All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 2025 - Know More News - Adam Green
01:55:49
ZioWorld Order | Know More News LIVE w/ Adam Green feat. Laurent Guyénot
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What's up, guys?
Adam Green here with No More News.
Thank you all for joining me today.
Thursday, July 10th, 2025.
Got a big return guest back on the show.
It's been a while.
Very good to have our friend Laurent coming from France, Laurent Guillaneau back on the show.
What's up, Laurent?
How are you doing?
Oh, I'm fine.
I can hear you've been practicing pronouncing my name.
It's getting better.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I finally learned.
You've been on several times before, and I'm sorry, guys.
He would have his video, but my OBS is not working.
We tried troubleshooting for the last two hours.
I'll have to figure something out for the next show.
But Laurent's been on the first time for his book, Essays on Jewish Power.
Our God is your God too, but he has chosen us.
He was on a few times to talk about that one and some others.
And then he came on and we talked about his other book, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, about Mossad's involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
And then he's got his latest book out, The Pope's Curse, The Medieval Origin of the Western Syndrome.
We're going to be talking about that today.
Some of the current events, some of the big picture religious stuff.
He's got a sub stack as well where he's posting.
He posts his articles on UNS Review and other places.
So good to have you back, Laurent.
How are you doing?
Thank you for having me back.
I'm fine.
I'm very happy to be with you again.
My substack, by the way, is called Ragbud's Lament.
Ragbud's Lament.
Do you know who is Radbud?
I'm sure you're familiar with the subject.
How do you spell it?
Well, sometimes it's Radbud, Air A D B O D. Sometimes it's Redbad, R E D R E D. How is your spelled so I can Google it and pull up your sub stack?
Sorry, R A D B O D. Radbod.
Yeah.
Okay, Radbod, what?
Lament.
Ragbud's lament.
Lament.
You know, he's lamenting.
Yes.
Radbud was a king of the Frisons.
You know the story, right?
No.
No.
Yeah, tell us a story.
It's a story I find very significant.
It's coming from one of the saints' life, from the saint.
I think it was coming from the life of a Germanic bishop, a Frankish bishop, who tried to convert King Radburd, who was king of the Frisons.
That was at the time in the time of Charlemagne.
And Radbud, king of the Frisons, Frisans was a place where still un-Christian.
And the Saxons had been converted somehow, but the Frisons had not been.
And so he was offered baptism.
And suddenly he decided after being beaten at war, he decided, well, okay, let's go for it.
And so he was just about to be baptized and he had second thought.
And he asked the bishop, Bishop Wilfram, I think.
He asked the bishop, well, if I get baptized, I'm going to heaven, right?
Yeah, of course you're going to heaven.
But will I meet my ancestors there?
And the bishop said, no, of course not.
You're bishop in hell.
You will never meet your ancestors again.
So he pulled out his leg.
You know, he had put one leg in the baptismal pool, whatever.
He pulled it out and he said, well, I'd rather be with my ancestors in hell rather than in heaven with a bunch of monks like you.
So I find this story, yeah, this story is really interesting because it shows that for those people, what was important is who you are with, you know, after death.
You want to be with people who love you, with people you love.
You know, it's not where you are in heaven or in hell.
It's in what kind of company you are.
So I find it really interesting to point out the major difference between Christianity and ancient culture, ancient religion, basically centered on ancestor worship, centered on the idea of being connectedness, you know.
Yeah, ethnic gods as well.
So I see your article here, Christianization and Depaganism of the Roman Empire.
That looks good.
Yeah.
Tell us a little bit about that one.
At the moment, I started a new series and I have probably 12 articles coming up all on the same subject, you know, because somebody asked me, well, if Christianity won, it's because it was better.
You know, it was superior to paganism, therefore it won.
So I wanted to answer that objection.
And I researched how we were Christianized, how the Romans were Christianized.
And it was not by Choice.
It was not by.
So, you know, there's many aspects to that question, but it's finally a very important question.
The question finally is, why are we Christian?
We are Christian because the short answer, of course, is because Constantine the Great decided the Romans should be Christians, Constantine the Great and then later emperors.
That's an interesting aspect to the Christian question, you know, because it makes sense to think Christianity won because it was superior, but that's not really true.
It was superior, perhaps, in a Darwinian sense, because it was, you know, it used a stronger and more violent means of conversion compared to other religions.
But it was not better in any metaphysical sense or rational sense, of course not.
So I'm working on that aspect of the story.
Because like you, I'm really disturbed by the fact that Christianity has become a tool for Zionism, basically.
It's now to the point where when some non-Jew wants to defend Israel, he does it by claiming to be a Christian.
There's no other rationale to defend Israel except by saying, well, they are God's chosen people.
The Bible says if we support Israel, God will bless us.
That's all they have to say.
They have no other rational justification.
So we have to defeat that argument.
Right.
Yeah, you said that Christianity has led to Zionism, but another way to frame that is Christianity is Zionism.
It worships the God of Zion.
It believes the law will come forth from Zion.
Christianity is Zionism.
Christianity is Judaism.
Well, yeah.
Pulling it back even further, which I know you agree with, but I'm just saying.
Christians here, oh, yeah, it led to Zionism, and they just write it off and say, well, that's just a heresy.
That's just the last hundred years.
That's just Schofield.
And then their criticisms end there.
And it's so much worse than just it led to Zionism.
It was almost inevitable that it would.
And it makes us extra susceptible to fall for Zionism if you worship the God of Zion to begin with.
Well, yeah, I try to also find different angles to that question.
And one angle is to say, well, in fact, Christians have two gods.
One of them is Jesus Christ, which is somehow a Greek hero, demigod.
The whole mythology about Christ being born being fathered by God and being immortal is basically a Greek heroic paradigm.
But of course, Christians also have the God of Israel.
And those two things are tangled together.
But still, I try to, I came to a point where I feel it's better to the point where I'm saying I don't feel any problem with Jesus.
I don't mind Jesus.
Jesus is the guy who got crucified by the Romans under the pressure of Jewish leaders.
That's fine with me.
It's a good archetype.
It's a good, you know, he's a good hero in the sense of the guy who tried to face Jewish power and was crucified for it.
You know, in this case, in this sense, you are Jesus, I am Jesus.
All the people who are trying to fight against Jesus' power and who are being persecuted for it, you know, can somehow identify.
There is some positive value to Jesus in my view.
You know, so I'm not saying we should throw away Jesus.
I think Christians.
I don't think he's a good role model.
He won by dying by being killed by the Romans as a criminal.
He won by sacrificing himself to the Jews.
I don't see that as a good model.
Well, yeah.
And it's fake.
You don't think Jesus really existed, right?
Aren't you a mythicist?
Well, yeah, I'll answer that question, but I agree with what you just said.
Jesus is the ultimate loser.
He's a complete loser.
He was even rejected by his own family.
He was rejected by everybody.
And in that sense, he's a disastrous model.
You're right.
And one time I wrote, I think, some of your post-twit tweet posts that, you know, belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
That's a quote from John Adams, I think.
But belief in a crucified God makes a crucified man or crucified people.
So from that point of view, I understand what you're saying.
But still, I feel the point is to choose your...
The enemy is Zionism.
The enemy is Israel.
So, you know, if people are attached to Jesus, I'm not going to argue with them on that.
But I do believe to answer that question, actually, I'm not sure, but I do believe there is a good chance that Jesus existed.
That's my, although I studied the arguments against it, I've been back and forth on this subject.
In the end, and I tell you why, actually, I tell you why I believe there is a good chance that Jesus existed.
The reason why is because Christianity teaches that Jesus was resurrected, right?
Physically.
But if you study the gospel, you can see very clearly that the original, the first layer was that they saw Jesus appear after his death.
So in other words, they saw the ghost of Jesus.
And I believe in ghosts.
I believe ghosts can appear.
And I can see that there was an evolution from the first Jesus movement, which was based on the idea that some people saw Jesus appear to them, not physically, as a spiritual being, like as a ghost, basically, as a good ghost.
And then that evolved into, because it was in the Jewish mentality, the Jewish mentality is materialistic.
They don't really believe in the afterlife.
So they transformed that into a physical resurrection.
Jesus came out of his tomb.
And then the empty tomb story came up, the secondary stage.
So in my view, that's a clue that there was probably something at the very beginning.
And then Christianity developed out of that.
But I know the argument.
Okay, well, hold on.
Let me push back on that.
Paul, the earliest layers of the New Testament are not the Gospels.
It's Paul's letters.
It's Hebrews.
It's James and Jude and 1 Peter, basically.
Those are the earliest layers.
And they don't ever put Jesus on earth.
They're not citing, they're not learning about Jesus from anybody that was an eyewitness or followed him.
And when Paul describes the appearance of Jesus to James and Peter and the disciples or the apostles, the 12, this is a post supposed post-crucifixion appearance.
So the original Christians believed that this happened in the spiritual realm, and then they claimed to have appearances of Jesus doing this sacrifice in heaven and then in visions and from the scriptures they saw him.
So having a post-resurrection appearance doesn't necessitate that there was a real historical figure.
It's not needed.
And they're not aware of a historical figure in the earliest layers.
Yeah, I understand.
I know this argument.
I think the argument is correct in the sense that if you had only Paul, you would not have serious reason to believe there was a historical Jesus.
But we don't have only Paul, even though the Gospels came later, were written later, they still do exist, and they cannot come directly only from Paul.
You know, the Gospels are not only coming from Paul.
So there was another source to the Gospel.
And the Gospel story, especially Mark.
Mark is the oldest.
We have to stick to Mark.
It sounds like historically credible to me, the whole scenario, except, of course, a few miracles here and there.
No, Mark is pure symbolic fiction from beginning to end.
It's all about fulfilling prophecy.
And it's expanding on, it is Pauline.
expanding on Paul's epistles and maybe even books like Hebrews, maybe some lost stuff, but still lost stuff that had a celestial Jesus, I believe.
It wasn't...
I can't agree with you saying Mark seems like historical stuff.
Yeah, I know you don't agree.
That's why it's interesting to debate, you know, to discuss at least briefly.
Maybe don't need to spend an hour on that.
It doesn't have to be a Jesus mythicism debate.
No, we can move on to other stuff too.
Yeah, but in Mark, you do have clear evidence that it was rewritten from the resurrection story at the end.
We know it was rewritten from a ghost story into a physical resurrection story.
You know, there's, I've studied that.
There is, in my view, some evidence that at the beginning, it was a ghost story.
And a ghost story means, you know, the story about somebody, somebody real, a real person.
Yeah, I don't think it's a ghost story.
I think it's an angel story.
It's an archangel story of a heavenly figure, not a ghost, but an angel, a heavenly figure, the creator of the universe.
He's made in God's image.
He's the heavenly high priest, Melchizedek.
Not a real person that was here on earth.
In fact, if you read Hebrews, it says like he couldn't have been on earth.
Otherwise, this special heavenly blood sacrifice magic wouldn't have worked.
So I don't think it started as a ghost.
I think later on it became a ghost story.
But first, it was an angel story.
Okay, but then even if it was a fiction, don't you think there is something positive, at least in a story of Jesus?
If you boil down the story of Jesus, you have one guy who is not exactly a Jew.
In fact, he's from Galilee.
There's Jews in Galilee.
What do you mean?
Galilee is full of Jews.
And it's right.
It's like it's walking distance from Jerusalem.
Like, they're all Jews around there.
Yeah.
You're really dropping Jesus wasn't a Jew on me?
I'm shocked.
No, no.
He's circumcised.
He's reading Hebrew Torah.
He's the seed of David, which is the king of Judah.
He's Jewish, not Galilean.
That's Christian identity stuff.
Are you serious?
He's Jewish.
But don't forget, Adam, that Jew, the term, the word Jew at the time meant Judean, people living in Judea, people living from...
But never mind.
No, Gospel of John calls him a Jew.
And he says he came to his own people, the Jews, and they rejected him.
It says salvation is from the Jews, meaning from him and his people.
And isn't John where the Samaritan woman calls him a Jew as well?
Okay, possibly.
But there is different tradition.
But don't forget the word Jew in Greek, I'm not sure, means Judean.
So people from Galilee, from a strict Judean point of view, were not considered Jewish or Jesus.
But he's Judean.
That's like a Jew living in Africa is still a Jew.
A Jew that moves 50 miles north is still and is the seed of Judah, the seed of the King David, is still Jewish.
Yeah, but you know that Galilee was kind of lost from the time of the Assyrian deportation and then reconquered under the Assmoneans by force, by violence, reconquered, recircumcised.
So there was really a debate whether people in Galilee are real Jews or not.
It's a debate.
This is an argument that presupposes that there was a historical Jesus that was really from Galilee.
No, no, no.
They get that because there's a verse, I think it's in Isaiah 9, where it says Galilee of the nations, and it talks about other messianic stuff.
He's not from Nazareth.
He's not from Galilee.
He was a Netzarian, meaning the branch from the branch tribe of the branch sect of Judaism.
And they got Galilee and Nazareth from fulfilling different scriptures.
That's where those comes from.
That's my argument.
But never mind.
Okay, let's say he's a Jews.
What I wanted to ask you is, don't you think, let's say it's a fiction.
It's a complete fiction.
Don't you see some value in that fiction in the sense that it boils down to the story of a man who faced, who challenged Jewish power, the temple power, temple.
No, I don't think so.
He challenged, he represents Jewish power.
He's the Jewish Messiah.
He was just scolding from some Jews for not being good enough Jews.
So I don't see that as real.
The whole thing is it's false, limited, controlled opposition to Jews because he still is the Jewish Messiah.
So no, absolutely not.
I think it's advancing Jewish theological supremacy.
What would you think?
What would you say, for example, of somebody like Baruch Spinoza?
He was a Jew.
He also challenged Jewish Orthodoxy.
You know, there are many Jews who somehow...
Did he promote the God of Israel?
Was he wanting the Goyim to bow down to the Jewish Messiah?
Because that's what Jesus was.
Well, you know, there are many Jesuses.
And even if you take one gospel, there are many layers.
There are several layers.
Historical criticism has made that very clear, you know.
So even if you study only the Gospel of Mark, for example, you can find different layers.
There's one Jesus and then another Jesus on top of it.
So I would argue that at least one, the original Jesus was definitely against the Jewish God.
For example, if you read, for example, the prayer he taught his disciples.
Is there a Yahweh there?
No, there is just our Father in heaven.
There's no absolutely no.
So I believe, you know, it's likely, it's a possibility that there was a real Jesus who absolutely was against, you know, Yahooism in all its, but he was talking to Jews, so of course he had to, you know, quote the Bible here and there.
I'm trying to find a, you know, I'm trying to find a middle ground in order to leave a door open for Christians to keep Jesus and throw away the Jewish God.
That's my point.
I know that's not true.
It sounds a little Gnostic to me that you're saying Jesus Jesus wasn't invented as the son of Yahweh and the Son of the God of Israel.
Like that, that's that's how he was conceived.
I don't buy into the he's the son of another God and he's against Yahweh.
I don't.
Is that what you're saying?
No, not exactly.
But what I'm saying maybe could be that this was a Hellenistic, you know, the gospel are written in Greek.
It's part of Hellenistic literature.
So we have to also try to understand that Jesus maybe was a Hellenistic Jew.
He was trying to...
No, Paul was a Talmudic Jew.
He was not Hellenistic.
He hated philosophy.
He said, you know, wisdom, the wisdom of the philosophers is rubbish for him.
So he was not a Hellenistic Jew from that point of view.
Everybody, like literally everybody says that Paul is Hellenistic.
He's a Hellenistic Jew.
Well, in the sense that he spoke Greek probably, but he was clearly not liking philosophy.
What does it mean?
Logos?
He's describing Jesus as like the Logos, basically, which is Greek.
Yeah, but he spit on Greek philosophy, didn't he?
I don't have a quote in mind, but I think that's it.
Well, worldly wisdom in his mouth meant philosophy, I believe, you know, Greek or Roman philosophy.
So anyway, let's move on to another topic if you.
Sure, yeah.
Well, let's just go back to where we were before we got a little sidetracked there.
We're talking about the Christianization and deep.
Like, wasn't the point of Jesus and the Jewish Messiah to conquer the pagan gods?
Yeah, but here there is another question, interesting question from the historical criticism school.
You know, there is a debate among scholars where did Jesus really claim to be the Messiah?
And it's quite likely not.
He was asked, are you the Messiah?
And he said, well, you say so.
I'm not saying so.
There's a lot of debate on that question too.
And I agree, if Jesus is the Messiah, that means that's a problem.
Because if he's a Messiah, that means the Jews are the chosen people.
Because the concept of Messiah is inseparable from the concept of chosen people.
And so what I try to do in one article is deconstruct that concept.
Jesus was not the Messiah.
He never claimed to be the Messiah.
That's a historical possibility.
I'm not saying this is a certainty, but it's a possibility that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah.
He was called the Messiah, you know, after he died by people who, you know, who decided to graft Jesus'teaching to, you know, to their Jewish mentality.
But there is a strong possibility that he didn't really...
I want to ask you, who did he think he was then?
Who do you think he really was if he wasn't claiming to be the Messiah?
But again, this is presupposing that there's a real person.
The fictional, mythical Jesus is completely formulated from trying to create him and concoct a fulfillment, a Messiah that fulfills all these prophecies.
So if that's the origins, that's my understandings of the origins of Jesus, is that they're trying to invent a Messiah from the prophecies.
What's your view?
There's a real person and he had nothing to do with Judaism or being the Messiah?
Well, I have no certainty, Adam.
And I think you might be right.
It's possible there was never a historical Jesus, but I'm not sure.
And I think it's possible there was a historical Jesus.
But we don't know enough.
I don't know enough to tell you who he thought he was and what he said and what he didn't say.
That's another debate.
Did he really say this?
Did he really say that?
I don't know.
I have no idea.
Nobody knows.
If he's a historical person, then we don't know enough to know clearly what he said, what he really said, what he really didn't say and so on.
So I don't know.
To me, in my opinion, the debate is not closed.
And there is a real possibility that there was a real person.
But that real person has nothing to do with the Jesus that Christians worship.
And certainly not with the Jesus that evangelical Christians worship.
And that person is interesting in my view because it resonates with people who, you know, it resonates, for example, with JFK.
I felt, and I wrote that JFK is a Christic hero in a sense that he died.
He was killed by Jewish power because he challenged Jewish power.
So I feel this archetype of Jesus, even whether it's a fiction or not, is not something I'm willing to throw in the garbage.
Here, let me say, I'll agree with you that they set up a folk hero that appears to be anti-Jewish.
Whether they intended that or not, that's what created this controlled opposition dynamic to create the leader that opposes, they're leading the opposition against the Jews is a Jew that is the Jewish Messiah.
So that, in a way, I am agreeing with you, but that's part of the scam.
That's the con, is that they're giving you the leader.
Now everybody goes, oh, those Jews seem bad, so I'm going to follow Jesus because Jesus was anti-Jewish.
That's like the trap to get everybody to worship the Jewish Messiah, like reverse psychology.
Okay, yeah, but there are two, what you say and what I say are not contradictory.
You know, there is a possibility that there was a real historical Jesus and that a Jewish group decided to use that figure for their own agenda.
That's a possibility.
So it's not necessarily completely contradictory.
In other words, there might have been a real historical Jesus and a fictive fake Jesus too.
And then, you know, they build the fake Jesus on some kind of historical foundation.
It's a possibility.
I agree with that.
But another point that I also think is interesting to another angle is I agree absolutely with you that today Christianity has become a Trojan horse for Zionism.
It has de facto, by fact, it is now a tool of the Jews.
And that doesn't matter if we're talking about evangelical Christians in America or Catholic Christians in France, you know, they're basically all the same.
They're completely unable to understand what is Israel.
They cannot really see Israel as it is because when they hear the word Israel, they think they hear the word holy biblical Israel.
You know, they think of Moses and they think of, you know, so they cannot see clearly what is Israel.
And if they cannot see clearly what is Israel, of course, they have no chance to be free from Israel ever.
So that's from that point of view.
That's why I'm happy to talk with you, because I agree with what you're doing is absolutely necessary, you know, to show how much Christianity has become a tool of Zionism.
But on the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created for that very purpose.
You see what I mean?
So why do you think it was created then?
You do, but these are two different questions.
Was it created for that purpose?
Or what did at some point...
Well, I'm asking you, why do you think it was created?
Well, as I said, I think there might have been a Jesus movement based on some ghost apparition.
And was that Jesus movement, ghost movement, Jewish?
Well, yeah, it was.
It was.
Basically, they were Galileans, so they were Jewish by your definition.
They were probably Jewish anyway.
But then Paul came, and then Christianity appeared.
Christianity would never have appeared without Paul.
Paul is a real creator of Christianity.
If there was no Paul, then probably nobody, whether he existed or not, Jesus would be completely unknown throughout the world.
So, you know, these are two different questions.
What did Paul really try to do?
Was he really trying to create a Trojan horse to introduce Yahweh into the Gentile city?
You know, was he consciously trying to do this?
Or was he sincere in his way to try to find a way?
That's another theory.
You know, the Jews, especially after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
I know Paul was before, but after 70 AD, Jews were starting to find a way.
Like Flavius Josephus was in this category too.
He was trying to find a way to still continue to explain world history by the Bible, by the chosen people paradigm.
We are God's chosen people, and all human history can only be explained based on our own ethnic history.
And they were trying to keep that, but find a new paradigm in which the Romans, that means the universe, basically, in their hands, the Romans would have also their part to play.
So, for example, you know, as a comparison, there is an interesting story in Flavius Josephus, you know, this Jewish historian who was captured by Vespasian and Titus in 70 AD.
And he kind of converted, he betrayed his own people.
He was originally a general fighting against the Romans, and then he was captured, and then he joined the Romans.
And then the way he kind of, as he said himself in his autobiography, he said he told Vespasian, the future emperor, Vespasian was not yet emperor, he was just a general.
He told Vespasian that according to him, the prophecy of the Messiah applies to you, Vespasian.
You will be the emperor, and you will be the savior of the world.
So, that's one example of a Jewish guy who somehow couldn't anymore go along with the classic Jewish prophetic vision that the Jews will conquer the world, because obviously they were completely destroyed.
So, he tried to reinterpret this whole messianic thing in a way that would connect it to the Roman Empire.
And then he declared, therefore he declared, Vespasian, you are the Messiah.
You know, so...
I think he was just trying to save, but I just think he was, Josephus was trying to save his own ass and flatter Vespasian.
Probably, but maybe he was also trying to remain a Jew without having to...
Yeah, try to cope that his prophecies were still coming true.
Exactly, exactly.
Right.
So, that means he...
I think Paul might have been in the same kind of logic, trying to save Jewishness by connecting to Romanness, you know, because the whole thing was a whole failure.
The Jewish messianic classic, you know, classic vision was a failure.
Paul died before the temple was destroyed, so I don't think he saw it as a complete failure.
Yeah, that's true.
As much as after the temple.
You know what, also, too, I want to get back to...
I want to ask you about your book, The Pope's Curse, next.
But you mentioned Mark.
You think Mark is like, has some historical stuff in it, right?
But then you said Jesus isn't the Messiah.
And that, in Mark, is where Paul asks the disciples.
He says, who do you say that I am?
And Peter answered, you are the Messiah.
And Jesus warned not to tell anyone about him, which is like the secret hidden Messiah motif that you find in earlier books as well.
So, it's...
Mark says he's the Messiah.
Well, precisely, this passage is very interesting.
Because, first of all, Jesus said, don't tell anyone.
What does it mean?
It means that before Jesus died, people did not know he claimed to be the Messiah.
Only after he died.
You know, the reason Mark put that, you know, Jesus said, don't talk to him, don't tell anyone.
That means before he died, nobody knew he was claiming to be Messiah.
But there is another interesting point about this passage.
If people read their Bible, you can see that if you take away a few verses, I think three verses, then the story becomes completely different.
The story is like this.
Jesus asked, who do you think I am?
Peter said, you are the Messiah.
And then Jesus rebukes him and tells him, go away, Satan.
And go away, Satan, is exactly what he said also to the devil.
No, no, he doesn't say go away, Satan, because they call him the Messiah.
That's because they rebuked Jesus for saying that he's the Son of Man, and the Son of Man is the Messiah that must suffer and be rejected, and then be killed, and then rise after three days.
That's what they were rebuked for.
Yeah, I know.
But there is an argument, which I make, that a few of those verses were added later.
You know, the whole verses about...
i will you know i will die three days and be resurrected and so on that's a post easter addition clearly everybody agrees that everything talk to every every verse about i will I will be crucified and this is post-Easter.
So there is an argument that in the first version of Mark, Peter was rebuked for telling Jesus was the Messiah.
But what about that?
That's all, that's Paul's gospel, though.
All Paul knows in his letters is that Jesus was rejected and killed and buried and resurrected after the third day.
Are you saying that's a later interpolation, too?
Well, no, I don't know.
In fact, we well, Paul says that too.
That's not first in Mark.
It's in Paul.
And the Son of Man, Paul never mentions Jesus as the Son of Man, although he says over and over again that he has to suffer.
But Hebrews does connect in the Son of Man from Psalm 8.
There's a Son of Man that it references a lot.
Yeah, the chronology is important.
And the fact that the question is whether, if we simplify the question, we can say Paul's Christ is a mythical Christ.
Okay.
Mark's Jesus is a physical Jesus, who, by the way, actually was not born from, you know, there's no nativity in, by the way.
Okay, so he was a man, basically.
And we like to conclude that the Christ meet was first because Paul wrote first.
Therefore, Paul wrote first, therefore, the Christ meet came before the historical Jesus.
Well, that's true.
That's a good argument.
But that's not a decisive argument because even though we believe, we are not sure.
Nobody knows for sure.
We believe that Mark was written later.
That doesn't mean there was not an oral tradition earlier than Paul.
Are you meaning like Q?
You believe in Q?
Is that what you're referencing?
No, not Q, but Mark, Mark, not Q. Well, they say that Mark used.
No, no, it's Matthew.
Matthew used to use Q, yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know what I mean?
What I mean is that the chronological argument is not absolutely decisive.
You know what I mean?
The fact that Paul wrote before Mark is not absolutely decisive to conclude that the Christ meet.
Okay, well, here's my response to that.
If there was like a pre-Mark gospel that had a biographical earthly Jesus, Paul was certainly completely unaware of it.
Yeah.
And so was Hebrews.
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, that's true.
That's bizarre.
That's true.
That would have to be explained.
Yeah, I know.
You're right.
Yeah.
It's true.
Okay.
Let's do a super chat real quick.
I got a couple big ones in from my boy here, Indominably Based.
And then we'll get into Pope's Curse.
The medieval origin of Western Syndrome.
This is your latest book, right?
Yeah.
It is.
All right.
I told you, I'm about finished with my book, so I haven't been reading any new material that's not my book, but it's one of the first on my list.
$50.
$50?
No message?
Cornpop the bad dude sent $10.
Is Lauren aware of Constantine's personal reasons why he switched to Christianity involving his wife Fosta and his bastard son Crispus?
He literally fell for you.
You will be forgiven for your sins if you convert.
We'll get that in a second.
Let's let the rest play.
Thank you, Avalboria.
Awesome.
Thank you so much.
Cypher.
Cipher sent $5.
It's a new name.
Couple new names.
Ghost of Eldon.
The ghost of Elden sent $5 on Rumble.
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine.
Covers the most based founding father.
I got a hard copy of his Age of Reason I've been reading.
Nice.
Christian Nation.
Yeah.
Cipher sent $5.
We've got a zombie apocalypse believer.
Ghost Jesus.
Polter Christ is the term they've been using.
Archie sent $7.
I own a copy of Guillano's book, Our God is Your God Too.
I will read it after I finish E.M. Jones' The Holocaust Narrative.
Does Goynot have thoughts about Jones's book?
Okay, I can say something about you.
Indomitably Bast sent $50 on Rumble.
Thank you.
Dr. Guillaume can certainly make the argument that Jesus was, in a sense, a marginal Judaite and not part of the Judean establishment.
But Jesus' mosiac Ben-Joseph is supposed to be marginal.
Thank you, Indominally.
Indomitably Based sent $20 on Rumble.
He claimed to be the Messiah only to the Samaritan woman because he's Messiah, son of Joseph.
I think the Christians combined both Messiahs and Jesus.
He sent $5 if Jesus existed.
Doesn't Lauron think that there would be texts that Jesus wrote except something he scribbled into the dirt in front of a prostitute?
Prostitute.
Well, okay, one more.
Hold on.
Cornpop to the dude sent $5.
I understand, Lawrence.
I'm concerning white guy who wants to sacrifice himself for you might be appealing.
But that played into white people's compassion, which no other race shares, which basically turned whites into sober bejeweling bitches.
Fair.
I agree.
Archie sent $7.
I own a copy of Guiana's book, Our God is Your God, too.
I will read it after I finish.
We read that one already.
Is that it?
Are we getting repeats?
Okay, here's another one.
The dude sent $5 to Lauren, explore the angle that any of the apostles might have been on drugs or crazy or schizo if Paul was a schizo.
Would you think that Disseney Henry would tell him all of their infiltration plans for the goi?
Good question.
Yeah, good question.
Indomitably Baste sent $20 on Rumble.
Overall, super glad to see two of the Green Pills' greatest thinkers here.
Just subscribe to Dr. Guiano's awesome new substack.
Ray Dobbad's lament as well.
Proud to pay the Dame Geld and Frank Geld.
Thank you, indomitably.
Okay.
Did you have a specific question you got that you wanted to address first, Laurent?
You want me to read it back to you maybe?
Yeah, there was one question about Here, I'll go to the first one that you try to start responding to.
E. Michael Jones, the Holocaust.
There was one good point about Jesus being not such a positive model because he made us, you know, turn the other cheek and this kind of thing.
So this, I absolutely agree.
In fact, I'll probably publish one article on the concept of vengeance because vengeance was a sacred duty in all pre-Christian.
You know, if your father gets murdered, you have to avenge him.
Otherwise, even in the other world, your father will not be free until you have taken at least some kind of vengeance.
But vengeance became completely anti-Christian.
Christian were, and that's a problem.
So I fully agree that there are problems.
I don't think Jesus is a solution, not at all.
I'm just trying to, my point of view is just to try to admit, recognize that there is some positive element.
I'm not saying it's all positive.
There is some positive element.
And that's a way for me to also, I try to be a peacemaker between people instead of having people.
Well, I think if there was no positive aspects at all, it wouldn't have caught on and people wouldn't have been attracted to it.
So I agree with you in that sense.
Like, it's not completely 100%.
Every part of it's bad.
Okay.
Here's another question.
Constantine's, do you have any take on Constantine converting to Christianity, his wife, his mom?
You see, that's a big question, actually.
The big question of why we are Christian ultimately comes down to why did Constantine decide to be a Christian?
And I read a few books on that.
There are different hypotheses.
I particularly appreciated Peter Heather's book called Christendom, the triumph of a religion, I think.
Peter Heather, he's a really wonderful, I think, British historian on the Christianization, and including on the Christianization of the Goths and other barbarians.
And he has kind of convinced me that actually Constantine was a sincere Christian.
That's the reason he decided to transform the Roman Empire to him and his sons.
He and his sons reigned 50 years.
And then after that, almost all emperors were in the same belief.
But why did Constantine convert to Christianity?
That's one of the big questions.
And did he really convert to Christianity?
There is this strange story that one time when he was about to fight against Maxentius, I think, he had this vision of a cross superposed on the sun.
You know, the vision.
And that's interesting because the sun, there was some kind of state monotheism before Christianity.
It was a cult of Sol Invictus.
You know, it was a solo cult.
So in other words, what Constantine did, what that story means is, in fact, is that he superposed the cross on the sun.
And in a way, you know, which was helpful for him to kind of finally impose the cross and get rid of the sun ultimately.
You know, there was so this whole thing about Constantine, I'm still working on it.
I have no clear vision.
I think nobody knows for sure exactly what happened.
But it's bizarre because according to Peter Heather, and that contradicts a common belief, there were only 2% of the Roman people were Christians, not 10%.
according to peter heather if you include the countryside nobody in the countryside was a Of course, if you include only the cities, there were some cities where apparently before Constantine, there were already 20% Christians, like Antioch and Jewish cities, actually.
Cities with many Jews suddenly became cities with many Christians.
And you don't hear so much about the Jews anymore.
So definitely those 2% Christians before Constantine were mostly Jews or a few converted non-Jews, but it was missing.
Eusebius might have been Jewish, right?
He's from that area, Eusebius of Caesarea.
So that's my theory: possibly he's even if he's not Jewish, he says he's a Gentile Christian, he still wants Christianity to succeed in the Roman Empire.
So maybe I know Eusebius was connected to Constantine's mom who was a Christian, and they might have planted the idea that he could consolidate power and use this tool as a uniting factor to give him like total God on earth control.
That's kind of my theory.
It's quite possible because Eusebius, I'm not sure.
I'm quite convinced that a few fathers of the church were Jews, especially those who spoke Hebrew, like Tertullian spoke fluent Hebrew, you know.
So he must have been a Jew.
So, and possibly in the story, in the case of Constantine, possibly there was some kind of Esther-type scenario where actually his mother might have been Jewish or she was Christian actually before him.
So, you know, there's always this kind of a funny story where the mother or the wife, you know, is pushing someone into the Jewish Game of Thrones style, Game of Thrones mom of the king type of thing.
Okay.
Right.
Colluding with the priests, the priestcrafts.
All right.
Well, tell us about.
Was there another question too that we wanted to get to also?
Hold on.
I think we had another good one.
I don't want to miss your guys' questions.
Oh, yeah.
Did you have you have thoughts on the apostles and Paul being on drugs or schizophrenic?
Well, that's possible.
You know, people who see ghosts maybe are on drugs, but maybe not.
No, I haven't considered that factor as very important.
Me neither.
Me neither.
It could have just been dreams at night.
They're studying scripture all day, looking for God's hidden mysteries, and then they dream about these different passages and envision some figure.
Could be a simple.
You know, before people had television and electricity, they saw visions.
In the night, they didn't have light.
They saw all kinds of things.
They heard all kinds of things.
So it was a different time.
Visions were very common.
Yeah, and he doesn't even really call them visions either.
It's revelations.
So that could just be like, you know, I had a revelation.
I read Isaiah 53 and I read Daniel 7 and I think I read Wisdom of Solomon.
And I think they're talking about the same figure.
And that theme connects with Zachariah and that theme connects with Daniel.
And then you start pulling in the Psalms and creating this big fanfiction of prophecies, a prophecy-fulfilling figure.
Yeah.
Okay.
What I'm trying to do really in this discussion we are having is to separate Christ and Christianity.
You know, that's just, that's all.
So if we talk now about Christianity, I think we don't have any disagreement.
But to me, I feel it's interesting to try to separate that question from the question of Christ.
But this is the problem.
When I say Christianity, I think of the New Testament.
So the only way we know of Jesus is from the New Testament and Christianity.
Well, yeah, but you have the Gnostic Gospels too.
You have, you know, you have the wisdom Christ in the Gospel of Thomas.
I take those into account as well, though.
Not just the New Testament.
Yeah, well, I try to see things with the eyes of a historian.
So it's a complex situation for me.
It's very complex.
Me too, me too.
So what is the Pope's curse?
Tell us what is the Pope's curse.
Okay, great.
The Pope's Curse has five chapters.
So five, it's almost like five small books there because there are five different theses which are interrelated.
The first chapter is called Failed Empire.
And this is the story of how the papacy became a political power, especially after the 11th century.
And as a political power, the Pope wanted to be the real emperor.
And so the struggle between the Pope and the Roman German emperor from the time of the Ottomans, not so much from the time of Charlemagne, because Charlemagne is very obscure.
Basically, what I wanted to say is that the Pope, the papacy, prevented Europe from forming a united political body.
You know, if you study the history of Europe, how the nations were formed, you know, the national states.
Yeah, because they wanted to unify, they wanted to unify Europe under the papacy.
And they constantly, and that's illustrated on the cover of my book, because the cover of my book is a representation of Henry, the Emperor, Henry IV, Germanic emperor, kneeling in front of the Pope in Canoza.
That must have been in 11 something, I forgot.
So a pagan bowing down to the Pope?
Yeah, exactly.
So the emperor, who was a Roman Emperor, because the Roman Emperor did not really die.
The Roman Empire was kind of taken up by the Germans, Charlemagne first, and then the Ottomans and then the Orenstaufen.
You know, the Roman Empire lasted until the 16th century, even the 18th century, 19th century actually, until Napoleon.
But basically, the whole story of Europe is completely dominated by the struggle between the Pope and the Emperor.
And if there was not this struggle, I try to show that probably there would have been some kind of unity of Europe as a kind of new Roman Empire.
There might have been nation states like France and England and so on, but at least there would have been some kind of political imperial structure.
And therefore, Europe, Western Europe, would have evolved as a unified empire, like Russia is today, like China is.
And that's an important and interesting perspective, I think, because if you study the problem of Europe today, you realize the problem of Europe today is this constant disunity.
The whole story of Europe is a story of war between one nation and the other.
And so anyway, this chapter basically, I cannot tell the whole thing, but chapter is about how the Pope wanted to control, to become the emperor, how the Pope wanted to become really the true emperor, literally, actually.
And the Pope, in fact, was a duke, he controlled states in Italy.
Actually, it starts with Italy.
The reason why Italy was unified only in the 19th century is because the Pope was there in the middle of it.
He didn't want, he never wanted the unity of Italy.
He prevented the unity of Italy.
He prevented the unity of Germany and Italy.
And ultimately, he prevented the unity of Europe.
And that's interesting because this perspective also sheds some kind of interesting light on World War I and World War II, when somehow Germany was trying to become again the dominant power in Europe.
So that's the whole story.
It's quite original, I think, my approach of the subject, I think, is quite unusual and, I believe, quite solid.
Okay, so what is the curse then?
The Pope's curse?
Like, could you give it to us in like one sentence like what is the curse?
Curse that he screwed Europe, that he wanted to rule Europe?
Well, the curse is represented on the cover of my book.
He cursed the emperor.
He almost like killed the imperial...
So yeah, the Pope cursed.
And that's actually what I'm saying now is actually the Orthodox viewpoint, the Greek Orthodox viewpoint, or the Russian Orthodox viewpoint, because Dostoevsky, for example, said that the Pope betrayed Christ by wanting to become a king, a political leader.
So that's a common critique, in fact, of the papacy coming from the Orthodox.
The Orthodox understand very well what I'm saying.
And I find out actually it makes a lot of sense to study the history of Europe from that point of view.
Yes, the Pope screwed up Europe and left Europe because when finally the Pope lost its power, then the emperor was already dead, already incapable of regaining some kind of political supremacy because the nation states of France and England were already very strong.
And so Europe continues to this day to be a fake empire with a leadership that had absolutely no legitimacy.
The dilemma of Europe is very simple.
There are some people who believe that the nation state can compete today, but I believe we are entering some kind of multi-polar world where only kind of civilizational state can play a part.
So Europe would be a civilization state if it was a state, but it's not a state.
So all we are left with are nation-states, which absolutely have no capacity to play a serious political role and then with a kind of corrupted leadership.
But anyway, this chapter is not about modern Europe.
It's just about the Middle Ages.
So I don't want to draw too many conclusions.
You have a background, like you studied Medieval history?
I have a doctorate in medieval studies, which is not exactly medieval history.
So my background in medieval history is coming from my reading.
Well, my book is based only on academic series historians only.
So what I'm saying is putting together things which have been written by.
We're going to get a couple of power chats here in a second again, and then I want to start asking you about some current geopolitical events.
But I got to say, I'm hearing Russian Orthodox Church, anti-Catholicism, Pope stuff.
You mentioned the buzzword multipolar world.
It's sounding very Russian Duganist type of stuff here.
Well, no, I'm not.
Are you a big fan of Jackson Hinkle by any chance?
I don't know him enough to say to answer that.
I see him sometimes.
Didn't we argue some Russia stuff?
The last time I saw you, we were on somebody else's show and we were arguing like Russia, Putin stuff, weren't we?
Yeah, but can we leave that out of the talk today?
Because, you know, this book doesn't get into that.
Just what I was trying to say is that to understand what is Europe, you have to understand this struggle between the Pope and the Empire.
That's all I want to say.
I'm not drawing any conclusion about where Europe should go or where the world should go.
Just to understand the state of Europe.
There's something very special about Europe, which is at the same time one civilization, but yet not a political unity.
There's no political unity in Europe.
It's a joke.
What about the European Union and NATO?
Are we going to hear next that you don't like European Union and NATO too?
Because that's definitely Duganist.
Well, no, I don't think the European Union, nobody likes the European Union.
No European likes it.
Nobody hates it more than the East?
Well, I mean, nobody feels it's representative, representing the everybody feels anyway it's controlled by America, which is controlled by Israel.
Well, that's the problem, but I think Europe should be united, though.
I do.
I do too.
I do too.
But it started on the wrong foot because of this medieval history.
So it's almost an impossibility, but I do.
I'm a European Europeist.
I do believe we need a European Union, absolutely.
But the one we have definitely is not really a European Union.
It's not really European.
It's not a European leadership.
But that's another.
So what is it?
Jewish?
Well, it's American and therefore now controlled.
Well, aren't Americans kind of Europeans too, though?
Sorry?
European?
I mean, we came from Europe.
Americans are European.
I consider myself brothers with Europeans.
Well, now you're drawing me into a field that I'm not absolutely.
All right, that's fine.
I think that's everybody, you know, I'm not saying something Greek.
Well, let's switch gears a little bit.
Let me get your take on Trump's presidency so far, covering up the Epstein stuff, bombing Iran, glazing Netanyahu all the time.
You know, I've been calling this is what we're going to see with Trump, all of this Nobel Peace Prize, peace deals, wars, super Zionism.
Is Trump's presidency panning out like you thought it would?
No.
Can I say just one thing about my book again?
Sure.
Before.
And then we can move.
There's one chapter.
I'm not going to talk about all the other chapters, but one of the chapters I feel most useful is about the fact that Christianity created individualism, created, destroyed, you know, all the organic built on not like your group's well-being, but your individual salvation.
Yeah, it connects to the story of Radburg I told at the beginning.
Because it puts so much emphasis on individual salvation, your salvation has nothing to do with other people's salvation, just you by yourself.
And that's really something absolutely terrible.
It completely destroyed in the long run, you know, slowly, little by little, it completely created an individual who is completely obsessed by himself, by his own salvation, by his own well-being.
It is really the root of individualism.
And from that point of view, Christianity was a poison.
And if it was a Jewish poison, it's interesting to realize it was a poison sent by the people who has the most strong organic sense.
So I put emphasis on that, on the fact that if our problem is individualism, then it definitely comes from Christianity.
No question about it.
It's very easy to prove that Christianity created the self-absorbed individual, which is not natural.
It drives people crazy.
If you think about only about yourself, this creates crazy individuals and a crazy society.
So I just wanted to mention that chapter because.
No, it's a good point.
Yeah, the individualism.
And I think part of having a universal God that's for everybody removes everybody's like tribal ethnic gods and thinking of bigger than themselves, like their collective well-being on this earth, too.
Christianity isn't about having it good on this earth.
It's about suffering and giving away your wealth.
So to collect your treasures in heaven, it's all about all of the emphasis is placed on the afterlife, which is a Jewish promise that's never coming.
Yeah, exactly.
And it became worse actually from the 11th century, which is the time period I focus because the church became a monastic church.
It was almost like a coup by the monastic movement.
So the emphasis on celibacy being a superior kind of life, really became dominant at that time.
And that's also very problematic.
The man with no family is superior to the man with a family.
So of course, and the best and the brightest and the most devout thinkers don't have families and don't have children and end up raping young boys.
Whereas in Judaism, to be a top Kabbalah rabbi, you have to be super trained, 40 years old, have a family, have a trade, have a work.
Yeah, even in porn, even Pornhub, has a rabbi at the head of Pornhub.
This rabbi Friedman.
Yeah, I've seen that.
I'm not sure what that had to do with my point.
But yeah, that's true.
Well, to be a rabbi, you have to have a job.
Oh, that's his job.
Any kind of job, any kind of money-making job will do.
That's all.
Yeah, I meant more like the sciences.
They don't want their rabbis to only train religion.
They want you to also be competent in something else.
I think that's more of the teaching.
Yeah, I understand.
So what do you think about Trump?
Let me know.
I want to hear the Trump.
For me, it's 100% negative.
I have absolutely no more patience with those who try to excuse this or that, saying, well, he's giving Israel this because he's taking away that from them.
I feel he's giving everything.
And I feel he has been cheating all his voters.
I didn't vote.
I'm French, so I'm not really concerned.
But I admit that for a long time I had hopes about Trump.
I confess I was wrong.
We probably argued, so I get to say I was right.
I told you so.
Told you so.
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, I don't remember exactly, but my view...
I'm not sure that we did argue about Trump.
No, that's quite probably because I was trying to keep open the possibility that as a dealer, he would make a real deal, but there is no deal in what he's doing.
I think he's 100% Jewish.
He's making deals for Israel.
Yeah, he's dealing for Israel, but he's not getting anything from them in return for Americans.
So, yeah, I have nothing positive to say about Trump.
He just sent us the father of his son-in-law as ambassador to France.
A lot of people, I haven't seen anybody cover that, actually.
It's actually, I may have mentioned it real quick on one show, but I bet you people don't even know.
Guys, do you know that Trump appointed or nominated Jared Kushner's dad to be the ambassador to France after he already gave him a commuted sentence or what else is it called when you let him off the hook?
Guys, what did he do?
Pardon.
He gave him a pardon.
And then now he's the ambassador to France.
I'm sure doing a whole bunch of Jewish deals over there.
I haven't seen that covered in France either, actually.
Very bizarre.
I don't know why nobody has commented on that.
Charles Kushner, France.
Nominated?
I don't know that he's been.
Oh, he was confirmed.
February 12th.
Wait.
Yeah, he got confirmed.
This state confirms May 2025.
I'm surprised they confirmed it.
It's like he just got pardoned and now he's an ambassador.
Conflict of interest?
Do you mean your son-in-law's father?
Yeah, amazing.
I wonder if he's done anything.
Yeah, there's an article in Euro Euro News, From Prison to Paris.
That's a good one.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'll have to look into what he's up over there.
Sorry, I interrupted.
Go ahead.
No, I just, I don't follow very closely American politics, so I have nothing very, very original to say.
Just I find the whole story about the Epstein files so significant, so funny, so crazy, so incredible that many people voted for Trump, influenced by Q Allen that, you know, he would put all those pedophiles in prison and clean the swamp, drain the swamp and all this kind of rhetoric of QAnon rhetoric.
And now he's closing the file and saying basically there's no file.
After they said it's on our desk, we got truckloads, there's thousands of videos, we need more time to go through it.
And then actually there's no list and he killed himself.
And then did you see Trump getting mad that a reporter asked him about it?
Like on the day they say the case closed, he's like, you're still talking about this?
Yeah, I saw that.
Which really makes people think that seriously he is the one on top of the list.
He's probably the main guy on the list.
In fact, he was probably even part of Epstein's circle in a deep way.
So I mean, it makes full sense.
When you start to understand the man, what kind of man he is, there's no way he would have kept away from that.
Yeah.
And then also, I think the big giveaway that there's some blackmail going on is that he's still standing by Netanyahu.
Like you saw his post, like he's a war hero.
He's the greatest man.
Like all the charges against him in this investigation should be dropped and he's a total hero and stuff.
Right.
Yeah.
That's incredible.
And I remember now that when we last talked, or maybe the time before we, there was a time when he was called the Messiah.
Trump was called the Messiah for giving back Jerusalem to Israel.
You know, there was all this kind of rhetoric and medals minted with.
Militania who proposed Trump for the Peace Nobel Prize.
And it's incredible the complete fusion between those two men.
They are becoming one.
Yeah, greatest partners ever.
And then I'll see people coping online.
They'll say, I didn't vote for this.
Or like, I voted for Trump, not for Netanyahu.
And it's like, well, if you're watching, it's a package deal.
And they've been groveling.
I understand people who did that.
I would have done the same because you want to believe.
It's hard to believe that you are being cheated in such a deep way.
This is a new situation where politicians have always been lying, but not completely.
Not trying to fool you to that degree.
This is a new situation.
People are not used to that.
Even in France.
It's becoming not only in America, but it's rather a new situation.
But we have to learn from that lesson because times have changed now.
This is the reality.
You can have some guy promising all kinds of things with absolutely, you know, no intention to do anything with the intention to do exactly the opposite.
What do you think about X and the recent thing with Grok and Elon and this supposed rise in anti-Semitism in America and the West?
Do you have a view on that?
On what exactly?
Elon, you mean anti-Semitism.
Well, what do you think of Christian anti-Semitism?
Let me pin it down a little more.
What are your views on Christian, like your typical Christian anti-Semitism talking points?
Christian anti-Semitism talking point.
You mean Christians who are anti-Zionist?
They're talking point.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I don't hear any Christian anti-Zionist very loud.
I haven't heard their voice, so they must not be speaking very loudly because I haven't heard any.
They're fringe, but they're popular on Twitter or TikTok.
Yeah, there is Nick Fuentes.
Are you talking about Nick?
Yeah, what do you think Fuentes?
About Nick Fuentes?
Yeah.
I like him.
I feel he has a real talent to explain.
And I have a feeling that he's becoming less and less Christian, actually.
I don't hear him say Christ is king anymore.
So I think he's evolving in the direction to understand that Christianity will not save America.
I don't know.
I'm just guessing, but I don't hear him anymore defending Christianity so much.
Well, recently he said the problem with the Jews is that they're not Christian.
Okay, well, sometimes you get into that kind of weak points.
But otherwise, he is very much aware and he makes people very aware that how much Israel is controlling America.
So I think he's doing a good job from that point of view.
And I, as I said, this is why also I don't want to condemn Christians systematically as a matter of principle.
I feel some Christians will evolve into the right direction.
There's no, you know, people who are rational, intelligent, they may be Christian because they thought or they still think that Christianity is essential to Western society.
I think it is not essential to Western society.
But they do think it is essential to Western society, so they feel embarrassed.
They don't want to drop Christianity.
But little by little, many people will evolve into the direction of understanding that Christianity is basically now a tool for Zionism, you know.
And even Catholicism is not the answer.
Fuentes is disavowed by the Catholic Church, and they don't agree with any anti-Semitism.
They don't agree with any racism.
And they're for open borders and it's a universal Jewish religion.
So hopefully they do evolve.
If Fuentes were to evolve and be less Christian and admit that Christianity isn't the answer and the path forward, that would be a huge victory, if it ever happens.
I did see him praising some anti-Christians in clips yesterday.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Yeah, one of the clips you put, I remember you put some kind of crazy black people praising Jesus and so on.
And then as a way to say, look, do you think Christianity is white?
Christianity is not anymore white.
So this also Nick Fentes will come to realize Christianity is not anymore in the interest of white people.
Not at all, because it's not anymore a white religion.
Anyway, it might have been worth defending as long as it kind of was connected to white identity.
But it's not anymore.
It's not a white religion anymore.
So that's a point you made very clear with some kind of illustration.
And I feel that's important.
And talking about Catholicism, there was a question about E. Michael Jones, I think.
So yeah, I have the same.
I think E. Michael Jones is a good guy, but he has a blind spot in his vision of Israel because of his Catholicism.
And so, again, I don't want to keep the line of dialogue open.
That's why all the arguments I brought in the beginning, let's not throw baby Jesus with the basswater.
I think that's my position, because I think it's good to dialogue, to keep the dialogue open between Christians and non-Christians, as long as we agree that Israel is a problem.
But E. Michael Jones, yes, in my view, first of all, he's very marginal.
I mean, if there were more Catholics like him, it would be worth listening to their argument.
But I don't see any other Catholic seriously understanding the problem with Israel.
So, I mean, the solution will definitely not come from Catholics.
E. Michael Jones by himself cannot make such a big difference.
But one of the main problems with his vision, for example, is that in his book, The Revolutionary Spirit of Jews and Jews or Revolution, Christianity was a revolutionary movement, a Jewish revolutionary movement.
Now Christianity became a conservative movement.
Well, that's just because Christianity took power and therefore when power is always conservative.
But at the root, at the root, it's an incredibly revolutionary movement, which destroyed, as we said, all the organic social realities of human life.
So from that point of view, I learned a lot from his book, but the whole general theory, I think, does not will not lead us very far.
Right.
His problem with Jews is that they rejected Jesus.
That's his only big issue.
The Messiah that was meant to conquer the world, that's their only problem with Jews and they won't criticize the Torah, which is the root of Judaism and Zionism.
And the main grievance is like, do you think the Christian anti-Semitic talking point that like the Jews killed Jesus is, is that overall helpful or is that hurting and counterproductive?
It's counterproductive because when you say that, you imply God chose the Jews.
You know, God chose the Jews, but blah, blah, blah.
The Jews messed up.
But still, God chose the Jews.
That's the, you know, the worm in the apple.
It's the main problem.
It's a big lie.
It's the biggest lie of all.
You know, this is the lie we have to fight.
But Christians and Jews agree that God chose the Jews.
They both agree on that.
They don't agree on the Messiah.
Oh, we have the true Messiah.
No, you don't.
But apart from that, they agree that God chose the Jews.
And God chose the Jews is such a crazy idea.
It's a crazy idea about the Jews.
It's a crazy idea about God.
It's a kind of metaphysical poison.
It destroys people's ability to think about God, to think about, you know, how can you think philosophically about God when you think that God is a person who, for some reason or other, chose the Jews.
So yeah, from that point of view, I think it's completely that's why I'm interested in the hypothesis that Jesus actually did not.
You know, there's still a possibility that Jesus did not believe God chose the Jews.
You can interpret some of his sayings in that way at least.
Well, you can choose whatever Jesus.
What I'm saying is that there is different Jesus.
But basically the point I came to, and with your help, actually, Adam, is to understand that as long as we believe that God at some point in history chose the Jews, that the Jews had some special relationship with God that no other people ever had.
People didn't know God.
The gods they had were actually demons.
According to Christians, you know, all the gods of the pagans, they are gods of nature, their gods, their ethnic gods, the gods of these were all devils, demons, fallen angels who conspired to draw people into hell.
That's a sick way to look at history, to look at humankind.
You know, this is there's nothing good in that kind of vision.
Right, right.
No, you nailed it at the very beginning.
The problem with Christians who their main issue with Jews is that they rejected Jesus is that if that's your problem, you're validating their chosen status.
You're validating their prophecies.
You're validating basically pre-Christian Judaism.
So that's not really anti-Semitic to validate that they were ever chosen and that their prophecies are real and their God is real.
And I'll go a little further.
Blaming Jews for killing God, you can't get the majority of Christians to hop on board with that cause because they know the story and they don't care.
The story says they're blinded, they're hardened, they stumbled.
It's God's plan and they'll believe in the end.
So it's all good.
And Christianity wouldn't exist and the Gentiles couldn't have been grafted in if the natural branches weren't cut off.
So without the blood sacrifice that's fulfilling God's prophecies and his plan for salvation to bring in the Gentiles, the Jews had to do that.
So it's just, it's all so illogical and nonsense.
And like the political thing is that the Jews and non-Christians see these Christians blaming Jews for killing God, elevating them to like supernatural, God-killing villains.
And everybody thinks the poor persecuted Jews, these crazy Christians blaming them for this illogical thing.
And then opposition, anti-Semitism gets discredited as these evil, like religious villains, basically.
Yeah.
Yeah, I agree with that.
I mean, as you pointed out, there's something so incredibly illogical in the idea that the Jews were supposed to receive Jesus, but if they had received Jesus, they wouldn't have crucified him, and he wouldn't have been resurrected.
And then what?
I mean, it's so absolutely absurd.
Yeah, like in the same way that Christians today need the Antichrist to rule before Jesus returns.
It's like the Christians needed the Jews to reject their Messiah.
And who is ultimately to blame for all of this that's unfolded according to the prophecies?
Obviously God, right?
He's the puppet master behind all these things.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, if, you know, it's so absurd.
It's so irrational.
And one of the topics I want to continue research is how much Christianity has destroyed the wonderful, you know, rational thinking of the Greeks and the Romans.
You know, I mean, throughout the Middle Ages, it basically just came back.
You know, there's a gap between, let's say, Ptolemy, Ptolemy, and Copernicus.
You know, I mean, if there was not Christianity, Copernicus would have come probably five centuries earlier.
I mean, this incredible war on intelligence from Christianity is right.
The dark ages.
I recall, wasn't it you that was talking about some theory about like time like the time being a big lie like the dating system being a big lie was that you yeah I've been working on what we call in French réstantism like I call it chronological revisionism and I published a book called in English it's called anodomy it's called annodominie some something I
I forgot the subtitle.
Yeah, I've been working on these questions, but I find no absolutely clear answers.
I've explored all the different theories about some centuries, too many centuries in the first millennium AD, first millennium AD during, you know, between zero and 1000.
After the year 1000, I believe the chronology is basically correct.
before that there's a lot of arguments to be made that it's incorrect maybe some centuries were added that's a possibility but since I could not come to any clear proof I stopped thinking about this but my book I think is Interesting.
I don't know, Mini.
It's called.
Well, I forgot the subtitle.
Well, it's interesting how just 500 years ago, the Catholic Church changed our dating system so that it started the year zero is when Jesus was supposedly born.
So already hearing that makes me think like there could be some funny business going on with our point of tracking of time.
Yeah, the point is that Western historiography or the Western chronology, which ultimately was imposed on the rest of the world who did not have clear chronologies, that was basically invented by the Catholic Church.
And that's actually one the last chapter of my book, The Pope's Curse.
I have a last chapter on that.
They falsified so many things, starting with the donation of Constantine, for example.
There's such a huge amount of falsification made by the Catholic Church between, let's say, 900 AD and 1200 AD, basically, during that period.
So there is enough reason to, when you start to doubt the reality, I mean, some sources that were written at that time.
And then also during the Renaissance, too, during the Renaissance, the humanists started to discovered, you know, they discovered Cicero, they discovered Titviv, they discovered so many things.
They discovered statues in their gardens.
And then, you know, a lot of people are starting to wonder, did they really discover all that or did they create it in the 15th century?
That's, you know, there are two periods where there was a lot of fabrication.
And then maybe, maybe the chronology was partly fabricated.
Does that tie in with like Tartaria stuff?
Have you seen anything about Tartaria?
I know about this website or this theme of research.
I don't know exactly what they're saying.
I've been mostly researched, I've been mostly impressed by the work of one guy called Gunnar Einson, a German guy.
Gunnar Einson, he based his work on archaeology, on stratigraphy, actually.
That means on the study of the different layers where things are found.
And based on the scientific evidence of stratigraphy, he points out that the archaeology, the stratigraphy, does not fit with our chronology of the first millennium AD against only the first millennium AD is in question here, or before, before, not after that.
So Gunnar Einson is a very interesting researcher, and you can find his website.
He died a few years ago.
I communicated with him a little bit.
In my view, he's the most serious.
I don't go along the Russian school of Anatony Fomenko who go really too far and say that all that Jesus was born in 1500 and this kind of thing.
I feel there is a way to explain that.
You said Russian school flamenco?
Yeah, there is a Russian school of what I would call chronological revisionism.
They call it the new chronology.
The leader who died also a few years ago was called Anatoly Fomenko.
Anatoly Fomenko.
And he said Jesus was born 500 years ago?
Well, yeah, I mean, he has a very Russia-centric view, which he has a lot of good things.
You know, he did a lot of good work.
He kind of discovered a lot of anomalies in history, you know.
But then the general reconstitution that he proposed is completely, completely impossible because it's basically he basically believed that before the Roman Empire, the Russians were dominating all the world, including in America.
I mean, it gets completely crazy.
But still, there's a lot of interesting insight here and there in his work.
And he's a classic of that kind of research on chronology.
You know, there is a Russian school of Fomenko, there is a German school, and Gunnar Einson is definitely the best.
There's not so many original French thinkers, but there are different schools, you know, who don't agree on everything but agree on certain things.
Well, that's generally agree.
They would generally agree on the fact that the Middle Age was much shorter than it's supposed to be.
Interesting rabbit hole.
Yeah.
Don't know that I'll go down, maybe.
Who knows?
Let's do some more of these super chats here in a second.
Okay.
Okay.
Go ahead.
No, I mean, I don't consider it very extremely useful, especially since it doesn't lead to any certainty.
So it's just people discussing and finally not being able to agree.
It's interesting in the sense that it helps you to understand how fake our history is.
The chronological aspect is not so it's not the most important.
It just helps you to understand how history is written.
And the fact that our history books are that our history is fake is not a new phenomenon.
Helps you to understand that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's do these, fire up these super chats again here, or power chats, I should say.
Get them going.
We'll probably close it out too once we get through the rest of these.
We're at an hour and a half.
Any second now, I finally, I just realized I could just put you on the screen over there.
It's not the normal way to do it, but it works that way.
There we go.
Habs 93 sent $5.
Hey, Adam, just donating to support the show.
Thank you, Habs.
Appreciate you.
You guys are great.
Zionist Cuck sent $5 on Rumble.
CA plain pour moi.
You know, that means he sent $10 on Rumble.
Laurent has a really good point here.
If we had unity like this, there would have been no Vicious Brothers' Wars, whether the 30 Years' War or World War I, etc.
Indomitably Base sent $10 on Rumble.
Dr. Guillaume, I'd really like to hear your latest thoughts on first millennial chronological revisionism.
I read your book with great interest.
Archie sent $5, Guiana, which are more troublesome to ending Jay Power.
Anti-Semites who are Christians, Muslims, or Hindus.
Christians.
Tynamesk sent $5 on Rumble.
The UNS Review publishes pro-Russian anti-NATO articles scourced from Moscow's Strategic Culture Foundation run by former Soviet Politburo Yuri Prokofiev.
Does Guyanet know this?
No.
Sunder, you don't send $5.
My not at your shekel challenge, Tidey.
Thanks to both of you for a great discussion.
May the creator of the universe protect you.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
What did it say about what is the name of that?
Moscow Strategic Culture Foundation.
What is the website I'm thinking of that was like Russian?
He was talking about the UNS review where I published most of my underscore stag sent $500.
I have no comment on that in the audience review.
I like it.
The UNS review is really generally quite high standard.
And Ron Hans publishes my articles, and I'm happy about it.
That's all.
I don't want to comment.
Have you noticed that a lot of UNS is very pro-Russian?
Somehow, but it's changing.
There's no fixed line.
Yeah, mostly, yes.
Mostly in the war that is at least apparently taking place.
Yeah, they're more on the side of Russia.
There's a lot of articles very interesting on China.
Yeah, in general, but I mean, you don't like the UNS review.
Yeah, I understand.
Okay, here, let's do some of these other questions we had here.
I got to figure out how to pause these questions once they come through, guys.
Let's see.
Where was it?
Which is the biggest impediment to decreasing Jewish power?
Is it anti-Semites who are Christian or Muslim?
The biggest force to decrease, to decrease Jewish power, in other words, this kind of thing.
I don't know.
Who are the biggest supporters of Jewish?
Or actually, that's not right, because anti-Semites, yeah.
We kind of talked about that.
It's difficult for me to comment on Islam, for example, because I'm not enough knowledgeable on Islam.
But one thing I do feel is that in Islam, there are good points and bad points.
And among the good points, there is the fact that they consider the Hebrew Bible to have been falsified.
So that's a good starting point.
And from that starting point, you can go quite far to claim that the whole thing about chosen people and so on is a Jewish hoax.
So I think there is some more potential from some from this viewpoint in Islam to break the paradigm of the chosen people and so on.
On the other hand, it's very difficult to make general comments on Islam because there's so many different kinds of Islam.
In general, I don't like Islam.
I'm not attracted to Islam.
The whole concept of God talking, God giving laws is abhorrent to me.
I feel this is exactly the concept of God that I want to have nothing to do with.
I'm interested in the concept of God as a philosophical concept, like the Stoics did.
But all this concept of God talking, God cursing, God choosing, I feel this is really stupid.
God hating.
God hates Esau, which they view us as Esau.
That's a problem.
Yeah, and God, God ordering genocide, of course.
Yes.
What did Zionist cuck say to you in French there?
Ca plain poor moi?
What was that?
The French Saplan, the guy who wrote Saplan Pomois, yeah.
Well, I think he wanted to say, I'm completely off the wall, something like that.
Of the world?
I'm completely, I'm talking nonsense.
I think that's the other comment from Indominably Base says about the brother wars.
How about they always, since your book talks about unifying Europe, you think I hear this argument from Christians.
They say Christianity unified Europe.
And do you agree with that?
Well, I mean, do you know any other religion that created so many religious wars?
I mean, religious wars were an invention of Christianity.
Christianity created so much division.
So it was trying to create unity, but it failed to create unity.
And finally, and from the beginning, you know, Christians were fighting each other.
Heretics were burned.
I mean, all throughout the history of Christianity, they couldn't even unite between themselves.
You know, they went on a crusade against the Qatars in the south of France.
You know, so no, this is rubbish.
Christianity was supposed to unite the Romans, you know, Roman Empire to start with, but it failed completely.
And the reason it failed is because it was from the time of Constantine, actually, they imposed a dogma.
You cannot impose a dogma.
You cannot force people to believe.
Christianity created a worse kind of legalism than Jewish legalism.
Judaism is a legalist religion.
It's based on the law.
Christianity kind of somehow abolished the Jewish law, but then imposed another law which is more perverse, which is the obligation to believe.
You know, this is crazy.
Yeah, how many wars of different it caused divisions between Christians and non-Christians?
Yeah, because nobody can believe the same thing exactly.
So of course, people started to disagree on what they are supposed to believe.
So they fought between Christians.
And then, of course, at the Reformation, when the Reformation appeared, then the most bloody wars between Christian nations started.
So yeah, that's one argument we have to completely break.
Christianity never the Roman Empire was unified under paganism because everybody was free to worship the gods they want.
They could worship as many gods as they wanted.
They could go to whatever temples they wanted to go.
Therefore, they were united under religious freedom.
But Christianity divided people by trying to destroy religious freedom.
That's an important point, actually.
It's weird when Christians try to claim that Christianity is like we have to have Christianity or else we could never unite.
But the Bible and Jesus says he came not to bring peace but the sword and to turn family against family.
They just want to go, oh, well, that's that's I don't believe that.
They just lie and say that, or that's not what it means.
That's out of context.
That's the cope they'll say.
Well, it started with Constantine, as I said, but there is something Constantine himself never officially forbade or banned other religions.
His sons did.
But it's inevitable that when you favor Christianity, you start a religious war because Christianity is at war by essence with all the other gods who are demons.
Christianity was the Jewish solution to the pagan problem.
Online, we're winning the argument so much against the Christians in this online debate we're having.
And now they're like, they're pleading with us for mercy.
They're saying, let's just stop the infighting.
Let's just win and then argue about it afterwards.
Let's just put religion aside and be pro-right.
But Christianity literally is built into it to be to want to conquer the other gods of the world.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, if you're a real Christian, you do believe.
And I met Christians who believe it, who explicitly believe that.
Some probably don't are not so sure.
But basically, you believe that all of the gods are demons, devils.
That's very the root of the Christian Judaism.
Yeah, and they think that the only real God is the Jewish God.
Yeah, that's the concept of the jealous God, the jealous God.
God is jealous.
That means he considers he's the only real God.
All the others are not real gods.
And anyway, he doesn't like them.
He wants to destroy them.
He wants to slaughter the priest of Baal.
He wants to slaughter all the priests and destroy all the other temples.
That's built in the essence of Christianity.
Right.
That's the problem also with Christians having their big issue is that the Jews are antichrist and they rejected Jesus.
But that extends beyond the Jews.
And now they classify any other Gentile that doesn't believe in Jesus.
It lumps them in with the Jews and they're evil and they're Antichrist and you can't associate with them.
Pure division.
Yeah, Christian, the more I've been, you know, I've made a lot of effort to discuss, or at least not to hurt Christians.
I've made a lot of effort to find a way, but I'm very disappointed.
Most of them are very, the more Christian they are, the more stubborn and fanatic and intolerant they are.
So what you're saying is you really hate Christianity a whole lot more than you pretend to.
No, I hate Christianity, but well, yeah.
I want to be respectful to Christianity, but I also want to say I have no respect for it at all whatsoever.
That was the Tucker line from the other day.
Well, yeah, I'm trying to, I'm trying to, how do you juggle and keep both options, both options open.
Yeah, that's true.
I'm trying to do that.
It's uncomfortable and not always possible.
Don't give them an out.
The Christians need the full truth.
Yeah, I think I do to give them the full truth.
But I tell them, well, you can keep your Jesus as long as he's not the Messiah anymore, as long as he's just a Greek hero.
A Greek hero, yeah.
Keep Jesus.
Keep Jesus.
Okay.
Jesus is a Greek hero.
I have a challenge.
But the problem, here, here's the problem with that approach, though, Laurent, is that's never going to take off.
That's never going to overcome and supersede the Christians, the institutional establishment Christians that are the problem.
So it's a non-starter.
It's never going to actually grow enough to overcome the problem.
That's why saying Jesus wasn't Jewish, people say Jesus wasn't Jewish all day online, but 99.99999, all the rest of the world thinks that's ridiculous because it's so indefensible and so easily disprovable.
Yeah, I don't think that Jesus is a solution in any way.
I just want to leave the door open for some Christian and tell them, well, I have no problem with Jesus.
I have a problem with Christianity.
Because Christianity is validating the Jews'chosen people.
But, yeah, I have absolutely no...
Jesus, you can keep, you can throw away, whatever.
It doesn't make much difference, really.
But why not keep the good side of Jesus?
But the real solution for me is to go back to Greco-Roman philosophical paganism, I would say.
Not paganism in the sense of worshiping, you know, bringing back all the gods, but really rediscovering the incredible depth of the philosophical thinking of the Greeks and the Romans, which was religious, which included some religious element, especially among the Stoics.
I'm absolutely fascinated by the Stoics.
And if you ask me what my religion is, I would be tempted to say I'm a Stoic.
The Stoic had a metaphysical understanding of the cosmos being God.
They are sometimes called penteists because they believe God is the cosmos.
In fact, it's a little bit more, it's more like nature is God.
Yeah.
Or God is the soul of the cosmos or whatever, you know, a different way to put it.
But they have this idea that if you want to meet God, then be connected, be connected to others, be connected to nature.
You know, there's a very, very positive metaphysics, which I feel being a really, you know, I'm a religious person in the sense that I need to think about these kind of things.
It helps me to find my place in life, to find purpose in my life and so on.
I need God, but not the talking God.
I really love the cosmic God of the Stoics.
And I feel there is everything you need in there.
So if you ask me what's the solution, I would tend to think, let's dig back into this is the European, this is our European roots.
This is wonderful.
It's absolutely extraordinary.
And I've written a few articles on that and I will continue to dig that.
Stoicism is very fashionable, you know, today.
There's a lot of self-help Stoic books, which are very superficial generally.
I think you have to go to the real thing because in all the self-help books, you know, be a stoic and be successful in life, there's something missing.
The metaphysical dimension is missing, and it's what I really like in Stoicism.
Yeah.
Beautiful.
Love it.
Great way to end it, end on that.
Tell everybody where they should follow you.
And any final parting words you have for us.
Well, you're welcome to follow me on my sub stack, Ragbud's Lament.
R-A-D-B-O-D S Lament.
Ragbud's Lament.
But otherwise, most of the interesting thing, then I write on this sub-stack and then I publish on the UNS review.
So mostly you can follow me on the UNS review.
You can find my books on Amazon.
That's about it.
All right.
Very nice to have you back on.
I wish you well.
I will be in touch.
Thank you, everybody, that supported all your questions and your power chats.
I just want to do a real quick make sure if there's any that I missed that I want to get read.
I don't want to leave anybody out here.
I know how disappointing that is.
Anyway, thank you very much, Adam.
I enjoyed this talk.
I think it's interesting we don't agree on everything.
Sure.
I mean, who does agree on anything?
Yeah, it's good to.
Here we go.
All right.
They're rooting up in a second here.
I really like the ending part.
So did the chat about the European philosophy and paganism stuff.
And not to really believe in the gods either.
That's not the same thing.
Science sent $5 on Rumble.
No, it's plain one.
It's an open, an open religion.
In fact, philosophy is open to you can be really, you can be philosophical without being religious, or you can be both religious and philosophical.
I want one.
Well, anyway, maybe let's not get into Sander.
You don't shut $5 my knowledge to Shekel Challenge Tiding.
Thanks to both of you for a great discussion.
May the creator of the universe protect you.
Thank you.
Confirm not Jewish.
That's the rule around here, Laurent.
People in the chat are Jewish if they donate five.
They don't donate five shekels every show.
That seems fair, right?
Here, White Stag is also not Jewish.
Confirm, thank you.
Sent $5 on Rumble.
Supporting during interview.
I like interviews.
Thank you.
Yeah.
I was complaining to the viewers that they don't ever do power chats when we have interviews.
Probably because they don't want to interrupt the flow of the conversation.
I think that's what it is.
But thank you, everybody.
We made the goal.
Great show.
Let us know what you think in the comments.
Follow Laurent's work, his great books.
I'll give him one more plugs here.
The latest, Pope's Curse, Kennedy Assassination, was Mossad behind it.
And the first one I read of Laurent, our God is your God, too, but he has chosen us.
That's the Jewish mantra right there.
Don't fall for it.
Yeah.
Yahweh to Zion.
I read that one too.
I just don't have it in your copy.
Yeah, from Yahweh to Zion.
Yep, that's another good one, too.
All right.
Hail the old gods down with Yahweh.
Let us know what you think in the comments.
Like, share, subscribe, clip.
And I will see you guys tomorrow.
Love you all.
Thank you, Laurent.
We'll be in touch.
Everybody, take care.
No, I don't want to do that one.
Sorry.
Hold on.
▲
Export Selection