or lane and not talk about those things. Although I do talk about what does that have to do with

whether or not you should talk about or not. So, I mean, are you just a subservient person at all

times, Trent, when even the, you just obey your critics? So, so when a critic tells you to stay

in your own lane, you stop talking about, how about this, I'm your critic, Trent. I'm going to tell

you as a masculine man to stop talking about this nonsense

that you don't know about. So will you now stay in your own lane?

Some of those things. And I think Christians should engage Manosphere content. But I'm not going to

do formal debates or discussions on fringe topics, silly things, or prudential judgments we can

reasonably disagree about. Yeah, but what you think are French topics are actually now the biggest news story in the world,

like Epstein and the connections to John Paul II.

And you're obviously coping, covering up for that, and acting like it's a fringe topic,

including the subject that I've asked you for years to publicly debate,

the geopolitical

entanglements of the Vatican. Now, when I first presented that to Trent, his response was,

I don't even know what that means. What would it even mean to debate the geopolitics of the Vatican?

So I said, here, I'll put it in a more precise formulation for you. What's a better explanation

for the actions of the papacy in the last

century? The promise of Peter that it has indefectibility and infallibility, or geopolitical

entanglements and power elites turning the theology to their own desires. What's a better explanation for that

20th century papal zeitgeist? Now, if my position is correct, and if I made that case convincingly,

that would mean that Jesus, again, is not promising a special Petrine carism to protect it and guide it as it's become an organized

crime syndicate, as has become a tool of globalization UNESCO-type values, which Pope Francis

...