In this lecture series he assumes some background familiarity with the assorted hells and talks primarily about what has gone into the decisions they've made about whether and when and how to try to intervene in which of them. They've had to try to answer both empirical and normative questions, and they've had to move forward with a lot of remaining uncertainty.
The first lecture is just an overview of the questions they've faced and where they've looked for answers. To what extent is it right to prioritize protecting what they have? To what extent does delaying matter, when they have eternity? What can they expect if they limit themselves to accepting immigrants and protecting their own society? What can they do without antagonizing anyone? What are the risks if they antagonize one or more hells? Are demons morally relevant? How many people are suffering right now? Can they more effectively intervene on Earth to help more people make it to a more comfortable afterlife? At what point can they countenance another society's problems and ally with them, or is that even the best framing for that question?
They've been working on all these questions for a while and the current policy is conservative about antagonizing anywhere that doesn't already hate them and mostly focused on diplomacy and facilitating immigration. They're looking at military options; not all of the details of that are public, but what is public is that nothing along those lines is in the works right now.
His notes are minimal; he doesn't need them and he doesn't want to stick to an outline he might think better of later. He's spent two thousand years picking up jargon and he uses almost none of it without an explanation. He speaks like someone very used to making his voice carry exactly the right amount, and like someone who is very good at making what he's saying sound important.