lot about how the alpha girl tries to capture the alpha boy and put him in a cage so she can show off that she owns an alpha boy.
And the concept of the matriarchy is the tyrannical matriarchy.
It's the dead womb, the controlling mother.
So Poe is, or is this Poe's name?
Whatever, the X-Wing pilot.
He is just supposed to be a psychologist.
His name is Hotshot, I think.
He is supposed to do whatever mummy tells him.
And that he dares question Mummy shows that he completely misses the point.
The point is not to, oh, you men and your logic and you're trying to.
No, civilization and patriarchy are toxic.
What you need to do is do what mummy says.
And the same thing when Asian girl prevents black dude from sacrificing himself.
Damn, we'd have to fight to save.
Stop using your man logic.
Man logic is rape.
Books are rape.
Words are rape.
That's why we have to burn the Jedi texts.
You do whatever mummy says.
The empire is only a threat because you men believe it's a threat.
And I noticed that in the very moment when she steals a kiss from the bewildered stormtrooper, the bewildered black guy, who I call tweedled him in my rant, The iron door guarding their escape-proof hideout is being blown to pieces by the cannon that she prevented him from smashing into to just to stop.
So, while she's talking about how to save all her people, all her people are being killed by them.
See, now I'm hearing the laughter, and I'm going to ask you: see, I am actually a fan of things like mystery science theater and riff tracks, and I am a fan sometimes.
I mean, one of my favorite movies of all time.
Truly, I can watch it on its own.
I can pick it up at any point, start to finish, and love every minute of it.
And it's Battlefield Earth, um, that horrific one of the worst science fiction movies ever made, because it's so horrifyingly bad on every conceivable level.
You discover new levels of badness every time you watch it, and it's hilarious.
Is there a possibility I could appreciate this film on that level?
It depends on whether or not you have any affection for the other Star Wars films, books, games, and novels.
If you have any feeling for those, the insult against those might diminish your appreciation.
Whereas in Battlefield Earth, Battlefield Earth is not the sequel to my favorite film of all time.
Yeah, I get you.
I see you there.
But if I do recommend Battlefield Earth, I do recommend Battle Earth.
I do recommend that.
I also recommend a film called Plan 9 from Outer Space, a black and white film.
It's oh, yeah, that was the last one that Bella Lugosi appeared in.
I was in my Battlefield Earth.
Bella Lugosi's were clipped into the film, and because he passed away, may he rest in peace during the filming, the guy is chiropractor to put a cloak over his face for the scenes where he had to appear with other actors.
The only thing I'll say about it is, having seen both, I assert that Battlefield Earth is the superior awful film just because having analyzed it completely, there is not 10 seconds that goes by without something truly awful happening on the screen in the dialogue or in the action.
I mean, just one of the delights of the film is every single thing is shot at Dutch Angle.
And angles just randomly change throughout the film for no apparent reason.
You throw down a heavy gauntlet, my friend, and yet I challenge you to tell me which 10-second part of Playing 9 from Outer Space is not outrageously bad.
Well, but it's slow.
The part where the black and white police car comes to a halt, and then when it halts, it's actually been cut and there's a different police car with different markings, or where the uh where the headstones move when the uh when the vampire walks past it is the part where Vampirella's cleavage is shown on stage for no other point than to show it.
This is the part where the UFOs are shown as spinning spinning a flying saucer disc that look like someone took a frisbee and spray-painted silver and hung it from a string.
They say it's missile-shaped.
It's it oh, never mind.
All right, go on.
I say we have a bad film.
Let's have a bad film showdown on another show sometime on another show sometime.
But you have to actually go watch Battlefield Earth with that critical eye because, man, I've seen it.
And you're, I have seen it, and I actually don't want to get into the combat of which is worse because that's really, if it's not number one, it's number two or number three.
Okay, it's really bad.
But it's a bad, but you can tell those films are bad in a way that I find amusing.
They're so bad, they're good.
You can actually get some entertainment from watching this.
This, but Last Jedi, I felt was just an insult directed at me personally because the guy was making fun of the things I like in space opera, not just the things I like in Star Wars, the thing I like in science fiction.
Well, it's like, but when are we going to talk about the Catholic thing?
What's that?
What am I going to talk about the Catholic thing and why Catholics write and why, by the way, white Catholics write better long-term science than these people?
Since my Catholic ancestors destroyed your pagan ancestors and then just adopted all their gear, I'll defer to you and let you speak rather than off switch when it comes to stopping talking about how bad this film was.
I could go on forever.
I think my moment of opportunity passed, but I'll try to go back and recover it.
I think it was a remark about submitting to women or a message in the film about submitting to women.
I think that's misplaced.
It's not about submitting to women that I see in the neo-Marxist culture.
It is a submitting to what I call feminine-mindedness, which is actually an infantile default state.
Women who actually are mature cultivate what I call masculine-mindedness, which encompasses virtue and logic and reason and all of that.
But the feminine-mindedness is infantile and psychotic, and it causes one to succumb to the appetitive part of the self that Plato put forth in his tripartite theory of the soul.
I think that's what we're talking about here.
It's not so much woman, it's the feminine-mindedness.
Well, let me ask you a question as a man-to-woman.
I've always thought feminism and femininity were antithetical to each other.
They are.
Feminism and femininity are not the same thing.
Femininity can be expressed in terms of if I serve a queen or a duchess or a great lady, and she is not necessarily a logician or a military commander, but she has great charisma and leadership.
Would you equate your view of the feminine only with the appetitive, or would you say for the feminine to be mature and grow into greatness?
Yeah, I want to be clear here about what I'm stating.
Feminine-mindedness is different from masculine-mindedness, but femininity and masculinity are both mature states.
Pretty good.
Feminine-mindedness is actually something that I have observed in more primitive organisms, okay, like in insects.
We see this in the ant colony.
We see it in the beehive, where there's a collective communist sort of structure there, and we have one feminine hive mind that governs the entire collective.
This is the same thing we're seeing manifest today in the alt-left.
It sounds like the Democratic National Committee.
Well, this is why I'm bringing this up, because we're seeing the same phenomenon manifest in the mindedness of the current leftist culture.
Masculine-mindedness seems to be a relatively early arrival.
We see it in apex predator species in specific, so it's exclusive to mammals, and it's exclusive to the apex predator species among mammals.
So, we see this with wolves.
We see it with lions.
Why do you say it's exclusive?
Because there are territorial hierarchical duels between lobsters, for example.
I was just shooting a Jordan Peterson on that point.
He used lobsters as an example.
I'm not familiar with lobsters.
They might be an apex predator species.
I'd have to take a look at their behavior and see if it conforms to K-selected species.
That's true.
That's true.
So, they may be an apex predator species that are non-mammals.
But what we see with masculine-mindedness are things like K-selected versus R-selected.
So, the high investment in offspring, all those K-selected traits, I don't need to mention them all here.
But that constitutes masculine-mindedness.
And a mature woman who is feminine is going to be part of that mindedness.
She's not going to be part of the feminine-mindedness of the R-selected, you know, like-cause an R-selected woman will sleep around.
A case-selected woman will be like Our Lady.
Exactly, exactly.
They're basically the same architecture.
Exactly.
And that's the distinction that I wanted to make because I know sometimes we mix up the words femininity or feminism and they're not the same.
I'm not sure how much of that I'm entirely on board with, although it's quite provocative.
One thing I would observe generally is that it certainly is, there is a feminine mindset of way of doing things.
Because when women are in control, I mean, they do so through basically even amongst themselves.
Actually, it's interesting to watch women in groups because then you realize they're actually more hierarchical than men are.
They in groups.
Well, no, see, they'll be a queen me.
And they have subtle ways of digging.
Doesn't get to be a queen by directly invoking a one-on-one conflict, like a duel where you have a winner and a loser.
No, she's somebody who's not.
And they'll have long memories for waiting for a toleration.
Well, in a hive, the queen will actually suppress the reproductive capability of her daughter workers and soldiers.
We see the same thing with the modern narcissistic female.
I've identified the – If I could interrupt, who also supports abortion and supports contraception.
Right, right, right.
Churches against, which suppress sexuality.
Let me make my argument.
I'm agree with you.
I basically agree with you.
Yeah, I know.
I just want to illustrate it for the sake of the audience who might not be with us on this.
But it's fine.
What I've identified is that the narcissistic mother pairs with the absent father.
So where we see an absence of masculinity in the family or whatever is substituting for the family, we see the narcissistic mother.
The narcissistic mother is that queen bee personality.
She will suppress the reproductive capacity of her daughter.
Her daughter will not be allowed to develop an identity.
Her daughter will not be able to develop her femininity.
She becomes an instrument of the mother for the mother's narcissistic supply.
This is what the movie The Wall is all about.
It's about a boy that's just been crushed under the weight of his single mom, and he's constantly trying to flee her while also begging for her to tell him what the hell to do with himself.
Hey, Druid, I beg you come to a stream with me sometime.
I want you as a guest.
He's exactly the kind of pagan or whatever.
I don't even want to know if you like the word pagan.
Heathen.
I go by heathen.
Okay.
See, I think of heathen as somebody who's uneducated and ignorant and doesn't have any I understand that.
The etymology of the word is different for us.
Okay, so then maybe that's our slur.
I don't know.
Anyway, heathen is.
Really, I like talking to smart people.
I'm sorry.
I couldn't hear either one of you.
Anyway, I'd love to have you on as a guest sometime.
I hope you'll come.
I would be delighted to.
Thank you.
Let me get to the super chat.
Very Al Jeremy sent 10 US dollars, and he posted an image on my Discord that I think you'll find interesting, Mr. Wright.
The science of Harry Potter.
Oh, God.
As a guy that actually, I like studying, I'm by no means an expert, but I like studying things like quantum mechanics.
You know, I like actually doing math with them.
And the books, you know, the science of Star Trek.
It's like, it's not science.
The reason they have teleporters is they want to save Having a shuttle land.
That's the only reason they have teleporters.
Which Space 1999 did not do.
They actually had really cool models that they landed in.
I don't know if you guys have seen that yet.
All science fiction stories have some nods to science and how good or bad the science is.
How much of it is fiction is a spell.
Our pagan friends will like this explanation.
You're trying to get an audience to willingly engage in auto-hypnosis where you give them a vision of some future that entertains them.
Not necessarily future, but if it's science fiction, there's got to be some otherworldly or extraterrestrial element in the story to be science fiction.
And the way you create the illusion of versimilitude is by adding some degree of real science.
Now, my own field, Space Opera, usually I just have science fiction flavored props and settings.
Something like Star Wars is science fiction flavored.
And sorry, I'm distracted.
What was the Google warning of his context?
Oh, that was a message for Davis.
Yeah, sorry.
Sorry.
Irrelevant to the conversation.
So something like Star Trek does usually play fast and loose with the science, but it tries to keep it basically within the scientific worldview.
Even something like the Star Trek teleporter is supposed to work like a television where the particles are broken up and then combined at the destination.
But something like Harry Potter, Harry Potter doesn't even make a magic system that fantasy stories usually will make up some explanation for what the limits of magic are in order not to make magic able to solve the plot problems too easily.
Such as Jack Vance, you probably may not have read his stories, but if you ever played Dungeons and Dragons or heard of it, you're familiar with his system.
The spells there can have to be memorized with some difficulty in the brains of the magician.
And once spoken, he immediately forgets them.
So he can only cast them once a day.
And other stories have other limits on what magicians can and cannot do.
Sometimes it's another sound.
I am familiar.
I play RPGs, so I'm familiar.
Can I point something out?
Can I point something out?
But the limits in Harry Potter, Harry Potter wasn't even a real fantasy story, as much as I love it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Hop Potter fan.
But in Harry Potter, it just takes place in Halloween land.
By which I mean, the fantasy elements were so close to reality that anyone not a fantasy fan didn't have to stretch his imagination to enter into the Harry Potter world.
The same way girls dressed up as witches on Halloween night.
It takes place in that world.
So the spells are just a little bit of garbled Latin, and she establishes whatever she needs for her plot at the moment and never returns to it.
And never has all the police equipped with Truth Serum, for example, which is what you'd actually do if the thing was actually happening.
Have you ever heard of the fanfic, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by Eliezer Yukowski?
I haven't.
I'm not familiar with.
Okay, Eliezer Yukowski is an artificial intelligence researcher.
Well, I'm familiar with him.
He and I actually exchanged some words over the internet a few years back.
Very cool guy.
Anyway, he writes this fanfiction of Harry Potter, where Harry Potter isn't an ignoramus, and he actually uses rationality.
One of the things he does is because it's all gold coins in Magic Universe.
So he starts an exchange operation for British pounds to make himself a millionaire.
He uses a time turner to solve every single problem in the world and even messes with the time turner to try and figure out what the limits of this thing's abilities are.
He does a genetic study to figure out whether or not the mud blood hypothesis is accurate or not.
All very amusing, but all he's doing is he's taking science fiction and applying the trophies of science fiction to fantasy.
Anytime you do that, you're going to get the same kind of results.
You're going to get Robert Heinlein's Magic Incorporated.
You're going to get urban fantasy as a result.
You're going to leave the fantasy world if you do that.
To a certain extent, yes.
But if you're going to write fantasy, if you have a spell in book number two that allows you to travel back.
You don't have to tell me.
I know how to make up a magic system that's tight and coherent, usually based on real, usually based on real magic.
So I'm with you, buddy.
But I'm just saying that I think you've got to give Harry Potter a bit of a break because of its wide appeal.
Is there a wet blanket moment in here?
I hate to be a wet blanket and turn into a Catholic, but somebody in the Catholic world who's definitely worth knowing if you're interested in the demonic is a guy named Father Ripperger, who is a professional, full-time exorcist and gives magnificently interesting speeches on the matter.
And the man doesn't lie.
He may have been misinformed, but otherwise, what he says is, according to his sources, J.K. Rowling has admitted that all of the spells in Harry Potter she got from actual witches, and those spells are supposed to be saints.
No, Father Ripperger necromantic tones, and that's nothing like inherent.
You know what the title did?
Harry Potter and the Saint Mother and the narcissist's special snowflake son.
He says that there's kids running around playing, uttering those incantations, and that they do things and that they're not necessarily good things at all.
And I have noticed that for many young people, Harry Potter's almost become their substitute for a Bible.
It's the only thing they call it.
The problem with magic in general is, and this is not what Haythroon does.
The problem with magic, the problem with Harry Potter is it's actually a story about narcissism.
It's a single mom living off of government welfare, making up stories about how her retard son is actually a special snowflake genius, and everything works exactly for Harry Potter because he's special and he deserves it because he has a lightning bolt on his forehead.
The book is that's a problem.
Hold on, how's it different from half the myths and half the half the adventure stories out there?
They're all about a person who is special either because he is born great, he achieves greatness, or he has greatness thrust upon him.
I'd say in the other myths, they earn it.
There's a great line only in the third, only in the third case.
Some people stumble upon, some people don't.
Now, if a guy's accomplishments are not well earned and there's no drama there, I agree with that.
But I'm not sure that's the case for Harry Potter.
Well, let me ask this question.
You guys are probably a lot better versed on Harry Potter than I am.
Is any kind of divine parentage attributed to his father?
No.
Like we would see more like an embulous idea of fate, seems to be like the heroic myths that we see in the ancient Norse and so forth.
I'm really surprised at the course of the conversation.
Harry Potter is a Christian analogy.
I'm sorry.
I'm just going to stand by this.
I'm going to stand by the honor of Father Ripperger.
By the way, I have a friend who's a professional witch who hasn't commented on this specific matter, but will tell you that the same thing that Father Ripperger tells you, which is that when you are saying incantations in some language that you don't even know and you think it doesn't mean anything, it still has potential enormous spiritual power and is dangerous to play with.
And it's irresponsible for them to put that stuff in those books.
I agree with that as a witch.
You have one right here with you, too.
But the ones in the books are just make-believe letting.
They're not real incantations taken from any real source.
Father Ripperger either lies, which I don't think, or read something crazy, but he says he heard an interview where she says that's exactly what she did.
Maybe so.
Maybe so, but he's not here to be, he's not here to be for me to cross-examine witnesses.
But you have someone here who does practice this.
The intention is part of this and the vibration.
It's not so much the words.
It's about vibrating energy with intent.
And that can be done through scribing, through spelling, through singing, through chanting.
It's impressing the matter with vibration and intention.
So yes, even a child playing in ignorance, if he has intention and he is vibrating something, he can bring something into being.
One thing you and I talked about, Heathrun, was the Ouija board.
On the one hand, it's nothing but a stupid piece of cardboard made up by Milton Bradley.
But if you have a demonic possession case, the first thing you do is burn the Ouija board because that's a dangerous, even though it's nothing but a useless piece of cardboard, it's still a portal.
Right.
It's a means by which something can come in.
Now, when it comes to Ouija boards, I agree with you entirely.
I don't consider those to be frivolous.
So there's a reason why we good Christians are not allowed to meddle with such things.
Because there, there actually is a connection to the demonic.
When you're talking about something that's really Halloween land, I don't know.
I've read the book, so I recommend we drop the topic because I'm not sure.
Well, if I may, there's etymology that supports this, right?
The word word, for example, shares a relationship with word, W-Y-R-D, or W-Yoch-R-D in Old English, right?
Which refers to fate, right?
Bending fate, twisting fate, again, impressing the material with one's intention.
Spelling, right?
We spell words.
We good Christians believe that God spoke the universe into being and that Christ is the word of God.
You don't need to touch upon prayer.
But prayer and magic are functionally the same thing.
Prayer and magic are functioning.
It's why a Latin mass, Latin is just a language that the Romans used.
And yet a Latin Mass is 100 times as powerful as a Mass in the vulgar tongues.
And this is why, even though all of the words in Harry Potter are absolute nonsense faux Latin, they are very powerful.
They're borrowing from that, the racial memory we have.
I will say this.
I will say this.
If the kid gets interested in real magic and real occultism because of the glamorization of it from Harry Potter, that is dangerous and that is diabolical.
And there's certainly, I believe, that the air is peopled by spirits, half of whom are benevolent, half of whom are malevolent, or I should say a third and a third, because the other third is the L's.
I agree, it can lead to a dangerous area.
But it's very similar to credit cards.
When people get involved with magic, in most cases, it's people trying to get something for nothing.
They're trying to get a free lunch.
Which is really funny.
All magic involves sacrifice.
I will end my entire commentary on this because it's not what we're here to, we're not here to argue about it.
But if you see a book on a video called Conference on Exorcism by Father Ripper Germ, who is very, very, very well respected and mainstream as a full-time exorcist.
A lot of people in this church source him.
He's got an hour and a half on this.
And I'm going to at least be backing up what she's saying for the most part is playing with any of this like that is inherently dangerous.
And there's a lot of kids doing it.
And it is not inherently harmless.
It's not that it's automatically, it's just you're letting the kids play with matches.
That's what I tell him.
But in any case, don't have to agree.
That's where I'm at.
But I think we are.
The only point I disagree with is I don't think Harry Potter is real occultism.
If you have your kids playing with tarot cards or playing with Ouija boards, that stuff, I think, steps out of the line and you're opening yourself up to things you don't know about.
You're sticking a fork in a light socket.
You don't know what the powers are that you're trifling with.
But it's not about the particular words, though, is what I'm saying.
You could make up nonsense words, but as long as you are impressing the material basis with intention and vibration, you are working magic.
And this is my issue with the magic in Harry Potter, is unlike Lord of the Rings, unlike C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles, the magic in Harry Potter serves the ego of the protagonist.
In those other works, magic often humbles the protagonists.
Harry Potter, it glorifies the individual.
There, I agree with you.
There, I agree with you.
And that is one of the problems with the magic in Harry Potter.
I agree.
It's best summarized by that game of Quidditch, I think it's called.
Where one guy gets all the points by doing one thing.
Exactly.
No real sports game would be designed that way.
But the author designs it that way because Harry Potter's a special snowflake and he gets to be important.
He's not a teenager.
You can see why this becomes the ears that's religion for the modern age.
It's called the earmarks of what the crybullies or what Heydron said was the feminist mindset have in mind.
Oh, absolutely.
And this is why you still see adult Democrats using Harry Potter metaphors all the time.
Well, consider how without when you turn your back on the Christian religion and on the rest of the Western civilization, how limited your moral vocabulary is.
They can't speak of good and evil anymore.
They can only speak of intelligent and unintelligent.
So all they can do is say that their opponents are stupid.
And they do this over and over again, no matter who it is.
They said it about Ronald Reagan and they say about Donald Trump.
Even if the guy is a extremely wealthy and successful businessman, which takes quite a brain to accomplish, you know, or they merely speak of people as being unsympathetic, as if sympathy was the whole of the law when it came to morality.
Just feeling sorry for someone.
Well, sophistication has come to replace practical wisdom.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do agree that they replace facts with theory, and if the facts don't match the theory, the facts have to change.
I'll give you an example.
A thousand years ago, a farmer was wiser and more knowledgeable in terms of the practical than a university-educated person is today.
We've made our language so sophisticated to the point that an intellectual can say something very complicated without saying anything.
But a farmer who worked the land, worked with his hands, you couldn't con him.
He knew a true thing from a false thing because he lived in harmony with nature.
He saw natural law every day.
He was in contact with it, even if he was illiterate.
And in fact, I think in many cases, a man was better served by being illiterate.
If he was a third function individual, this is under the old European tripartite social structure.
In many cases, they were illiterate, but they were wiser and more knowledgeable in practical matters, in natural law.
They knew what was true from what was false, what was good from what was evil.
They knew this by empirically experiencing the natural world.
They knew you can't eat your own scene corn, and they knew you can't consume a plant before you plant it, which modern economists don't know.
Right.
I also noticed there wasn't a huge divide between what the common man believed and what, at least in the Middle Ages, the most intellectual intellectuals believed.
Thomas Aquinas, if you walked outside and talked to an illiterate farm boy, would agree on the basic view of the world that they both shared.
But modern intellectuals have set their caps against the common man.
They regard them as an enemy.
In fact, one of the things I've noticed, and because I do, I mean, ultimately, this is the cultural Marxist project that's been dominating, which I believe to be Melusiferian and origin ultimately.
I do too.
It becomes increasingly obvious that at least as it expresses here in the West, Marxism is literally bizarro Orthodox Christianity.
It's like it is like opposite of every, it's like a bizarre, every Christian value and practice is either, you know, explicitly is like warped, right?
Like racism actually is a sin.
You know, sexism of the type that holds that one is superior, you know, inherently in God's eyes to the other would be a heresy.
So sexism in that sense would be a heresy.
But what they do to it is this bizarro twisting, backwardsizing.
And it's like the further they go along this line, the more they just look like freakish anti-Christians.
And they have to change the vocabulary in order to express themselves to do that.
All they do is they take something that's bad, like fornication, and use a phrase that sounds good, like free love.
Or they take something that's good, like learning from other cultures, and use a phrase that makes it sound bad, like cultural appropriation.
Yeah, it's all about inverting the natural order and natural law, which I would presume, I don't want to presume, but presume that a Christian would see as God's law.
God's law is natural law, and natural law is God's law.
Thomas Aquinas gave us Thomas Natural Law.
People are still using it.
Okay.
You sound like a Catholic with everything you've said so far.
Well, you may find that folkish heathens are more congruent with what you observe.
I think so, because basically Catholics are heathens who converted.
Oh, man.
Here we go.
We're not an alien culture.
No, no.
Well, John C. Wright, you've pointed out that heresies always come in pairs.
And the pair heresy to communism, to Marxism, is unbridled capitalism.
No.
Libertarianism.
Libertarianism.
Yeah, that's another word for corporatism.
I've come to truly corporate libertarianism.
No, I've truly come to see libertarianism as just completely intellectually, morally bankrupt.
They've just put the market where God belongs, and it's where they go.
If they're not communist and putting it in the state or the collective, they put God in the market instead.
That's what they do.
I will grant you that objectivism, if you mean libertarian, if you mean the doctrine of Ayn Rand that also proposes the metaphysics and her moral code.
I'll grant you that.
That's a heresy.
That's not a heresy.
I don't want to pick nits here, but there's a certain element of our society that we can all see where love of money and ignorance of consequences and alienation of the individual, where the individual is nothing but economic unit.
That's the thing.
Marxism views you as nothing but an economic unit.
We're only arguing about which heresy is paired with which at this point, because in my essays, I call that the worldly man.
And in science fiction fields, Bob Heinlein is kind of the exemplar of that libertarian free love.
Or the animal man.
I've heard that paired with the opposite of mysticism, which is kind of the new age-y stuff that really has nothing to do with real old-fashioned solid paganism, if I may be so bold as to criticize them.
But I think the authoritarianism of communism and the I think communism and Nazism are particle and antiparticle.
They're basically the same thing, spring from the same root.
And I would say that the worldliness and spiritualism are the two opposites that break away from that.
But we're basically in agreement.
I think all these things are heresies or devaluations or a heresy is not an error.
A heresy is when you take one part of an organic whole, you take one finger of the hand and you say, this is the primary finger and all the other fingers are unimportant.
You just exaggerate.
You distort a face by making the nose as big as a cassava melon.
You don't get rid of the other features, you just disregard them.
And you use them to fight the other features.
Yeah.
It's a distortion of truth that is inherent in nature.
And I was going to say something about the whole motive behind all of this.
I believe that it is to reduce man to an animal man, to draw him down, to literally sink him into the appetitive aspect of the soul, that level of consciousness, and thereby reduce his divinity.
Becoming an atheist who accepts that you are merely a walking ape of a certain sophistication and a free thinker actually makes you easier to manipulate.
Yeah.
And it makes you much more gullible.
Yeah, to not only become an economic unit, but to see yourself and all others as economic units as well.
You know, I see this all around me in, I won't call them relationships.
I call them conspiracies.
Irini and I talk about this often.
These conspiracies that people enter into, in which one projects a fantasy onto the other in order to exploit that individual for some kind of gain that only gratifies an appetitive desire that they have.
Many of these masquerade as friendships.
They masquerade as marriages, which is absolutely horrific, particularly when children are brought into the midst of that and have to come up in the presence of it.
They have neither a mother or father.
Are you quite sure you're a pagan?
Because you sound just like Thomas Aquinas.
I am quite sure of what I am.
I've got to work better with heathens than Protestants.
I was called.
I didn't hear the answer.
Sorry, I said.
I said, I'm quite sure.
I was called by my lady Freya when I was 18 years old.
I entered into her service at that time.
I have been an acknowledged heathen for many years, and I am absolutely devoted to the ways and beliefs and troth of my ancestors.
Excellent.
But have you read Thomas Aquinas?
Because he does sound a lot like him.
I have not read Thomas Aquinas.
You're like him.
You're like him.
He's right up your alley.
If I can find time, I will read his works.
I've got a long to read list as it is.
But actually, within the Western tradition, he is often considered bringing natural law into the entire legal system and into how we do science.
And he kind of wedded Aristotle into the Judaic metaphysical background.
Okay.
Well, I have read Aristotle, and I do consider myself an Aristotelian in terms of my ethical view.
There you go, right there.
There you go, right there.
St. Thomas Aquinas.
That's why.
That's why.
Yeah.
Basically, he's an Aquinian, too.
Okay.
Well, that makes sense.
That's where I got it from.
I said the wrong word.
Basically, Aquinas is an Aristotelian.
Okay.
Excellent.
We're cousins, awesome.
Alternatively sends another super chat and he says, No matter the creator's intention, most of this entertainment is based in Marxist assumptions.
Just look at Star Trek and Super Chat.
Yeah, I think that in Star Trek because I grew up as a Star Trek kid.
I mean, I'm, and I didn't mean an original Star Trek kid.
Like, I was born in 1966 and I was three years old and fell in love with Mr. Spock on the TV.
But I do see the fundamental Marxist element in, and I have actually seen now how the cultural Marxists currently in charge in places like Hollywood have totally expropriated Star Trek.
They're trying to sell, they all believe in Joseph Campbell, and he's part of their how you do things, Joseph Campbell.
So, um, but they do it poorly because in the end, there's not that much to Joseph Campbell, and they're um, just explicitly.
I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.
I apologize.
Joseph Campbell basically had a the reason it gave his mono-myth theory such power is that it was simplistic.
But the myths themselves get their power from the religious background, from the pagan religious background, that gives those stories their impact to the human psyche.
And we know now that is going to copy some of that power.
I myself think that's what happened with George Lucas when he did Star Wars.
He was trying to do Buck Rogers.
Well, Buck Rogers, for as simple as it is, has a rather basic moral core to it, which, if you copy it, you copy over the moral core without noticing it.
And it had a great appeal.
And the Force is basically just the kind of idea that almost all religions have in common.
So it has a very wide appeal.
And they don't have to fill in any details, so you don't get into any theological disputes about how it actually works.
It just has a flavor, it just has enough.
There's just enough of the force of Star Wars to give it a flavor of the wider universe that the material universe is only a part of.
And people reacted favorably to that.
See, and in Star Trek, what happens is the socialist elements in early Star Trek are almost submerged.
And the guy who did it, Roddenberry, was used to do cop shows.
So a lot of his instincts, the part of him that was not intellectual, his instinctive part, still continued to tell good stories.
You could still have a James Kirk, which you can't have in these guys.
You can't have James Kirk anymore because there's no heroes, there's no leaders, and there's certainly no wives.
There's no swaggering masculine men.
Right.
I think one of the great things about science fiction is that even flawed men can write about the virtues of their ideology.
John C. Wright, you have an excellent critique of Heinlein, which I agree with.
But at the same time, Heinlein has he is so wonderfully heroic.
He really embodies that practically-minded engineer of an American man that's just going to go out onto the frontier and he's going to fight the bullies.
He's going to tame nature and he's going to take care of his country folk.
Yep.
And you're right.
Which is funny because his intellect and his heart also didn't quite agree.
In my essays, I refer to it as I refer to it as a philosopher has a daemon that inspires him, and an artist has a muse that inspires him.
And if you're some people's muses are smarter than their daemons, by which I mean Heinlein knew how to portray heroism when his editors got him to cut out all of his theorizing about male and female.
But when he was got too big to edit, his juveniles, which are all wonderful, turned into his seniles, which are terrible.
And now, but even at their worst, they're still page turners, and there's still a vision of heroic masculinity in them that is very appealing to the young man.
Very appealing.
But what he preaches doesn't actually match up with the results that he portrays.
And I believe the same thing is true with Ayn Rand.
I believe the same thing is true with Gene Rodberry.
What they preach is not actually what they're portraying on stage.
Season one and two of Star Trek The Next Generation were exactly what he wanted Star Trek to be.
And it's terrible.
And only after he passed away, may he rest in peace and record grew a beard, did those shows start to pick up a little energy and a little steam.
And you know the influence of that was a man named Ronald D. Moore and a few core like him.
And it turns out he's one of the last guys in Hollywood who was at all spiritual, which is why Star Trek Deep Space Nine was actually very spiritual.
And why Battlestar Galactica, which he was blind, was very spiritual, because he's spiritual.
I think he's been crushed because of it at this point.
But what I've seen the materialists are doing, the scientismic, naturalist, cultural Marxists literally are very hard trying to make Star Trek and Star Wars a new Joseph Campbellian mythology in their atheist materialist universe.
They're trying not to co-opt it, basically.
They're trying to turn the heroism and the glory of those stories into something that will serve their political purposes and preach their political point of view.
Well, that's all they want to control the narrative.
Yeah, that's what these people do, these ideological or what I consider to be spiritually possessed people.
They mix lies with the truth, and that's how they corrupt people.
They get them to swallow the lie that's been wrapped up in the truth.
I'll ask you one other question.
Earlier, when someone said that they thought that this had its roots in the satanic and the devil's.
Wait, wait, what?
They said that earlier, Max Colby said that Marxism has its roots in the diabolical, that Satan is behind it.
I'm convinced.
I agree with that.
And I wondered how Pagan agrees that Satan is doing something because he's a fallen angel from our mythology.
Who do you think is actually doing it?
Well, I can see past what I call the lens that's on the truth.
Various religions to me are just masks on the face of the truth.
They're all referring to the same archetypes.
When you start to examine what these figures reference, we find singularity.
For example, the name Mary in the Christian tradition has its origin in the Egyptian name Mir, which means beloved.
And then if we take a look at Frigg, for example, who is the wife of Odin in the Norse mythology, that also interprets as beloved.
We're talking about core archetypes that are ancient, that predate any kind of organized religion.
So when I'm looking at these things, I'm looking at the core archetypes.
I'm looking at the core truths there.
And yes, I see Marxism as satanic because what is satanic is that which is opposed to nature, that which is trying to invert the creation and the natural order.
Excellent.
Okay.
Makes sense.
Well, I've always viewed the core of Satanism, of the satanic principle, being the rebellion, refusing to accept one's position in the universe, one's lot in life, and to rebel against it, to try and cheat, to engage in usury, to engage in manipulative magic.
What it looks like to me is specifically going on, and there's a number of sources I find credible that really do think this.
If you look at The spiritual practice of theosophy.
Look up Madame Lavaski and a few of her fellows and their specific Luciferian doctrine.
Whether you can call what's going on specific theosophists or not, the Luciferian doctrine is what's most visible.
And it's this very subtle and very evil corruption of the Christian story of Eden, which is that it's basically, you know, there's Adam and Eve, there's the serpent, but the serpent is the good guy.
Because in the Christian telling, Adam and Eve are forbidden from eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
This is an important distinction because it means that when they ate from the fruit of the tree, they became able to know good from bad.
Until they did that, they did not know that.
And in the Christian telling, the serpent fooled them into that, making them vulnerable to sin.
Now, in the Luciferian telling, it's the same tale, except God has forbidden them from eating from the tree of knowledge.
Period.
Evil God and the evil God.
They get that from Gnosticism.
And it's an evil God because they have the knowledge of the truth.
And then the evil God punished them for finding out the truth.
And the real mission is you've got to overcome this evil God.
And Lucifer is the lightbringer who brings knowledge and enlightenment.
And this doctrine you can see actually meshes very well with a lot of Nietzschean thinking because it ultimately still winds up being an inversion of Christianity in a number of ways because embracing ultimate selfishness and embracing every hedonistic desire is considered good.
And it's only the sheep of the world who really deserve to be slaughtered anyway.
If you can derive pleasure from harming them, that's fine.
What's the function?
They deserve it.
Christians are sheep, remember?
I mean, it's very, and this is all out there.
I'll give you references if you need it.
There's nothing new under the sun.
This is Gnosticism.
This goes back to a heresy that may be first-century Christian, or it may be, I believe the Gnosticism actually has older roots in the Jewish views.
It goes way, way back to this idea of an inversion where light is darkness and darkness is light, and you alone are free from the structures that bind everyone else because you can disobey them and elevate yourself to a higher plane because you're a special snowflake.
And notice how easily that ties into every modern, every modern myth of the narrative that people tell about both politics and metaphysics and religion these days.
Well, here's a question that I would throw out.
And this is just based on an interpretation of the Genesis story.
I'm not going to make a claim as to whether or not this interpretation is correct.
But do you believe consciousness is a good thing for humans to have or not?
Actually, let me, you know, there is a very interesting interpretation of Genesis by C.S. Lewis.
Do you know where I'm going, Davis?
I do know where you're going.
Sorry, I've got a two-part answer for you.
Okay.
So the first thing that C.S. Lewis points out is that the tree of knowledge was not going to be forbidden for us to us forever.
It's that we weren't ready for it yet, and we jumped the damn gun.
And it's a reflection on the fact that, yes, consciousness is good, and yet we can barely deal with it.
In fact, it terrifies people so much that many of them choose to become unconscious animals again.
Please note also this serpent did not tempt Eve, the mother of human life, by saying, This will make you conscious.
He said, This will make you like unto God.
Yep.
That was the motive also has a part to play.
Yeah, that is the motive.
The motive also has a part to play in what the Quran was.
Well, hang on.
Hang on a second.
What language are we referencing here?
Because now, granted, I'm not a Bible scholar, so I'm going to defer to those here who are.
But was not the reference to Elohim, which is plural, which is gods, like unto the gods?
Like unto the gods.
Okay, but God's plural is not the same as God, the source of singularity.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
No, Elohim in the Christian tradition is accepted as one of the names for God, period.
And it's plural.
That is not the same as Yahweh.
We are Trinitarians.
No, this is the Trinity.
In the Jewish language, one of the nuances of the speech was that you would speak yourself in the plural if you were an august being like a king.
I mean, everything that ends in Em is plural in Hebrew.
Agree.
In Hebrew, it was a tradition that if an elevated being like a king was speaking, he would refer to himself in the plural.
Well, we, like the royal we, like the royal we.
Like the royal we.
Okay, that's one of the things.
Well, I'm not sure that it is wise for us to make that interpretation because Judaism was originally polytheistic.
All right.
This is my area because I'll tell you what, this is just now we're getting down to arguing over different religious traditions.
In the Orthodox Christian tradition, it has always been referred to pretty much exactly like that.
More like a royal we.
It's also been viewed by many that it is one of many non-explicit references to the Trinity that are in the Testament.
And so, and there's quite a bit of, I mean, Jews don't like that interpretation.
They're not required to.
They don't read those books right.
As far as we're concerned, right?
And then they can, you know, you can go talk to a Jew.
I have Jewish rabbi friends who will just say, yes, you're wrong.
I mean, it's an argument between traditions.
That's all I'm saying.
I mean, it's basically all this discussion is to one side.
It still treats the question of what was Eve being tempted to do?
Was she being tempted immediately to become conscious, or was she tempted to become conscious so that she could be divine?
That's a good answer, too.
Yeah.
Beyond what her nature was.
Well, let's clarify there.
Was she being tempted to become conscious, or was she being tempted to become omnipotent?
I don't know that divine and omnipotent are the same thing.
Because, for example, she's still being asked to disobey the source of all good.
She's in the name of the serving that good to herself.
Divinity then is different for we heathen because our gods, there are interpretations that our gods were once mortals who became gods.
They became gods by worthing themselves and becoming conscious.
So, yeah, to me, we also have saints who have divine powers, but they didn't, but you, but even your divinities didn't become gods by acts of disobedience, cruelty and disciples.
No, no, I just wanted to be explicit there because you were using the term to become divine, and I don't know that seeking to become divine is a disobedience to natural law.
However, I think there is an agreement that there's something in the nature of man that is not in accord with the universe, and that this is why we need religion.
We need to become in accord with the universe.
And if we leave ourselves to our own devices, we go completely astray.
What I would just say is that from an Orthodox Christian perspective, that we've been reading it this way for 2,000 years.
So, this is just how we read it.
John is ultimately correct as the scriptures are interpreted.
The serpent specifically stated, Eat that and you will become like God.
Um, and so, yes, you're right, he was that was the real temptation, uh, but um, and absolutely so, but it was, and then, of course, so it was a trick.
The serpent lied to her, and by the way, Adam wasn't Adam, the smarter one, wasn't there to protect her.
Um, um, that's one of many, many, many nuances to that text that you can derive.
Um, and Adam's also following her onto it, um, huh?
Beta Male Adam, happy wife, happy life, right, buddy?
He couldn't handle, he couldn't handle his alpha female first wife, which was Lilith, yeah, and she became so disgusted with his effeminacy that she left him.
The story of Revelations is that the mother and father of all mankind, the mother was a cunt and the father was a pussy, and that's we are all tempted to be that.
Every single woman out there is tempted to be a domineering heredin, and every single man out there is tempted to be a go-along, get-along submissive.
You've just described the modern West.
Yes, absolutely.
The modern West is so dead set against.
If you think about it, it's also dead set against noble pagans.
The more honest pagans among us is also dead set against everything you stand for, too.
Oh, yeah, I draw fire from both the alt-right and the alt-left.
I mean, for obvious reasons.
I often tell Arini, the left is left, and the right is left.
You know, when you start to break this down, they're two heads of the same hydra.
Exactly.
The heart of the hydra is the same in both.
They're godless.
They rail against anybody who speaks to matters of natural law and truth and what I consider to be true conservatism, which is observing natural law.
So, yeah, I draw fire from both sides as a heathen.
I'm used to it.
We've been on the trip for now and we haven't mentioned why any of us converted to what we converted to.
Was that going to address that?
Are we going to have to talk about that?
How late are we going to go?
Usually, go for about an hour, an hour and a half or two hours.
So, if we can go for another, I'd say it's up.
I mean, if the audience wants to what I've got, okay, it's not like we're running short on material.
No, in fact, I told everybody, I told everybody I thought this was why we're Catholic, and uh, we're we're we never got to that, uh, and we don't have to, but because do you want to start, Dean?
Why don't you start?
Sure, okay, uh, and on a very deep spiritual level, I truly prefer to be called Max, and it's kind of important to me.
But you can call me Dean if you want.
I do like Max better, she's got to be Max, otherwise, I wouldn't know who she's talking to.
I only know you as Max, yeah.
I have a legal name of Dean Esme.
I'm in a movie called The Red Pill, which is very good.
You should go see it.
But the people, there's a lot of Luciferian jerks in there.
I'm in a movie.
I'm in a movie too.
I'm in a movie called The People versus The People versus George Lucas.
Well, Max, I will refer to you as Max going forward.
No problem at all.
So, why did you convert to a pagan religion like Catholicism?
Who asked that?
Well, I have been asked that.
I do have been asked that.
I actually consider Sola Scriptura to have devolved Protestantism into a functional sort of pagan stoicism.
Because I think why I became Catholic.
First, I had to overcome my atheism.
And that was actually really hard because my brain was wrapped up in so much materialist thinking, I think I was genuinely ensorzed.
Because when the belt finally snapped loose, and I realized how, well, anyway, when I realized there had to be a God, then became my search.
And, you know, I had studied religion in a distance before.
I studied them all.
I talked to a lot of religious people.
I talked to a lot of Orthodox Jews who are really smart and interesting and helped me understand it's perfectly rational to think there's a God.
And the bottom line is what I asked myself is where is okay, probably Christianity is what's calling me.
And at the time, it was like I said, you know what?
Choosing it for culture.
I believe all religions must have some truth, but choosing a religion, culture and family reasons are not invalid reasons.
And so I'm going to have to probably become a Christian.
And so if I'm going to become a Christian, I'm going to take it seriously.
And what I want to see, one of the reasons I became an atheist, we've got some noise in the background or something.
Is that you, Irene?
Sometimes you have echoes.
Mr. Wright.
And for us, Mooncap.
Okay, so I'm sorry, how I got here.
What I essentially decided is, I mean, I actually entered the church not 100% sure what exactly I thought about Jesus.
But I said, all right, but I'm going to commit to Christianity.
I'm going to try my best to commit to this path.
So then the question was, what kind of Christian?
And I had grown up in a mostly not religious home up until the age of roughly nine-ish says, 10, maybe.
And I was a child of divorce and abuse and neglect, but whatever.
Suddenly, at the age of roughly eight or nine, my stepfather decided we're going to straighten out these family problems.
We're going to be Presbyterians.
Oh, okay.
And so, and my biological father retaliated more or less with King James and Alcoholics Anonymous and television evangelists on the TV.
Also spent one year, only one year at St. Rita High School in the early 80s on the south side of Chicago, where the monks did make an impression.
Not always the best impression, although in retrospect, an amazingly strong impression.
If nothing else, I knew the Catholics were smart.
And so that, you know, and plus, I spent a lot of time among Bible Christians, you know, who like to get together in their whatever.
But anyway, I got ahead of myself.
So that was my upbringing.
And then by the age of about the age of third, after I got done, by my sophomore junior year, I was like, oh, Christianity is garbage.
You can just read the Bible yourself and see.
Look at all these different interpretations of the same words.
These people are full of it.
It's all higgly-biggly nonsense.
And these books are, these don't hang together.
They just made their, they all just make up their own interpretations.
And the Catholics just have the longest.
And that's who I was.
And then I got into some new agey shit for a while.
I'm sorry.
I don't know if we swear on here.
New Agey stuff for a while.
And then finally was just, I got swayed and pulled into the atheism cult started by the popularizer Penn Gillette.
And I got attracted to so-called skepticism.
And I read all the books that were all their age among the technorati in the late 90s and early 2000s.
So I was reading Steven Pinker and Kurtzweil and all those Hofstadter and all those modern materialist thinkers, plus all my science fiction choices, I went for the so-called hard science fiction.
So I liked Asimov, Heinlein, Clark.
I wouldn't call Heinlein and materialist, but Asimov and Clark, absolutely.
And so my brain was stuck in that.
And I came out of it and said, okay, which version of Christianity has the best claim on being the early church?
Like the original?
Like, which one?
Because all these people have their ways of interpreting it.
And well, I know the Catholics are obviously wrong about a lot of it, but still, who?
And I got to look at everybody.
And my actual journey.
Evangelicals.
It's the evangelicals.
And it's the King James guys, you know, and the people.
And some of them are very good people, okay?
But like the Mennonites and those guys are such awesome people.
They're just so horrible wrong on things.
But I know God loves them.
And I know Our Lady loves them.
But my research actually led me to Eastern Orthodoxy and something called the Orthodox Wiki, which you can still go to.
It is an amazingly wonderful thing, Orthodox Wiki, because that is about what today are called the pan-Orthodox.
Maybe I'll just pull up Orthodox Wiki.
It's worth spending time on if you're a Catholic or if you're a heathen and want to know more about how Christians see the early faith.
There's four major lines of Christianity that can all credibly say they have valid apostolic succession.
And you can make a case for the Anglicans.
There's just a dispute over it and a few others.
But these four main lines stretching from originating from Assyria, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome, all have the strongest possible cases.
They schismed from each other.
I'm less interested, in fact, in the Eastern Orthodox, who only split in 1054 traditionally, or somewhere around there.
I'm even more fascinated, and I was more fascinated always by the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Orthodox, because they split off in the 400s.
The Assyrian Orthodox in particular, because in like 425, I think.
And it was a dispute.
One of the interesting positive aspects, I would say, of Vatican II and other things that happened among others of these four main branches is that literally theological disputes between that were that were 1500 years old with the Assyrians and when the Orthodox were resolved within the last century.
And now all four of these who splintered off in the fifth century and then in the 10th or 11th, whatever you would call that, they all recognize that everybody there is valid as Christians, which had not been the case before.
And a lot of the, like the Nestorian dispute heresy, for example, in case you've ever heard of it, was resolved.
Nobody's being accused of being a Nestorian anymore.
All four of these major branches could credibly claim at least to the fourth century.
And it doesn't much take much work to say, well, and actually that's strong evidence for stuff in the third century.
And then you look at stuff in the third century and the second.
Orthodox Christians believe in the heavenly host, the saints in heaven, and believe in intercessory prayers for them.
They believe in the host of angels and asking for intercessionary prayers for them.
And they all revere the Blessed Mother of God, the Theotokos, the Holy Virgin Mary, who I'm consecrated to myself, is the queen of heaven.
They all have priests.
They all have priests they call father.
Their priests are ordained by men called bishops, who all can validly say that their orders derive from the book of Acts when the apostles laid hands upon, I forget his name, to make him one of them.
What all of them believe is that we've been in apostolic succession through ordination that way from the book of Acts onward.
We all think that.
And none of us believe in sola scriptura.
None of us believe in sola fide, at least not in the way it's usually formulated or interpreted.
All of us believe in the sacraments, in the Eucharist, in infant baptism, in the sacrament of confirmation, in the sacrament of confession and reconciliation, in the Eucharist, that it is the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, the real presence of the Lord God there.
All of us believe all these things.
And then I looked at the Protestants and said, yeah, the problem is sola scriptura.
I'm done.
And then it was only a question of which branch of orthodoxy was I going for.
And ultimately, what won the day for me is I really do think the keys were given to Peter, though you can argue that, you know, maybe Peter's taken that a little too far.
But some might say that.
And there was Thomas Aquinas.
There was Chesterton.
There was the entire intellectual tradition.
There was the monks at St. Reda and Father David Brecht.
I pray for his soul in heaven.
That's why I'm Catholic.
Listen, let me get to some super chats really quickly.
Billy the Conqueror sends two US dollars and comments: even the Bible was woke on women, Lao.
Yes, it was.
EC 2189 Kaku sends US$10 and says, Think duality between the solar and the lunar.
Light existing in both.
The sun unaccompanied itself cannot be looked at or be blinded, but the moon can be looked at in company of the stars.
And Beral Journey sends US $5.
I don't see a reason to attack any path that leads people outside of dildoverse.
I wish Protestants would understand this.
There seem to be a lot of people in the comments section that are obsessing over form rather than function, over style rather than substance.
Guys, obsessing over style, not substance, is what caused Europe to basically commit uku for 500 years.
Welcome to the modern world.
Oh my God.
Yo, stop sending me that much money, goddammit.
Wow, that's a generous super chat.
It is.
I really shouldn't say that, David.
Please do it to damn people on the internet.
Sorry.
If I may, EC21 Kaku did ask me if I could comment on that super chat that he made.
I'll be happy to give my thoughts on it.
I do see a relationship as well between the solar and the lunar.
And in fact, the two weapons that I often speak of that I carry and wield as a fala are the lamp and the mirror.
And those are archetypes, archetypal symbols of the solar and the lunar.
I hope that satisfied your question.
I'll take a stab at the question.
You know what, my sister-in-law commented years ago.
She commented to my brother that, you know, everybody in your family behaves as if they're Catholic.
So that's interesting.
I've always had a strong sense of justice.
But I'll tell you, following my own wisdom did not lead me to good places.
I made quite the ass of myself, despite the fact that I'm not tempted by the typical venial sins that most people are.
Nonetheless, left to my own devices, I tend to do stupid things.
I needed to put my sights on something higher.
And right around that same time, I ran into an ontological proof of the existence of God.
This really blew my mind.
I've been an atheist for all of my 20s.
I've been a very firmly convinced atheist.
And running into an ontological proof where the only two answers to the question were God or suicide is quite, it kind of blows the mind a little bit.
And it took me a few years to process that.
Gerdel's incompleteness theorem, by the way, was the question at hand.
And after that, I kind of looked at my life and what I stood for, what I valued, and I realized that the principles I hold to are Catholic principles.
That, John C. Wright, you once said when you were investigating Catholicism, you kept asking questions and asking questions.
And at one point, the priest you were speaking to said, like, all right, listen, buddy, up until now, we've had an answer for every single question you have.
Why don't you just shut up and trust us?
All right.
We've spent 2,000 years thinking about this.
We know what we're talking about.
I don't recall that I read it.
Okay, maybe that was a different apologetic I read.
Anyway, somebody wrote that.
I thought it was you.
No, no, no.
Well, here's the thing.
If I agree with 99% of Catholic morality, and when I look into Catholicism, I always find a good answer.
And if there's a little bit to it that goes against my instincts or doesn't quite make sense to me, you know, like, shut up and get to work.
I don't need to know every single piece.
I don't need to read every single book ever written by a Catholic scholar.
All right.
I need to be a good Catholic and go out there and do what my duty is.
And I'll tell you what, when I finally worked up the minerals to actually phone one of my local churches and find out how I joined, and I went down there and met with the priest and walked into the church.
The moment I walked into the church, I could tell it was my father's house and I could hear angels singing.
Very nice.
That's awesome.
When I first converted, I was like an orphan who suddenly found out not only that his parents were alive, but that his parents were the king and queen.
Because not only was I, I have been an atheist since age seven, and not just an atheist, but a vituperative, evangelical, proselytizing atheist.
I actively try to convince people to disbelieve in God.
In this respect, I was lower on the cosmic scale of things than witches, who at least believe in the supernatural, and at least know that this world is not, everything that you see with your eyes is the whole picture of reality.
But so I even like you if you were any other sort of atheist.
But without going into the details of the actual conversion experience, I'll just say that my fellow atheists began to embarrass me because they were wrong on every single moral and social issue and every philosophical issue that they addressed.
And not just wrong, but like boot to the head, stompingly wrong.
Idiotically wrong.
Wrong to the point of them abandoning reason and abandoning logic and abandoning truth and abandoning virtue.
They were a disgrace to the forces of evil.
So I was embarrassed to be in their company.
And the only people who seemed to be making logical arguments, to my shock and surprise, were not just the Christians, but the most old-fashioned, conservative, high-bound reactionary Christians of all, the horrible, the horrible statue-worshiping pagan Christians known as the Catholics, who didn't believe in contraception.
Now, I had independently, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, come to the conclusion that contraception is a grave moral evil.
And none of my atheist friends would even try to follow the arguments given because they had given up belief in logic for some reason.
The atheists in the old days actually at least paid lip service to logic, and the atheists nowadays kind of didn't.
So once I was Christian, I had to decide which denomination to go to.
And I must say I was furious at the Christians for doing this because after finding out that you're the son of the king and the queen of the universe, you find out they're divorced and they live in different houses and they're going to force you to say which guy is going in which.
It forced you to go to one house or the other.
I see that Max is now playing solitaire instead of paying attention.
I apologize.
That's my ADHD.
I'm actually listening.
That's how I listen.
I am a professional writer.
I do not expect anyone to listen to any of my stories.
No, I really am listening.
I don't mind.
I don't care whether you listen to me or not.
I like to hear my own voice.
So, as you can tell, I interrupt everyone all the time, which for which I also apologize.
It's a besetting sin.
So I started looking at the various denominations.
Now, as a proselytizing atheist, I was very familiar with all the arguments that atheists use against religion.
And so when I talked to my Catholic friends, I talked to my Protestant friends, I found out that the Protestants used the exact same arguments against the Catholics that the atheists use against the Christians, almost word for word.
All of the atheist arguments are derived from Protestant arguments.
Yes, that's what I found out.
It was a surprise to me at first.
And I also found out that America being a Protestant, mostly a denomination country, the Catholics that I spoke with very familiar with what the Protestants actually said and preached.
And almost none of the Protestants were familiar with what the Catholics said and preached.
My wife, who's a very insightful lady, noticed that the people making consults on my blog were almost all Catholic.
And I seemed to have a very similar mindset to them.
Because, of course, I was a very logical fellow.
I mean, I was logicked out of atheism to a degree, and then I was also supernaturalized out of it.
I had a vision.
So when I'm going through what the denominations think and believe, I realize that my legal training is insufficient to rehash all the theological arguments that led to the division and the dispute.
So all I tried to do was look at what the claims were and see if the claims were symmetrical, to see if they were claiming similar things about the other.
And they weren't.
The Catholic claim was much more extraordinary than the Protestant claim.
And the Protestant claim is based on the idea that the Catholics originally had the mandate of heaven and did something to lose it.
And that the Catholics somehow produced the Bible, which was sacred, but then didn't have that the rest of their theology was suspect and corrupt and had to be abandoned.
But nowhere either in the Bible or in anything else in Christian tradition could I see the mandate that allows you to create your own church.
I didn't see anything.
How can I say this?
I approached the matter legalistically because I'm a lawyer or a Fed lawyer.
And from a legal point of view, if you have a document that has been interpreted a certain way by a certain group and it's their document, to take that document and say, this now is the whole of the law.
And the rest of what they did to build up to write and to write that document is now invalid can't follow logically.
If you have a letter from the king, then the authority of the king is in the letter only because he's the king.
You can't have the king's letter unless the king wrote it.
Now, if you don't trust the messenger and you say, well, he altered the document or he added to it or he subtracted from it, that's a different argument.
That's more subtle.
And you have to actually look into what the facts are.
But if the only warrant for the authority of the Bible is the authority of the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, if you will, or the church before they split the pieces, then anything before the canon was established, anything before AD 535 or so, has to also be valid, if that makes sense.
The other thing that happened was because I was convinced that contraception was unlawful, before I became religious at all, any denomination that accepted contraception, I couldn't, in good faith, believe was in accordance with natural law.
I couldn't believe that any denomination that accepted divorce was in line with natural law.
So that eliminated a lot of people right then and there.
Now, after reasoning through this, say again?
Almost everybody at this point.
Yeah, Orthodox are kind of weak on it.
Yeah, yeah.
And the whole intellectual process, in the group chat here, I put the link to my, I actually wrote it all down because someone asked me, and it's a rather long process, and I don't want to bore everyone.
After going through this whole legal process, I eventually reached a point where I said, okay, if they don't have apostolic suggestion, I'm not sure secession, succession.
Pardon me, my speech box is going.
I don't see how they can claim to be the one true original church.
And if they're not claiming to be one true original church, then they have to claim that the authority rests with individual men to create their own churches, which is not something the Bible says or reflects.
No.
Okay.
And the other thing that did me in in terms of Protestantism was I read a thorough history of all the early heresies up through like the 10th or 12th century.
And one after another, after another, I just began to see the pattern.
And Protestantism, I hate to say it, fits the pattern.
It's no different from Albigentianism, except that the Albigensian breakaway failed.
It was violently suppressed.
And the Protestant secession succeeded.
And one of the things that was also a tipping point for me was the issue of contraception, because before 1930, before the Lamborghini in 1939-32, all the Christian denominations agreed that it was unlawful.
And then the Anglicans in the 1930s said, Well, maybe if you're a married couple and you really love each other and there's extraordinary circumstances, you can talk about it with your priest or pastor and then it'll be okay.
It's okay.
And that led to it's just the camel's nose.
He's just exactly, exactly.
So my choices then were limited to Catholic and Greek Orthodox because they're the ones who seem to be old enough and firm enough.
But the Greek Orthodox, and I don't mean to assault my Greek Orthodox brothers, looked to me like they were too much like a national church.
They didn't look to me like they actually had a claim to being the universal church anymore.
And part of my decision was just emotional.
And I hate to admit this because I try to live up to the Vulcan standard of being completely rational being, but I fail.
The emotional part was: I'm a man of the West.
And so if I want to be a member of the church, I want to be one that's in my culture and that I'm familiar with.
I wanted to be a member of the same church as Robin Hood and King Arthur.
So I went to RCIA and then I was exposed to completely rational arguments.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church was the only thing aside from English common law that struck me as having true wisdom and true solidity to it.
And let me tell you why.
In real life, I find there are some issues that have to be black and white with no exceptions.
And other issues where you have to take a very nuanced view and balance a number of competing factors.
And the ability to distinguish between those two types of principles, the principles where you need to have a distributive justice of a balance of multiple factors.
Distributive justice is not the right word, but I'm drawing a blank.
And one where it has to be a black and white issue where you hold the line and there's no exceptions.
To be able to distinguish between the one and the other is actually a rather difficult process.
And I do think that the Anglo-American common law has that in it.
And I also saw that when I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So I thought that there was wisdom there, true wisdom, divine wisdom, even if nothing else was the case.
And the Sol Scriptura I took to be self-refuting.
The doctrine of solid scripture is not only not found in the Bible, but more recent scholarly research into which books Luther threw out of the Bible shows that his method of deciding to throw them out was based on consulting the Jews of his day and age who did not have any Jewish copies of, let's say, the wisdom of Solomon or the second book of Maccabees.
And so they advised him that those books were put into the canon wrongly.
Do you know that the books he threw out were the same ones the Pharisees threw out because they did not like Christ?
Well, I was getting to that.
The people he consulted were the heirs of the Pharisees.
They weren't the heirs of the Sadducees, and they weren't the people that were the heirs of the priestly class.
Those guys had been wiped out by the Romans.
So his biblical scholarship was incorrect.
And Martin Luther didn't, as far as I know, raise the dead and heal the sick and comfort the poor.
He didn't show miracles to show that he was a prophet of God.
He didn't really has a better claim to being a prophet of God than Martin Luther because at least he performed miracles.
So I don't know on what authority he says he can make every man his own pope and every man his own authority sufficient to interpret the Bible correctly.
I'm a lawyer.
I would not trust every lawyer to interpret the Constitution correctly.
And lawyers have studied law.
See, I'm not even sure if I trust the Supreme Court once it deviates from its ancient and honorable practice of interpreting it according to what precedent says, if you see what I'm saying.
But no, I think we've got a super.
We got a super chat from EC2189 Kaku saying atheists believing in disbelief.
I think the context was when you were mentioning, because I went through the same thing.
You know, with atheism, as an atheist, you study it, and it's like, well, you know, free market economy seems to be the best way to organize society.
Well, you know what?
Conservatism, yeah, you need to have children to have a society.
And then you look at the rest of the atheists and they're screaming bloody murder over a Republican getting elected and they're having all sorts of sex, all of which is non-procreative.
Yeah.
Really good use of those logical faculties, atheists.
Well, a lot of the atheists fall into two groups, and the two camps are the two heresies you mentioned before.
Libertarian atheists believe that every man lives for himself and is basically just a trouserless ape, but who has higher aspirations, and the communist atheists believe that man is a meat robot who has no higher aspirations.
But neither one of them have any, both of them are erecting a castle in the clouds.
They don't have a foundation to their beliefs.
They don't have a proper metaphysical foundation for their beliefs.
They believe that science can tell you everything about the material universe, but they can't tell you where the human mind comes from that is enabled, that enables us to understand the reason behind the rational universe.
I mean, if you say we just evolved, then that means our brains are just that organ that happens to be useful for promoting procreation.
It doesn't mean that that utility tells us true from false.
It might tell us useful from useless, but it certainly can't grasp things like abstractions like triangles or truth or beauty or even mathematical concepts are non-physical.
No one's ever seen a geometrical line.
They're infinitely thin.
You can't see that with your eye.
How do you know such a thing exists?
How do you know that two straight lines crossing each other have equal opposite angles?
Well, you know, it's because of logic.
There's a go tell that to Thunderfoot.
He will lecture you about how you can see a geographic line.
He drew one in AutoCAD.
Such an idiot.
I mean, he's such a.
I could rant forever on what these things.
It must have some length.
It must have some breadth, otherwise, photons wouldn't bounce off it.
So sorry, he's wrong.
I've been extremely patient, and it's all been very interesting.
But I need to say something to the folks in the chat.
Look, I know that there are a lot of intense emotions and differing perspectives by everyone who's present.
But please, people, will you exercise respect when you are speaking to each other in the chat?
The Christians and the heathens and anybody else, just please respect each other when you're conducting your debates.
Thank you.
You have to recognize you should respect each other because we have a mutual enemy.
The atheists want to wipe both of us out.
They may be friendly to the heathens than they are to the Christians, but they have no respect for the rule that if you do evil, it will come back at you sevenfold.
They don't have any respect for the marriage oath that's protected by the father and the mother gods.
They don't have any respect for your right to raise your children with your own values and beliefs.
They don't have any respect for your right to have a private opinion inside your brain.
Yeah.
But all the Christian denominations and all the heathens and everyone else who's religious, even slightly, we have a mutual enemy.
So we can't afford to snipe at each other in disrespectful way.
Call each other by your last names.
Even those who do not subscribe to a religious faith, but who are philosophical and orient themselves toward the highest good in accordance with Aristotelian ethics and so forth.
What Arini is providing here for us is a wonderful forum for all of us who are committed to our European ethics and our culture and orienting ourselves to the highest good to come together and reason and build bridges.
So please exercise some respect and courtesy in the chat.
I start with that prayer because that's a prayer that any man of faith and any man that values truth, goodness, and beauty can agree with.
That offends no spiritual man.
And then, by the way, okay, let's jump back.
And I should mention when I was an atheist, I was not one of these.
I was an atheist who believed that truth was true, and it was an absolute.
I'm a philosopher.
A philosopher is someone who loves truth.
It's not just thinking truth is useful to you.
Okay.
And that was the thing that slowly drove me one step at a time away from my atheism because my sense of logic could not reconcile what my brain told me the universe was supposed to be like, a flat material machine with no hope and no goodness in it with what my eyes saw.
So there's a lot more.
The forces of the devil have a lot.
They know what we all have in common, despite our disagreements about what the name of the queen in heaven is.
This is why it's said that the devil's the prince of the earth.
If you look at nothing but the material realm, it is hopeless.
It is entropy.
It is.
And if you subscribe to that.
And you might as well sleep around.
That's what it's all ultimately for.
One reason why my philosophy drove me towards theology was that modern philosophy almost all is just people trying to justify their sexual misbehaviors.
There's really nothing to it.
They're looking for excuses so they can commit sins.
Now, I, as an atheist, didn't have a word sin in my vocabulary, but I did have a word for things like crime and self-destructive behavior and illogical behavior and immoral behavior.
I did know what those things were.
I was certainly a flawed.
I'm still a flawed Catholic.
I was a flawed atheist.
But yes, even at the time, I believed in heroism.
I believed in beauty.
I believed in truth.
And I believed in a goodness that was more than just utilitarianism.
I believed in some sort of inherent goodness that murdering a million people to benefit the simple, that's not good.
I don't care if the math works out for you, Stalin.
That's not good.
And here's the other thing I noticed.
I noticed one very simple argument I could use over and over again, almost infinitely, against any modern point of view, which would all I did was judge it by its own standards.
I would say a relativist would come to me and he'd say, all truths are relative.
And I would say, well, what about your truth?
And someone else would come and say, all points of view are equally valid and say, well, my point of view is that all points of you are equally valid.
If my point of view is equally valid, then you have to believe it.
You have to give it equal weight with the point of view that all points are equally valid.
Or they would basically almost all modern philosophy boils down to someone trying to make the assertion that truth is not true.
But it's a manifest self-contradiction.
All these picture yourself, an idiot gardener, sitting on a branch that he's busily trying to saw off.
Almost everything.
Marxism starts from the idea that people only say what they say because of their material circumstances of the economic institutions surrounding them organize their thoughts and their consciousness.
Well, if that's true, then Marx himself, being a son of a middle class, his doctrines would be merely the extrusion of a brain organism with no thought and no truth to it.
So it refutes itself.
The belief that morality is only man-made and can be, and therefore can be overturned by man is a belief you believe only if you don't, even to argue whether that's true or false, you have to decide whether to be honest or not, whether you abide by the rule that honesty is better than dishonesty.
But that's a moral rule.
Even to make an intellectually honest inquiry as to whether intellectual honesty is necessary requires intellectual honesty.
Okay?
To say that there's no truth requires that you believe in truth in order to say it.
To argue that the human mind is innately warped by our race and sex and culture, never to be logical, is itself to make a logical argument appealing to our sense of logic and on and on and on.
And all of these Nietzsche does it too.
Hegel does it too.
And on and on.
Let me get to some super chats here.
We got Veral Journey says US$5 and says, Sola Scriptura is borderline idolatry.
You need to know history and tradition to understand your metaphysical place as a Christian in the present day.
It also devolves in numerology.
It also devolves in numerology.
Do you see the way they pitch Bible verses at each other almost like spells?
Yeah.
At the worst level, it's really spiritually.
It really, I think it's I'm repelled by it.
I grew up around it, though.
So well, I'm not repelled by it, but I but I do notice that Trinitarianism is something that's that's that all the mainstream Protestant is not in the Bible.
That was that was decided upon by the early councils, the Council of Nicaea, and so on and so forth.
If you accept the legal authority of those early councils, then you have to accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church because it was under that authority that they were held.
My Greek Orthodox friends might disagree with this to whose authority it was, but even they would say it was church authority that decided what the Bible meant.
If they agree with the Council of Nicaea, why do they disagree with the Council of Trent?
It's all the same organization.
The terminology you're looking for is the undivided church because this was all before the Assyrians left and before the Oriental Orthodox, too.
This all happened before the undivided church with all those branches that had all that Catholic stuff.
So, yeah, the undivided church had did that.
And we had priests and bishops when we made that Bible for you.
The Bible, in fact, is younger than adoration of Mary and other things that they objected.
Now, as an atheist, I had no instinctive distrust and dislike of Mary.
I had no preference to whether to have stained glass windows or clear windows, whether to have statues or no statues, because I was an atheist.
I hated all of it.
Okay.
So to me, as an atheist, I had no internal barriers to overcome to become a Catholic.
I merely looked at the legality of it.
I didn't look at who was more useful to me or who was more appealing to me.
I didn't think of taking things like emotions into account when I made the decision.
I just took into account what the claims were to be the original, to be the original church and whether or not the people who broke away made a legitimate claim as to having the authority to lawfully break away.
And my conclusion was that they did not.
All right, we have a question from Strontium 19 who asks, Hey, Thrun, can you address the charge of religious communism that Carolyn Emmerich has levied against Christianity?
I listened to her stream just before this.
And, you know, I'm just going to, I think I know what she's talking about, but hey, Thrune, you have the floor.
Okay, well, I mean, to be completely fair, I cannot address a charge that I am not familiar with.
I would actually have to listen to Carolyn Emmerich's stream to be informed about what specifically she is asserting there.
If you want to summarize it for me in the chat, I'll try to address it a little bit later.
Yeah, I just want to be responsible about that.
Sorry.
Well, I'll tell you what I think she's getting at.
And this is actually one of my major challenges in coming to the church: getting past the nice guy, Jesus, pacifist, Jesus, church, church of nice.
You're right.
And the classic Jesus.
He's painted as this smelly hippie that likes to hug sheep all the time.
I thankfully did not have that barrier to overcome.
Oh, the most religious exposure I had as a kid was with Mormonism.
And oh, God, but oh, JW is the same way.
Listen, I know some really good Mormons.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to attack anybody.
All the individual Mormons I know are really stand-up guys and they're really nice guys, but their theology is just whack.
The theology is just whack.
Exactly.
I'd rather, frankly, hang out with a witch or an asset because their theology makes more sense to me.
No offense to the Mormons.
You know what?
Can I give an answer to this question on the people that Christianity is socialist, huh?
Let me just finish.
It's like that song, Clothes But Kind of Meatless, just like actors that play Jesus on movies of the week.
It turns me off, these weird bearded men walking around in sand.
I don't even know what that is.
You know, it was actually reading the thing.
And, you know, Hey, Druna and I, we were talking about the alpha versus the Chad.
Christ is an alpha.
Okay.
Christ sees some people selling sacrificial animals at inflated prices inside the temple.
And he pulls out his whip and starts whipping the sons of bitches and says, get out of my father's house.
He tells his followers, sell your cloak and buy a sword.
He says, look, listen, somebody doesn't want to follow you, F them.
Kick the dust off your sandals.
Go to the next door.
It's there.
And he says, if you want to follow me, pick up a cross, which is what you do when you're going to the execution ground.
He's not saying, come with me to the nice flowery meadow and dance a dance of kindness.
He's saying you're going to be reviled and spat upon and tortured and bound and killed if you follow me.
He's not promising the red roses.
This is not a religion for pussies.
Can I address the socialist angle now, though?
Because I'm familiar with this line of thinking.
And it does come from explicit Marxist doctrine.
And it does go back to something I said almost two hours ago, which is that whenever you look at the social justice left, the cultural Marxists, they're always some kind of weird, bizarre old version of Christianity.
And people who have either a shallow read of the Bible or an axe to grind against Christians or just come from a primitive solo scripture tradition can really look at the Bible and say, yes, you're supposed to give up all your property.
There's passages where, you know, all those followers gave up everything.
And if you interpret the whole thing shallowly, you'll come to that conclusion that Christianity is inherently socialist.
But that's because that's an intentionally primitive and ultimately Marxist-derived, I believe.
Probably.
I'm not accusing this lady of anything because there's a lot of people who don't know where these ideas came from.
And because it's been, you know, these ideas have been inserted into culture.
So there's no accusation, but I would bet this is where it's coming from.
Jesus as a socialist is something that Marxists have been peddling for more than 100 years.
And here's the thing.
It's always a warp perversion.
Christians are absolutely required to give things to the poor and to help the needy.
Absolutely.
We are individually required to do that.
We are not supposed to form a collective where we decide how best to distribute resources.
Christ doesn't say, steal your neighbor's clothing and give that to the poor.
He never says that.
Yeah.
Poverty is a special spiritual adventure set aside for those who are called to that kind of thing.
Guys like monks or the early apostles.
The guy who was talking to these, the rich young man he was talking to asked him, what do I need to do to be perfect?
And Christ answered that question differently than when the guy says, what do I need to do to see the kingdom of God?
What do I need to do to get eternal life?
Because the answer to the first question is, obey the Ten Commandments and do the will of the Father.
The answer to the second one is, sell all your goods, give it everything to the poor.
But he's asking that guy if he's willing to take the special spiritual adventure of becoming a priest or a bishop or a monk.
Say, the difference is a Marxist now thinks everyone should live like monks.
In the Middle Ages, only the people who are called to live like monks live like monks.
The guys who were called to be knights when we're knights and killed the uh killed the uh the pay in him.
Traditionally, it's also understood that the very early, earliest Christians, those in the book of Acts, were all forming the very earliest church.
They were going to form the bishops, the priests, and the very rock of the community.
And they were expected that later on in the Bible, and as Christianity developed in the first couple of centuries, including St. Paul himself, so this is even in the Bible itself.
It became plain that no, Christians are going to have to support themselves, and they're not required to, like, again, they, you know, the ideal might be to live communitarianly, and people who join full-on religious communities become monastics and do that.
But it's been understood from the beginning: Christians are supposed to support themselves or find a way in society.
You are supposed to contribute, you are supposed to first take care of yourself, then you are to take care of those immediately nearest to you, your family, and then your neighbors and your community.
And then, and it goes, and you're supposed to go in that bottom-up order.
First, it's on you to take care of yourself.
Second, you're supposed to take care of everybody around you.
Third, if you can't do that, you may have to go to higher and higher levels.
What's happened with the modern thinking is that it's completely inverted that model.
So, it's got the same assumption of moral care for a Protestant, a Protestant numbers spelling.
He who does not work shall not eat is from 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
So, there we go.
Yeah, it's all over the Bible.
When Christ says to that guy, Oh, you want to follow me?
Sell all your worldly possessions.
He was saying it to that guy.
That guy who was asking.
I thought the guy was asking to be an apostle.
Okay, this guy was walking up.
This guy was walking up in fancy robes.
And he's like, Hey, how do I get this?
I want to stamp.
I want to be a holy man.
It's like, oh, you do, do you?
You sell everything you own.
That's your price.
I don't know if you've paid similar price.
Like, if you want to be holy, you got to pay the price.
For some of us, sell your worldly possessions.
For others, be willing to die for the sake of your nation.
It's or you could be a coward, you know, up to you.
That's the price.
He's not saying that's everybody's price.
That was this guy's price.
It's the same thing when he says, uh, he explicitly says what everyone's price is later on.
You have to become baptized, you have to take his name, you have to do the will of the father.
I mean, he says what you need to do to get the rewards he promises.
And being a communist is not one of them.
Max is entirely right.
It's just based on a shallow reading that's that's based on a dishonest argument that the enemies of Christianity concocted in order to try to erode the Western civilization.
Anyway, it's nine o'clock, so I got it.
I have to sign off because I have other things I need to do this evening.
All right, I'm flagging out and tired too.
Um, I would love to hear Heather's personal journey and her spiritual tradition sometime, but I don't know if we have time tonight.
God bless you, John.
Talk to you soon.
God bless you.
And you and I have a date on, I think, uh, this coming Wednesday.
Well, first Monday of October.
So that'll be in October 3rd.
October 3rd.
Yes, sir.
Yes.
God bless you all.
Pleasure meeting you guys.
God bless you.
God bless.
And you know what?
I'm going to.
Christ actually specifically tells off Judas for promoting socialism.
When the lady is washing his feet with scented oil, Judas sneaks up and says, Couldn't we sell that oil and give the money to the poor?
And Christ looks and says, Hey, listen, buddy, the poor will always be with you.
I'm only here for a while.
So, no, not socialism.
This is her oil.
She's choosing to do this.
You don't get to tell her what to do with her property.
So I do feel where Carolyn's coming from that there is the church of Soy is very rampant these days, but it's heretical.
It's not the church itself.
Now, Hey Drun, we got a lot of comments.
We got some cleaning up to do.
I know.
Sorry, I had to step away for a moment because I had to use the bathroom, but I was very patient.
Yeah, some people have some questions.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Hey, Drune, can you address the?
Oh, wait, sorry, I read that one.
Biral Journey says, Hey, Drune, what's your opinion of the Carthaginian and Babylonian paganism?
I don't have one.
I'm a Germanic heathen.
That's really my area of concentration.
So I, I mean, again, I'm kind of outside of my area there.
Sorry.
Well, I'll give you my opinion.
Is something happened?
Something went very foul with the Indo-Europeans when they went south.
When they went east into India, things more or less remained okay.
Indians are fine people.
It just, they're quite distinct from Europeans by this point.
When the Indo-Europeans went west, things were okay.
But when they went south, something really twisted happened.
And the Indo-European gods became demonic.
So you look at, again, like, I'm not specifically talking about Marduk or whomever.
There was some good in all of that.
But when you look at Baal, when you look at Moloch, these are all versions of the Indo-European gods.
They've gone completely foul and demand the sacrifice of infants.
So you look at the Hittites.
You look at Carthage.
You even look to what the Jews kept going back to.
The Jews kept going back to the golden calf and sacrificing babies to it.
Okay, the golden calf wasn't something they made up while Moses was up the mountain.
It was the bullheaded god that demands the blood of infants.
They keep going back to this.
So something very, very foul happened in the Middle East.
And if part of the reason that the Old Testament is so strict is it's really trying to break the Jews away from the evil pagan cults of the Middle East.
So that's another thing to keep in mind.
When the Old Testament is talking about pagan cults, it's talking about Moloch.
It's Moloch and Baal.
It's not talking about Tyr, Odin.
It's not talking about Kernunos.
It's not talking about Jupiter.
Right.
Well, those Germanic deities have their origin in the Indus Valley and the Vedic tradition.
Well, and so do the Babylonian gods.
does the Jewish God.
It's a weird thing.
It's a complex thing.
But it's quite interesting how they're still worshiping the same gods as the Carthaginians and the golden calf.
Like in today's world, out in Hollywood, they're worshiping those gods.
Hillary Clinton's worshiping those gods.
Are there any other questions from the chat?
I feel a little badly that I wasn't able to answer some of the earlier super chats either because I didn't feel qualified based on my knowledge.
Or I think that was pretty much the reason.
And I know that Max and John had a pretty intense exchange there about quite a bit to say.
They had a lot to say.
So yeah, I mean, I've seen the chat.
Like people seem to be interested in what I have to share.
So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them now if I can.
Let's see.
Coward of the Dog says, Why are Anglo-Saxon accents so sexy, Heythrun?
You know, I've always been fond of Anglo-Saxon.
It's the language that I choose to use in our rituals here.
Now, I'm of Germanic and Italian origin, so I wanted to incorporate something of one of those two ethnicities, since that's part of my blood.
And Anglo-Saxon obviously is a Germanic language, but it's very beautiful.
I know that Tolkien incorporated a lot of it in his work in The Lord of the Rings.
It was one of many of the Northern European languages that inspired his work.
Viral Journey asks if Freya is your patron goddess.
Yes, she is.
You know, there's a topic.
I wonder if you wanted to speak to this.
We were discussing misinterpretations of the Bible.
There's that bit where the guy approaches Christ and says, What do I need to do if I'm going to follow you?
And Christ looks him up and down and says, You need to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor.
And people mistake this for saying everybody needs a vow of poverty or that you need to give everything to the poor and bankrupt yourself.
No, no, no, no.
That was a contextual statement.
He looked at this guy and looked at the way he was dressed and the way he was carrying himself and said, This guy obviously doesn't want to suffer.
He's a rich man that just wants an extra little bell around his neck to say he's also a holy man.
So he said, All right, you want to follow me?
This is your price.
Right.
This is not everybody's price.
This is your price because the gods are going to demand a price from you.
Right.
Well, that kind of dovetails onto something that Freya shared with me some years ago about value.
And she said to me, Whatever it is that you believe that you value, cast it into the fire and see if it burns.
Test it.
Prove it.
If it burns up and turns to ashes, then it was never yours to begin with and you shouldn't mourn the loss of it.
But if it endures, it is yours forever and no one can take it from you.
And then she said to me, What would you rather have for your wealth in this world?
A pocket full of diamonds or a pocket full of coal.
And that has stuck with me all these years about value and what we value and how we have to test that through sacrifice.
Sometimes it can be very hard to take something that we're very attached to, including a belief, and submit that to a test of fire and find out what it actually is.
Does it stand up to the test?
Thoughts about the normies can't meme in Europe?
I haven't heard that one, Kaku.
I'm not sure I understand what is he saying.
Thoughts about the Normies.
And they can't meme in Europe.
I don't understand what he's trying to communicate there.
I'm sorry.
I don't know that meta-meme.
Okay, Viral Journey asks, is the story of Freya and Baldur interpreted?
I've always seen her as a suffocating mother.
A suffocating mother?
I don't really see Freya as a mother figure.
Her primary function is she is the queen of the Valkyries.
She is the goddess of love and war.
Her primary function is one I see of creative and destructive fire.
She's a fire goddess.
She's also, of course, the goddess of witches, of wise women.
She instructs Odin in the art of Sether.
I don't see her as a mother figure at all.
She is a free woman.
She is unbound.
So she would be a suffocating mother, which is why she's not a mother.
Yeah, I mean, she is attributed as to having two daughters by Other, which is the cosmic consciousness.
But her daughters seem to be more elements than personalities.
One, I think, is interpreted as shining, and the other one is interpreted as brightness, almost as if they're aspects of light or aspects of sun energy.
So while Freya is a creative and destructive goddess, she's not a goddess that is associated with domesticity and what might be attributed to sort of the base aspects of the creative feminine.
She is a magical goddess.
She is associated with the more fiery spiritual aspects of creation, in my interpretation, and in my experience of her.
And she crushes weak men, which is, well, you guys really shouldn't mess with A3.
Well, she's a testing force.
I mean, fire is a testing force of men.
In fact, one might liken her to the forge.
I mean, the vagina is a forge when you think about it.
A man finds out what he is when he is submitted to the heat and pressure of the forge.
Wow.
Love it when you put it like that.
EC2189 Kaku clarifies.
Article 13 in the new EU Charter.
I don't know what it is.
Basically, they're trying to pass this new damn fool law, which says that you aren't allowed to, you need to provide citations and sources for absolutely everything you use.
You aren't allowed to quote newspaper articles without paying them.
It completely goes against fair use.
Honestly, guys, from what I've seen of it, it is such a cluster fuck of a law that nothing's going to come from it.
Is it just another attempt to try to restrict or block free speech, essentially?
Yeah, exactly.
And guys, let's be frank.
At this point, illegal is whatever the cops show up at your door for.
There's a reason that Judalini is spelt with the U and not an EW.
Okay?
Everything's illegal these days.
Question is, what can we get away with?
Now, in the good news, the Trump administration has just begun the crackdown on the alphabet companies out there.
So we are going to see some antitrust legislation applied, hopefully.
Yeah, that's a very encouraging sign.
And yeah, Hell's Harbinger, which is, that's actually Bullfurker.
He had to change his account.
Bullfurker, thank you for being the voice of reason.
Yeah, and he is correct.
Balder's mother is Frigg, not Freya.
Frigg is a different aspect of the divine feminine.
Much like Mary, Frigg doesn't really say very much.
That's one of the tests for a Marian apparition.
One of the qualifiers for if it's a real apparition, did she speak a lot?
Because Mary never says very much.
She says exactly what needs to be said and nothing else.
If the Marian apparition gives a giant long lecture, that wasn't Mary.
Yeah.
I mean, a way you can look at this, and this is exclusively within the Norse Germanic pantheon, is that Frigg and Freya are two aspects of the divine feminine.
They both share an intimate relationship with Odin.
Frigg could be seen as the passive aspect of the feminine.
She rules over domesticity, wifery, motherhood.
She's the one who sees all fate but keeps silent, does not speak it.
Her sacred animals that draw her chariot are dogs, which are associated, of course, with fidelity.
And Freya, she's the opposite of that.
She is the force that acts out in the world.
In Sesrumnir, which is her hall, she keeps half of the battle slain.
So she's a very alpha-dominant feminine figure.
She is self-ruled and sexually free.
She's not bound to a god.
She has an intimate relationship with Odin, but she is not bound in the way that Frigga is bound in marriage.
So these are two aspects of the feminine, and they have very different functions.
That which submits to the male and that which tests the male.
Yes.
Let's see.
Bob Newman asks, can you explain the Eucharist?
Why does a priest need to be there?
That would be a question for you as a Catholic, I should think.
Yes.
Yes.
It's, you can have spiritual communion with Christ.
You can, listen, you don't need to preach for most things, quite frankly.
But it's the difference between putting a bastard in a woman and putting a child in your lawfully wedded wife.
The priest is authorized through the church, through the apostolic secession, and through the catechism, that the priest knows what the standards are.
It's the difference between a police officer arresting somebody and a citizen's arrest.
Okay, the police officer, supposedly, is trained in all the laws, in the procedures, and the correct use of force, who to arrest and who not to arrest, etc., etc.
The priest is trained in all of that.
The priest has been given special commission, the same way that when you're married, you're given special commission to create a child with your woman.
And that is a child made in a lawfully wedded union.
It's not a bastard.
So the priests have been given that because we do need the tradition.
We need the common law.
We need the catechism for all of that to happen.
You know, you can't have just any jackass picking up a magic wand and claiming to be a gay black man that worships frigg.
So that's why it's exclusively for priests.
I hope that answers your question.
And it is a supernatural thing.
Okay.
99.9% of the time, it's going to look like a wafer and some wine.
Every once in a while, it does turn into the flesh of a human heart and blood that's always AB negative.
Every once in a while.
But God says that it's transubstantiated.
And he can do whatever he wants because he's God.
So if he says that this wafer that tastes like a wafer is actually the flesh of Christ, I take his word for it.
Viral Journey sends you his $5 and says, and by the way, Strontium 19 sends $5 a gift.
Thank you, brother.
Viral Journey says, last question.
Do you see the pagan community shifting more right in the near future?
Because a lot of the pagans appear to be leftist.
Okay.
I will speak exclusively to the heathen community.
I do view the pagan community and the heathen community as being separate communities.
And within the heathen community, I consider the folkish heathens the only true heathens.
Are leftist ideologues who like to LARP and attach themselves to our heathen mythology and culture, but they really do not practice folkish heathenry in any true form that I've been able to observe.
That being said, folkish heathens are right in their political leanings.
We are true conservatives.
We observe natural law.
We observe folkism.
We subscribe to the ways, traditions, law, and thew of our ancestors.
So I don't think it's so much of shifting more right in the near future.
I think what we are going to see is more folkish heathens acting out in the world, being more active, being more present, being more visible, organizing.
Tribalism is going to become more pronounced, I think, in the future.
And that's a good thing.
One of the things that I'm very passionate about is helping European people come back to their folk.
I don't care so much whether a European chooses to see our gods and our truth through the lens of heathenry or Christianity or even agnostic philosophy.
What I care about is: are they coming back to their roots?
Are they coming back to the ways of their ancestors?
Are they coming back to blood and soil and to folk soul?
So, whatever I can do to help bring people back to their roots, that's something that I'm passionate about doing.
And I hope you guys noticed all the kind words Mr. Wright had for Haythroom.
And by the way, it's Bolverker.
Where's his comment?
He said, leftist pagans are universalists and not true heathens as they do not honor their ancestors.
Right.
Absolutely.
And judging heathens by the behavior of universalists is like judging Christians by the behavior of evangelicals or by homosexual infiltrators that join, not men tempted by homosexuality, but homosexual Marxists that intentionally infiltrate the Catholic Church.
Okay, those men are not the Catholic Church.
Yes, it's a cancer that we need to excise.
Okay, it might be a fatal cancer, but the cancer is not the individual.
You don't look at an individual dying of cancer and look at them and say, oh, you just don't want to live.
No, no, no.
That's cancer killing them.
Yeah.
I just want to say I'm happy to continue this conversation for at least another 15 minutes or so if people have questions.
I know that tonight's show was pretty heavily monopolized by the guests, as it should be.
They were Arini's guests, but I was following the chat.
I'd rather have them monopolize it than say absolutely nothing.
Right.
And it was a wonderful conversation.
I was enjoying it.
I just, you know, I didn't get a chance to address as many of the comments and questions that were coming up in the chat.
So yeah, if anybody has any additional questions, I'm happy to answer them as long as Irini wants to continue.
Yeah, I think another 15 hours because nobody listens.
Nobody got time for that.
And while we're waiting for some questions to come in, just a couple of shout-outs.
I want to thank Tom Bombadil for doing an awesome job moderating tonight.
It got pretty heated.
So thanks so much for trying to keep the peace there.
And yeah, Hels Harbinger, who's actually my friend and warder, Gulfverker, thanks for being the voice of reason where you could.
John Steele, thank you for your generosity.
Thanks to everybody who supported and came out with super chats.
That's wonderful.
And for all of you who were respectfully debating, thank you for doing that.
Well, I want to get Steele on, possibly next Sunday if he's free.
I wasn't really bringing any guests on tonight.
Quite frankly, we got a couple of guests with a lot to say.
Yeah.
I mean, it really is a wonderful service that Arini is providing here.
I've been following, you know, conservative media and folkism and alt-right and all these things that are sort of connected to one another at one point or another over the last few years.
And Irini is providing something really special here in that he's trying to create a space where we can find commonality, regardless of our particular religious persuasion.
Guys, there's Catholics out there that I can't even begin to let them know who I am or they will go out of their way to destroy me.
The virus is in their heads.
And the same is true for me in the heathen community.
You know, I've attracted enemies both from the left and the right.
And I've always been pretty outspoken about my truth.
Bull Farker's known me for a few years now and he has witnessed some of the fire that I've drawn on social media for speaking my truth.
So yeah, I mean, what Arini and I are both doing here, I think, is really important.
And it's rare.
There aren't a lot of folks in conservatism in general who are trying to build these bridges and bring people to truth.
And when I say truth, I'm talking about natural law.
I'm not talking about the particular lens through which we might see natural law, whether we want to call that heathen or pagan or Christian or Catholic or agnostic or Aristotelian.
It doesn't matter what we're seeing it through so long as we are seeing the truth for what it is in nature.
You'll love this question.
Dr. D wants to know how you feel about male feminists.
I don't think there is such a thing as male feminists.
I think there are feminists and then there are the males who orbit them and seek their approval because they, quite frankly, they're looking for sexual access to a female.
They can't get sexual access to a female of their preference.
So they're kind of dumpster diving.
That's how I see it.
Okay.
Preveyor of mercy says go along to get along.
No, that's not what we're saying.
No.
Break bread with those that worship and love God, even if they use a different name for him.
If they love God, break bread with them.
If they wear your outfit and perform your rituals, but hate God, shun them.
That's what I'm saying.
You know, let me, what's that quote from Corinthians?
Instead of using the word God, can we use the word the good?
Because that binds Christian, heathen, and the philosophical seeker or agnostic under one banner.
I mean, he who orients himself towards the good, who loves the good.
And by the way, that actually is a tenet of Catholicism, that those that love the good, though they hear not the word, will be saved.
But yeah, I don't know how to explain it anymore.
All right, EC 2189 Kaku asks about the alt influence report by the Data Society.
I've not read it because you know what?
I'm not going to give that toxic little woman.
I'm not going to give her my energy or time.
There is a really good podcast by Frame Game Radio where he discussed it.
And it's basically that she's applying data analytics, which by the way, guys, this is one of the new, if you can get into data analytics, do it.
This is one of the few areas of technology that's revolutionary right now.
Okay, most other areas of technology are not revolutionary.
They are going to go the way of the dodo.
They're going to become Indian programmers or they'll become algorithms doing it all for you.
Data analysis is one of the growing fields.
But yeah, she does this data analysis, draw a map of the alternative influencers.
And guys, this is just the very tip of the radar.
Okay, this woman's an amateur doing all of this.
Trust me, Amazon and Google have far, far better networks on all of us.
You know, like Google knows that they, well, I'm not going to say it, but they know that it's a huge secret.
They know who my banking provider is.
So when I see ads about banking on YouTube, they're always from my bank.
They know that.
They have got a whole network on me and they can process that data in 12 different dimensions.
And if they have somebody remotely competent, they can find out who's important and who needs to be silenced.
This is why they're going after Rouch, by the way.
Rouche is a nexus for a lot of different people.
People like me, people like Quintus Curtius, people that are more of the Chad lifestyle.
Roosh is a nexus.
He is like Paul Revere.
Paul Revere, yeah, it's like the two lights by sea, something like that.
Paul Revere's importance is that during the Revolutionary War, he was the guy that knew everybody.
He was the guy that introduced one another.
If you could have killed Paul Revere, there would have been no American Revolution.
There just would have been isolated pockets of dissidents.
Very briefly, Rattle Grebdron, what do you think about the connections between Germanic and Vedic mythology?
In Tacitus's Germania, he mentions Manus, Manar, equaling man, son of Tusto, and Vedic, Manu, son of Tuastar.
It's the same religion.
We see Indra as Thor.
We see, I believe, Brahma would be the equivalent of Odin.
It's the same religion.
If you take a look at the archetypes, strip away the names, it's the same thing.
There was another one here.
And by the way, also look at the patterns in these things.
This is part of the reasons that you can tell that the European paganism is fair, not foul.
First of all, that it integrated perfectly with the Catholic Church.
And second, that it's telling the same myths as the Catholic Church.
Right.
Just strip away all the window dressing, guys, and look at the core archetypes.
You know, like look at them through Jungian eyes, and you will see what I'm talking about here.
Please don't go all thunderfoot on me and think that when I say myth, I mean something that's not true.
No, I mean something that's truer than true.
Right.
Dr. D, question, would Freya support male feminists?
No, I don't think she would.
Kaku, read the old influence.
Oh, you had already read that one.
Freya's Hall is not full of cabana boys.
No.
She takes the bravest and the best.
Strontium 19.
Heythrun, can you address the difference between the universality of Christianity and other universalism?
I think that Christianity has been interpreted in different ways.
Christian universalism, I think, is no different than the universalism we see in neo-Marxism.
That being said, there is a Germanic interpretation of Christianity that I think is wholly masculine and folkish and is actually congruent with our own Germanic heathenism.
But that's a conversation for another day.
Look into Christ with the spelling of K and cross-reference that with Germanic paganism, and you'll find some interesting information there.
And I would point out that Christianity is universalist in that there is one truth, there is one good, there is one beauty, okay?
There is one justice.
These are universal things.
It is not my tribe above all else.
Okay.
However, it does not mean that all tribes are identical and should be watered down and interbred and turned into the new Babylon.
One God, many peoples.
Viral Journey, do either of you think that Protestants will ever ally with the Catholics and other heathens against tildoverse?
You want to take that one, Irene?
Some will.
However, well, there's a joke.
The one thing that two YouTubers can agree upon is that another YouTuber is an asshole.
There seems to be a Protestants can agree on anything, but they can all agree that they hate Catholics.
A lot of Protestants are very, very wrapped up.
You know, this is something I keep trying to explain this to people.
Are you interested in being right or are you interested in winning?
You know, there have been a few arguments I've been in recently.
I won't name the arguments.
I'm sure some of you guys can figure out which ones they are.
And you know what?
I could post about 12 debunking videos explaining why I was right.
And what a massive waste of my time that would be.
Guys, I have so much I'm working on right now.
The fact that I came down with this head cold is really frustrating because I had a lot of stuff I was planning to do this weekend.
Very productive stuff that I want you guys to see the effects of it.
Okay.
I want this thing to grow into, I want to blossom into something that's going to help all of you guys.
And I couldn't do any of that this weekend because I was so bloody sick.
So that was very frustrating.
But imagine if I were spending all my time winning arguments on the internet with people that really don't matter.
But so many Protestants are interested in being right.
I'm not interested in being right.
I'm interested in winning.
I'm interested in going somewhere.
And those that want to win, those that want to build something, those that want to survive, those ones will ally with us.
Those that want to point out that they're smarter than everybody else, well, they will be smarter than everybody else right up to the point of the grave.
And that's why I'm on this podcast every Sunday instead of somewhere else.
I support what you're doing.
And likewise.
Thank you.
Eldrick Fann sends you his $5 and calls upon John C. Wright to finish his latest novel.
I've actually never read any of his books.
I'm going to have to.
Hopefully he's listening.
I really enjoyed the chat tonight.
It was just, it was a little exhausting because it was so intense and like nobody came up for air.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Yeah.
EC2189 Kaku has space dog built the ship to Mars before Elon Musk.
You know what?
She has a better odds of building a spaceship that goes to Mars before he does.
Drink a shot of ginger and lemon juice with honey.
Oh man, that sounds like a great idea, actually.
Yeah.
Yeah, since we're coming up on 9:30, I mean, maybe we could take some of the guys who gave us some generous super chats and bring them into the post-chat and have a little post-chat chat.
Yeah, yeah, I think that's a great idea.
Guys, if you feel like doing a bit of post-chat, fire me a message.
I think I've run out of energy to be consistently entertaining at this point.
So we are going to shut her down with St. Augustine's prayer.
