Sharp cultural analysis with a fun comedic bite - going deep into the reality behind social engineering, pop culture, technocracy, geopolitics, history and more.
Superchats via streamlabs: streamlabs.com/primaledgehealth
choq.com || USE CODE:
- BIG53Life for 53% off ALL subscriptions for life!
---
CONNECT
Rokfin: rokfin.com/tristanhaggard
Telegram: t.me/tristanhaggard
Instagram: instagram.com/primaledgehealth
Twitter: twitter.com/Trxstxn4
Пікірлер
Tristana should do audiobook recordings. He's quite calming to listen to.
It's almost creepy how good his Elmo impression is.
Thanks for the video. Have you used the L-Reuteri strain? According to the directions you have to use pasteurized milk, which I'd rather not. Although I hear that that strain is amazing! And how would it be to use raw sheep's milk as that's what I have access to.
Leave the mic behind. 😂
Paul isnt the Antichrist, he is 20% Jesus, 30% Buddha, 50% Muhammad vs. the CIA/Atlanticists-p3dos, and psychic girl bosses.
I came back for the booger whistles!
Big difference between biden now and back then.
What a dumbass
I think your mentally ill !
Bro this comment section is insane. Two dudes absolutely losing their minds writing thousands of words of complete nonsense.
@@GeeeEmmm 🤣
And the feeling that they need to brag about their rooms with all the plastic trash inside. I've never seen someone who has a library with tons of books, try and brag and show it off. It's bonkers honestly, it's some sort of validation seeking where they just validate one another inside an echo chamber "MMMM YES CAPTAIN MICKEY MOUSE FUNKO POP MMM THAT'S RARE YOU GO BROTHER WE ARE WITH YOU".
Instead of listening to to this dumb shit I could’ve been fucking the roundest ass 23 year old boy on a beach in Goa, who also had the unlimited American Airlines global pass as an international flight Attendent.
*Bro's matrix is that his Church is outside of it* TAG utterly refuted: Hoppe here, us Western peak intellectuals have gathered to have a word with this new Eastern, so called, intellectualism. So, here’s a flavour of REAL presuppositonalism, consider this a nuke (it’s all love). Hello chaps. Our (Hume & Kant) understanding is that you fine sirs ground your epistemology within the orthodox church and their bible, thus think their teachings ultimately ground the claims within your worldview. Step 1) the flank: a refutation from the esteemed Father Deacon Dr. Hume first. If I were to ask you is homosexuality is unbecoming of the gentleman, and you retorted yes, and I asked you to justify that it is the case, how would thou justifieth? You'd go to the written word within the bible et al , or listen to what a church member whom your worldview ad hocly has thrusted authority to, and if they say homosexuality is wrong you'd say this justifies it essentially. Say, how is that not deriving and ought from an is? I ask, have you read my work? Hume speaking. You are claiming you possess such knowledge, because your fickle sense data allows you to see a book makes a given claim or a person says it is so. Unless you use reason alone (sola reason) such as in natural theology, aren't you necessarily going to be making the error of assuming and IS can give you an Ought? One duly cornered & desperation ensues against Hume: you’re next move must be to appeal to the fact it's a meta-level question and it's the entire Orthodox worldview that is the justification not the evidence of a church member or the bible claiming something. Step 2) The Skirmish: my next question would be ""But are you not then being completely ad hoc and saying it's always wrong to get try and get an OUGHT from a IS, unless it's Orthodox Christianity and suddenly it's magically (whilst such miracles do not exist, chaps) okay to and dare I say it - even necessary? You claim this isn't an ad hoc distinction by essentially a weird form of pragmatism where you've actually given up on true justification. You argue that any ad hoc claims and ad hoc appeals to authority are suddenly justified when it's supporting an orthodox Christian paradigm simply because these ad hoc claims have been paired up with sound epistemology and metaphysics ect (though not really given this argument is literally proving the Christian worldview doesn't actually have sound epistemology in itself). A. Why can't I accept the properly justified claims in isolation of the wider packaged ad hoc claims within the worldview. And B. Isn't this still getting an ought from an Is ultimately in a meta-way because rather than dreaming up potential worldviews, you have relied on your sense data to find out what claims are out there in the world / culture and latched onto the one out of those limited options which you think is most sound, when in reality you could sit there and use reason alone to think of countless worldviews, each with identical sound epistemology and metaphysics. And C, Pragmatism is admitted within your own paradigm to be invalid for justification and it essentially can only be used as our best guess where uncertainty is inherent, so it's only useful for like dealing with higher material evidences, so clearly material or historical claims inherently cannot provide justification for a worldview. If you can be ad hoc, or appeal to pragmatism (ie. my worldview is true enough even if I can't justify it properly), then so can all the pragmatic empiricists (myself you’re empiricist grandaddy Hume), materialists, and anyone else who relies upon classical foundationalism because they no longer have to justify their self-evident claims as long as they pragmatically lead to a true-enough worldview. Ergo, relying on a material source or set of sources as certainly true just because they get some parts of their philosophy true, is completely self-refuting and makes epistemology and therefore knowledge / judgement past ad hocness literally impossible. This is an embarrassment to my enterprise. (Kant enters) - Hallo Hume, I see you have something of the sorts of the Prussian fire rumbling in your belly, you successfully tapped the OP, however, you didn’t go quite far enough. I prefer the double-tap variety, in fact this is my basal axiom that one ought to always double tap. Although, correction dear Hume, miracles do exist as our opponent manages to only debate the lowest stock. So, I do agree with presuppositionalism up to the point that it properly justifies logos / logic, and transcendental categories as a whole through the impossibility of the contrary. And I do agree that these categories are interlocking, and elements of reality all correspond with each other and work together perfectly, so you could infer the existence of a God from that as a kind of meta-logical fine-tuning argument. But I don't agree that God's existence necessarily follows from presuppositional argumentation or especially that specifically a given idea of God such as the Orthodox Christian God must exist for logic to be objectively true and for knowledge to be possible. I watched the Jay vs Matt Dillamonkey debate & I must say I was left unsatisfied and perturbed. My understanding is you argue presup can give you God because if you only use presup to justify logic, then the impossibility of the contrary justification we're using may just reflect the limitations of my own mind as oppossed to the limits of actual objective reality as a whole. Whereas if you believe in God, it provides a "reason' why our minds would be tailored to really be able to see objective truth. My question is this, you are deploying an epistemological nihilism argument against presup in isolation to God. But isn't presup and the necessary fact of human knowledge to be possible within each and every claim we make a refutation of EN? Because if not, and EN is a defeater for presuppositionalism, then I fail to see how EN wouldn't be a defeater for your worldview and TAG as well, and literally every possible worldview one can conjure up. The entire point of presup is that it's meant to be the justification, so if it only justifies knowledge if you then must believe in an additional claim (God exists) which is itself dependent upon the objectivity of logic to be knowable, then clearly presuppositionalism doesn't actually justify logic then so if you claim "oh yes presuppositionalism can work despite not justifying logic, we just need to accept my ad hoc claim based on the very now unjustified thing (reasoning), that could just be the limitations of my mind, to think of a way within my mind to prove that my mind isn't limited. Clearly the only actual meta-logical or justificatory element of TAG is specifically in the impossibility of the contrary, the idea of God IS logically contingent and not meta-logical by virtue of the fact it's a claim judged by logic which doesn't directly unavoidably impact logic, so TAG is basically a fallacy. I'll grant that maybe presuppositionalism proves logic, and then given that it's perhaps most reasonable to assume God exists or even that the Orthodox Christian God exists after that out of all the relevant alternatives, but I do not grant that God is a self-justifying claim unless you want to claim "God" is just a synonymous term with "logos / logic". Hume responds: don’t even get me started on my cause and effect critique. Has anyone ever read me? Funnily enough I used to be Orthodox, but with some free afternoons and basic philosophy I left that quagmire. I advise you kindly, warmly, earnestly, do not make thy nest there. In conclusion gentlemen, I think we can all agree that one is more likely to prove that a tornado has the attribute of “being correct”, than they are to surmount any of the problems we’ve imparted onto thee with this sophist-symphony. (Both speaking in unison): We have come to a gentlemen’s agreement, and how dare you use us as a crutch for promoting transcendental arguments, when our arguments transcend your own heads. Hans Hermann Hoppe: Oh dear Orthobro, I know the hold these comfy States (which we know are unacceptable always) have on one who should be a free-thinking sovereign individual. Now I may be an Ancap, but even I in my humble state can dispel such fantasies. To which I hope this letter finds you well. P. S. I’ve never interacted with relativists who claim to believe in objectivity before, any questions about your epistemological nihilism (E. schizophrenia argument) and why it’s wrong, Hoppe’s got you covered. P. P. S. Any moderator posts going for Libertarian debates, I’ll be totally fair!
@@Hume__Kant_TAG_Team_Orthobros noones gonna read all that schizobabble, dude. You ok?
So this is the cretin behind Rick and Morty ? Damn, I hope he's experiencing "nothingness" as an afterlife.
His astrological chart also reveals a lot. He has Jupiter conjunct Mars. Mars the planet of aggresion and masculinity. That gives him this exaggerated masculinity. Then there is his sun and moon in the fire sign of Sagitarius. So Sagitarius is larger than life and can really have a God complex. Can be very preachy and dogmatic and rigid too and ofcourse notoriously unfaithful. Because Sagitarius is all about adventure and expanding horizons. So then lasly his Venus is in the intense and difficult and controlling and jealous sign of Scorpio. His Venus is very close to the potentially abusive planet of Pluto. Then his Mercury is in Scorpio too. If you have a low vibraional Scorpio things get messy. Drake is one. P Diddy is one too.
My videos have no sound
Just been going to an Eastern Orthodox Church since Dec 10 2023. Appreciate you talking about Orthodoxy also. I’m really loving the Spiritual journey..👍🏽❤️🩹
You can't even make this $hit up. They are evil.
You are an intelligent man.
Oh wow this was eye opening! Thank you!
Ur face lmao
Wonder how Peterson feels knowing that Taint "showed" his daughter some castle towers
Everybody at my church has atleast a chicken or 2 for eggs
I will NEVER go back to that bullshit demonic vegan diet again, EVER! It ruined my blood sugar. Now, I am prediabetic.
I am SO glad that qI got out of that demonic anti-human, antichrist vegan diet. A vegan diet is a depopulation diet.
Veganism sucks!
When a celebrity and their main heir dies it should always be considered where the money goes, then.
P Funk was influenced by The Process Church which was splintered from Scientology.
Tristan, hi friend, there is a doctor, that promotes, a diet high in carbohydrates, he has a book called "The Starch Solution" and many people (without any scientific evidence) who read that book swear that they are getting in shape and real healthy by eating a diet high in potatoes, bread and rice. I think that people do not rely on scientific evidence but on personal emotions to follow any given ideology or philosophy of eating. Thanks
The centralization goes deeper into the consciousness, it is the belief in cerebral mind of the self that is causing human's suffering due to widespread societal narcissistic abuse, every human has this operating system loaded into their consciousness to corrupt it limit it to a fear level, enforced largely thru any form of credit for compliance including what kruse promotes bi t (qu)oin i dont want to set of bots or anything. I like jack but he is hurting people by only looking at the biology, he still uses wireless tech which is forming the grid for control of biology and consciousness thru frequency modulation.... etc.
Great stream 🎉
Then i know u wont be needeing my services noted. handelers work under free will actually they got free will if they get insulted they got free will to end that relatioship.
This is hilarious
I usually dont watch the debates bc most of the content is over my head but this is hilarious ive never heard jay and tristan swear like that lol
It’s hilarious how Tate is such a martial artist king yet he never wanted to go into the ufc which was getting huge at the time of his kick-boxer career
You guys should have a weekly show. I laugh so hard whenever i catch you two together.
Just watched part 2 and this review/analysis afterwards. Dope movie, dope analysis. Makes me think about armored core 6 (from software game)and the coral. A lot of stuff take inspiration from dune.
Mormons also have a history of having children with multiple wives and they are still considered conservative so that in itself is not a prob as long as he is a good provider and present in all the children's lives, not absent like his Father was. I'm not advocating that, and it's prob not ideal, but there are a lot worse situations that children are in today that you could be exposing.
😂😆
❤
Great conversation 👌 I wonder if she is still Vegan
This was the biggest ask yourself L EVER 🤣🤣
❤❤❤
Good stuff Tristan
I miss these old videos good stuff Tristan
Deep and wholesome movie: upside Its not amazing but its an ok movie
Thank you for sharing this, Tristan. You've shown important pieces of the puzzle 🙏 Could you recommend some documentaries related to this subject? I have a channel in odysee where I'm sharing many of these puzzle pieces (big pharma, gender ideology, climate change, etc. I would like to make a good playlist related to eugenics/malthusianism.
Lenin refused to read it ? LMAO what a looser
Raw milk ? No heating ?