The Tucker Carlson Show - Jay Dyer: Demons in Hollywood, CIA, Secret Societies, Lone Gunmen, Epstein & Attacks on Christianity

Episode Date: July 13, 2026

More people than ever are discovering there’s true evil in the world and they’re turning to God for answers. Jay Dyer explains the growing popularity of the Orthodox Church.(00:00) The Attempts to Suppress Christianity in Schools (08:14) The Problems With Christian Zionism (42:55) The Difference Between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism (1:00:42) The Death of Atheism (1:17:44) The CIA's Role in American Politics Paid partnerships with:Brooklyn Bedding: Get 30% off sitewide with promo code TUCKER at https://brooklynbedding.com Vulnerable People Project: Stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began, go to SaveWestBankChristians.com American Financing: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-685-5696 for details about credit costs and terms. Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Tucker.Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jay Dyer, thank you very much for doing this. I have a lot of questions to ask you, but I want to begin with orthodoxy. You are one of the most visible and maybe effective evangelist for orthodoxy, Christian Orthodoxy, certainly in your age cohort, maybe in the country. You're Orthodox. Why are you Orthodox? What is Orthodoxy? I'm Orthodox because I went through a long journey trying to figure out

what authentic Christianity is. And so I was raised Baptist. That took me eventually into Catholicism when I was about 20, 21, I think. I read St. Augustine's City of God. I read a bunch of his other works. And I thought, well, Baptist isn't right because I'm finding in the church fathers all these teachings that are not Baptist. And so that kind of gradually took me in the realm of traditional Roman Catholicism.

I did that for a long time. and as you get into, I think, the more recent problems of Vatican II, post-Vatican II theology, that led me to the question of how do I reconcile this with what I know the first thousand years of Christianity teaches. So, long story short, it took me about eight or ten years. I finally came to the Orthodox Church about ten years ago. So that's the simplest, quickest reason is because I think it's... The first thousand years of Christianity, I think to most modern Christians, certainly, American Christians, that's like a black hole. What does that even mean in the first thousand years of Christianity?

It's an area that we're not taught. I know that when I went to college, the only thing that we talked about from that whole period was like Augustine's Confessions and maybe one other book or two. Then we have something called the Dark Ages and nothing happens. Nothing about Byzantium. Didn't even exist. And then like these people called the Medici's make a ton of money in Italy and start funding beautiful art. And that's the beginning of civilization. So I've, and I remember at college, I was like pressing the department, like, why don't we study some medieval stuff, some Byzantine stuff? And they were like, why should we? We don't care about that Christian stuff. So, yeah, I think there's probably a little bit of an intentional desire to suppress that for, I mean, American education, I think it's pretty much brainwashing. So, yeah. So one sentence, this might take between Constantine and the fourth century and, the Renaissance, you had Christian civilization. The most successful empire in history is the Byzantine Empire, from Constantine all the way up until the fall of Byzantium to the Muslims. So why do you say it's the most successful?

That's a common sort of academic assessment just in terms of they flourished on a gold standard for a really long time. They started clipping the gold, money clipping like the Roman Empire in the West had done before them. and other empires. So they fell prey to usury as well. Yeah. So they fell to a lot of the same issues that empires tend to fall to. Human weakness and like recognizable stuff. Degeneracy, all of that. Also rabid nationalism had a tendency to break down empires as well. I like Spangler and I think if you read Oswald Spangler he talks about how there's kind of a life cycle. But I think the unique aspect to the business empire was that it was explicitly Christian, based on Orthodox Christianity.

And so in many metrics of what it is to be successful or flourishing, it flourished. But it did fall. I think, again, I'm not trying to measure Christianity just on worldly success, but I do think it does play out in that way at times, right? If you're really based around Christ, if your theology or civilization is logocentric, then it's going to play out that way. You're just going to prosper because you're aligned with what's true. you're aligned with that transcendent source.

Anyway, for me, that journey ended up being eventually Orthodox Christianity. So, but just real quick back to the Byzantine Empire. Did you know it existed before? How many people are aware that there was a Byzantine Empire and know anything about its outlines? Not many people in the West. Again, there is a very clear, especially if you take humanities courses, you know, the way they're constructed in college and and maybe even younger private-type schools. Like you go from, you do the Presocratics,

you do Plato and Aristotle, and then you do Augustine, maybe a Stoic or two, and then you jump to Descartes, so you skip that whole period. And not just to say Byzantian, but also, you know, the Latin West was, you know, explicitly Christian as well. I think that's, it's intentionally overlooked.

They don't want people reading what brilliant thinkers were doing in the Middle Ages, because this is where we get universities. Universities come out of Byzantian. They come out of the West. So to hospitals. So some of these very fundamental, science itself actually comes out of that whole period.

But we are taught, we think that, no, these are all post-enlightenment, post-Scientific revolution developments. They're not. They're medieval developments. So a lot of that's suppressed. A lot of that, I had to kind of just read and learn on my own.

I mean, medieval is an adjective, but also an epithet that's medieval. By design. Draw and quartering somebody. The dark ages, they were dark. That's all Voltaire. That's all sort of an atheistic French revolutionary attack on what came before by design. When did you learn that?

Well, I was really interested in medieval thought, scholastic theology in college in my 20s. And so I was reading Aquinas and reading all these guys as I had all these atheist professors who were constantly debating with them. I even did a public debate my sophomore year with the atheist professor. So I would be reading all those guys, studying philosophy and history, and then debating with those guys

and then coming to my own conclusions about that stuff through just reading. Interesting. I keep interrupting your story. So that led you to orthodoxy? Long stories for it. Yeah, roundabout way. I went from traditional Catholicism

in my 20s to eventually, I took about 8 to 10 years to study Orthodox stuff pretty intensely. So that would be, because I'd put a lot of time into reading the Latin church fathers. So I was reading Jerome and Ambrose and a lot of Augustine's works. And then I realized,

I've never actually read the Eastern Church Fathers. And if you get into church history in that first millennium that you talked about, you realize that all the 7-8 ecumenical councils of that first millennium, they actually all had in the East. They're all called by the emperor. the business team, they're not called by the Pope.

Certainly the Pope was either there or had legates there, so the West was represented. But it was in its ethos, it was essentially Eastern and Eastern in its Orthodox theology. So I just decided to go on a long reading track of reading all those guys as best I could for many, many years. So that would be like the Capodotians, that would be Basil, the two Gregories, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus Confessor, St. John of Damascus. those are some of the key figures in that milieu of the first thousand years that set the tone of all of Christianity in terms of its most fundamental doctrines of Trinity and Christology, right? That's what Christianity is. Those two doctrines are the key sort of lanchpin that it all hangs on. So the first thousand years is dominated by those topics. And that in a roundabout way, a lot of people don't realize this either. That actually conditions what type of Christianity you're going to have, how it's going to affect some. society, how it's going to affect your life. So, for example, you have a very truncated version of, say, evangelicalism that's only based around just how you're saved, right?

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

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

Exactly. Right. And a structure that couldn't do anything about apostasy. And it's also antithetical to the Christianity of the first thousand years. And the reason I keep saying the first thousand years is that that's not just where we get these doctrines of the Trinity and who Jesus is formulated, but we also get the Bible, the Bible itself, comes out of decisions of church fathers centuries after the apostles. Yes.

So if we're going to have a church or a religion based on the Bible, we really already truncate Christianity because the Bible itself in our ethos is a liturgical document. It's actually part of a liturgy. It's not a personal, devotional book primarily. So to divorce it from that context, divorce it from the community that produced it, is what produces sort of avarant, truncated versions of the religion that make it susceptible to princes, foreign governments, NGOs, thing tanks, foundations.

They become essentially tools of sawpower, which is what I think much of the evangelical Protestant world today, not indicting the individuals, but the groups, the denominations, they're very easily bought off. For example, very wealthy families in the West, about 100 years ago, were able to buy off. many of the mainline Protestant nominations and turn them into effectually NGOs. Just one example, the Rockefellers, and they're not the only family, but they're one of the families that invested very heavily in not just the UN, but also the World Council Churches, to create a sort of a supra international version of the UN that would be for religions.

And they were very explicit in their biographies about how this was to basically make it kind of an NGO. So make Christianity into kind of a form of soft power. for American interests, really oligarchical interests. And that's one of the weak points, I would say, of Protestant theology, evangelical theology, is that it's very susceptible to that. Not to say that the Roman Catholic Church or even amongst the Orthodox Church aren't people that are susceptible to the same types of subversion.

But I think it's a lot more difficult when you have an ancient, historic type of church that has certain structural structural integrity. and normativity to it. Right. That, you know, Billy Bob's strip mall church, right, doesn't have. Imagine the sensation,

if you will, of going to sleep, feeling like you're floating, then waking up rested with no soreness from a hard or stiff mattress. That is the daily experience of people who use Brooklyn Bedding.

We can probably guess what you're thinking. A mattress like that is super expensive. Only Bill Gates uses a mattress like that. It's probably made in Bangladesh anyway. Oh, wrong on all counts.

Brooklyn Bedding is an amazing. American company with a seriously impressive 650,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Arizona. The company started by a guy called John, and he built it from the ground up right here in the U.S. with no college degree, by the way. Brooklyn makes mattresses for every sleep style and body type. Plus uses temperature regulation to make sure you stay cool throughout the night. They offer a 120-night sleep trial many nights, so you can return your mattress if you don't love it. Don't expect that to happen, though, because Brooklyn,

bedding has been awarded the best mattress by CNET and the best hybrid mattress by wirecutter. People love it. Check for yourself. Brooklynbedding.com. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for 30% off sitewide. Everything on the site, 30% off. That's Brooklynbetting.com promo code Tucker 30% off sitewide all summer. Because unlike Billy Bob's strip mall church, the 2000-year-old church can say, wait a second,

We've never believed this. We've never done this. Why would we be changing? There is a sense of continuity. There is. There's also, like, if you have the attitude of a standard sort of Protestant evangelical person,

there's nothing in history settled because every generation kind of has to reinvent the wheel. They have to redo all the same controversies and crises all over again because they could have all been wrong. Nothing is settled, right? Because for Protestant evangelical Christianity, The Bible and the apostles are kind of like the end. I know that a lot of Protestants would say, well, we like Athanasius.

We like St. Augustine or whoever. But when you actually go and read them, they have bishops. They have relics. They have the Eucharist. They have all these elements that don't align with Protestant Reformation. So I was an avid Calvinist. I was super into John Calvin and all that stuff when I was a younger guy. And it was unsettling, you know, to read.

these guys and realize, well, they don't teach Calvinism. So what am I going to do here? Either not be a Christian or I can align myself with whatever the first thousand years of Christianity actually is. And I say the first thousand years, too, because Catholics and Orthodox share that first thousand years. So we both have that in common. So I think that narrows it down. It's either going to be Roman Catholicism or it's going to be Orthodoxy. But what about orthodoxy struck you as non-Calvinist? Like what are the differences, the big differences? So, you know, Calvinism is not just predestination and the sort of strict satirology or salvation doctrines. It's also iconoclasm, which ends up, I think, affecting one's view of art and aesthetics. Idol smashing.

Correct. And I was a very avid sort of iconoclastic Calvinist when I was young. It's also very rigid in terms of its view of social structure, church and state. The more I read the church fathers, the more I got into that kind of a theology, I realized that like Calvinistic sort of republicanism doesn't really match up with Byzantine imperialism or monarchy, you know, the traditional views of the churches take on governance. The Byzantine Empire is a theocracy. Yeah, well, yeah, pretty much.

What's interesting is that there are spheres, right? So you have basically, if you think about the Byzantine double-headed eagle, that symbol is one body of the people, but church and state as two separate heads. So there's spheres of authority, but one body that they share, which is the people. So in the West, to a degree, had this until the Middle Ages when you get sort of a rise of the 11th century papacy, which becomes also the state. So you get a papal states and a sort of. under Dick Toddis Poppy is the famous document that says the church is also a state now. But until that time, the norm was church and states were working in unison. Symphonia is what it's called in the Greek.

So that's what I had to grapple with. But Calvinism really doesn't see it that way. It's more like it favors republicanism. There were famous battles between, in England, for example, the Presbyterians and the monarchists. So they actually had a huge fight within the history of the English Reformation as to whether they would be Anglican sort of monarchists or whether they would be Presbyterian Republican Calvinists. So that was a famous, you know, Reformation battle.

But long story short, again, like Calvinism, I think, is just, it's antithetical to the first thousand years of Christianity, not so much because of those aesthetic or cultural issues. also christologically errant in that the whole idea of what salvation is is ultimately one's legal standing in terms of what's called justification by faith alone or penal substitutionary atonement, this idea that you're justified by God through a sort of notional acceptance of a set of ideas and then God's attitude towards you changes. So it's dispositional, but it's not focused on an actual ontological change in the person. Orthodox theology is. is very different.

God's disposition is based not on purely illegal stance, but on your actual ontological change. So a metaphysical change in you versus a dispositional attitude. So maybe we don't get too heavy in the philosophy. I do want to. What's the difference between the two? Basically, there's an idea in the Middle Ages called nominalism. Have you heard of that?

Yes. Okay. So nominalism is the idea that there are only names to things, not essences. So there's no human nature. There's no dog nature. When we talk about natures or classes or sets of things, we're not giving an ontological or metaphysical status. We're just simply classing things together linguistically in a set. The Middle Ages in the ancient world, the time of Paul or the church fathers, they thought very differently. They thought that things have natures, they have essences. And so the words aren't just terms or nominal.

nameism, they actually describe what's really there in them metaphysically. Okay. So there is human nature. And in orthodox theology, Christ assumes... Who would deny that? In the middle ages, it begins with people like William of Occam. So Occam is the first nominalist. The name with the razor. Exactly. He's known for that. And he challenges some kind of established ideas of like essential. It's called essentialism that things have essences. And so he also goes to goes up against this idea of universal, so there's no such thing as a universal class or essence of a thing. And that had been kind of the norm since Plato and Aristotle as well. But so you get a denial of essentialism and essences, and then you get another guy named Gabriel Bile,

and he's very influential on Martin Luther. And so when the Reformation kicks off, there's this debate about how could you be called righteous if you're not, in fact, righteous? So if as a human being, you are menstrual rags, as Isaiah says, as the reformers said, then how could God call you your righteous without being a liar? What inter-in nominalism, and nominalism is able to say, ah, because things don't have actually have essences, they just have names. And so if God calls you that, you are that legally, even though in actual fact you're wicked. So that was, yeah, that was, and Luther was very happy to utilize that nominalistic approach.

And by the way, this is not just my theory. There's famous Lutheran scholars. There's a book called Harvest of Medieval Theology about Hico Oberman. And the whole thesis of that book by Lutheran is that Luther had to use nominalism. So we're also, though, moving away not just from theological squabbles, but the idea that things have natures. And that's how we get to David Hume and Kant and these Enlightenment figures, which give us the scientific revolution, supposedly. this is how we get to, there's no male and female. So you can see kind of the logical train here.

If things don't have essences, well, then they don't actually have genders, right, objectively, because everything is just a name. So I can just name myself, e-hims, or z, it. I'm not trying to go too fast or too far in the sense of, like, technology, but I'm saying there is an ideological sort of progression that you can get from nominalism to where we are now with postmodernism and then with, essentially you know just interesting that an adult could believe in something like that I mean having lived your life known people known animals seen nature and arrive at the

conclusion that nothing has an essence everything is just what we call it like that that flies in the face of your experience it has to right what's that saying that you have to be an academic to be really stupid yeah I guess that's right yeah to be indoctrinated into believing some sort I remember Terence McKenna you remember the Psychonaut Terrence McKenna. I remember reading it one time and he said something like, this is all just magical thinking, you know, if you take the shroom, you're going to see that things don't have essences, that things just have names and you just change the name. And I'm like, that's the gender idea right there. Christians ought to be safe in the Holy Land of all places,

but they are not. Keep in mind, these are the descendants of the first converts, the first people who followed Jesus, people whose families have worshipped in the land Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fleeing their homes amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocence are lost and without hope, fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them whose real agenda is to move them out of their actual homeland. We think that's wrong. We think that's evil, in fact. And so we've looked far and wide to find a group that is actually supporting Christians in the Middle East. And we found one. It's called the Vulnerable People

Project, VPP. It's one of the very few groups consistently helping vulnerable Christians throughout the Holy Land. They deliver food and water to Christian communities trapped in Gaza, for example. They help rescue civilians. They provide emergency aid to families who have nowhere else to turn. Today they are helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities where their ancestors worshiped Jesus. There should be a lot of groups doing this and trust us we have looked for over a year now and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing exactly that and their work makes an amazing difference in people's lives. A gift of just $33 helps provide a day of protection and support for the vulnerable Christians in the West Bank. Who's looking out for them?

Nobody. study, well, they are. A monthly gift with $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit savewestbankchristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That's save westbankchristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. Yeah, and that's just its kind of apogee. You know, the gender insanity is just the most obvious. But it has a precedent in this theology. This theology, this theology. debate, which most people don't know. I've never heard that before. Huh. I'm sorry to hear that about Luther, who I've always loved. There's a lot to love about Luther. He's a character,

for sure. You would actually chase the devil away with farts, which I think is great. Quite a robust man and a happy family life and everything about him I like, but that is impossible to defend. It just flies in the face of reality. Yeah, and even modern scholarship in the Protestant world is a great book by Alastair McGrath out of England. I think he's Anglican. It's called Eusticia Day. And his book was kind of a landmark in Protestants coming to the table and saying, okay, look, Luther's doctrine of salvation is not in the first 1,500 years, unfortunately. So the understanding of salvation that preceded the Reformation was that people had to be changed in their essence.

In order to be safe. Yes. So there's an actual participation in what orthodox theology calls the uncreated energies. So we believe that God has infinite divine energies and operations attributes, as it's called in the West. And for orthodox theology, and this is the patristic teaching as well, we participate in that. So we're not just changing a legal status. We're actually participating in the life of God himself, which when you go back and you read the New Testament, you're like, oh, actually, well, that makes more sense because Jesus says in John 17 that he came to give us a share in the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world.

So divine glory can't be a creature. And so Jesus is equating grace with divine glory. So unless you think God has created parts, which would be polytheism or some form of idolatry, uncreated grace has to be a reality that's a participable thing. Well, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will flow into people and change them. Right. And that happens. Spirit is not a creature because then you would be anti-Trinitarians.

So absolutely, this is why Peter says in his epistle, right, that we become partakers of the divine nature. So very strong language in the New Testament and the epistles for what we call theosis in the Orthodox Church. Paul says, for example, in Thessalonians, that it is the dunamis or the power of God that is at work in him. So the actual power of God, which can't be a created thing or a created grace, which unfortunately, even a Latin Roman Catholic Church in Middle Ages, created grace becomes a normative thing, where what you're getting is just another form of created. The Orthodox Church saying, no, no, no. The incarnation itself tells us that the uncreated,

united itself to human nature and incarnation, and that Jesus deified the human nature that he assumed with his own immortality, grace, and uncreated energy. The role of the Bible in the Protestant world versus the Orthodox, world you described it this way i think you said in protestant christianity the bible is seen as like a tool as a what's a guide of course the guide the only guide really and it is a devotional yeah but in the orthodox uh church it's a liturgical document correct what does that what does that mean the tour ghost has to do with uh the greek word of offering or offering of thanks

offering of praise, but it's also in the Hebrew tradition, we think that that was proto-Christianity, the ancient Hebrew text. It was part of, for example, David's Psalms. Those were Psalms that David wrote to be sung at the temple liturgy. So liturgy is a sort of structured form of worship that Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, they have a very structured form of worship that is called liturgy.

But originally it just means sort of offering. And even in Pauline epistles, like the book of Hebrews, you know, towards the end of it in chapter 13, Paul talks about Christians have an altar that they eat from that the Jews that serve the tabernacle have no right to eat from. Because our altar is the true altar, which is thus a liturgical altar.

that very chapter he discusses the liturgical thanks and offering at that altar. So from the earliest days, Christianity had this sort of altar-based form of worship. Again, another Reformation distinctive is that they begin to move away from the idea of an altar towards a table, right? So you have sort of a desacralizing of the worship space to not be a Eucharistic offering, but a shared meal, which, and we're not totally opposed the idea of it being a shared meal, but it's first and foremost, a worship offering. If you go back to Abraham, Abraham built an altar. God has always worshipped at an altar,

at least the biblical God. So for us, the Reformation then represents a form of turning away from that. It's a form of sort of Judaizing. It's a form of returning to a form of rabbinical theology. And many of the reformers were actually very influenced

by rabbinic theology, by the Talmud even. So the, so the reformation, has a stream of influences, Renaissance humanism, all those things play into that. And it's just very... Luther was not in that category, though.

No? He was not interested in rabbinic theology, but he was influenced by what's a text called the Theology of Germanica, which was a Neoplatonic text. And so there was also some evidence that scholars have pulled up that suggests that Luther might have had an interest

in hermeticism. I'm not saying that that dominates his idea, but more so with Calvin, and some of the Swiss reformers, they were a little more directly influenced by rabbinic theology and Talmudism. But not so much Luther, no. Luther was very anti.

I mean, he didn't even like Moses. He said, I'd like to punch Moses' teeth out. So Luther didn't even like the Old Testament at times. But again, he's a boisterous sort of, you know, satirical character at times. So it's hard to know exactly. The most hilarious theologian in history. He was very hilarious.

So it's hard to know exactly when he's always being literally, might just be joking around. But no, I don't mean to mischaracter. Because I know Luther wrote about the Jews in their lives. That's a famous text that he wrote. So I'm aware of that. But just in terms of the general trends of the Reformation outside of Luther with Calvin, Zwingley,

Melanchthon, even later Lutherans were very involved in the founding of Rosicrucianism. Johann Andre is believed by some scholars to be the author of the Rosicrucian manifesto. I forget exactly what is called. So that is there, and a lot of that has to do with Kabbalistic ideas. Who are the Rosicrucians? This was an Enlightenment-era secret society of sorts, which in the 1600s, there was a lot of these that were popping up everywhere. Because you still had, in Protestant countries, you had certain laws that would,

and in Catholic countries as well, they would forbid participation in secret societies. They would forbid, you know, practicing of the occult in various ways. ways, but you also had court alchemists and people that would kind of, like John D, he was the, you know, court astrologer to the queen. So they would kind of do these things in the down low, secretly. And so you get a rise of these secret societies. This is where some of the first speculative Masonic lodges start to pop up in the 1500s, 1600s in Europe. But you also had a very interesting confluence of hermetic and Kabbalistic groups that were popping up, particularly Spanish rabbis that were very popular in Spain

seem to be involved in some of the rise of Kabbalistic influence in the West. And that, I think, contributes in part to the Rosicrucians who, according to, there's a great book by Dame Francis Yates called Rosicrucian Enlightenment. She actually argues that the Enlightenment itself was heavily influenced by Rosicrucian ideology.

So they were neoplatonists, they were into magic, alchemy. So they were really interested in the idea of transmuting metals into the philosopher's stone, which some people thought was a real thing you could do. And others thought, well, that's just an allegory for how to undergo transformation into your better self or to become God in a literal sense, not in the sense of orthodox theology. So all of these sort of different strains and strands in the hermatic world. But basically, you're describing witchcraft. Yeah. You can say that. Yeah.

Huh. A form of it. But again, that's all very diverse. I mean, I think in the case of John D, for example, he's the first 007. Did you know that? No. Yeah. So the 007, which is two balls and a cane, which is two bowl cane, that's how John D would sign his secret letters to the queen because he was one of the influences on James Bond.

So that's where we get 007 from. And Ian Fleming consciously. took that from John D. But my thesis, and other people think this as well, is that when he created this sort of magical angel language that he called Enochian after Enoch, it was just a way to do spy codes and ciphers. I mean, he might have actually done some rituals.

But it was also very useful as a tool for sending messages to Elizabeth that other people couldn't decode. Inflation makes credit card statements particularly scary. you work 40, 50 hours a week just to buy groceries and gas, things you used to be able to afford without thinking that much about it. Then the banks charge you 20% interest. If the system is designed to keep you underwater, it's working, but there's another option. Our friends that American financing are doing something the big banks despise, they are helping people. Mortgage

rates in the fives supporting the American dream of homeownership, and they're showing homeowners how to take their hard-earned equity to wipe out high-interest debt. Now, we're against debt in general, but in this economy, most people have no choice at all. So don't go bankrupt and slaving yourself to a lender. Average savings are about 800 bucks a month, and it takes only 10 minutes to talk to a salary-based mortgage consultant. No upfront fees or obligation to see how much you can save. Give American financing a call, 800-685-56. That's 1-800-685-56, or visit American Financing.net slash Tucker, America's home for home loans. So in the Orthodox tradition in the church, the Bible is read aloud.

Are Orthodox encouraged to read the Bible on their own? Sure. I mean, St. John Chrysostom actually said famously that the laity have more need of reading the scriptures than even the monks or the priests because monks and priests, live in the liturgy, which for those that don't know, in the Orthodox Church, basically every aspect of the liturgy and the liturgical calendar is Bible. It is scripture constantly. It's like every aspect of it. And so Christosom's argument was, laity need to be in the Bible more than they do because they live it. So if you're not in the liturgy all the time, like those people are, the best substitute

is the little church, which Christosom calls the house. So the household is, in the Orthodox idea, of a little mini church. So absolutely we got to be in the Bible all the time. And that shows that we're not anti-biblical, like a lot of sort of Protestant evangelicals think. So one of the reasons there was a reformation in the first place is because the Catholic Church over time began to hide the Bible from Christians and not, it was not published in the foreign, in the local language in Europe. It was in Latin. It was the Vulgate. And Luther's great breakthrough was to publish it in German, to translate it himself into German. did the Orthodox Church do the same?

Yes, in fact, this is one of the differences between the pre-Vatican Church and the Orthodox Churches that the Orthodox always put in the vernacular, everything. The liturgy, homilies are supposed to be in the vernacular of the people. In fact, the Vulgate itself was originally the vulgar Bible. It was the Bible of the people. And so, yeah, I think there was an element to where the Latin Church, the Roman Church, had just sort of solidified into a kind of a tradition that, and it's not inherently wrong to maintain that linguistic heritage,

but it's also possible to put it in the vernacular for the people. I mean, that's the whole idea behind translating the Bible into the languages of the people so that they can understand it. But that is one of the differences pre-Vatican 2. But interestingly, after Vatican 2, there were both Protestant and Orthodox influences on the reforms of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus Rome then became emphasizing,

they began to emphasize a vernacular after Vatican II. You said you were an iconoclast, a smasher of idols. Orthodoxy famously incorporates icons, paintings on wood, into its worship. What is that? This is, again, a huge misunderstanding

that we would argue, we believe, is part of Proto-Christianity. It's part of Hebrew proto-Christianity. So when you go back to the book of kings, when you go to the book of Exodus, and you see the way that the tabernacle and then later the temple are described, they are tremendously ornate. You've got gold images of angels and you've got the Ark of the Covenant with, you know, angelic imagery on it. So we don't believe that real Old Testament Christianity or Old Testament Judaism. You could say not rabbinic Judaism. We think that's something different. that developed in the 4th and 5th century. What is something different? Yeah. But proto-Christianity or the Hebrew tradition was not iconoclastic. They were against idols, but not all imagery.

In fact, and this is something that really changed my mind when I was Calvinist. If you think about it, the Bible is a book, but words are just iconographic versions of images. They're a type of image. Of course. And so the more I thought about... The written word, yeah. The more I thought about that is like, well, you can't actually say all images are bad because capital F-A-T-H-E-R, that's a type of an image.

In the Orthodox Church, we don't typically image God the Father. We think that, as Jesus says in the Book of John to the Pharisees, he says no one has seen the Father at any time. And he's quizzing the Pharisees there because he's saying, so who do you think Moses was interacting with on Mount Sinai if no one saw the Father? Because it says Moses saw God face to face. Jesus is basically saying, I was talking to Moses.

I'm God. that's why the Pharisees want to stone him in that chapter because he's saying he's the face of God that was interacting with Moses. So this is why the book of Colossians, the book of Hebrews, call Jesus the icon, I-K-O-N in the Greek, the image of the Father. This enrages the Pharisees. So we think that iconography directly flows out of the incarnation, the Son being the image of the Father, thus throughout the early church, you have the development of the liturgy, even in the first and second century, and this has been shown through archaeological evidence, through people who study liturgy, they're called liturgists.

Even Protestant Anglican liturgists note that the early church had altars, they had imagery, even synagogues in the first and second century. One of the famous cases is the Dura Eropos Synagogue in Syria, I think it's from the early 200s. It's lined with images, paintings of Old Testament scenes and imagery. So the Orthodox Church, if you look at the DeRodio-European Synagogue, is the most natural development of if Christianity was going to open up to the Gentiles. It was coming out of the temple and synagogue liturgical system is exactly what it would look like. It would look like an Orthodox church, and lo and behold, that's what Orthodox churches look like. And by the way, I remember 23, my priest, who's a great Russian Orthodox priest, Father Vladimir,

He took us on a pilgrimage to Italy. And I was like, where are we going to Italy? That's in that Rome? Well, there's a thousand years of Christianity, prior to the rise of the medieval papacy in Italy. There's tons of Orthodox places that you could go to in Italy. And so we went to the catacombs in Rome. And lo and behold, when the Christians were persecuted in their underground

in the catacombs in the first, second, third century. By the way, you could never see all the catacombs. We spent a whole day just in one of the catacombs in Rome. there's altars, there's images that they painted in the first, second, third century. So even the catacomb church had liturgy, had imagery. Plenty examples of this, the church fathers also write about it as well. So those are huge, I would say, differences between. And remember, people couldn't read back then.

Most of the Roman Empire was illiterate. So when they would go to these services and the catacombs or wherever, they would be hearing the Word of God. That's why Peter says, this is the Word of God. God, which was preached to you. Paul says to Timothy, pass on all the things that you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses. So that oral teaching, that oral hearing of the liturgical worship was the norm. And then one of the things that really cracked it for me as a Protestant when I left Protestantism was when I learned that, by the way, I learned this from evangelical

scholars, one of the things that developed the canon of the scripture itself in terms of like how the church decided what books go in and which ones don't was what's called the lectionaries. Lectionaries are the daily liturgical readings in the churches. So when the church fathers were having these councils and they were meeting and the Canada scripture doesn't actually get solidified, at least for the Orthodox Church, until the 6th and 7th century, they would say, okay, which ones do we have a tradition that says Paul wrote or Matthew wrote, which ones are in the daily lectionaries? And if you're a Protestant, you believe in Soul Scriptura, the idea that liturgy and liturgical tradition play this huge role in the determination of the canon make it very difficult to say that, you know, we're based on scripture alone.

Soul scripture. So Orthodoxy is not based on just the Bible. No, we would say the Orthodox Church is based on the idea of apostolic succession, that the apostles appointed successors in. various bishop bishops and seas throughout the roman empire it's based on the tradition which could include the lives of the saints it could include uh liturgy it could include all kinds of rights of the church fathers canons of the councils those are traditions and the bible so all all of those elements go into what the basis of the orthodox church is whereas you know in the protestant world you you have elected elders or something like that, but you don't have this sort of three-tiered

stool of apostolic succession, tradition, and Bible altogether. What are the practical differences? As a weekly communicant in an Orthodox church, how is that different from being a Catholic or Protestant? Well, certainly we would have more similarities to a Roman Catholic than most Protestants or evangelicals. You know, there might be a high church, Protestant or Anglican communion that would have some similarities with Orthodox Church. But I think, you know, for the Orthodox world, fasting is a lot more integrated into what we do than most. Fasting. Yeah.

There's a lot of fasting days in the Orthodox Church calendar. What does that mean for you? Oh, just abstaining from certain foods. Lent is a little more rigorous for the Orthodox. and it is for why fasting uh well we think that jesus and the apostles and people like john the bapt just kind of set uh this the tone for retaining an element of asceticism in the church so obviously some people could take that to the extreme we're not hindu yogis you know sitting out under a tree trying to you know roll around and poop or whatever but uh we do think there is

virtue in training the body to be subject to the will so that the body's desires and passions don't control us. So that's why fasting has an important role. Basically learning to control the passions is what that's part of. How often do you fast? I am not the best to have fasting because I have a really weird gut biome issues, so I don't fast as much as I should. It's very challenging, but there's also people that, there's nuances for medical issues. But the Orthodox Church fasts quite a bit, usually from various meats and stuff like that. But it's not just fasting that's different. I think for the Orthodox Church, it's not just about food.

Fasting is also almsgiving because you're sort of, it's self-denial. It's not just about diet. also, for example, during Lent, it would be appropriate to confess more. It would be appropriate to give more than you normally would. So we make a pretty big deal about things like almsgiving, whereas, and I'm not saying that other groups don't give, but I think that's stressed a lot more in the Orthodox Church than it is perhaps in Protestant churches or other domains. But I mean, these are just kind of, there's immense differences, I would say, between

just the, I mean, communion is a lot more serious in the Orthodox Church. You don't commune unless you're Orthodox. You can't. Like, we don't have what's called open communion. So Roman Catholic can't come or Protestant can't come and just commune. Most churches are way more open about that. It's very strict in the Orthodox Church in terms of communion. Usually within the liturgy the priest says, you know, all who are baptized Christians

who have prepared themselves through confession may approach the table. because we take it very serious and we think it is actually the body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy of Christ. So we don't want to treat that lightly. I'm not saying that Protestants don't have a reverence for their version of the sacrament,

but it's just a lot more serious. I think the Orthodox Church than it is elsewhere. But we do have some of the sacramental principles like confession to a priest that Protestants don't have. So again, there's a whole milieu of wide scope of differences between. Everybody wants your attention. Think about all the apps, the shows,

the podcasts, the websites that compete for your attention. Everybody, you can't keep up with it. You're probably wasting a lot of your life. Hallow is not a waste of your life. The Hallow app can make your life. Hallow is the world's number one prayer app and a constant topic of conversation of my family. Literally, every day at dinner, you should come over.

This July, Hallow was releasing a study on Saints, figures like St. Paul, Ruth, Joan of Arc, real people, real struggles who wound up turning their lives toward Jesus in a way that saved them forever. Paul's story is amazing. It's an amazing story. Probably the most effective persecutor of Christians in the ancient world, murdered them. And then one day, famously on the road to Damascus, Syria, he met Jesus and everything changed. You can't read that story enough. Each of these stories will help listeners unlock what God sees in their lives. Now that summer is here today is the perfect time to take a step back with Hallow.

It really will change you. Of all the things we advertise, we know this works. Hallow app at hallow.com slash Tucker three free months. Again, that's hollow.com slash Tucker and get three months completely free. My name is Peter Parker, but I'm also Spider-Man. This July, we're faced with a threat. That can be anyone. The world may have forgotten Peter Parker.

I'm just a neighbor, friendly neighbor. But he hasn't forgotten them. Sometimes Spider-Man has to do the hard thing. That's my responsibility. Talk to Banner? I didn't know you could get that big. Spider-Man, brand-new day. In theaters, July 31st.

You will love it. How is it since the religion you described was originally tethered to a government, an empire? How is becoming Orthodox change your view of government in its role? that's an interesting question you know i was when i was a calvinist i was more like a sort of a libertarian you know get the state out of everything it is the religion of libertarianism isn't it um but as i got more into historic christianity i started to realize that well maybe republicanism isn't like the highest form of government like maybe it's not necessarily the best so and i'd never read any critiques of you know republican governance and whatnot

But it turns out there have been quite a few people, especially after scientific revolution, there were conservatives and right-wingers who were writing pretty, I would say, substantial critiques of republicanism. I think even members of royal families were writing pretty good critiques of. Well, naturally. Yeah. They have a vested interest of probably that, right? No, but there were liberal in the best sense-minded people, people who believed in an illegal rights. who argued that a Republican form of government, self-government democracy would devolve into tyranny.

True. Plato wrote even back in his day that, and he was, of course, a proponent of republicanism, but he wrote that the more decentralized in the sense of democracy, he didn't like democracy at all. He thought that that would eventually lead to mobocracy and the rule of the passions. because the oligarch in that type of a democratic setting has the incentive to appeal to the biggest number at the lowest basis, lowest common denominator, and then it becomes incumbent upon him to really play on the passions of the mob. So why not debase the people because they're easier to control the mob? So there's an incentive that even Plato noticed back then.

I think he writes in the Republic, if this happens, they're going to legalize weed. they're going to legalize everything to do with butt stuff. Yep, yep. So it becomes fake and gay. So he sought, I think, in various ways, even as a pagan philosopher, to try to figure out some way to have a society based on sort of objective, almost mathematical principles. By the end of the Republic, it's sort of like you get the impression that he thinks that you need to go study mathematics on the top of a mountain for 20 years, and then you come back, and then you sort of. instantiate mathematical forms into the society. And it's interesting because later on, by the end of his life,

he seems to progress towards more of like a secret society type of governance because he has this, I guess I'm going for memory, maybe the symposium or the other one, but he argues that there's this council of night in IGHT, which is a governance board of like spy chiefs. Yep. And so they meet at night because the public's too stupid, they know what's going on.

So, which is just weird because it reminds me of like, I remember reading something about Kissinger talking about the wise men and like, it's like he's, Plato's talking about like Henry Kissinger's form of like secret stuff like secret government. And we devolves the level of Jeffrey Epstein from. Yeah, exactly. Cooney Island. Exactly. Yeah, but it's all the same thing. It's just a, I mean, Jeffrey Epstein was an idiot, which no one wants to say, but he was obviously when you read his writing. and so it's sort of our version of that.

So I notice that the enthusiasm for liberal democracy, whatever that is, but our system of government that has produced our culture, enthusiasm is waning for that. Like I don't know many people, I don't know anyone who wants dictatorship, just to be clear, but I don't know anybody, I literally don't know anybody who thinks the current system is working.

So that suggests it probably won't last. So what comes next and what should come next? Yeah, there's no easy answer to that. I mean, I think, again, when you look at Christian history, even in the West or in the Orthodox East, you have a pretty normative tradition of kings and queens, preferably kings. And that happens through a semi-sacramental service called a coronation service. So, you know, the Orthodox Church always coronated emperors, czars, kings, some of the most famous, you know, kings in the history of Orthodox Church, you know, fought massive battles. They went to war.

So I think one thing that ties into this idea of a de-Christianizing of the state, which is part and parcel with that sort of tendency in the Calvinist, you know, libertarian type of tradition, the classical liberal ethos, is there was a famous Russian statesman of Papinazzi. If he wrote a book, Reflections of a Russian Stetsman, around 1890. and he said, when you de-Christianize the state, you don't get liberty, you get another cult that runs the state. Exactly. And he noticed that when before the Bolsheviks, right? Really? Yeah, he had looked at the French Revolution and prior examples, and he said, you just get another cult that steps in and runs things. So you're always going to be governed by religious fanatics.

Yes. So the question is, which religion? Do you want some good ones or at least some nicer ones? I've noticed that just from knowing people who run countries. They're all deeply religious people. Most won't admit it. You think Macron is not religious, so he's very religious. It's just not your religion.

Some other, Luciferian or something. I don't know what. Yeah, so, yeah, I think the Reformation, whether it intended to or not, ultimately kind of severed the relationship that the church had already sort of normalized between church and state, that symphonya that we talked about. And then you get, and it's a confluence of interest. It's not just ideologues like Martin Luther or whatever. In fact, many of the reformers had a very powerful.

For example, Luther's Reformation wouldn't have exceeded without the German princes being behind it. Of course. They were resentful because they didn't want to spend the money. And they didn't want to be under the Pope. They were tired of the favor. Of course. And Germany was emerging as the great power in Europe. And like, why would you want to be ruled by Italy?

Exactly. So there was a lot of resentment of papal stuff going on. And same with Henry the 8th. He didn't want to be under the Pope's rules about his ladies. So those combinations of interests. By the way, there's also a Jewish influence on the Reformation as well. In fact, there were, according to Carol Quigley, even Protestant and Jewish banking interests funded the French Revolution massively. And he's got a great chapter on the rise of the Paribas system in France, which is the Rothschild banking system.

and then I just read in the Rothschild's biography the fact that they had a long-term vendetta with the czarist attitudes towards Russians towards Russian Jews and Lord Rothschild wired one million ruples to B.I. Lenin. I knew about other like the Warburgs and the shifts

they had funded Lenin and Trotsky, but I did not know that according to the Morton, they had actually wired Lenin, a million dollars, so to speak, and he was supposed to pay it back, but he never did. Well, I think the bullshit revolution was ideological, but I think it was also ethnic conflict to some extent, obviously. The Lord Rochell said that. He said, we've got to, we will make the Russian Christians pay for what they did for many centuries in his mind.

Yeah. Well, and they did. They made him pay. No one's paid more dearly, actually. So orthodoxy, I mean, a lot you just said I didn't know because I know so little about orthodoxy. I knew nothing about it three or four years ago. Now it seems, I don't know, ascendant, but it certainly seems popular. Why is that?

The Internet, you know, has an interesting positive and negative effect that can have on all these domains. So I think in one way what, you know, I started looking at apologetic. stuff around 2000, 2001. And back then, it was, you would listen to people's cassette tapes. You would listen to a little MP3 on Windows Media Amp or whatever. But now it's everywhere, you know, the debate sphere, which is something that kind of grew, not just from me, but I mean, other people like, well, you know, Crowder used to go do this sort of come convince me debate people, and then Ben Shapiro would go debate the, you know,

college kids, the purple-haired weirdos. So that's a lot of low-hanging fruit like Ben Shapiro would do, but they're also sort of accidentally almost came about a pretty intense 10 years or so of online religious debating, which, again, it just sort of happened. It wasn't something that I planned to do or anyone planned. It was just, I remember years ago, somebody said, hey, would you debate this atheist guy? It was a libertarian guy. Yeah, sure. So we did it on the whim. Then another guy, hey, would you debate this other French-Canadian atheist guy?

Yeah, sure. And then it sort of snowballs into, you know, a pretty regular thing of doing online religious, political debates. It's gotten very popular throughout many outlets. And I think that is a huge contributor because especially if you're a young guy who's interested in ideas, you want to debate your ideas, you want to have them challenged. You want to know if your position is solid or if it's weak. The older you get, the less you want to do that, people tend to be. you know, sort of solidified into their views. But younger guys are more interested in that.

That's when you buy a cable package. But I think that it's very, it's very natural, I think, to people in the West to do that, to debate their ideas. It's not a feature necessarily of every other society to debate their ideas. That's for sure. And increasingly it's not a feature of our society. Exactly. We were talking at Breakfast, you were a debate.

participant champion in school. I was too. That was normal. I don't know, but it wasn't seen as weird. It wasn't seen as weird, yeah. No, now I don't even know that that exists. It exists only internet. So people are going to do it.

But kids in schools are not encouraged to debate, right? No, in fact, I think I remember years ago when I was doing undergrad and in grad school, they were already sort of trying to phase that out because we had a debate team when I was in undergrad. And then by the time I was in grad school, there was no, debate team anymore, didn't exist. Right, because the premium was on obedience at that point. Yeah, because they don't want you critically thinking through your positions, because then you might notice patterns, which are not amenable to the status quo. Nicely put, that's absolutely right.

So, but people have been on the internet debating religion and orthodoxy's gotten a hearing for the first time, maybe ever in American history. Yeah. And the result is, I think, I mean, it's not the only contributor, but it did play a huge role in the rise of Orthodox converts in the last five, six, seven years for sure. And again, it just all of that, I would, I guess is providential because again, nobody in our sphere, our circles planned to do this. We thought it would be fun to do. I do a lot of different things. I don't just debate. So it's just sort of one of the side things I enjoyed to do at times. And that ended up, for whatever reason, being a lot more popular than I would have expected. You know, we've debated many of the top atheists, Muslims.

Jews are not huge on doing apologetics. It's not, they don't evangelize. So there's only been a few Jewish guys that even want to debate. We've done a lot of political debates, feminist debates that have been pretty, pretty big. I mean, in terms of viewership. So I think that. Who are the most fun if you had to pick a Muslim atheist feminist? They actually have a lot of similarities, believe or not between.

Muslims are not very fun to debate. I wouldn't say that they're the most fun. I mean, atheists can be fun because they get really triggered with certain entailments. But probably the funnest debates are some of the more idiotic cult types of people. They actually end up being very comedic. I do a lot of comedic stuff. So when we debate cult leaders, which we've debated several, those tend to be really funny. They're the most entertaining.

Are there any atheists left in the United States? Is that there was an new atheism movement? There was. That was very popular in 2000s. And I kind of think they ran out of steam. The worst things got in the West, the less appealing atheism was because it has no explanatory power. So when people start, especially after COVID and all that saw up, like people noticed, okay, there's some really evil shit going on in the world.

Yeah. I mean, like, we need some explanation, and these guys are basically saying there is no explanation. Nothing means anything, right? So atheism kind of loses steam. A lot of the YouTube atheists that were big YouTubers just kind of petered out. One of them was sticking bananas in his butt, and they just, like, who cares? That's gross. Weird stuff.

So, and then other ones end up, like, marrying dudes that are women. So people begin to see, like, this has nothing to offer. I remember vividly someone telling me that Sam Harris, the famous atheist, was like really, really smart. He's really smart. And I listened to Sam Harris once, I thought, it's not smart at all. Like, if that's your, like our standards, I think, have changed, maybe. I think they've gotten higher. Yeah.

Do you remember when people said Sam Harris was smart? Oh, yeah. In fact, I mean, I think the tail end of that period was those debates with Jordan Peterson. and Peterson was really critiquing atheist presuppositions. I felt like he could have even gone harder on those guys because they were already sort of losing the ground publicly. But even Jordan Peterson is just sort of simple lines of questioning. Well, how do you know that?

What's that mean, you know? Even that wasn't enough really to help. The atheists didn't have even enough response to sort of basic internal critiques, which is a very effective way of debating and doing worldview debates is to do an internal critique where you show the fundamental contradictions within another person's worldview.

That is one of the most devastating ways to go about debates. And I think Peterson was aware enough to do that with those guys, whether it's Sam Harris or Matt Dillon's here, any of the atheist, that that was kind of the nail in the coffin for the atheist. Then we had COVID. And then people were just like,

all right, we need an explanation for a freaking demons. These guys say there aren't demons. Obviously there's Epstein demonic level shit going on, so probably God exists, right? I think that's literally the path for a lot of people. I don't think that I mean, I think that's actually what happened for a lot of people. And isn't it interesting that some of these high-level so-called atheists are flying with Jeffrey Epstein and going to certain. Sure, and have religious level devotion to all kinds of stupid causes. So like they're the most religious people of all. Exactly, but I also, I even wonder at times like, are they even atheists?

Maybe they have other kinds of commitments. Of course not. I mean, I look at Sam Harris infrequently, but whenever I run across Sam Harris, he seems like a full-blown religious fanatic to me. His religion is whatever it is humanism or Zionism or whatever, but his commitment to it is instantly recognizable as religious faith to me. Right? Yeah, I think, you know, the approach that I take to all those debates, is worldview-based, and what that means is that it's not primarily one side stacking up evidences versus the other side stacking evidences in which one, you know, way.

It's more so analyzing our fundamental commitments or our paradigm through which we interpret the world that's a lot more effective if you can destroy the person's paradigm for getting them to actually change their mind. Right. So one of the threads that connects everything, or, well, first I would say you've been thinking about faith in a serious way much longer than most people your age. I think this was a pretty secular country, or I thought it was, but you were thinking about this stuff early, and maybe that's why you have an advantage over a lot of us. But I've now concluded that like everything is a manifestation of religious faith.

And it just goes by different names. And so we missed it. We thought we lived in a secular country. We actually live, like all countries, it's a very religious country. You wrote a book on what called esoteric Hollywood, which is basically revealing, analyzing and revealing the religious symbolism within popular art. Yes. What is, tell me the thesis, tell me why you wrote it and give me some examples. Well, when I was doing undergrad, grad work, I had multiple interests, not just philosophy and religious stuff, but also I've always been.

interested in film love movies um i grew up in a small town so we didn't have much to do other than drugs and movies so yeah uh so i always gravitated towards that towards the arts um i enjoy you know performing doing comedic type stuff always wanted to be involved in some way in media so it was only natural i think to also take a lot of film classes study a lot of lit and then you know sort of bring them all together, synthesize all these ideas. And just for a long time, I was just blogging for fun as I was doing undergrad grad school. I would blog about movies I was watching. And I was also studying like propaganda, psychological warfare, how that overlaps with intelligence agencies, and how that overlaps with Hollywood.

So the book ended up being the product of just a lot of college and grad school research, particularly about figures like Ian Fleming. how he would take sort of his own personal experiences in black ops and intelligence, and then put that into the character of James Bond. I mean, he's not the only influence, but he's one of the main influences on his character. And then how Bond was such a powerful, iconographic image to do Cold War propaganda. So I just always found that relationship fascinating between all these domains. You've got literature, you've got movies, you've got intelligence stuff, and all kind of playing together, and how they use that as a kind of tool of Western propaganda

during what I think is a dialectical, you know, false Cold World War dialectic. But it's very instructive on many levels, how, you know, we were talking about icons earlier, but Bond is a kind of icon of sort of Western nihilistic, you know, Nietzsche and Uber Man, right, that was used in the Cold War to contrast against Soviet ideas of the collective man, the new man, the, you know, versus the individual man.

You've got capitalistic sort of self-gratification on one side, and then over here you've got the side of that you are a property of the state. Both of these are dialectical opposites, right? And usually the way dialectics work in terms of big term strategy is to synthesize these. So I was also studying Hegel and Hegelian dialectics in college and how all that's, and he does say that there's thesis and to the synthesis. There's a good academic research, which I think demonstrates that Hegel was also influenced by Kabbalistic ideas. So you have the two pillars of mercy and severity, and then you have the

synthesis of those two extremes that can be a way of managing and controlling. And people have got this down to a science. It's not just my speculation. You can read, like, global elite writers like Jacques Adelaide. He'll talk about Cold War being two pillars of two two sides of the dialectic that you sort of manage the middle ground and you can synthesize and bring them together so essentially what i argue in that book is just through a lot of different essays that i wrote analyzing kubrick and spilberg and david lynch and hitchcock a lot of different directors in the first book not all negative just sort of doing analysis i'm not saying that everybody's involved in a grand conspiracy it's more of uh concentrated essays on different themes and topics

relating to sex cult and symbology and film and how powerful, at least in the last century, Hollywood was for giving us our religiosity, whether we know it or not. You know, we mentioned myth-making, and we mentioned Plato, and, you know, Plato talking about the noble lie in the republic. We thought we were in a secular society. We were actually given an entire religious mythology through Hollywood. You know, Edward Bernays said Hollywood is the greatest engine of propaganda of the world had ever seen, at least up into that time.

And that was obvious to me, even as a child in the 70s, what was not obvious was that it was religious propaganda. Yeah. I didn't realize this was our religion. I mean, maybe not overt, but it's there, right? It's a subtle way to indoctrinate people into various types of, basically just anti-Christian ideology. I mean, the book is not just like a low-tier thing saying that Hollywood's evil

and it's anti-Christian, everybody knows that. it's this is more of an analysis of like you know was eyes wide shut perhaps a window into something like epstein before we knew about epstein that kind of stuff i think that that's fascinating to me i'm not saying that that was kubrick's intention um but sometimes the arts this is really really crucial with like dosievsky like the arts can predict things even ahead of time i'm not with such recurring frequency that you think is this, what is this?

This is almost a kind of a prophetic spirit, almost. Yes, or it, you know, it suggests that, like, we're just acting in a drama whose script has been written. I don't know.

I mean, I've literally no idea. But it's outside, just a statistical matter, it's outside the realm of chance, for example, how many times the Simpsons predicted coming events. Like, what is that?

I have known writers on the Simpsons. They're not yogis. They're not mystical figure. I mean, I have no idea what that is, but I just noticed that it's happened. It does happen. Two different phenomena that, for one, like, if you read Delsiewski and some of his novels, he would write almost with precision, I think not because he was in on it,

but because he was actually kind of a genius. Like he would write about, he was a genius. He would write about years before what the Bolshev revolution would do and what the socialist would do in Russia, and almost with accuracy in terms of like the number of skulls that would be melted up. That, I think, is prophetic. In the case of a lot of what went on in Hollywood in the last, you know, several decades, that's more so propaganda that's intentionally conditioning us, especially with a lot

of, like, tech, gadgetry, you know, the Bond films actually introduced a lot of people to sort of spy world gadgetry that would then become day-to-day normal American living, right? I mean, even cell phones. It's like the internet itself is just old school Cold War cryptography that turned into everybody's form of communication. You know, a lot of the spy surveillance gadgetry or whatever that you see going on in James Bond, this begins to be a thing that conditions people too getting used to, you know, being surveilled, getting used to having all their lives on the internet live stream. I'm saying that there's broader components to these types of stories that do condition us.

I don't mean to go full schizo here. say that like everything all I would just plan. I'm just saying that the deeper that you go into it, you do realize, for example, that the CIA is consulted on movies forever, forever, like all the way back to even before, you had famous actors and actresses that were spies. I mean, a lot of people don't know this stuff. That's just kind of level one of this stuff. But it even gets more sophisticated into like studying the effects of early slasher films that it had on people. It would put people in like a catatonic state to make them more suggestible. Everybody's probably heard about subliminals.

All of that is related to or adjacent to the type of things that we're discussing here. Like, this is a very niche but well-studied branch of how to use fiction to condition people. And one element that might be a little more accessible to people is that if you go back to the turn of the century, last century in the UK, especially as they eventually had the Official Secrets Act, you couldn't say. what you did when you worked for British intelligence or whatever. But you could write fiction novels that kind of loosely told those stories. And so a lot of British authors that are now famous, you know, formerly wrote or formerly worked in British intelligence and then like William Somers and Maugham and these different characters. Graham Green. Graham Green, exactly.

They would go on. And then, of course, Ian Fleming, they would write into the stories what they'd actually been up to. You could write R. Mann in Havana, but you couldn't actually write what you did in Havana. Exactly. And then you'll find these fascinating nuggets, you know, Joseph Conrad is the secret agent, which was one of the first, there was one revolutionary era of spy story, I forget the name of it, but his is sort of the most well-known, the secret agent. And you've got like the states using anarchists, there's a false flag event.

Like you've got these principles in these fiction stories, which seem to match up to reality. So I just found that fascinating, that you would have all this in. fiction and then that sort of blurs the line between reality and fiction sometimes intentionally because audiences will watch things and it will sort of embed in the subconscious and i'm not trying to be again i'm not being schizo about it like you're getting programmed whether you know it or not but i don't think all plays and fiction are bad i'm just saying people don't go to argo to realize they're watching propaganda but they're watching propaganda Does that make sense?

Of course, and that's why it's effective. So one question that appears in fiction and raises speculation in real life, and it's a very specific question, and you may know the answer, is there evidence that intelligence agencies of any country have used or criminal organizations in any country have ever successfully carried out assassinations using crazy or suggestible people who don't know they're participating in it? which is to say like lone gunman shoots public figure, lone gunman is actually a tool of some other organization,

doesn't know he's a tool of the organization. He committed the murder, but he did so, maybe unbeknownst to him at the urging of some other groups, Sir Han, for example. Is there any evidence? Do we know that's actually happened ever? I think it's very obvious that it has happened.

I don't know what the standard of evidence would be to say with absolute certainty in a specific case. You know, people talk about Marius van der Lube that he was used, you know, for the Reichstag. People talk about, as you said, Sir Hahn, I mean, you could say Oswald perhaps was, there is such a thing as false flag recruitment, which is where people are recruited into thinking that they're working for this group, they're actually working for this other group, right? That's correct. So that does occur.

And I think that if you study assassinations and how they're conducted, they don't happen often, but they do tend to use, you know, crazy people or people that are very suggestible. So I think that's definitely probably 100% goes on. I mean, we had what was Shenzhou Abe was one of the most recent, other than Charlie Kirk, obviously, you know, assassinations. There were some weird, weird things with that in terms of usually political ideologues or religious ideologues are very useful for these types of operations. So yeah, I think, I think especially with JFK even, you've got significant evidence. If you look at the person of Angleton, if you look at what came out on the JFK files, like he was literally just passing all kinds of information to the Mossad.

It's in the JFK files. There was like four pages were about his secret relationship with the Mossad. I think there was a confluence of interest, as you said, with organized crime, CIA, and Israeli interests all sort of had the motive in regard to JFK. But I think that's a recurring pattern is to absolutely contract it out to either organized crime. I mean, Murder Inc. began as a Jewish assassination squad that was used by not just Sicilian mafia, but also at times the U.S. would contract out and use these people for operators. If you want to get rid of somebody, just use the gangsters.

You're not going to do it yourself. So, yeah, that's well known. I think if you look at Operation Underworld where the CIA was using organized crime for many years. How much evidence is or that the CIA do you think has an active role in American politics now? My research has mostly been past decades of that relationship, so I'm not the most up to date on president. But I would imagine it. How certain are we that the United States, U.S. politics has been influenced by intelligence? I mean, I think when people talk about the deep state, we're talking about a sort of,

of breakaway national security apparatus that has a tremendous amount of influence and control on domestic and foreign policy. Absolutely. 100%. I think that superstructure that is international, that is, you know, people talk about the five eyes and all that kind of stuff. I think that they do coordinate. I think it's very clearly, when you get up into that level, even above intelligence and say, hey, when you get up into that level of like steering committees and the CFR, the trilaterals, It's not accidental that Epstein was literally David Rockefeller's legate on the trilateral commission. He was a commissioner for it. I mean, they created that for Brzezinski, right.

It was Kissinger who went to Dave Rockfeller and said, we did this guy, Brousinski would be great for trilateral. They created it for him. And so for Epstein to essentially be at that level, which is, no, I don't think we knew that until that, you know, Bannon interview came out. And Jeffrey Epstein, I was on the Triteau Commission. I was up there with David Rockefeller. Yeah, that's one of those details that's, I mean, do you ever suspect that the sex, the sexual components of the Epstein story, which I don't want to minimize because they're awful?

But do you ever suspect that maybe they're also a distraction from bigger kinds? It's much bigger than that. Yeah, I mean, in a lot of those emails and text messages and things that came out, you've got like, there's so many crazy examples. Like you've got, I mean, you've got high-level finance, money laundering is part of that. You've got weapons trafficking is a huge part of that because if read Whitney Webb's book, right? Like it's the Adonan Khashoggi operation, which also included like filming people on that yacht. That becomes kind of a pattern for also the way that Epstein would do his stuff. So you've got weapons trafficking.

You've got high-level blackmail. You've got human trafficking. You've got money and finance. And you've also got planned chaos and certain. certain areas that you move money to prior to the chaos to benefit from the destruction, which is something that Ian Fleming had Spector doing all the time. So I suspect Ian Fleming was talking about the sort of Epstein level, Rothschild level, gaming of different markets, because that's a huge part of what they were doing,

where he's basically emailing R.N. DeRachal, and he's saying, there's going to be a huge conflict over here, move in early, buy up resources, et cetera, because the conflicts, the chaos is coming. They did it about Kenya, or excuse me, Somalia. There was emails about how to do this with the Greek debt crisis when that happened to buy up after it collapsed, right? So that's a huge component, and we know that that's nothing new because the Rothschild's biography that I just finished reading by Morton

brags about how they did the same thing at Waterloo. They crashed the London stock market on the basis of false information and then bought it up when it crashed when they figured out that the information was false. So that's exactly the same thing that Jeffrey Epstein was doing in the emails with

Oriand de Raja. It's funny that they called the thousand years after the fall of Rome the Dark Ages as compared to this. it's also crazy too that we think that there's no religious component to the world today when we seem to have all kinds of very demonic activities going on which suggests you know secret societies cults you name it so i think that the world really operates in this way versus the

sort of secular mythology that we were taught yeah i mean i don't see anything secular happening really in the United States at all. And if you, I mean, I first noticed this on the LGBTQ, I can barely pronounce it, agenda question where the commitment to that was like more than just, you know, compassion for, you know, discriminated against gays. It was like this religious fervor.

Yeah. And that was the first sign to me that actually, I think we're dealing with the faith here. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, there's a, you know, you find elements of these types of, of ideas in various Talmudic texts.

For example, the idea of aliens. I'm not saying that there might not be unexplained phenomenon. I think there is. I think there's a demonic component to it, but the idea specifically of there's one of the tractates that discusses the 18,000 worlds. So it's an older Talmudic idea that

there are these other life forms and I think that, you know, recent films like Disclosure Day, Spielberg's ethos, that kind of I think that plays into that idea that, no, there's not demonic stuff, because if you watch that movie, the whole thing was like, no, they're actually your friends,

they're sort of alien saviors. Just closure day makes that case? Yeah, it's kind of like, don't think it's demonic. This is more of a salvific type of thing. So I think that's propaganda. So we welcome our new alien overlords. Much like Childhood Zen,

and if you've read Childhood Zen, you know that Arthur Z. Clark, who is butt buddies with Crowley, right, they're actually promoting this idea that Carrelin, who's this, he looks like a demon, right? But he's our alien savior. And he comes to Earth and gives, like, medical advances and technological advances. And then he says, oh, by the way, I need your first generation of your children. And then he takes them off and nukes Earth.

So it's like, I'm going to save you by taking your kids and destroying the rest of you because you're all going to kill yourselves if we just let you be. And I'm just giving that as one example, like famous, you know, propaganda in sci-fi. H.U.L. was a huge propagandist about the stuff, too. He was a high level. He described himself as a Luciferian. He says in his book, God, the Invisible King, he says, you might think that in the coming technocracy,

brave new world, you're going to be atheist. No, no, no. So we have a different deity. His name's Lucifer. He will be the deity of the future. So he's a Promethean, you could say. But he was also like one of the chief propagandists for the sort of Rothschild Milner Fabian circles

that were promoting socialism and technocracy back, you know, in the 1800s. late 1800s early 1900s. What are the consistent lies that this propaganda tells? Like what connects all of the, one of them, I'll just start by saying one of the main lies that they're committed to convincing you of is that all this is secular,

it's all science-based, it's, it's materialism. Yeah. Like nothing, there's no spooky supernatural. Like I noticed that. Yeah. One of the things I've done on my YouTube channel last 10 years is what I call the Global Elite Book series. And all we do in the last 10 years is like we pick various Presensky, H.ULs, Jacques-Atele, Carol Quigley.

I mean, you just go down the line and we read through the text. And then I do a talk on them. And what we've noticed, we've done dozens of these is there's a consistent pattern of, I say there's like, you know, five or six commandments of the elite that you have to be on board with. And there seems to be a recurring pattern of because. Because humanity is overpopulated, we must have global governance, we must have a united world religion eventually, we must have full spectrum dominance, control of area of life, everything's surveilled. All the way up to, we even did, remember Klaus Schwab's Fourth Industrial Revolution book. That whole book, they came out right before COVID, was about how the coming crises will bring about this sort of globalized one world order ruled over by Internet of things. sky net type stuff.

And that leads to rationing and, you know, austerity, all that kind of stuff that we've seen pushed by these people for so long. But I think, you know, some of the most telling books are like Jacques Adelaide's book, Brief History of Future. That book was written in 2006 and he was the sort of Kissinger to, you know, the presidents of France, Macron, and people like that. Maybe even Mitheron, I forget who he was consultant to. But he was the Kissinger of France, huge neocon.

type person. And in that book, he says, towards the end of it, he says, we've progressed to the point where we're going to have a global brain. It's the Gallum. Because of the Gallum. We're all going to be linked in. You'll lose your individuality when you're linked into the global brain. He says, at the spearhead of all of this is the transhumanist.

Transhumanism is, as Julian Huxley coined the term, the future that we're going into. And so those are the elements, one world religion, one world currency, one world brain. Everything is sort of unified. And if you read Huxley, I wrote a bunch of Huxley's books, he says, not just in Brave New World, but he wrote another book people don't know about it called the perennial philosophy. And he says, people don't realize that any theology or ideology that allows you to have a significant degree of individuality has to be erased so that we can create the blob, the big, amorphous blob where we're all sort of blended into one giant thing that's controlled. It's the same thing that 100 years later, almost Jacques Adelaise says in his books about

the global golem. Like that's the goal is to create this sort of homogenized controllable. And the goal of the, and of course, and that's the point of, you know, mass migration. Yep. You know, eliminate distinctions. But the goal of all of that is what? the destruction of people? I do think that there's a pretty consistent pattern of belief amongst a lot of these people

who are technocrats and transhumanists. They think that technology will, even to go back to Arthur C. Clark, everybody remembers 2001 Space Odyssey, and he co-wrote that and helped, you know, that come to the big screen. But he also wrote another book that was also a movie, which is very enlightening called 2010. it's not as good of a movie, but in 2010, it becomes more explicit that the Cold War was about producing a dialectical synthesis where the scientific elite from the Soviets and the West come together and they create the technocratic scientific priest class that rules us, that allows us to achieve apotheosis. and then in 2001 that apotheosis happens

through union with AI and tech so basically the idea is presented I think in those books that we become God through technology Ray Kurzweil or he's even said this kind of stuff so the singularity all that kind of ideology which is not

new to Kurtzweil actually Hagel had a version of this that he called the Omega Point where all the dialectical oppositions eventually synthesize into everything in his view becoming spirit, which is everything becoming some sort of transcendent unified reality. It's Huxley's blob.

It's, you know, I think who's that crazy? Teilhard de Chardin, the excommunicated Jesuit guy. He talked about the everything becoming the Neuosphere. And that actually influenced some of the early developers of the internet. They talked about creating this hybridized, merged idea where everything becomes, essentially the net basically. So I think that that's how they see these things because they worship this idea of evolution.

And I'm not saying there's not degrees of like adaptation in nature, but this idea that there is a determined, controllable priest class that can steer us towards some sort of transcendent singularity omega point. That's sort of their religious, that's their eschatology. So they have, like you said, a competing eschatology. That's right.

It's a competing eschatology. That's nicely put. But the goal of, so the Christian eschatology is God returns. And the pagan eschatology is I become God. Exactly. So, and now some of those writers will actually revise and reinterpret Christianity. And you mentioned earlier, Rosicrucians. Some of those hermetic groups actually had this idea that Christianity is just sort of an allegory for immortality and resurrection through,

some sort of nosis or knowledge or technology. It's replaced man with God with yourself. Yeah, Crowley. Crowley is a great example of this because he's a figure, who, by the way, was also working for British intelligence. Alster Crowley was a huge proponent of this idea of man achieving apotheosis through not just tech, but through sort of magical view of tech, which Isaac Asimov expresses in his three laws of magic or whatever,

magic and technology. Arthur C. Clark, same ideology. he's hanging out with the Krolyan circle. So I think there's also an overlooked sort of satanic component to a lot of this ideology that people don't think about. But if you look at, for example, to go back to the Milner, Fabian Rothschild circles, they were promoting Madame Lobatsky heavily.

She was a Fabian socialist, and Kroly was a huge fan of hers. In fact, he told people to read her writings to understand. Fowler of Theosophy. Yes. So Theosophy is a good. another great example of this kind of religion of the future that Father Sera from Rose talked about. In fact, he highlights Theosophy as one of the key elements in his famous book, Orthodox in the Religion in the Future, St. Sarah from Rose now.

But very predictive, very accurate, that this is essentially demonic. He wrote that in the 70s, basically saying where this, you know, H.G. Well's sort of idea would eventually take us by our day. And he was spot on. The book's kind of amazing. If you read it, literally pretty pretty, everything that we're at, but he says, you know, this Blavski satanic type ideology is what, for example, popularized yoga throughout the West. We wouldn't have yoga everywhere, every Instagram chick, you know, doing yoga if it wasn't for Madame Blavatsky and Crowley. With respect, Madame Blavatsky from the surviving photographs does not look like she

practiced yoga? I would not want to see her in yoga pants. No. No. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I am a nasty person. Um, why yoga? Well, uh, there's a lot of different reasons.

I think that and my wife just, she just did a whole bunch of podcasts on her YouTube channel about, uh, yoga and, uh, tantric Buddhism. Um, there's a lot of reasons why Eastern philosophy, and I'm not saying everything about Eastern philosophy is necessarily bad, but elements of Eastern philosophy is a lot more, uh, collectivist in the way that they approach who man is and what he is in the world. So yoga, I think, is a way to, if you take it seriously. I'm not talking about people that just sort of stretch and do Pilates, but like the actual process of yoga is intended to initiate you, and basically your, you know, the base of your spine, your chakras and all that,

that's supposed to like essentially possess you. Now, I'm not saying everybody does yoga's possessed. I'm saying that that's the purpose of it is you're invoking, entities to begin at your butt stuff and like go up and open up your third eye. So it's essentially an initiation process, what's supposed to be. That's what it is in the Hindu and the tantric tradition. But in the tantric tradition, it's actually a lot of really gross stuff, which people don't know that.

What does that mean? Like really gross sex stuff. Like the actual tantric Buddhism, when you get into like the depths of what that's about, is, and Crowley absolutely just borrowed this for his whole process of pushing yoga, you have to do all of the worst possible actions to kind of get beyond good and evil.

So it's kind of a Nietzschean idea of like, I mean, the worst thing you could think of, you got to eat like feces, you got to do incest, like you do all the worst things to not just balance the good side, but also the evil side. So it's the left hand and the right hand path have to be transcended.

Right. And so their idea, This is a common idea, not just in tantric Buddhism. No, this is like the inner teaching of like tantric Buddhism. Like if you were to- But not just tantric Buddhism. I mean, there are other groups have adopted this same idea. Absolutely, absolutely.

Yeah. You can see why Crowley saw that is applicable to. Markita Sad or- Exactly. Kabbalistic echoes there too. But the core idea is you have to go as far out as you can. Yes, inversion. The principle of inversion, and we talk about this a lot of times

and, you know, people in our sphere, my buddy Mark Hackard, he's written a bunch of articles about Orthodox theology and philosophy and Soviet history. And he's talked about some of the early, for example, Bolsheviks, one guy named Gleb, Bokiye, he was very interested in sort of eyes wide shut inversion stuff as a way to revolutionized society. In terms of the Bolshevik revolution, there was... So commit atrocities. And, but not just, like, killing, but like, also to promote in society like degeneracy because that has the print that can revolutionize society but that's true it is in fact one of the key 60s countercultural revolutionaries uh willhelm rike actually had the idea that in order to have a successful cultural revolution you would have to

have total open sexual pan relationships because that would remove patriarchy and then with the rise of the goddess and the feminine principle that would allow the actual socialist revolution that was his idea it's a very common it was a very common idea so the old-fashioned communists you know the Stalinists were prudish they were against the gay stuff totally against it but the bolsheviks had been the pre-Stalin period had embraced that Stalin pushed back against it. And then in the United States, in the late 50s and 60s, a bunch of revolutionary movements believe that.

The SLA, Charles Manson, you know, there was all orgies and... But that ethos of the 60s counterculture stuff wasn't just, you know, Ginsburg and people like, you know, coming up with crazy ideas to party. There was an earlier idea that some of the key Fabian socials, For example, in 1890s, some of the Fabian socialists, like Beatrice Sidney Webb, they actually understood that if you promoted, for example, bestiality in public art, this could undermine and destroy the UK's sexual ethos at that time. So they were way out of the curve, like in the 1890s.

Birchman Russell was famously pansexual, like one of, you know, Terrence McKenna, a big open relationship. So they've always understood that to, remove those boundaries is actually a way to invert and then change society on the mass scale. And to unleash power. There's a power that comes from that, from transgression. It's demonic power. Exactly. But they never called it that. But it's clearly true. But the tantrics understood that. They actually understood that you're actually sort of taking on sort of more and more demonic energy versus the, you know, God's uncreated energy. But it's still energy. Yeah. So when Satan promises Jesus that he can have,

you know the kingdoms he could deliver the kingdoms like he had the power to bestow on those who worshipped him like it's it's real there is a real demonic power that can yes yes be tapped into yeah so that that's what makes it even more compelling i mean there's a reason people it's like cigarette smoking yeah it's bad but people do it why because they get something out of it yeah there's a reason that people worship demons not just because they're inherently perverse but because it works short term. Yeah. Right?

Yeah. Absolutely. And again, that's that principle of inversion is well known way back into, you know, like ancient. I remember reading. That's why you sacrifice the Incas sacrificed children. And so the Mayas and the Aztecs and the Vikings. And like when you sacrifice a virgin to the rain god, it actually rains. Well, like, you know, you probably heard of Michael Aquino, right?

Yeah. Yeah. You know, everybody, you might have heard of his, he wrote that, uh, Minor Word of Sci war document, which like the Army's doctrine of psychological warfare back in the 80s or whatever it was, and he wrote that. But he wrote another book called, um, Black Magic. And the whole book is basically, I remember reading this years ago, it's basically taking the principles of Egyptian sorcery, but applying it to like military psychological operations. So yes, actually people do study ancient, sorcery and magic and that kind of, the CIA even had a whole program,

I want to say in the 70s, kind of adjacent to Project Stargate, where they were studying Satanism and the occult to sort of weaponize and try to understand these ideas and see how far they could go with them. Where did nuclear technology come from, do you think? I mean, Oppenheimer described himself as, to a degree, sort of engaging in

I mean, I don't know how serious he took it. And I've also read some interesting critiques of Oppenheimer that argue that he was perhaps more of a propagandist than an actual scientist. So in a lot of these domains of like high esoteric science, I don't claim to be a scientist, I'm more of a philosophy guy. But I don't know. But he could have been much more of a propagandist than he was an actual scientist. I think that was true of a lot of the scientists involved in this. It's not clear what they were creating. Right.

it's very clear that they were used to create the illusion that they were creating something. Yeah. But it may have pre-existed them. I'm just throwing out there. Well, you know, one thing that's interesting is that the way that some of the early people involved in those chemical sciences, you probably heard of Jack Parsons, he was an, you know, Corley. They would sometimes describe what they were doing as a kind of ritual. So they saw the idea that you could split the atom as kind of a ritualistic principle of. by doing this, you release energy, which is the very type of thing you were talking about with, like, the demonic aspect of releasing and control, trying to control the energy.

Well, it raises, like, a question, which is, like, where does the active creation come from? So the active creation is God, is God, you know, that's God's doing. So it's the active destruction. Right. And Satan's destruction. But the act of creation, like every person who's ever, every person, really, who's ever engaged in any creative activity knows that there's what we call this. moment of inspiration where the idea the notion comes to you, but where does it come from? And people don't explore that question for some reason, but it's an open question.

Like, where does that come from? Ideas pop into your mind, thoughts pop into your mind that you've never considered before, but that are just there. And so you're not really coming up with them so much as you're summoning them, I guess is what I'm saying. And that's true for good things, but it's also true for bad things. Does any living person not know what I'm talking about? Well, so in the Orthodox tradition, we have this idea.

that your thoughts come from one of three sources. It either comes from you and your own sort of innate spirit and creativity, which God gave you, or it comes from God, or it comes from the angelic or demonic realm. So there's three possible ways that you could get that inspiration. The term that's used in the Greek is logismoi, which is sort of thought forms that can sometimes occur. Usually those are in the Orthodox tradition spoken of,

sort of as demonic influences. But you're right to that, I think, that idea of inspiration and then putting it into your work, if you look at it from the evil perspective, that's the whole thing that Crowley talked about in magic theory and practice is that all you're doing is, he says, the world and all of its actions are equalized. Everything in the world is equal.

There's nothing good or bad. And the true magician is the one who takes the matter or the things in the world and puts his will and intention into it and then affects an energetic change in the world and whichever one is successful and takes on, that's the true magician. Now, I mean, Crowley is a liar and a deceiver,

so I'm not trying to give him too much credit, but that is the attitude, I think, that a lot of people who engage in that type of an idea, they have that principle that they think that they're doing sort of magic workings in the world to affect change and that makes them the magist. Does that make sense? It does make sense.

I just as I get older, I have come to believe that we're really kind of a pass-through a lot of the time, that we're subject to all these external forces that we don't acknowledge, we don't perceive most of the time, but that those are really the defining moments of our lives. Like we either accept or reject things presented to us from outside of us. I guess that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I I mean, really I didn't find any significant deep analysis

of this type of analysis of like spiritual psychology, I guess you could say, until, you know, I got deeper into Orthodox tradition where they go pretty deep into understanding this kind of stuff. Because if you think about it, like, I don't want to degrade the office too much, but like a priest, Orthodox priest,

they're masters of human psychology. That's not all they are. But if you hear for decades people's confessions, you're going to be a very good psychologist, if you're good at it, right? So you're going to understand, you know, not just human weaknesses and stuff like that, but you're going to understand these other influences

and hopefully have the discernment to know when the influences might be from the divine or when they might be from something else. You know, one of the things that Father St. Sarah from Rose talked about in his book, orthodoxy in the religion of future is that he warned about coming mass delusions and what would sort of dupe large amounts of people and one of the things that he tied into hinduism and new age type stuff was also not just yoga but the charismatic movement and he was very

insistent that this charismatic movement will continue to grow because it stresses the direct existential ecstatic experience as if that's necessarily from God when it could very easily be from the demonic. I think when you look at the manifestations in the domain of charismaticism and how that's now crept into the Roman Catholic Church, it's crept all into the Protestant evangelical world, and it ties it very closely into ancient sort of Hindu practices. That's the type of Christianity that's growing in Africa, Latin South America, it's rampant. It's a massively powerful delusion because it replaces traditional Christianity with the idea that it's something akin to voodoo, basically. If you study voodoo, it's very, very similar to charismaticism in the way that

anything that you experience trumps what's in divine revelation or what's in church tradition. like it's all about the direct sort of ecstatic experience. And so it doesn't matter what happened or came before, then that might sound like it's not that big of a deal. But take, for example, Anne Lee, right, the founder of the Quakers, Anne Lee thought that her ecstatic experiences were God telling her that women should be pastors, women should be prophetesses, women should run the church.

Sex is bad. She's a proto-feminist. She's a proto-woman bishop pastor, person. She started a cult. Her cult didn't grow. It's about to die. I think there's only three Quakers left, Shakers left. But it's a great example of the type of delusion that Western religionists have fallen into, which is that... Just be clear, you're talking about the shakers, not the Society of Friends. So she comes out of the... Right. She's a schism out of the Quaker Society of Friends. Shaker. Yeah, and they were big and mean. They didn't reproduce. Exactly. So that's

one of the downsides of like a long-term strategy. But it's an attack on not just patriarchy, but also attack on like good sexuality in terms of producing. Yes. But it's also like massive proto-feminism. So

it might sound counterintuitive to say that that's very similar to the 60s counterculture revolution but it's not because the whole idea of gay bishops or gay priests or women bishops, women priests, women pastors, it's all sterility. And so the more sterility that you get,

the more your cult dies out, that's the end goal of all that is sterility. In fact, in the, one of the minor prophets, I want to say it's like Amos or Hosea, like there's actually a mention that the curse that you will get is the sterility that you desire. Does that make sense? Yes. So what I'm saying here is like you were talking about destruction, these actions, these inversions, they are a releasing of destructive power, and the way to do that is to always invert the existing natural order. And that has a powerful effect in terms of not just creating instruction, but also creating a scenario that's then more easily manageable and controllable

from cunning, oligarchical types of elites. Yes, and it also infuses them with dark spiritual powers. There's just no question about it. It's not just the desire to get rich or the desire to control their people. bullets that they are filled yes i mean when justin trudeau systematically destroys his nation which he did yes um you know he gets something out of that and it's not just like the consulting contract that comes after it's more than that this is what annoys me about con ink and sort of the the fake conservative side of those who they're unable to diagnose what's really going on because number one they don't

have like the right spiritual component but they're also averse to all ideas of subversion and conspiracy seek all that's all crazy but it's like but isn't that a much better explanation of Justin Trudeau or these kind of they're not just dummies who are like liberal they're actually perhaps consciously malicious of course or there are there or there tools of a higher consciously malicious powers right but it's not it's not a joke it's not that they're just like stupid it's like lame a feminine closeted gay guy runs Canada you know the second largest country in the world with the most natural resources of any place on planet or earth. I don't think that's an accident. Well, when you read a lot of these global technocratic oligarchical elites,

they're a lot smarter than people think. And much more faithful. Yeah. You know, they're not agnostics. That's for sure. So I want to wrap this up to go back to orthodoxy and its view of the future. It's eschatology. So like a lot of, and this is directly related to the power, I think, of Christian Zionism because that derives from the Christian Zionist belief about the end times. And given recent events, I think a lot of people are starting to think about history as a linear track. It's like, you know, there's a beginning and end to history. Like everyone feels that that's true. And there's going to be an end to all this, who knows when it comes. But there are a lot of people who are very focused on that. I don't know what I

think of it probably bad but whatever leaving my thoughts aside what what is the orthodox view of the end times yeah one of the crucial components to contrast the orthodox perspective to those sorts of dispensational christian zines perspectives is that they've missed what the first advent in our view did so we don't believe that the kingdom of god is postponed to the end of the world we think that at the first advent, as Christ says, many times in the gospel, the kingdom is here, the kingdom is in your midst, the kingdom is the presence of the Holy Spirit. This generation will not pass away before I come back. And we believe in what's called partial preterism in the church fathers, especially Christosome,

emphasized in his sermons on Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was the finalizing of the reality of the kingdom coming into fruition. So in other words, it's appropriate that the temple would pass away now that what the temple was a type of, which is the church, is here. So now that the church, which is the true temple has come, that is the surpassing from type to antitoid, right? So you wouldn't go back to types now that the reality has come. So much of what's in the Old Testament, whether it's the temple administration with the showbread and the lampstand and all. that those things are fulfilled in, in our view, what the Orthodox Church is. The Orthodox Church possesses those things in the here and now.

So sometimes in theology, it's called the already not yet principle. So the kingdom of God, the end times are here now. They began at the first Advent. So for us, for example, the book of Revelation, most people, most evangelicals, oh, that's end in the world. That's John Hage and the seven blood moons of Israel. No, no, it's now. Like, we live in the eschatological reality.

when you go to the divine liturgy, that is heaven on earth now. It's not a postponed end of the world. There is an end of the world, but Jesus brought the end of the world at his first advent. And one way that we know this is that most of the time when you ask, you know, that type of an evangelical sinus or whatever, when does the reign of Christ begin? Oh, when he comes back. But every time Psalm 110, which is sit thou at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool, every time that's cited in the New Testament, it's cited about his ascension,

which happened after he died in Rosemary. resurrected. It's not about the end of the world. It's about the ascension. So the church is the kingdom. And if you go back and read the prophecies in Isaiah, in the Psalms, the talk about the conversion of the Gentiles, that began when Jesus sent his apostles out throughout the Roman empire. You have this prophecy in Daniel too that the empire under which this Messiah is born eventually becomes the kingdom of the Messiah within three centuries. The Roman Empire becomes essentially the Orthodox Catholic Church. So we see all of that as fulfilled when he ascended and began his reign in his church.

Thus, there is an end of the world, but we don't sit around speculating about news headlines about when that's coming because we're already in the end of the world now when we go to the divine liturgy. That is the Eschaton in the here and now. Does that make sense? It does make sense. It does make sense. So that kind of like changes your responsibility as a Christian. living in the world.

Exactly. Exactly. And it also doesn't make us worship some atheist nation state in the Middle East that was created by the Rothschilds and the UN in 1948. Oh, that's not in your liturgy? No, I'm saying, like, my duty is not to John Hagey's showfar and the blood moons or whatever, blood moon pies. What are blood moons?

You know who John Hage is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he always tries to play on whatever. I can never be mad at John Higgy because he just seems so lost, sad. But he's a deceiver. Yeah, but I mean, he was doing this big thing a couple years ago about the blood moons of Israel. The times are signified by the blood moons. So I just made the joke of blood moon pies because if you know what a moon pie is, it's like, you know, because he's a portly fellow.

But he is. Yeah, no. He's at the moon pies. So does that, but it means then the Orthodox are not waiting for the next life. They're like engaged in this one. Well, it's a both end, right? So it's not that we focus all of our time and energy on here and the now or, you know, politics or the social order.

We have sort of, I guess, tiered responsibilities. I mean, obviously, you know, for us, kingdom of God would come first. The church is what comes first. But that doesn't negate, you know, the goodness of this life. So we believe in many goods, not just good or evil, right? Like you might have in the history of the, say, Middle Ages, the Latin Church, this idea that, well, to be celibate and single is good, but if you're married, that's somehow bad or lesser, right? We would say there's many goods versus this idea of a sort of a strict good or evil. That comes out of the dialectics that Augustine had a very specific idea that just as an example.

He said the marital sex in his mind, St. Augustine said, could never be, even though he admitted it's a sacrament, he never understood how it could be a sacrament because for him it always involves some degree of venial sin. Because in his view, man's will is either enraptured with God or with some created thing. And if it's enraptured with a created thing, like in the moment of sexual release, then you're in some way, not focused on God. So he had a dialectical view of sin and good and evil and of the will. The Orthodox view doesn't have that view. In fact, we think that there's the possibility of many different goods. So married life is good and has graces and there might be certain advantages to living a single celibate life, but it's not inherently somehow holier than if you're married. and a lot of orthodox monastics will even admit that

that a lot of married people can achieve a higher level sanctity even than some monastics because just sacrifice in itself is not, I mean, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, right? So just sacrificing itself doesn't necessarily equate to a more holy status in the Orthodox perspective, although you might be able to do certain things that you can't do if you're married. But that's a very different attitude

from sort of like medieval Roman Catholic attitudes of like sex and marriage. What a conversation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.