https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=6H6BYa1j6LM
Alright guys, sorry I’m one minute late I think. Alright, so Jacob’s there, Laura, Tyson, good to see all of you guys. Alright so, can everybody hear me? If there’s a problem please tell me. Are we good? Should be. Yeah, alright. Thanks Jacob. Alright, here we go. So, let’s start with the website. So, do I have anything to talk about that’s not in the questions? I don’t think so, not this month. Alright, Adam appears, alright Adam. All the usual suspects are here so that’s great. Alright, so I’m going to start with the website and then we’ll move on to the other platform. So, David Flores asks, could you talk about your new technique of setting stones into your carvings? I’m curious as to how you manage to attach them to the carving itself and how do you decide what stone colors to use in any given piece? So, those of you who have seen it or not, if you follow me on social media, I started this technique a while ago. I guess about maybe three years ago I did my first carving where I inserted semi-precious stones. And then I’ve been kind of looking for different commissions to be able to do this because I just think it’s an interesting technique. The great thing about that technique is it really shows, how can I say this, the possible vibrancy of a tradition. Because when you look at those images that I did with the inserted stones, they look like something which has existed in the past but it hasn’t. There’s never been that type of mix of carving with inserted semi-precious stones and with gilding and everything. I’ve never seen that in churches before. So, it’s interesting for me to make something which when you look at it you feel like it could have been made a thousand years ago. But at the same time, it couldn’t have been made a thousand years ago because they weren’t using that technique. So, the way that I attach them is pretty labor intensive. We dig the hole. I mean, we carve a hole into the stone. And so the stone is set into the main stone that the carving is in. And then just with epoxy, because epoxy with stone is great. It holds forever. And so with epoxy, we glue the stones into those, let’s say crevices. And if there’s a little bit of too much play between the stone and the rest of the stone, then with some grout or sometimes with a mix of stone powder and glue and epoxy will fill in the holes to make it nicer. So, you’re going to see some like the one I’m doing for Jordan Peterson. I’m still I’m working on it right now with my assistant. He’s actually doing right now putting in the stones. There’s a dragon at the bottom of that carving. And it has all these pieces of lapis lazuli in the dragon like on the scales of the dragon are all lapis. So, it’s going to be pretty intense. And so we’re doing that right now. I think I posted some pictures of that as I’m working on it. And so, I mean, how do you decide the stone colors you use? I mean, it’s just like any any composition. You know, you have to balance. You have to pick the right colors just like you would in a painting. So there’s no you know, we look at the different colors and and some colors have some, let’s say some kind of symbolic meaning gold. And I mean, obviously, some colors have more symbolic meanings, but some are more just for it to be harmonious. All right. So, Luke Fleischman asks three questions. The dreaded question. First question is, what are your thoughts on the Yang Gang meme? That I posted something on Twitter about that where I at first when I saw this appearing, I was seriously confused. I was like, what is this thing? Like, what is this? I’d never heard of this guy. And then I was wondering why all the all the you could say all the Chan type, you know, all the Reddit Chan type memes were were all of a sudden, you know, bubbling up for this guy. And you could you could see there was like a weird Pepe Dragon figure and all these different memes. And so I don’t guys I don’t know what to think about it. I think I’ve seen I’ve seen some people talk about it and suggest that it that it this might be a move from some some like left wing people to try to to get some of the Trump vote to like get the people that voted for Trump and to and to kind of get them on board to vote for this this Yang fellow. But I don’t know. I have no idea. I mean, I don’t I don’t really follow it very carefully. And so some of the things that have come out have been funny. It’s funny. Someone mentioned that, you know, Andrew Andrew comes from Andrews comes from the the the root for man. And and Yang obviously is the is the Chinese principle for masculinity. And so so people thought that it was like this return of the of the masculine. I don’t know. You know, I don’t I don’t know. I don’t follow American politics close enough. But for sure, it’s very strange. It seems I mean, it might just be a a. You know, I saw some means where it was it was like you could see people were just like there was Bernie Bros and and and Trump supporters kind of coming together around this Yang guy. And so and so maybe that’s the move that people are trying to do, because a lot of people have noticed that. That the the new right or the alt right or whatever you want to call it, not all of them, but some of them, they’re not they’re authoritarian. They’re not libertarian. And so, you know, they have maybe have more they’re not necessarily anti-state. And so they’re they’re actually pro-state and pro-state control. And so they might have some things in common with with. With. The extreme left, and so. It’s not good. It wouldn’t be really great if those two forces came together, if the extreme right and extreme left came together. That’s not good. That would not be good, because that’s what happened in that’s what happened in Weimar, Germany. Everybody forgets that the Nazi means national socialist. It’s it’s a it’s a joining of of the right and the left together into one thing. And so I don’t know. I I hope that it doesn’t it doesn’t work, whatever plan they have. OK, so could you go into the symbolism of a demigod? Would I be wrong in thinking of it as a sort of of a precursor to Christ? Well, I would say precursor to Christ in the sense that everything is a precursor to Christ. To that extent, you could see in some of the stories of the demigods, you do find some things which tend to point to Christ. I totally agree. But I think that it’s important to understand the story of Christ and in the tradition after after Christ. It was extremely important to understand the story of Christ. It was extremely important for people to for the fathers to say that Christ was fully God and fully man. And the reason why was to avoid the problem of the demigod in part part of the part of the demigod, because you could see some resemblances right in the notion that God the Father, you know, that the mother of God became pregnant with with God, you know, with this with the logos. And so would that story resemble, you know, the the kind of raptures that you see of the of God, of the, you know, Zeus or the or the God, the father God of Greek or Roman mythology who impregnates women. And so I think that the fathers really tried to separate themselves from that. Although I don’t think that it’s completely insane to think that in some ways it’s pointing towards Christ. I think it’s also important to understand the difference. One of the big differences is that the is that the demigods are more akin to the. To the to the margin, they’re more akin to the periphery because they’re a they’re a they’re a hybrid and they’re kind of viewed as hybrids. And that’s why they appear as kind of, you know. As these heroic figures who heroic, not necessarily in the sense that we understand it today, but in the sense that they they’re strong, you know, they like like Hercules or or Achilles, you know, that they have superpowers type thing. And so they they they’re there to to fight off to to to. They fight off monsters, they they do that kind of stuff because they’re in a way they’re they’re actually on the on the border between humans and gods. They’re not totally gods and they’re not totally human. So they’re they’re kind of these monstrous figures. So I think that it’s important. It’s important to understand the difference. So all right. So third question from Luke. Good questions, by the way, Luke. This third question is, what do you think the symbolic significance of global global warming climate change might be? Well, I’ve been wanting to make a video about that. I was thinking of making a video about a video about that at some point, because. I think that the the the global warming climate change thing, what it is, it’s a form of secular apocalypticism. You know, it really is the same structure as when I was young evangelical and people were telling me that, you know, the world is going to end and this is the sign. And there’s doomsday in front of us. And it is a form of millennialism. You know, it’s a form of the end is nigh. It’s the same thing. It’s it’s it’s it’s just closed differently. But, you know, it’s the same as the nuclear Holocaust when we were when we were kids and, you know, the we we thought that the world could end with a nuclear Holocaust. It’s all the same thing. It’s all the same thing. And I think that I think that it’s interesting to study the the the global warming climate change thing. I think that using this, whether or not it’s actually going to happen, I mean, whether or not it’s just a political narrative. Or or whether or not it’s a mix of political narrative and and science. I really actually do like one time someone asked Jordan about this and I thought his answer was pretty wise. He said, I can’t differentiate the science from the politics when I hear people talk about climate change. And so because of that, it’s difficult to know. When people are actually being objective in terms of science or whether they’re they’re in a narrative. And I think it’s it’s really great because it’s showing us, you know, I did a few this last video about how Flat Earth is is showing us how the how the the world of kind of rational thinking is. Yeah, let’s say of this rational bubble that we created in the Enlightenment, how it’s breaking apart and and symbolic thinking is coming back. And so it’s coming back in all kinds of weird ways. At first, it’s not necessarily coherent, but this idea that we can no longer differentiate the narrative from the from the the quote unquote science is is partly us understanding that, you know, that meaning is inevitable. And you can see it as a frustration. It’s frustrating because we see it in because it’s happening as the world is kind of falling apart. We see it in news. We see it. We can’t we listen to watch news. Now you can’t ask yourself what’s their narrative. You can’t we can no longer just wonder whether or not they’re just telling you the facts because it just seems impossible to do that anymore. And so and so in terms of in terms of global warming, I think that it’s a it can be a useful tool to explain to someone what it means for God to judge the world because the way that people understand that they when they read the story of Noah, they read the story of known. They think how could God be so horrible? How could God destroy the whole world and cause a flood? And and it’s really fascinating because if you if you study the this the the traditions of Enoch, you see that as the world becomes more and more technological as they learn about magic and about smithing and everything technological. And as they do that become they become more worrying. They were they have more fights between each other and they also become decadent. They create mixture. They they also you know become sexually decadent. And so it’s like all that is happening. And then the flood and so you think, oh, how horrible is it that God would would punish the world that way? But the same person that would think that would can still can also think that if we continue to at the pace that we’re going, if we continue capitalism continues the way it does, you know, if we continue to pollute the earth like this, we’re going the world is going to destroy us. And they sometimes it really does have like a mythological narrative where it’s like Mother Earth is going to spit us out and and the world is going to reject us as if we’re parasites on on the earth. And so and so it’s actually an interesting way to show people what the judgment of God is because God’s judgment is is is also the causality of our own actions. It’s like the judgment of God is related to the it’s the meaning. You could say it this way. The judgment of God is often the meaning of the consequences of our actions. Right. And so it’s like someone starts to cheat on his wife and and then, you know, his wife, his wife finds out and his wife leaves them and then he starts to drink. Then he becomes an alcoholic. And then and then he you know, he becomes he loses his job and he becomes a total loser. And then he gets on heroin. And then he you know, he starts to and then you’d say like, oh, that man, that man has been judged by God. You know, he’s under the judgment of God. But the judgment of God is the meaning of the consequences of his own actions. And so and so I mean, not that sometimes it can be like a like a lightning bolt that comes down. I believe that is totally possible. But but but in general, usually there’s a there’s a relationship between the actions that you pose and the judgment you receive. That’s why if you if you look at medieval representations of hell, for example, the the punishment that the person receives in hell is always related to the sin that they that they committed. And so, for example, someone who was a glutton, you’ll see them in hell being stuffed by demons, you know, like being stuffed with food by demons until their stomach explodes. You know, and so and so until the same thing, like with with with say someone who had a kind of sexual perversion, then you’ll see them being abused by demons in hell. And so it’s always the idea is that your actions bring about their own consequences. And those consequences are also the are also God’s judgment upon you. So I hope that answers that. All right. All right. So, Joseph 733, two questions. Could you comment on the symbolism? Could you Laura Gilles says, yes, do a video on the seven deadly sins for Lent. You have a good idea to do to do a video on the on the on the traditional like traditional deadly sense. Maybe I’ll do that. I don’t know if I’ll do it for Lent, but I maybe do at some point. OK, so two questions. Could you comment on the symbolism of adapt of adaption? So the symbolism of adaption? Well, I don’t know. I don’t know if you mean in general. I mean, if you mean in general, it’s not very difficult to to understand the symbolism of adaption is the capacity for the pattern. It’s what shows that the pattern transcends the particular the particular. And so. As as let’s say the ground changes as the situation that you that you’re in, it modifies itself, then you adapt, then you will adapt things to that change. And so the the the the change which happens in the circumstances, it’s like a question. It’s like saying, you know, I don’t know, you’re you’re you’re you’re moving toward you want to to want to walk to the end of the street to put your put an envelope in the mailbox. And so you’re going there. And then as you you you you’re walking, I don’t know, a tree fell down and is blocking the road. And so now you have to adapt yourself. And so based on the goal, based on the purpose, then you have to change in order to reach your purpose. But the pattern, the basic pattern or the basic logos is is the same. And then you adapt. That’s what you change based on your your purpose. So that is that is the symbolism of adaption adaptation. But you’ll notice that I think that a lot of kind of evolutionary theories will not agree with me because they don’t believe in an essence or they don’t believe in logos. They don’t believe in a telos, although you could say that reproduction is already a telos, like the desire to perpetuate the desire to remain relevant, to to to remain alive. That desire is already a. A purpose. And so in that sense. It’s what makes you be able to then adapt to whatever circumstances present itself to you. But of course, people who people who talk about evolution don’t believe in intention in the in evolution. They don’t believe that it’s only randomness. And then but there is still even if there’s randomness, it’s really interesting. It’s like even if there’s randomness, survival is a form of of choosing. Survival is a form of purpose. And so it’s like, you know, let’s say you you don’t want to use the word God. But you could say you could say that no matter what, there’s some principle which selects what will survive. And then that which survives, there’s some principle which there’s some principle which makes that. Or self-reproduction or whatever makes that the the the telos of life. So I don’t know. Hopefully that answered enough on on on adaptation. And so so I read Lewis’s discarded image and JR tokens on fairies, but I’m still a bit unclear as to what they were understood as. Could you comment on fairies as well? I mean, the way the way that I understand the way that I understand fairies is that. There there there there are kind of these wild principalities there. They’re there. OK, you could see them this way. One way you could see them is you could see them as remainders of a past hierarchy. That’s an interesting way to see things like fairies. To understand that, let’s say there was before a long time ago before Christianity, there was a basic there was a hierarchy of of of principalities. And then and then Christ came and Christianity came and replaced that hierarchy. Probably you would think that that’s a very interesting way to see things like fairies. Probably you would think that probably because it was decadent, but probably because it was already breaking apart for whatever reason in terms of Celtic religion. That’s for sure. The Romans had dealt a blow to Celtic religion way before Christians appeared on the scene. You know, Caesar slaughtered the Druids because he wanted to control the Celts. By the time the Christians arrived, the the the Celts, their religion was in shambles. And so you can imagine that. So their religion is in shambles. There’s no strut. You know, there’s this chaotic fringe, let’s say principalities which are still kind of floating around. And that would would create a form of of kind of tribalism and different little little little tribes that that are in competition with each other. They can’t kind of unite, you know, and then. I mean, probably under the Roman Empire that helped it to create some stability in some places, at least. So then when Christianity replaces that that hierarchy, there’s still a remainder of the ancient hierarchy. And that remainder ends up getting pushed out into the margins. And so they really become like wild spirits. And that’s why the images of these of the fairies and whatnot is that they’re usually associated with kind of forest, you know, out in the. Out in out in the forest, out in kind of dark places and and kind of out of the way places, you could say. And so and so I think that that’s what that’s what they are. And so. That’s the way that I that I understand fairies, but it doesn’t mean that they’re all that they necessarily have to be negative. You know, they’re just wild. And I think that’s probably one of the things that some people would disagree with me on. Is that is is that, you know. You know. How can I say this? It’s like there’s still little there still could be little nuggets of of something that you can find that is worthwhile, but it’s very random and it’s very difficult to to to to discriminate. You know, and that’s why I like, you know, you you you know, you meet, for example, let’s say you meet like new age people and these new age people, they kind of went into their weird new age world. And and then they started to have these strange experiences where they’re encountering all these spirits or whatever, all these things, all these where they’re depending on what they how they see it. They’re encountering aliens and encountering spirits or they’re encountering fairies that whatever how is it is that they want to to to formulate it. But they’ve kind of thrown themselves into this chaotic sea of of of of intelligences or principalities. And then and then it’s usually to their detriment, like it usually is to their their slow downfall into a weird kind of self absorption or, you know, all kinds of strange things. But once in a while, like I know people who who in that world, that kind of weird new age world, they had an experience which which brought them to Christ. You know, they saw the mother of God or they they they they encountered something which some some being some some principality who who pointed them towards towards Christ. And so it’s like, I don’t know, you know, it’s not totally impossible. But I hope you guys understand what I’m talking about. I usually don’t use these types of these types of words. But the thing that happens is, once you start to understand that the world manifests itself as intelligences and manifests itself as as logi and as and as purpose and and even to a certain extent as persons, then you’ll notice that that that these things start to make sense that you can. You know, like we all saw this. We all saw the the Alex Jones on Joe Rogan. I think anybody’s here would probably have seen that. And when Alex Jones is talking about the, you know, the the clockwork elves and and the you know, that that they’re aliens, that they’re clockwork elves, that they’re all these different things that that people encounter when they they’re taking, you know, they’re taking DMT or some other kind of psychedelics. You know, and and also, you know, you talked about this idea that when when a group of people take psychedelics, they they can have the same experience, they can encounter the same beings out there. And so it’s like that’s once you start to understand that that the that that’s how the world lays itself out as principalities and that those principalities are like little personalities. They’re just like a personality is like is a is a cohesive, you know, it’s a cohesive set of patterns that that make you something that make you a person. And and those cohesive patterns, they have a certain form of existence. You can see it in a fictional fictional character as well. How how you can you can recognize Batman by a certain pattern. And so you can, you know, those principalities, they they have an they exist and and it’s possible. And for people, people encounter them. It’s probably not a good idea to to to to start to to do that. I don’t know. I don’t you know, I’ve never taken psychedelics, so I don’t know. But I think that it could I think that it could lead people astray just because unless you really have a very high level of discrimination and kind of a really high level of training, you know, you meet all these wild patterns and you you can attach yourself to them and they they can totally lead you into weird weird directions. All right. So hopefully that hopefully that makes sense to you guys. And I’m not freaking anybody out. Probably I’m freaking people out. But OK, OK. So Laura Gilles says. The symbolic worldview is definitely allowing you to unpack many things, Jonathan. However, I’d like to know how dangerous someone like Alex Jones is, someone who both perceives at some level the symbolic structures of things. But because his worldview is fundamentally unsound, he can lead people astray, seriously astray. He’s obviously not grounded in classic orthodox small o here, Christianity. He’s connecting into archetype symbols, but doesn’t have the full picture. So I think that, you know, I think Laura, that question you asked is great. I think. I think it really fits into what I was just talking about before, is that. That it is it is possible to have these intuitions, you know, and to, for example, go into the kind of enter into this intermediary world of principalities, you could say, and have a perception of them and have an intuition about them. And and it is a dangerous thing if you’re it can be it can be dangerous. And like you said, it can totally lead people astray. The problem we have today, the problem we have today, guys, and I think this is something that maybe I should mention more and more is that. There’s not a lot of there’s not a lot left, which is not contaminated. You know, everybody, everything is tainted. Everything is tainted and everything is very strange right now. The whole world is very strange. Everything is weird and everything is upside down. Everything is kind of strange. We’re in the we’re in the margins right now. And so and so it becomes difficult. You know, like if you look at what’s happened now, like if you look at the scandal that happened in Catholic Church, the book that came out, what is it just last month? I haven’t read the book, but I’ve kind of heard a lot of people talking about it. And, you know, the insane amount of of kind of disturbed, you know, gay orgies and pedophilia and whatever that that is in the higher levels of the the Vatican of religion. The Vatican of Rome and the Orthodox Church is not completely free of that. We had some scandals with the the the the the head of the church in Serbia. You know, there’s even some videos of him with like children and stuff. And so it’s like there’s some weird stuff happening in the places where the hierarchy is supposed to in our own hierarchies, let’s say in our own hierarchies of people. And so when things get really, really weird, you have to really you have to keep your eyes open is all I’m saying. You have to keep your eyes open. And I think that I think that someone like Alex Jones is someone that it’s worth paying attention to to a certain extent, not too much, but to a certain extent, because he’s he’s acting. He’s acting like a kind of tuning fork where he he does intuitively understand a lot of things that are going on intuitively. And he also is acting like a canary in a coal mine because he has become the one to attract the ire of the powers that be. And so because of that, I think it’s important to continue to to pay attention to him as a character, let’s say, as a figure in the story. And I think that’s going to be the same with Jordan Peterson. We’re going to I think there’s some questions about him in the question. I’ll talk about that when I get there. But it’s the same thing. It’s the same thing that’s going on with him as well. All right. OK. So I think. Let’s see, I think those are all the questions from the. Yeah, I think those are all the questions from the website. All right. Let’s go. To subscribe star. All right. Not a lot of questions. All right. OK. So. Christian Chad, Christian Chad, is that is he is Christian Chad here in the the the is that that is no way that’s a real name. I keep every time I come to people and I see I see a name and I go, that’s not your real name. And then it turns out it is if Christian Chad is your real name that like you are a living meme, if that’s true. But I don’t know if that I don’t that’s true. So Christian said said you’ve said in multiple videos that we have not learned the correct lessons from World War Two. What lessons should we have learned and why did we arrive at the position we are today? Hmm. So. The. The questions that were being posed in World War Two. There are a lot. I mean, there is a lot of things going on. It’s hard to totally, totally focus on just one. But I would say that in at the basics, you could really see that it’s a it’s playing out the problem of. Of having eliminated a proper ontological hierarchy, it’s it’s it is the result of the. The breakdown of the medieval synthesis, we call it. And so in the Middle Ages, there were there there came to be a synthesis between. You know, in that very, very dark time that everybody likes to talk about in the dark in the dark ages. But, you know, in the in the let’s say from the 10th of the 12th century, things started to stabilize. And also in the Byzantine Empire, the intellectual tradition there, there there really was a synthesis between, let’s say, half of the Middle Ages. And then there was a synthesis between let’s say Hellenistic thinking, even even some elements of Persian thinking. And then the the Judaic thinking in the figure of Christ. So there’s this this this synthesis of a massive scale. And then that’s hard to break down in the in at the end of the Middle Ages. And and the World War Two is the last is the fruits of that. And so this is a place where I totally do agree with. With Jordan Peterson in terms of the two extremes, you could call them. There’s more than two in World War Two, there’s more than two, really. And so what we see is. A kind of internationalism, a kind of classless. In theory, right, you know, a classless worship of the of the of the worker, work, worship of the lower part of the of the the hierarchy and. And wanting to make everything everything equal and everything universal without identities, without nation, without all that. So this kind of there is it was really a globalism in the form of communism versus extreme nationalism and exclusive exclusionary, let’s say, nationalism. And so that that’s what was going on. And we don’t understand we don’t talk about. The causes like we don’t we don’t we never talk about how. We never talk about how. Never talk about how Nazism is is a reaction to communism in a large part, you know, how. Communism is a reaction to capitalism. And then so you have this weird these three weird three that are kind of fighting for the 20th century. And we rarely we rarely talk about that, because now we have the same problem. We we have the same problem where we have nationalism and and globalism. And and it’s like and then we have the the let’s say a last ditch effort to preserve a kind of society of freedom or whatever. But that society of freedom, it’s it’s what you would expect from a society of freedom. It’s it’s degenerating. It’s falling apart. It’s it’s breaking into it’s breaking apart because there’s nothing to hold it together. And so, you know, we we can try to scratch hold on to it as much as we want. You know, it’s not going to hold because it doesn’t have it doesn’t have something bringing it together. And so then come in, you have this then you have the the the the the globalist answer and then you have this nationalist answer. And both of them are going to lead us on the same path as as what was there in in the in, you know, in the 30s. All we need is an economic a mass economic downturn. That’s all we need right now. It’s like everything is on edge. And if there’s a if there’s a massive recession, it’s like there’s no there’s no hope. Yeah. So sorry, guys, I hate when these become dark. I don’t like I don’t like the dark. I want the dark stuff. All right. So Kristen Chad asked, I see a progressive authority that thinks of itself as a resistance movement, but acts like an established order. This is all very confusing. Symbolically, can you unpack this for me? Yeah, it’s. It really is a it really is an upside down world. We live in an upside down world. We live in a world where. Where we live in a world where the victim acts like a tyrant, you know, and so that was it was also the same. We saw the same thing happened in in World War Two again, though the two the two Nazis and the communists both portrayed themselves as victims and then acted as tyrants. And so it’s confusing, but it’s not it’s not that confusing because it has to do with pride. It has to do with the first sin. It has to do with. It has to do with viewing yourself as a as innocent, viewing yourself as a victim. Viewing yourself as a victim and then because of that, being blind to your own sins and being blind to your own actions on on on on the others. And so you can imagine you could imagine Satan, you know, not accepting God’s judgment, thinking that he was right and that that he is, you know, his casting out of paradise is a is a is unfair and is unjust and that he deserved better. And so because of that, he thinks that he deserves to be God. And so he whatever he does, he he doesn’t there’s no there’s no he can’t see his own sins. He only sees the sin of another, you know, and it’s not it’s like. Yeah, so it has to do with it has to do with pride. You know, I pride is the dark side of the ascent. You know, it’s the I always talk about how there are two there every symbolism has kind of two sides, you could say. And so pride is the the dark side of the ascent. You see that in I gave a talk on San Gregor of Nyssa and I talk about the ascent of the mountain and then and San Gregor of Nyssa in the Book of Moses. He hints to as he’s talking about the ascent of Moses, he also hints to the foot he calls the false ascent or the you know, the the ascent, which is really a descent. And that’s the ascent of pride. And and that’s it. That’s the tyranny. That’s all that stuff is all related to to to not to seeing yourself as a you know, as a victim of others and and that therefore your your actions shouldn’t cannot be judged by by anybody because you’re a victim. So, you know, and it’s that’s how genocide has happened. Like that’s that’s that’s very scary. The fact that the fact that the left right now continues to portray itself as as a victim all the while being in power in terms of institutions, that is that is so scary. That is that is what leads to that’s what leads to to that’s what leads to very bad places in society. You know, the the the same thing happened with the Tutsi massacre. The people often don’t know a lot about the Hutu Tutsi. Let’s say dynamic the Tutsis, those that were that were massacred, where were a minority and were the leaders of the country. So because they were the minority and and the leaders, they they you know, you know, they they kept things for themselves and and the Hutus were the disenfranchised. And so the Hutu saw themselves a disenfranchised. Most Europeans before the people don’t talk about this, but most Europeans, especially the left wing Europeans, most left wing Europeans that were in Africa at the time of the massacre before the massacre began, were all pro-Hutu because the Hutus were seen as the victims of the Tutsis who were in power. And then when the Hutus started to massacre the Tutsis, they they felt like they had every right to do that because they were the majority, because because they had been dissent, they were the victims of the Tutsis. And therefore, whatever they did was justified. So, you know, yeah. OK. So John B. asks, he asked, come on, this Jordan Peterson thing is getting weird. Can you keep doing this without Christ? So I guess he comes to the question, he comes to the whole thing. The whole thing, even the question about with Alex Jones is that we’re in a we’re in a messed up time, guys. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m very careful not to not to just say things like, oh, you know, there’s been a lot of criticism, Jordan Peterson, with with Vox Day’s book and with Milo turning against him, Rachel Fulton Brown turned against him, Owen Benjamin, a lot of the more right leaning people have turned on him. And to me, I don’t see the world that way. You know, I have said positive things about Milo, but there are plenty of negative things that I could say about Milo. And I have said some negative things as well. There are positive things that I can say about Jordan Peterson. And and I have of course, I have maybe more appreciation for him because we we we’ve become friends. But there’s a lot of negative things about him as well. He says a lot of wacky stuff, especially in terms of Christianity. And so I don’t I I don’t feel like I’ve ever encouraged Christians to follow Jordan Peterson. But I think that he has important things to say. And when he says those, I’m happy to hear him. When Milo says important things, I’m happy to hear him. When you know, when Ben Shapiro says important things, I’m happy to hear them. When whoever it is, I’ll just say that’s that what they said there. That’s good. Same thing like Alex Jones. I don’t follow Alex Jones. I don’t I don’t I think that he’s he’s he’s he’s he has strange ideas and he’s hyperbolic. And, you know, but I think that there’s some things that we need to pay attention to what he in what he’s saying. And I can point you to those things and the rest we can we can ignore and and and not and not and not focus on because and the reason why I think that’s the best way to be right now is just because, like I said, we’re living in a time where everything is upside down. Everything’s topsy turvy. We need to keep our eyes open because things change. Things are changing very fast in there and are very, very weird, you know, and I would say don’t take anything that anybody is saying, you know, automatically. It’s just not it’s not the time except for those that have halos. You can know those that have halos and you can read. So wait, Christian Chad has appeared and he said that is his name. This is that’s amazing. Your name is Christian Chad. You are a living me, my friend. That is pretty awesome. That’s hilarious. It’s that’s so funny. So so so so who’s the who’s the who’s the Virgin? Who’s the Virgin like side to your Christian Chad? We have to figure out a meme here with with you. All right. That’s awesome. I think you just totally made my day, guys. That’s great. All right. So we’re done with the we’re done with the with the subscribe star question. So let’s go to Patreon. The verge. Yeah, maybe that’s what it is. Jacob Russell says, who’s the Virgin? Godless. We have to. All right. OK, so here we go. We’ve got a few here. So. OK, so Frank Rowley asks, after listening to Sam Harris and Joe Rogan expressed their desire for a road to forgiveness and redemption regarding those who have transgressed on social media or in the public square, I was struck by the sense that it might not even be possible in the secular context. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I totally agree. I totally agree. And I think that I think that that’s the surprise. One of the surprises that people are facing right now, one of the surprises people are facing is realizing that. The world that we’ve created, the secular world, you know, and all these causalities that nobody planned out has brought it to a point where there’s no forgiveness. There just isn’t. And so when when you say when they say we need to create a road to redemption, the problem is who is going to arbiter your redemption? Who is going to arbiter your forgiveness? There’s no there’s no structure there. There’s no road there. There’s no there just isn’t a way for it to happen. It can still happen on a personal level. You know, obviously it can still happen on a one rent, you know, one chance thing. But as as as structure, we have we have crazily removed it. And it’s it’s all sides. You know, it’s both sides. What is it that I saw today? Today was it today where I saw people talking about Beto O’Rourke and and saying that, you know, bringing out the fact that he wrote some some like murder fantasy when he was 15 years old, 15 years old. And they’re bringing this out into the public sphere as if this somehow has any bearing on his his life. It is absolutely insane. What’s next? People are going to start to say, hey, we learned that you used to watch horror movies when you were 15. So you enjoyed watching people be decapitated and, you know, getting their getting their heads chopped off and getting disemboweled. Wow, that’s pretty weird. You are a disturbed person. I’m wondering who would vote for you. And it’s like, my goodness, it’s very scary. It’s not not it’s not good. It’s not going to get better. It’s not going to get better. All right. So drew Jacob. Jacob says, oh, I’d be in serious trouble. It’s funny because Jacob and I, we had a private conversation today. We talked on Skype and we actually talked about that, that about horror movies and our young days. All right. So Drew McMahon asks, I was discussing with a friend who is Christian the relationship between truth and love and which is of higher rank. I claimed love and he claimed truth, arguing that love is an emotion that can fool you or be manipulated to a degree. But that truth was binary binary and clear cut, sort of a mathematics versus language juxtaposition and therefore supreme. What are your thoughts? It’s even fair to try. And is it even fair to try and put these into a hierarchy? It’s funny because that conversation is one of the very first conversations that I had with Jordan Peterson, because I remember we had met for the very first time. We had met at some event that he gave about men. I forget what it was, and it was like a debate he had about men. And then we were going to go to the restaurant together, but he wanted to walk. And so we’re walking. We’re walking back to his house after the restaurant. We’re kind of walking. And then we started talking about this. This and he was saying that he thought truth was at the top of the hierarchy. And I was saying that it’s love. And so I can lay it out for you why I think that it’s love. I think that it’s love, just like St. Paul says, right? The highest of these is love is because we need to understand love as the very manner by which things exist. The very manner by which the question and the answer can exist. The very manner by which an identity can encounter something that’s not their identity and then coexist. Love is the possibility for multiplicity and unity to coexist. To me, that’s the highest definition of love. We are one together without you, without multiplicity going away. It’s like one and the many at the same time. That’s what love is. And so to me, that is the prerequisite for truth to even be a concept, for even to be anything. And love is in a way beyond being in the strict sense that we understand it, in the sense that it’s the, right? It’s the manner by which being can even lay itself out because for being to be, there has to be identity and not identity or identity and multiplicity for you to be able to even see anything, for anything to exist. And so, yeah, for sure, I’m with St. Paul on that. I think the highest of these is love. Alright, so Norm Grandin asks, You had a conversation with Jordan Peterson a while back in which you spoke about intersectionality and how Christ transcends categories, existing in all of them at once, which would seem quite paradoxical. This idea strikes me as similar to what J.K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy. Quote, mysticism keeps men sane. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods, but unlike the agnostic of today, free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for this for consistency. If you saw two truth that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truth and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual site is stereoscopic, like his physical site. He sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Unquote. Okay, so my question, aside from looking for you to discuss the idea of this paradox more fully, is this paradox too much for people to bear so they need to simplify it? And thus we get the fragmentation of Christianity across religious lines as well as fundamentalists and atheists who just put blinders on that paradox in order to make sense of Christ, thus succumbing to low resolution thinking. All right. Well, hmm. For sure, I think I think that the paradox is important. The idea I’m gonna I’m gonna make some videos. I already made a video about about this. It’s one of my first videos. I think it’s probably the first video I put up. It’s called Sacred Symbol, Sacred Art. And in that I talk about the left and the right hand. I haven’t made any more videos about the left and the right hand. But I wrote a whole series of articles on that on the Orthodox Art Journal. And I’m probably going to make some videos on that on because I think it’s relevant also to what we’re seeing the whole left brain right brain notion. Let’s say of. Of of wide, wide perception and precise or, you know. Let’s say category making or category maintaining and exploratory, you know, exploratory behavior. So I think that I think that that you really do need those two those two sides. And I think that, as you said, Christ transcends those two sides. That’s why we that’s why Christ is the one who’s judging. Christ is the judge who has the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left hand. So so Christ transcends that also unites them together. Just like you in a way, in a very small way, you also unite those two sides within yourself. You could say Christ does that at a cosmic level. And so you do need those two sides to kind of. To function together. Now, whether that has to do with the fragmentation of Christianity. Maybe, maybe it does have to do with that in the sense that the tradition, the fullness of the tradition should, to a certain extent, contain both sides, right? Should contain what you could call the legal side or the the solid side and then contain the prophetic side, you could call it. And so in the Old Testament, you had the you had the Levites. Who were the actual structure of the of the worship, you know, who who did the rituals, who, you know, who who did sacrifices, all that. And then who also, let’s say, transcribed, kept the Torah, kept the laws, you know, had all the laws and everything. And then you had the prophets who were, you know, read Ezekiel like crazy stuff where, you know, they’re being pulled by their hair and into heaven and they’re, you know, they’re seeing all these these things and they’re going around telling people, you know, to repent and all that stuff. And in the in Christianity, we we have the ecclesial structure and then we have the saints and the ascetics as well. And so those two sides, they they they kind of coexist. And although, for example, we recognize the authority of your priest or your bishop or whatever, the authority of the saints is higher, right? Higher than the authority of your of your priest. So you do have to submit to the authority of the actual church. But there is a another aspect which is there to kind of balance it. And so I think that that’s that’s why the fullness of tradition needs those two sides needs, you know, the ascetic in his cave, who is in a trance, you know, contemplating the mysteries of God. And you also need the fudgy priest who, you know, who tells you that, you know, who lays down the law once in a while and tells you you should do things this way. And he doesn’t totally understand why. And it’s very frustrating because sometimes you feel you’re smarter than him, but he’s still a priest. And so it’s like, OK, so that’s life, you know, and and and and, you know, I totally this maybe is an opportunity to talk about that because one of the problems that I’m seeing is people a lot of the problems I’m seeing right now is people who have kind of through through through their research a little bit through my videos, maybe through other people that they’ve encountered online. They are attracted to to Christianity. They’re attracted to the church and then they go to church and then they encounter that side. Right. They encounter that kind of dogmatic, very kind of strict legal doesn’t seem to totally understand the deeper aspects of things side. And then they get disillusioned and they think, what is this? You know, what am I doing here? And everything. And and and I think I really encourage people to understand that that’s a necessary part of the of the thing. And and to be able to take to take things in stride and understand what people’s functions are. People have different functions. You know, we we couldn’t have only a bunch of free thinkers who are who are trying to understand symbolism. That wouldn’t work. It’s not going to it’s not going to hold the world together. We also need people who who are who are telling, you know, we’re saying, OK, so this is what we’re going to do. This is what we’re going to meet this time. This is how we’re going to do things. You know, we’re going to whatever structure of authority is there. So we need both. All right. So Adam, Adam Shalard asks, are there any other figures like St. Christopher Bishop Baron talked about the donkey. Jesus rode a Jesus rode as a Christopher. OK, no. So Bishop Baron talked about the donkey. Jesus rode as a Christopher or Christ carrier bearer of Christ to the world. Thoughts. And then he says, seems like Mary would be another example of a St. Christopher and John the Baptist. Am I losing it? And then a laughing face. Yes, that’s not the same. It’s not the same. Well, you know, it’s not it’s not it’s not totally it’s not totally. Completely separate. Right. So the donkey that carries Christ, Bishop Baron is very smart to notice that that is definitely that is definitely a Christopher and very much so. One of the images of Christ that the Church Fathers saw in the Old Testament was the Barlim’s ass. If you guys know the story, Barlim was Barlim was a was a sorcerer who was going to curse the people of Israel, was going to curse the chosen people. And as he was going to curse the chosen people, the an angel appeared on the road with a sword, you know, to to I don’t remember if in the story it says he has a sword. But then angel appeared and was going to cut him down. And and then his ass starts to move to the side, veer to the side. And and Balam is like beating it so that it gets back onto the path. And then it starts to veer again to the side and he’s like beating it to get it to the path, you know. And then at some point the ass lays down and balance balance like beating is his donkey. Like, what are you doing? Why aren’t you moving and everything? And then the donkey speaks and tells him, you know, that he saved his life and that he saved him from the judgment of this angel. And so that has always been an image that the that the Church Fathers use for Christ. And it is and so really is this notion, the possibility of the animal aspect to carry the logos. And so that ass is an extension of your body, right? Just like you ride your body, you know, you can also extend that into a car or a horse or a donkey or whatever. You know, you you extend your power to direct yourself with these. And so the ass becomes an image of an image of that and especially an image of that because the donkey is an impure animal as well. And so there’s also this this idea of the the foreigner in the notion of the ass as well. Just like Christopher was a Canaanite, just like Christopher was a was a foreigner. The the the ass is also related to the the foreigner. It would be difficult to go into all the reasons why. But one of the reasons is that he’s impure. Another reason is some of the characters in the Old Testament like Hamor, who is a different characters who are foreigners and who are like the red the red donkey, kind of helping you understand this notion of the of the foreigner as the. And and Hebrew Jews until today, they interpret. The the the the donkey as the four nations, you know, and so you have this sense that when Christ is riding the donkey, he’s riding the four nations. So you can imagine, for example, the Roman Empire converting. That’s like St. Christopher transformation where St. Christopher converts to to to to Christianity, carries Christ further out. Where in terms of the Mother of God, it’s different. It’s similar in the sense that in a way, the Mother of God represents this potentiality that receives the logos. But there there’s there’s really a difference between the wild like the animal foreigner prostitute should do the other hand left hand warrior like that. The foreigner prostitute donkey impure, all that stuff. And then the pure the notion of potentiality as this pure untouched virgin state in which the logos finds proper house. So you really have to separate those two because they do they do end up being important in in the West. That’s why you really do have this. You have the Mary, the Mary, the Mother of God, and then you have Mary Magdalene. And so those two opposites represent two aspects of of of the church and two aspects of the incarnation in the in the East. We don’t have Mary Magdalene the way she is in the West, but we have St. Mary of Egypt. So Mary of Egypt is everything. She’s a she’s a prostitute. She’s a foreigner. She’s a lives on the other side of the Jordan. She has all the elements about that wild aspect, which is then can also receive Christ and be tamed by by Christ. And so we have to be able to be able to really differentiate the two. One we could call it the inner mystery of the pure heart, which receives the logos, which descends into it and manifests itself. And the other is the garments of skin, you could say, that can be transformed into garments of glory, something like that. Hopefully that makes sense, guys. All right. And yeah, and here here actually, you know, and he says John the Baptist, and I think that that’s an important that’s an important aspect because the Mother of God, that’s why in the icon of the of the of the deus is in the in orthodoxy, we have Christ in the center sitting on a throne. And then to his right is the Mother of God. To his left is St. John the Baptist. And so the Mother of God is the right hand. She’s everything the right hand is. She’s pure. She’s untouched. She’s she also is this condensation of the logos into her room. She has all that in her. And then St. John the Baptist is the left side. He is wild. He wears garments of skin. He lives in the desert. He you know, he screams at the authorities. You know, he’s he’s baptizing people. He’s he’s killing them like he’s he’s putting them in water and he’s bringing them out. He’s you know, and then he lives by the sword. And he and like Christ said, live by the sword, die by the sword. He gets his head chopped off. And so and then you have the same anyways, you have these right hand and these left hand saints. The St. Peter and St. Paul also have that same structure. And so and so it’s interesting. This relates more to the other question that was asked in terms of in terms of the two sides, you could say. All right. So David Patterson asks, Jonathan, picking up a question I raised in January, I would be interested in to hear you compare and contrast the stories of Noah and the shipwreck of St. Paul. I would also be interested to hear your views on the recent movie Noah starring Russell Crowe. Perhaps this would make a great video in the future. Well, I actually wrote an article on the Noah movie. It’s probably the only movie criticism that I’ve actually written out. And so if you go to my website, you could probably find it. If you go to the it was written on the Orthodox Archery, you could probably find my interpretation there in terms of understanding the relationship between the shipwreck and Noah. I would say like I think that that story of the shipwreck of St. Paul is for sure extremely interesting. And I think it’s really worth looking, especially at the part where the boat crashes on on on Malta. And then it really is the shipwreck part of the story because it has it strings together all these elements about that have to do with, let’s say, a voyage out to sea or a voyage towards the the foreigner, you could say, or the crossing over of the sea. You know, like St. Christopher could have been carrying St. Paul across the sea to go to Rome. And in the meanwhile, in the middle, he has to deal with the craziness of the of the border, craziness of the periphery. And so, you know, first of all, the ship wrecks the structure in which they’re in is it. No, they don’t. They get stuck for the winter. Right. If I remember correctly, they or is it? I forget now. I think the boats know the boats do wreck. Anyway, one interesting part is that it says in the text that I should have the text in front of me. It’s like, here am I trying to remember everything. It says that they’re barbarous people, which is already interesting because here they’re facing these these barbarians, these these these barbarian foreigners. And then there’s a crazy part where they make a fire and then St. Paul gets bitten by a snake. Right. St. Paul gets bitten by a snake and they all think he’s going to die, but he’s not going to die. So it’s like he goes to the to the end to the edge of the of the world. And then he encounters these barbarian foreigners. He has a shipwreck. They also I think they they they run out of food as well. Right. They eat the meat, but then they throw out the grain, which is really interesting, which has to do with the throwing up the seed, but then eating the flesh. And so it’s like they eat meat, but they throw out the grain and then they go on this this like island in the middle of nowhere and they meet these barbarians. And then he gets bitten by a snake. But he he ends up being fine. And so you really have this. So it really is this crazy move into the periphery, like right into the into the into the into the beast, you could say. As he’s going towards Rome. Now, people don’t don’t don’t like this. They don’t they don’t like the fact that that. That all of this is is is is prophetic about what’s going to happen, you know, which is that St. Paul crossing from from Israel to Rome, that’s it. That’s the story of Christianity, people. That’s what happened. You know, it’s like the barber, the on the there was a crossing over and the Romans are the ones who became the Christopher. Romans are the ones who carried Christ and the Romans converted, you know, in Christ. Everybody was waiting for a messiah that was supposed to to let’s say to take over the to to take over the Roman Empire. And that’s what happened. It just took three hundred years. But that’s what happened. And so that story of St. Paul crossing over from Israel to Rome and then getting, you know, going through this kind of almost like Ulysses, you know, all these Ulysses, very short, but a lot of Ulysses experiences, meeting barbarians, getting bitten by a snake, you know, tossing out the seed, keeping the flesh like all that is all is it’s a great little little little segment in the Bible and then moving to Rome to to become a martyr, but then then to become the new seed of this new world, which is preparing itself to to to appear on the horizon. So so yeah, it’s a great story. Hopefully that answers. So Adam says that he linked the Noah article in the Facebook group. Thanks. Thanks, Adam. All right. So Tyson and Jessica, Gabe, Gabe, I hope you’re pronouncing that right. I think you’re here. Is it Gabe or Gabe? Gabe. Hopefully this will tie in with Adam Shalard’s question earlier. In your research on St. Christopher, have you run across a Greco-Egyptian god, Hermannibus? If so, what are your thoughts on their on their relationship to one another? I can’t help but see similarities both in their appearance as dog headed men and as guides or bears across liminal spaces, threshold rivers. And so I’m going to give you guys a massive spoiler because it’s a very spoiler long term because we talked about the donkeys and we talked about Hermannibus and both those appear in our epic graphic novel that we are preparing. And so you will see both of those and you will see the relationship between Christopher and these and these elements in the in the story. So look forward to that. It’s a little bit. OK, Tyson says rhymes with tribe. So Tyson, Tyson, Tyson, guide. Tyson guide. OK, all right. I will remember that. So, yes, there is a relationship. Now, there is no it’s really interesting because this is an example where there is absolutely no historical relationship between the fact that Christopher is represented with the dog with a dog head and figures like Anubis or Hermannibus. There is no there’s no historical causality between the two. But obviously, there’s a pattern relationship because, like you said in your question, both of them are liminal. Both of them cross over a river, you know, because Anubis was the the character that cross people over the river in terms of in terms of the in terms of death in the Egyptian mythology. And so. And so there is definitely there’s definitely a relationship in terms of the pattern. And and I think that, yeah, it’s definitely worth pondering about that. There are other there are other characters like that. Someone sent me a story. I forget the name of the I think it’s Orion. There’s a story about Orion also carrying a boy on his shoulders across an expanse of water. So so Orion is a giant, right? He’s a Titan. And so you get I told you guys that Christopher is either a dog headed man or a giant. And so it’s like those these stories, they keep repeating themselves. And there’s also the story about the hybrid when them Hercules is going to cross a river with his wife and he can’t cross. And so there’s a centaur who comes and proposes to cross his wife over the river. And and then you see the negative aspect of the crossing over because the centaur tries to to to to take his wife to rape to rape Hercules his wife. And then Hercules has to that’s like shoot an arrow and kill the centaur in order to to stop him. And so you can get the negative aspect of the of the crossing something over in that story. All right. All right. So let’s see another question by Tyson and Jessica. Guy, what are your thoughts on the agency of holy relics and mirror streaming icons? They seem to act in the world on their own accord and with intent. Are they bodyless powers, conduits, nonhuman persons, none of the above? So the way that the way that you you have to see the power of relics or the power of icons, they have to be seen as extensions of the the saint who is an extension of Christ’s kingdom in the world. That’s how you have to see it. You have to see it as like there’s a kingdom of heaven which is manifesting itself and that kingdom is a hierarchy of of persons who are in Christ. And so the saints are in that hierarchy. They they’ve the saints participate in the in the they be they have become one. You could say they rule with Christ. There’s a way to see it. There’s a way to see it. So they become patrons. They become holy patrons of of things in the world. And that also includes you know that’s why they also have a patronage in terms of people. They have patronage in terms of buildings like churches were named after different saints who are who see the saint as their patron. Now none of this removes the kingdom of Christ. That’s really important. And it’s very difficult for people to especially people coming from Protestantism to to understand you know when you receive bread from your parents you are still receiving it from God. It does the fact that you receive the bread from a lower principality doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not also coming from above right. It’s like the the the person who’s giving food out to the homeless in a shelter the food isn’t coming from that person. Yes it’s coming from that person to a certain extent because they’re the ones who with their the love in their heart they’re giving you the food. But the food is coming from from the organization which is which is organizing this event giving food to the to the to the homeless. And so the person giving out the food you can say thank you to that person and you could be grateful for that person because they they are because they are they’re participating in the process to bring you this gift. But it doesn’t it’s not it’s not an obstacle to understanding that the food is coming from higher above. So that’s the same thing with saints with relics all of that. And so you have to see a relic or a miraculous icon as as an extension of of the of the saint. So it’s harder for people to see it in terms of those types of causalities because because of we because we’re materialist. But think about it this way. You read a book by someone and then your life changes because you read that book that you’re healed of some some thing that you had that you were dealing with some some issue some problem like you your life changes because you read a book. And so that book is an extension of the person who wrote it. But it’s also not just an extension of that person. If that book is having an effect on you a positive effect a good effect then it’s also an extension of a print of a principality. If it’s having a negative effect it’s probably an extension of a negative principality of a wild principality or you know some I hate I don’t like using I should sometimes use the word demon but I don’t want to use the word demon because people have weird ideas about people have to have a horror movie ideas about that. And so it’s hard it’s hard to it’s hard to use those words without without people not understanding what you’re talking about. But if let’s say the book is is helping you then that person necessarily has to be a vehicle for patterns that are beneficial to you. The patterns that exist above him that are higher than that person patterns of behavior patterns of being patterns of thought patterns of of how the world lays itself out. And so if it’s helping you then it’s all of that is is together. And so when it when it when it’s related to knowledge and demeaning and to and to psycho psychology for some reason we understand it. But it’s harder for us to understand that someone could encounter let’s say a relic and be healed of something because they come into contact with that relic which is which is an extension of the saint who is. In under the let’s say who’s in the kingdom of heaven in the kingdom of God and is ruling with Christ the world. Hope that makes sense you guys but I think that’s the that’s how you have to see it. You have to see everything is fitting up. You know I don’t know how many times I’ve talked about the hierarchy since since since I’ve been talking to you guys. But that’s the way that that’s the that’s the way to see it. That’s the way to kind of understand it. All right. So I don’t know if any of you guys have some questions in the in the chat. So I was going to finish at 1030 but we do have a few minutes left if you guys if you guys want to. So once again I’m pretty sure that this Q&A I’m not going to put make public pretty sure that I’m not going to do that with this one. Every time it’s like I realize I get the feeling that I’m saying things that people won’t understand because I know I know that you guys that have been following me for a while for a long time. I hope I really hope that I’ve taken you far like I feel like I did start with like baby steps like trying to say OK these words that we use. You know they mean something. They’re not just arbitrary. Let’s understand what they mean. And then I’m bringing you to a point where I can say something talk about elves and and could talk about elves and fairies and and all this stuff. And hopefully you know I’m not freaking any of you out and you understand and you can relate it back to the things that I’ve talked about before. If not go back and listen to my old videos because because you know yeah. All right let’s see we got a question here in the chat. So Norman Grondin asks with Christ I’m saying your name in French I don’t know if you’re French but it seems to me like it would be Grondin. With Christ defined categorization embodying paradox is this an example of Christ as a supreme individual that we should seek to follow this example of not being able to put to be put into categories. OK so OK so there’s a difference. There’s a difference between transcendence or synthesis and confusion. And it’s really important to not mix those two up because there’s literally the opposite. And they’re literally they’re literally one is an inversion of the other and one is like one will lead you into serious problem. And so there’s a there’s a type of there’s a type of not fitting into categories which is a form of hybridity a form of confusion a form of mixture a form of strangeness. All of that is a manner in which we don’t fall into categories. OK now Christ Christ in a certain manner does defy category in the sense that he joins them together. So he joins everything together so he’s he’s he’s the king and he’s the the the you know he’s the stranger the king and he’s the one he’s a criminal who’s crucified outside the city. But because he’s innocent then he also doesn’t compromise the fact that he’s the king so he takes these two extremes and he joins them together into one person you know but. There’s no confusion so the way the way that that the fathers always express it is always unity without confusion. And so Christ is man and God fully completely without confusion. And so it’s not that he doesn’t fit into categories like a monster doesn’t fit into categories. And so that’s really super important because the world is so messed up today that you will see people talk about let’s say. The fact that being a weird androgynous type of person is somehow in the image of Christ in the sense that Christ transcended the the opposites of of gender. And it’s like it’s true that Christ transcended the opposites of gender but he did that by being a man. He did that by also embodying a particular and so his transcendence happens through a particular. And it’s nonetheless a transcendence but it’s not a kind of weird universal because that’s what you know like the the globalist idea is really that it’s like let’s eliminate difference. Let’s eliminate the particular and then we’ll find this transcendent thing. But that’s not how Christianity works. Christianity is through the particular. And so it’s like you are a man a woman you know you’re a Canadian and American. You’re you’re you have this history you have this family you have this culture you have all of that. And so it’s like through that you can reach something which transcends it but not as a kind of strange abstraction you could say of your particular. So I hope that makes sense. All right so Adam asked would you consider doing another video on Gregory of Nice’s life of Moses. I mean maybe I really I made two. There’s two videos. There’s one that’s called there’s one that’s called Finding God in Stories and then the other one is called. What’s it called something about St. Gregory of Nice. I think it’s about St. Gregory of Nice’s life of Moses. And so I don’t know. I feel like I said what I wanted to say. I mean maybe if you guys have some questions about St. Gregory of Nice’s life of Moses we could you can ask them and I’d be happy to answer them. I think that if I sorry I think that if I do make some some videos on other subjects related to the Church Fathers I’m hoping to make something more about maybe about St. Maximus. I’m going oh by the way you guys know I’m I’m doing I’m doing I’m going to be in Seattle in May. You can find that information on my website. I’m participating in a conference with Father Stephen Freeman and one of the subjects is going to be the the anthropology of hesychasm. So I’m going to talk more about orthodox mysticism and its relate and how the structure that the Fathers gave to the human person is adjacent is parallel to the this cosmic structure that I’m always talking to you guys about the garden and the tree and all that and the temple and the church. And so I’m going to show how the the human person is represented in the same manner. Hopefully that’ll be more. Patristic it’s like it’s hard to be too it’s hard to go into things that are too precise directly on the on the YouTube channel just because you know the audience is so wide. What I what I think I’m going to do if I make videos like that it’ll be like if I’m invited by parish to come speak then I’ll I’ll feel totally comfortable talking about specific things very specific and then I’ll put it on the channel but it everybody will see that it’s I’m in a church like I’m talking in a church. And so to me that I try to find a balance between those types of videos and the more general videos so that people don’t get lost in what I’m saying. So yeah so I said a lot of crazy things today but I really I had a lot of fun I really enjoyed it. I’m starting to really enjoy these these Q&A’s and as usual guys I want to thank everybody for your support for being part of this little strange group of people trying to understand the world through this lens. I’m excited about what’s what’s coming next you know I I feel like I’ve been a groove now I feel like I found my team in terms of working with working with people to edit the videos and for the podcast and the website and all of this is kind of set and I have an assistant for the carving. And so I feel like I’m in a pretty good groove so I’m I’m able to make more content and so I’m hoping to keep that up and try to have at least one video a week maybe more. And yeah and I think I might try to do a I might try to do a live stream once I never done it but like a like a public live stream just to see what happens to see how that goes if anybody shows up so I might try that at some point. And and all right guys so I am going to sign off and I will see you all around on on Facebook on YouTube and I’ll see you next month. Bye bye.