Pretty arrogant, like most guys online. His takes on globalism are certainly interesting, his views on women are almost as shallow as those of Vox Day (or the Jim.com guy who got on my nerves a few days ago.) After all, Jay Dyer had Andrew Tate on the show, a clear shyster, most likely controlled opposition.
Given Dyer’s sex obsession, it is no wonder he opposes eugenics, even though it is not unbiblical or unchristian. What is also problematic is that I found a response by a certain Michael Lofton—whom I do not know, a tattooed (!) Catholic, I guess—where Dyer is heard saying “I don’t care about knowing Latin” to someone who asked him if he is able to read it. (Cf. Why Jay Dyer is Wrong About Catholicism, around 19:00.)
This is already rather problematic, Nicolás Gómez Dávila knew:
Christianity, when it abolishes its ancient liturgical languages, degenerates into strange, uncouth sects.
Once contact is broken with Greek and Latin antiquity, once its medieval and patristic inheritance is lost, any simpleton turns into its exegete.The liturgy can definitely only speak in Latin.
Someone who did not learn Latin and Greek goes through life convinced, even though he may deny it, that he is only semi-cultured.
Besides, the one who asked if he knew Latin is called Gideon Lazar, I think. Jay Dyer made fun of him because of his looks: [ifunny.co]. Since in the link above we read that Gideon Lazar is married, it just shows that what I wrote multiple times on here is true: that you can never satisfy these sex-obsessed weirdos. If you are married, they have to stop calling you incel, which is a stupid word anyway. They then move on to attack your or your wife’s looks and so on, because they are simply bullies, nothing more.
Imbeciles.
While I agree with Vox Day, namely that theology is mostly opinion, this, to me, suggests that Dyer does not really care about delving into such matters.
The reason I created this page, however, are claims he makes in two videos. The first one is titled The Problem of Evil??? What IS Evil? Jay Dyer. (A pretty childish title, why use three question marks?)
He says that chapters thirty to thirty-eight of the Book of Job show that Job had no right to complain about his suffering because without God he would not even have a basis for defining good and evil and therefore his state of suffering he disliked.
To which I reply that it is true that God is the law giver and objective standard of morality. However, God lectured Job’s friends as not having spoken truthfully of Him, and, further, it shows that Job was not chided for having complained about his life! Jacques Ellul made this point on page 210-211 of On Being Rich And Poor: because of Job’s patience did he receive mercy and compassion, even though Job was hardly a model of spiritual patience. There is a constant dialogue of Job where he is upholding things he helds as just until God shows him they are not.
Ellul adds that we must evaluate our suffering, beginning with this: that our patience can be of the same kind, that we can uphold before God what we believe to be just, as long as we do so in hope and the complete certainty of the coming of the Lord.
Even if one does not agree with Ellul, we do not read that Job was lectured because he hated his life.
It therefore does not mean we are not allowed to complain about not having eugenics implemented, which would have spared me my life and suffering. After all, the State is a creation by God, and the state ought to make sure that we live according to God’s morality, His laws. This would at least mean enforcing marriage again, disallowing fornication running rampant as it is now, making life unlivable for those who believe that the Bible is true, those who want order and not chaos; this sex obsession is also vulgar, and in bad taste.
Further, I do dislike his laughing, joking, rather infantile self-description as Based Dude, which is another vulgar word I reject.
He laughs about Augustine and Luther, thinks Orthodoxy explains all mysteries of life, when it really doesn’t. To quote Catholic reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila:
Happily, the world cannot be explained.
(What kind of world would it be if it could be explained by man?)When the theologian explains the reason for some act of God, the listener wavers between indignation and laughter.
The theologian corrupts theology by wanting to turn it into a science.
By looking for rules for grace.
He repeats the horrible theology about praising our bodies. Andy Nowicki, a Catholic, called the theology of the body innovations by Pope John Paul II queasy (in Notes Before Death, I believe). This also goes for this Russian Orthodoxy stuff; I do not have to like my body, a gift Dyer even calls it! Nonsense! The Holy Spirit is a gift that we can receive, you cannot receive a body, unlike a gift.
Like Kierkegaard, I hate my body, it is paining me the whole day. I, too, am a hunchback, and mentally ill as well. I was also bullied in school for my looks, which destroyed any confidence I had left. I never worked a single day in my life and hanged myself at age 23, this was more than ten years ago. Far from being gnostic, at the age of sixteen did I already reject my body, when I hardly read any philosophy or thought about such matters.
I wanted it gone, and there are many people who hate their bodies. All because they, like myself, are most likely genetic dung eugenics could have prevented. I was born out of wedlock, which is not pleasing to God anyway. A crime brought me into this world. Just as Kierkegaard thought of his own birth.
Even if you reject Kierkegaard, theology is opinion and there is no definite answer to why some people suffer so much. Andy Nowicki has struggled with this question, too. While reading about the problem of evil did bring me to Christ, I still have to live this broken life that I hate. Should I become rather old, my pain will only increase. Kierkegaard remarked, in his Journal, that after becoming a Christian, one could still have to live thirty or forty years.
(It was Vox Day who often mentioned that the problem of evil is only answered by Christ. At some point, I looked it up, one of the first hits were articles on gotquestions.org, while reading them I had a born-again experience.)
I reject Jay Dyer’s over-the-top rhetoric regarding the body, one is not gnostic for not liking one’s body, or wanting to be freed from it. Some people have horrible lives because of their bodies. After all, if you are physically sick, disabled or mentally ill—or all of it at once—, this can turn into torment. My body certainly is an ugly “torture chamber” I do not have to like.
Another claim Jay Dyer makes, where he even admits some Orthodox go overboard with: that we already experience a kind of Hell or Heaven on earth, depending on how we live, make use our free will and so on. (Even Schopenhauer wrote that Hell can be experienced here on earth already.)
To which I reply that even hieromonks seem rather sober, almost depressed. Think of Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia or Staretz Silouan. Or this monk who lived in the woods of Moldavia: [1], [2] and [3].
Kierkegaard, Pascal, Reinhold Schneider, even Romano Guardini, a Catholic priest, suffered from a melancholy disposition.
He apparently has only looked into Islam now, because people told him that this will actually be the future of the West, especially Europe given current immigration trends.
This is ludcrious, you could have known for years that we have issues with immigration and Islam in the West. I did not get what the point of debating Protestants and Catholics was at all, especially since they are at least believing Christians. – If we ignore real sects like Mormons or Jehova’s Witnesses, which, interestingly enough, are American sects. They did not ferment in Europe.
My reason for writing this is simple, though: you don’t debate muslims, you throw most of them out. They have to go back, and here, Vox Day is a lot closer to the truth. Cf. his Cuckservative he wrote with John Red Eagle.
Given how stubborn man is, it is not only a waste of time to debate with people who already have a kind of belief in a single god: Catholics knew how it is hardest to change the minds of such people, it is easier with those who are belivers in, for example, animism.
It is nothing but lunacy to think that muslims could be tolerated who have a license to kill “unbelievers”, not to think of the damage being done to the West while “debateing” them. Two women are gangraped in Germany per day; one gets killed every other week or so. No one has to tolerate this.
Most of them are illegal aliens, a detriment to society, with high crime rates. Their entry was a crime already: what kind of basis is this for becoming a citizen anyway? In Germany again, around .33 per-cent are from Afghanistan, yet they already comprise around 20 per-cent of those responsible for sexual offences! What is there to debate? Just throw them out.
As always, I side with Nicolás Gómez Dávila:
Believe in God, trust in Christ, look with suspicion.
Scholasticism sinned by seeking to turn the Christian into a know-it-all.
The Christian is a skeptic who trusts in Christ.The heart does not rebel against the will of God, but against the “reasons” they dare attribute to it.
Knowing solves only subordinate problems, but learning protects against tedium.
Religion is the only serious thing, but one need not take seriously every declaration of homo religiosus.
We are saved from daily tedium only by the impalpable, the invisible, the ineffable.
The religious problem grows worse each day because the faithful are not theologians and the theologians are not faithful.
The Christian faith in the last centuries has lacked intelligence, and Christian intelligence has lacked faith.
Either it has not known how to be bold, or it has feared to be so.
![[1]](../img/monk_humility_humility_and_again_humility.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](../img/monk_never_enjoyed_living_in_the_world.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](../img/monk_we_should_leave_the_world_behind.jpg){kind=link}