Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe through substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star And
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the
Peking Yona show. Joel webbins with me. How are you doing, Joel,
I'm doing well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me petee.
Speaker 1: Well at the same like deja vu. But tell everybody
a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, yeah, yeah. So my name is Joel Webbin.
I am happily married and coming up on ten years
this July. We have six children, one in glory. Miscarriage
was our very first and then after that, by God's grace,
we've had five healthy kids, only one boy, four girls
that I adore. One boy, a lot of pressure on
him keep the family name alive. And we live in
Central Texas. We're about forty five minutes an hour north
of Boston, close enough to have some economic opportunity, far
enough away to have the police hopefully not defunded. Williamson County, Georgetown,
Texas fairly moderates slightly, you know, maybe leaning conservative, and
so we're happy in content with the you know, the
local politics. It's better than most places in the country.
I pastor a local church there, Covenant Bible Church. People
can check it out Covenant Bible dot org. Church was
not available with the domain name, so Covenant Bible dot org.
If you're in Central Texas. We'd love to have you
I join us on the Lord's Day. I am a
Protestant that gets harder to say every single day. I
feel just a little gayer every time I have to
tell people I'm a Protestant that said, I am not fluctuating,
I'm not having second thoughts in terms of my theological convictions.
So I am a Protestant for better or worse, and
believe the theological tenets just as much as I ever did.
When I say it gets harder to say each day,
I'm more so referencing the fact that just so many
other Protestants are effeminate and limp wristed and weak. And
even if they're maybe not you know, libs, they are libs.
But even if they weren't, hypothetically libs when it comes
to their cultural and political and theological positions, I'm still
just in terms of the order of service. When you
think of uh, their liturgy like so for us is, yes,
we're Protestant, but we're liturgical. We have a prayer of
a cent and we have you know, we say the
Apostles Creed every single week, you know, in a confession,
the Turgic Confession of Sin, and assurance of pardon. And
there's moments where you stand and moments where you sit.
So it's funny, you know, because I have Catholics who
will come and visit the church and who are friendly
and encouraging. Like man, we you know, we felt at home.
It wasn't you know, the laser light show and the
smoke machines and Pastor Susan you know, getting up and
preaching a sermon and her boss babe pants suit. So anyways,
that's that last thing. I'm also have started a online
kind of ministry outside of the local church that I pastor.
That's called Right Response Ministries. And uh and we you know,
we live stream and do cultural and political analysis. But
but as we do it unapologetically and boldly as Christians,
and so people probably have seen me online, whether it's
on X or YouTube. So you can go to YouTube,
look up Right Response Ministries and subscribe and check it
out on YouTube, or you can follow us on X.
The handle is at right Response in Ministry would not
fit at Right Response in and follow us on X.
All of our videos are on both YouTube and X
so you can watch stuff and then you also get
my spicy little tweets from you know, three am when
I say something that's hopefully good and sometimes stupid. So
that's it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like that area. I have friends in Round Rock.
I was in Cedar Park recently. Oh it's a really
it's a really good part of I like that part
of the country. I always feel, yeah, I always feel
like when I go to Texas that I'm in another country.
Like there's I mean, you still have the lib tardiness
and you know, but it does feel like you're in
another country, even when you're in areas that are you
know that you wish we're a little more quote unquote
right wing right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, yeah, it feels it feels like America. The
worst part about Texas well, one O our governor. I mean,
obviously he's he's you know, better than a ton of governors,
but he's you know, he just refuses Pete to to
really stand up as as a leader. You know, it's
like he's.
Speaker 1: All you went for. He went for the easy joke.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, I know that's not his fault
that he physically can't stand up, but morally he could
and a lot of times, honestly, like the best of
Greg Abbott, is just him whenever he you know, follows
suit with someone like Ron de Santis, but he rarely leads.
But but he is of course better than you know,
many other liberal governors. So that that's that's not great,
but it's also not terrible. But then the worst things
we're just we're a border state, you know, so there's
a ton of immigration. There's a lot of you know,
we have a lot of Hispanics that have been here
for three, four or five generations, and that's different. I've
got a lot of Hispanics in my church who are
assaulted the earth, precious brothers and sisters and cries who
have fully assimilated and have been assimilated for generations. Some
of them, on principle won't even teach their kids Spanish,
which is I'm not even saying I support that.
Speaker 1: I think that was my that was my dad, that
was my dad. That's why I can't.
Speaker 2: But we're American, you know, And so anyway, so that group,
which is a large group in Texas, is not what
I'm talking about. They're great, but as you know, there's
a ton of other people who showed up fifteen minutes
ago in border states like Texas and that's a problem.
Speaker 1: Well, let me let me ask you this. You already
mentioned liberals, So I mean, I guess this is a
debate among some. Do you think that the founding of
this country was distinctly liberal, classical liberal, or if you
don't think the founding was, do you think that the
pathway was paved so that it would go in that direction? Yes,
the latter.
Speaker 2: So I think that we were a distinctly Christian country,
and especially because because America doesn't just start in seventeen
seventy six. So I'm you know, I'm old school. I'm
going to look back and look at you know, the
sixteen hundreds, you know, in early seventeen hundreds, and think
of the thirteen colonies. Every single one of them had
a state church. They were all Protestant except for one,
I think it was Rhode Island. It was Catholic, distinctly Christian.
The founders they were all Christian. Yeah, you've got a
few DEAs, you know, You've got Thomas Jefferson, but for
the most part, you know from George Washington, who, by
today's standards, in all the best ways, not the worst ways,
would be evangelical. In my assessment, you've got you know
John Adams, You've got Andrew Jackson, you know all these
different guys. So I think it was Christian. But I
do think this is what's so important for people to understand,
especially Christians. We God is immutable, right, unchanging. Behold, I
am the Lord that changes, not so that you, the
sons of Jacob, will not be consumed the same yesterday,
today and forever. So because truth, God's truth ascendant, transcendent,
Truth is immutable, because God himself is immutable, there are
timeless principles, and then corresponding by way of consequence off
of what is timelessly true, there are things that are
timelessly false. So there are timeless enemies of the Church
and enemies of God and enemies of the truth. But
there are also, and this is what I wish people
could get, there are also timely enemies. And it's so
important for us to realize that nobody is ever doing anything,
whether you're starting a country or writing the declaration of
independence or whatever it is, nobody ever does anything in
the vacuum. We're all we're all working out of God's providence,
time and place. So when you look at the founders,
you know it's when you look at the Founders, you
have to think, who's the Leviathan of their day? What
is it that they're that they're fighting against. What is
it that they were fleeing from. You know, even before
the Founders getting back, like I said, thirteen colonies, and
you know, some of the Puritans and the Pilgrims and
the Covenanters and their enemy of their day, you know,
they're looking at Rome, right, They're they're looking at that
Bishop of Rome who exalted himself above God. And obviously
there's a debate to be had, but I think even
you know, my Catholic friends would say, yeah, not not
the best moment of the Catholic Church, and yeah there
were problems here. And then even you know Protestant like
Anglican you know in England, still overstepping his bounds and
making pastors read from the sports almanac, you know, here's
the score from the latest you know sports ball game,
you know, on the Lord's Day in their church service,
just to take them off, just knowing that it would
upset So for them, there's timeless enemies, yes, because there's
timeless truth, but there's also timely battles, timely fights. Right
the sons of visit card. They knew the times and
what Israel ought to do. So when I at the
founding of America, they're dealing with religious tyranny and so
so then what what are they baking in? Right? So
were they liberals? I don't think so. But what they
were baking in in terms of provisions and the founding
documents and the way that they were setting up the
country is they were looking to hedge their bets against
the predominant enemy of their day, which was not liberalism.
That wasn't the Leviathan of their day. The Leviathan was
religious totalitarianism, and so they're trying to protect against that.
None of them were thinking, you know what, we're going
to put this into the Constitution, the first Amendment, because
we dream of a day when a bunch of people
who worship sand demons would start their own colonies epic
City in the state of Texas. That's not what they
were thinking. That they couldn't even conceive of the problems
that we're dealing with now. They were dealing with their
tinly enemies. And I think that part of what it's true,
if we actually want to be true, people are well,
we need to go back to seventeen seventy six. We
need to go back and be true to the founders.
You want to be true to the founders. I think
part of being true to the Founders is being flexible,
knowing the times, exercising discernment, and being able to pivot
and say. What the Founders were doing is they were saying,
this is the most pressing threat of our moment, and
we're going to fight against it. You want to be
true to the Founders, then do that same thing in
your day and be able to say, Okay, yeah, the
Roman Catholic Church, despite my theological disagreements, that is not
the reigning le Vithan of the day. The pope is
not the biggest problem in the world, in the country
that I live in today. I really think, like John
Calvin and Martin Luther, if they were to resurrect and
materialize in my living room, you know, and God brought
them back from the dead to help us, you know,
fight off the hoards of hell, and it's my job
to debrief them and catch them up. For the last
five years, what's going on? And I'm sitting there, I'm like,
this is the Reformation continues Simper Refermanda, you know, and
that Bishop of Rome's and he's still you know, he's
still a problem. Blah blah blah. And also this is
happening in the culture and politics. I think they would
literally listen to all my Reformation, you know, soapbox speech,
and then they would look at me and they say, okay, yeah,
but tell me more about these fags, you know, like
like they would they would be like, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
we we fought for the Reformation, and yes that you
know we we were no friends of the pope. But
it sounds like what's going on in your day, that's
not the biggest problem. So all that to answer your question, No,
I don't think they were liberals. I do think that
they systematically carved out what eventually became the seed bed,
opened the door, cracked the door for liberalism that seems undeniable.
I love the Founders, you know, it's one of the
rare founder l's, but I have to acknowledge it. I
think it was an L. But I'm sympathetic because I
see what they would do. I think it's our fault
for enshrining everything that the Founders did, as though this
is for all times in all places, right, that this
is a universal that it's timeless. No, they were doing
something that was they wanted to have longevity, yes, but
they also they were doing something that was time ly,
not timeless, but time lee. They were assessing the threats
of their day, the enemies of their day, and hedging
against them. Those are not the biggest threats and enemies
of our day. And if you want to be true
to the Founders, then I think you need to embrace
not the letter of the law at the expense of
the spirit of the law, but embrace the actual spirit
of the law itself. And you see this even with
George Washington, you know that seized private property and pointed
canon you know, at this home and say you're getting
the way and I'm sorry. Like he was, he was
going to take do whatever it took to win, whatever
it took to win. He was not going to allow
scrupulous hall monitor letter of the law keeping stop him
from spear of a law keeping to actually beat back
the hordes of hell in his day. That to me
is quintessential America. That's what it is to keep in
step with the Founders. That's what we got to do today.
And that doesn't mean taking it all and throwing it away.
I still love the Constitution. Some of the latter amendments
maybe not a good idea, but I still love the Constitution.
I love our founding. I love George Washington. I just
want to have the freedom, and I don't want limitless freedom,
but the reasonable freedom with some safeguards to actually be
like George Washington and make the decisions for our country
that he made in his time. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: It makes sense. Let me ask you this. So when
a country like this country got off got off the ground,
was prosperous right away. It's kind of hard not to
be prosperous with the resources we had here, not only
not only natural but human.
Speaker 2: Yep, yep.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there comes a time when you
become successful and you forget that spiritual warfare is a thing?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? Yeah. I mean I think it was Cotton Mather
or Increase Mather, his father, both brutal Americans, great American
but who said that that it was a faithfulness gave
birth to prosperity, blessing the daughter of the mother. Faithfulness
was blessing prosperity. And then and then the daughter devoured
the mother, and so yeah, absolutely, you know, or you
could say it the other way. You know, the old adage.
You know, hard times, you know make good men, good men,
make good times. Good times make soft men, or you know,
bad men and bad men, you know, create bad times.
So absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 1: When you when when you history, you come to a point,
especially if you study the last five hundred years, where
you see that Christians abandoned, abandon their values, especially when
it comes when it came to finance and economics. They
were against they were against usury, and as sinful men
will do, they say, well, we may not be able
to practice usury, but there are these there's this group
of here that we can import. And yeah, I mean
it just seems to me that what we haven't If
you call yourself a Christian and you still want to say, well,
this is a Christian country, importing having populations of people
here who are literally anti christ, right, it's probably not
the best idea.
Speaker 2: No, So that's something I've thought a lot about, And
so I'll start with this disclaimer because I think it's
fair and true in some sense, in a measured sense,
but in some sense I am sympathetic to that particular
group of people, the tiny hat people, because they you know,
it's like a lot of nations, including America, did not
want them, you know, working on the farm or you know,
setting up a blacksmith you know shop or something like
that and being you know, integrated fully into their society.
They were ostracized and kind of held at arm's length,
and so they got into certain things that our own
people wouldn't do, like exacting usury and those and so,
but they were allowed to do it themselves. And so
they kind of stood on the fringes on the outside
looking in and set up banks, you know, and and
doing things that we wouldn't allow our own people to do,
you know, handing out loans with this much interest. And
so we in some ways like we bear some responsibility
for carving out the provision that kind of they kind
of created that problem. On the other hand, it is
a problem. It's a big problem. And if it was
a problem in their day, it's exponentially problematic in our day.
And yeah, so I like, for me, I'm a Christian nationalist.
I know some people don't like the label, and that's
totally fine. You don't have to adopt the label. I
understand that there are certain problems with it. But I
am a nationalist and I am a Christian. What kind
of nationalism do you want. I don't want Islamic nationalism.
I don't want Jewish nationalism. I don't want atheistic secular nationalism.
I want Christian nationalism. And so, as a Christian and
holding to you know, Christian values, I don't want to
mistreat any group of people. I don't want to be
in jos, I don't want to be inhumane any of that.
But I do want to deal with what I believe,
according to the Scripture is sin and also crime. Right,
So two separate categories vin diagram. There is overlap, but
not complete overlap. Not all sins or crimes, and not
all crimes our sins. So like coveting, right, that's the
tenth Commandment. It's a sin, right, thou shalt not covet.
But I don't want the coveting police. I don't want
to treat coveting as a crime. So it's like, well,
then when does the state punish coveting? Well, that's easy.
The state actually punishing punishes coveting as a crime. When
coveting is unchecked in the realm of the heart, to
the point that it flows over into theft. Thou shalt
not steal or murder, Thou shalt not kill, right, And
that's that's when coveting is no longer merely a sin
internally before God, but becomes a crime against society and
merits a civil punishment. And so that said, yeah, I
want to ban usury. And I understand that you do
some of these things overnight and the economy tanks and
spirals into a bolivion. But when I say usury, I
would not day one say nobody can charge any interest.
That's that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying
is I would start right, you start at the at
the end, not in the middle. And so what I
would start with is loan sharks and and you know,
establishments that you know where you can get your paycheck
two weeks early, within advance, you know, on twenty five
percent interest that exploits and completely decimates the poorest of
the poor. Or credit card interests you know, that's that's
again sixteen percent, twenty percent, thirty percent interest rates, or
universities you know that are charging you know, thirty five
forty fifty thousand dollars an annual tuition and and say
and using as their justification that will the government will
give you this much loans and so we're going to
charge this price, and but then offering degrees that are
worthless and people can never pay it back. It's so
I'm not you know, I would not a day one
say you know what, no, no loans for houses, and no,
that's insane. I think the interest rates are high, but
if if somebody, you know, if we can get back
lower and I don't know if we can, but if
we can get back lower, and you got a three
four percent interest rate on a home that's reasonably reasonably priced,
so that you can have a mortgage and own a
home today without having you know, four hundred thousand dollars
saved up in cash. I don't think that that's our
biggest problem, but I do think that there are many
other When you are financing a burrito, which you can
do now, that's a problem. So so anyway, so not
going after a particular people, but going after the sins.
So ban pornography, ban, abortion, ban usury, no dual citizenship
for anyone holding public office, ideally even for citizens, but
especially for our civil officers. So if you got if
you just did those things, no dual citizenship for any
public office, no pornography, no exorbitant forms of usury, especially
the target and exploit the poor, then guess what, You're
going to have Some Jews in America that are great
Steven Miller will still be here, God bless them, and
you're gonna have a bunch of juice disproportionately disproportionately. That's true.
You can't deny it. I'm I'm an expert noticer as
many others are. But they're gonna self humanly self deport
And it wouldn't have been because we targeted them as
a people, but we targeted sins that should be also
labeled as crimes. It's completely fair, it's completely just. It
honors God, and if one particular group is disproportionately affected
and chooses to humanly deport themselves, praise God, no harm,
no foul. That's just let's do it.
Speaker 1: I think the biggest problem with that is it all
sounds logical when you have a historical context, when you
when you haven't been brainwashed by the last eighty years,
you know what's commonly called the post or consensus, and
you had Shelley v. Kramer. You have Brown versus Board
of Education, and then you finished off with the Civil
Rights Act, and freedom of association just doesn't exist anymore.
And people practice freedom of association in their personal lives
all the time. Even the worst libtard, you know, progressive scumbag,
they practice. They want to practice it with us, They
don't want to be anywhere near us.
Speaker 2: They practice it. Yeah. The thing they decry and demonize
they practice with their own children. You look at all
these libs, they lived in gated communities is white as
the driven snow, and their kids go to little cluster
pod you know, schools with private you know, only eight
in a group with private tutors that they paid two
hundred thousand dollars to and all that the eight students
are white and mean while they're yelling races. They do it.
You're right, You're right, I agree, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they live. You know, I think it was I
think as Zman says that they liberals live like they
accuse white supremacists of living in the most lily white communities,
working in industries that are predominantly white. And yeah, yeah,
but how do we We can't do this, We can't have.
You can't have a country, you can't have a polity
unless you can exclude certain people from it. And I mean,
just how do we get past that now? It just
it seems that it's an impossibility. I mean, you have
people who are out there to crying DEI things like that.
Who once you mentioned well, I mean, the Civil Rights
Act is the last boss of this whole thing. I
mean that has to be getting rid of. And then
they immediately brink back like the they shrink back, like
the Civil Rights Act actually did did something other than
create like the Community Relations Service, which whenever whenever violent
blacks murder whites, they go in there and shut them
up and make them say certain things in front of
the press. They threaten them. Or if a white you know,
if well George Zimmerman, if we want to call him white,
he's non black. Let's put it that way, when he
murders a black kid, they go up there and they
turn the flame up and they inflame everything. And that's
part of the Civil Rights Act. And it's like, oh, well,
we just need to defund that. Well, yeah, the next
time a libtar you know, shit, Libya's in there, they're
gonna they're just gonna refund it. So we're we're basically
at the point now that unless you literally start destroying things,
the next time they get in power, they're just going
to be seeking to literally destroy us.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, it's a daunting task. It's it's hard. Praise
God for saving me and giving me faith in Jesus.
Otherwise I would just be oding on black pills every
day twenty four hours. It's hard, it's hard not to despair.
And you're right, it's because it's way easier to say
no upfront than to say yes and then take something
away later on. But freedom of association, you're absolutely right
that that's a big deal that should have never been
treated as legislation and law and as a crime. Right now,
just to put in perspective for the listener, because some,
you know, some would be like what you know, like
that's that's crazy, that's racist. You look, you can't even
have an all male gym. We need all male spaces,
and we need you know, conservative you know, allegedly I'm
doing quotation marks, you know, allegedly conservative women to stop
destroying male spaces. I mean, it's such a hypocrisy and
irony to say I want to protect the women's bathroom.
But I destroyed this male space and bragging about it,
you know, and because I shattered you know, the glass ceiling,
you know, for women, that's that's such such an irony.
And so yeah, we should be able to I should
be able to go and work out without having to have,
you know, a thousand dollars to purchase a home gym,
and and also be able to go and work out
without being assaulted by temptation with a bunch of women
wearing you know, uh, painted on leggings and a sports brass.
That that is absolutely insane. So when we talk about
freedom of association, the Civil Rights Act and its effects,
it's absolutely insane that people as private citizens and private
businesses we're not talking about the government, that they would
not be able to say. You know this, the Boy
Scouts is for boys. This is an all all male gym. Egalitarian.
So when we talk about liberalism, I'll say this and
I'll throw it back to youse. See what you think.
I think, you know, I think the final boss is
liberalism and h and liberalism is like the car and
the engine is egalitarianism. If you think what's the heart
of liberalism, especially it's the latter expressions twentieth century liberalism.
The heart is egalitarianism. And what people need to recognize
with you know, egalitarianism is you know, for me, my,
you know pastoral, you know church context, you know and
and you know, most of the churches I associate with
our theological conservatives. So when they hear egalitarianism, it's truncated
that all they hear is a narrow egalitarianism. I'm not
egalitarian because we don't have female pastors, and I'm like
bro egalitarianism. That's good, Praise God. But but egalitarianism is
way more than that. Egalitarianism asserted that that Johnny and
Jackie are exactly the same, and we need to rail
against that. That's false. But egalitarianism goes further. It doesn't
just say Johnny and Jackie are the same. It also
says Johnny and Jimmy are the same. Here's the deal.
I have four daughters and one son. We believe in
classical Christian education. That said, I I'll get flack for this,
but my daughters don't need to read plutar. They don't.
Are my daughters going to learn how to read? Of course?
Are they going to be good with science, and of course,
because they're going to be wives one day, and I
want them, like Eve was to Adam, to be a suitable,
competent help meet for their husbands. That are that are
like the Proverbs thirty one women who are wise and insightful.
I don't want my daughters to be retarded, and so
we are teaching them that said, my daughters are not
going to be statesmen. My daughters are not going to
be in congress. I think that that's an abomination. That's
one of the judgments in Isaiah that women and children
would rule over you. So I'm not going to be
training my daughters to be statesmen. I'm going to be
training them to be godly wives and godly mothers and
part of motherhood. Because I want my daughters to do
what we're doing. I want them to homeschool, and so
I want my grandchildren not to be dumb as stumps.
I want them to not be illiterate. So I want
my daughters to be combatant, intelligent mothers who can teach
my grandchildren to be intelligent. But the education, here's the point.
The education for my son is going to be tailored
and different than the education for my daughters. So Johnny
and Jackie are not the same. But also what I
was saying, Johnny and Jimmy are not the same, not
every single boy. So now we're getting, you know, into
the male sex. We've already distinguished male and female. But
even within the male sex, egalitarianism doesn't just say men
and women are the same. It says every individual is
the same. Think about that that we even us Christians,
we'll say, well, i'm conservative. We don't have female pastors,
but we have given into liberalism and the engine that
is egalitarianism, if nothing else, even just in our education,
I'm a conservative Christian. Okay, what does education look like, Well,
classical Christian education for who, well, kindergarten all the way
through twelfth grade. And also we'd like you to get
this liberal arts degree for four years, so seventeen years.
For seventeen years, we are going to have no customization,
no altering, no tweaking, the same, streamlined education for every
boy and every girl for the first seventeen years of
their formative education life. Because why, because we think they're
all the same. Because we won't say it, we won't
admit it, but because we're egalitarian, we are liberals. We're liberals,
and so for me, it's like men and women are different.
Johnny and Jackie are not the same. Johnny and Jimmy
also aren't the same. Jimmy is going to be a
great plumber, and praise God for great plumbers. And to
be frank, we're going to teach Jimmy to be a
plumber for himself, own his labor, start his own business.
And Jimmy, you know, Johnny is going to be a
statesman and Jimmy's going to make more money and help,
you know, be generous towards Johnny as he's you know,
trying to change the country and make a difference. But
Johnny is going to be reading certain books of antiquity
that Jimmy really doesn't have to read. We're not going
to say Jimmy's not allowed to read it. But Johnny
and Jimmy aren't the same. And the last one, and
this is where I'll get a lot of flat Johnny
and Jackie are not the same. Johnny and Jimmy are
not the same. And Johnny and Jamal are not the same.
They're not the same. And here I'm speaking of averages.
So vote Bacham. He's a pastor black man, and he
is not my equal, he's not my inferior. He's my superior.
The dude is smarter than me. The dude is more
godly than me. He's great. Thomas Soul, I like Thomas sol,
I like Clarence Thomas. Incredible, incredible guys. But here's my point.
And I don't just want to make it about black people,
because that's not fair. But my point is, individuals are
not the same. Men and women are not the same,
and nations peoples are not the same. There are distinctions,
and these distinctions often create disparity, especially in a world
where sin has entered the equation, and disparity does not
necessitate injustice. So we have to be able to understand
that fifty nine South Africans Africaners coming to America is
not the same as fifty nine Haitians, much less five
hundred thousand Haitians. There are peoples, not just individuals, but
peoples collectively, nations ethnos that are more or less compatible
with America. So we just we have to be able
to understand men and women are not the same, individuals
are not the same, and peoples are not the same.
And anything that makes us cringe at that statement is egalitarianism,
which is the engine of liberalism. You the listener, if
you're bothered by what I said, you need to own it.
You're a lip.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that there, I've coming out of libertarianism.
You forget that the first couple of letters in there
and basically what the root of that word is. And
when you look back upon it, you're like, huh, So
everybody can do whatever they want as long as they're
not hurting anyone else, which is pretty much impossible. Yeah.
I remember somebody telling me what's wrong with prostitution. I'm like, well,
what do you think your town is going to be
like if prostitution is legal and they could be on
every street corner. And take that even a step further,
what is a nation like when a percentage of their
young women, a high percentage of their young women between
eighteen and thirty, are on only fans. They're doing it
privately in their house, They're not I don't rarely do
they bring it out into public, but it is public.
They make it public. Not only that, it's the spiritual
degradation of it. People have this because every because materialism
rules the day and everyone's you know, materialism is the
zeitgeist as far as how people look at the world.
They don't understand that things that are happening behind closed doors,
things that are happening in you know, smoke filled rooms,
that these are all things that affect the people that
they You may not be able to be you may
not be able to articulate exactly what's going on right now,
but everyone has been like, oh, ten years later down
the road, you're like, oh, wait a minute, what happened?
How do we get here? Well, you you allowed this
to happen, even privately, and you don't understand that that
actually has an effect on the way on how the
world and how community and how polities function and what
they're you know, where they stand going forward, if they
have a any chance of surviving, and if it's just
about survival, then you just fix the money and every
you know, if you fix the money and everything's okay,
well no, that's no. There there's so much more to it,
and people just don't want to accept that. I know
Catholics who think like that. I don't Protestants who think
like that. I know Evangelicals who think like that. It's
they just don't get it.
Speaker 2: Yep. I agree. So it's show you're interviewing me, But
would would you mind if I ask you a question?
Speaker 1: Yeah, this happens all the time. I'm fine with.
Speaker 2: That, yeah, because I just I haven't listened to a
lot of you, but we have mutuals, and all the
mutuals speak really highly of you. Do you know Ron
Dodson didn't he go on your show while back?
Speaker 1: Ron Doddson has been on my show a few times.
We recently got to we recently got to spend some
face to face time in Tennessee together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so yeah, I think highly Ron. He's a friend.
So anyway, so I'm not super familiar with you, but
I'm familiar with those who are familiar with you, and
so I and they all have good things to say.
So I'm by by you know, default, you know, I
have respect for you, and so I'm just curious what
you would say. So kind of two part question. One
is what do you prefer? And the second part is
what do you predict? So preference and then prediction, because
what's unsustainable will not continue. It's just kind of a
law of nature. What's unsustainable will not in definitely continue.
So these United States would you prefer. And then also,
what do you predict between these two options. A Cromwellian
kind of figure right in the American context is probably
not going to be a king. It might function, right
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
but we probably won't call it a king because we're Americans,
gosh darn it, you know. But so let's say, like
a Cromwellian figure, whether it's you know, the Baron Baron Trump,
you know, whatever it is, or Balkanization and the fact
that our country is just too big and not even
just numerically, although yeah, like fifty million people need to
go back, and I think that's a moderate number. But
aside from numerically just you know, population, we're just geographically
we're just we're a massive country. And you know, thinking
of you know, you know, thinking of the you okay,
and United I'm sorry, the EU, and it's just you know,
having having countries instead of states. So Balkanization and and
you know, California can do his thing or whatever, and uh,
and we're not a part of it, or you know,
we hold together. And it's kind of a Cromwellian figure
that you know, the Libs are losing their mind and
like this, this is terrible, this is unconstitutional. But he
pulls us out of the muck and the mire and
uh and just kind of takes like a Napoleon type figure,
you know, or Cromwellian figure. Which one do you prefer
and which one do you predict?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think one can work without the other,
so let me explain that. Yeah, I don't see this
as being black and white. I think that the original intention,
the Articles of Confederation and how we were set set
up as confederated states, is really the way to go forward.
I don't believe that one person, or one even one
unit of even the smartest people in the world, can
govern three hundred million people. It's just too much. It's
an impossibility. I agree, yes, too much. You can't organize
that many people, you know. It's like it's why elite
theory is so it's important even if people don't don't
agree with it. Elite theory is very important to understand
that like two hundred people, two hundred people organizing can
control three hundred million people better than three hundred million
people can control two hundred million people two hundred people
because three hundred million people can't organize exactly. So can
I get real quick for the listener?
Speaker 2: I can I tell you how it's super short, how
I persuade people read poem on elite theory. I always
tell people. In nineteen fifty nine, a bunch of housewives
in America who are watching Leave It to Beaver in
black and white. They did not get together and say
we love the show. We really do, but you know
what would really bring it over the top, to take
it from good to great? Leave It to Beaver everything
as it is, but it just needs a little bit
of butt sex. And then Hollywood says, well, you know
that's not really our value, that's not our principle. But
you know, we're capitalists at the end of the day,
you know, and you've got to give the customers all
always right, and we got to give them what they want.
That's not how when we think how did America get
off the rails, it's not that the American people demanded
from its leaders, whether those be political or cultural or
media or whatever academic, that the American people rose up
and said we want degeneracy. No, it's the reverse. It's Hollywood.
They kept pushing the line pushing the envelope to see
how much degeneracy they could get away with, And that,
in a nutshell, is the way I describe elite theory.
Speaker 1: What do you think, No, that makes sense. Yeah, the
they needed to get around the Hayes code and the
only way to do that was to chip away at it.
There what you couldn't have a If you have a
full frontal attack on something, people are just gonna notice
and they're gonna well, I mean, I don't know anymore.
People just don't. People are so checked out nowadays, the
full frontal attack, I don't know what it does.
Speaker 2: But they would back back in the day shot they would.
Speaker 1: Yeah, back then. Yeah, so yeah, I mean I really
the only way I see going forward is you know,
you can't really have a community, and you can't even
really think about having a community unless the community, the
strength the community starts in the home. So people who
are like, man, we really need to change the world.
We need to change this country, we need to change
the state, We need to change. Well, if your house
isn't an order, what are you doing? You know, you
get your house in order first, and then it can go,
It can go further out and you can push it outwards.
But if three hundred million people, if one person or
one body can't govern three hundred million people, you're going
to need to be able to break that down into
smaller groups. And that is base. That's the goal to me,
is you're still going to have you know, my friend
Thomas says that he predicts that the United States can
be around for another one hundred, one hundred and fifty years.
It's just going to slowly start changing and it's go
what he predicts and what I predict is it's going
to look more local, and it's going to look more state,
you know, more state power, more local Powerganization. Yeah, Balkanization,
but not Balkanization. It doesn't have to be Balkanization where
you're like, screw you. You know, we're going to take
on you know, the state of Alabama will be willing
to take on China by itself if it comes to that.
But there has to be a confederation, you know. That's
why I've always said this. I'm you may hear me
talk about the Constitution every once in a while, but yeah,
I honestly believe the Constitution was a coup to get
us away from for huge centralization of the of the states,
and I honestly think the Articles of Confederation where it
was at when people refer to their Virginia as their country,
in Massachusetts as their country instead of the you know,
the United States. You know, it was still people were
still using these United States. But I don't think that
you have a future if I mean the fact that
we've basically been taught that you can elect one person
and that person can change things for and make three
hundred million people happy. Well, that's retarded. And then when
I say that, people are like, well that's a straw man.
I'm it's not saying it's it's for a certain group. Okay,
So then you are by saying that, you are saying
we're always going to be a civil war. We're always
going to have a civil war. If you want to
keep this thing the way it is, you're always going
to be at war. And right wingers are not ready
for that. Right Wingers do not understand that you crush
your enemies. Right Wingers look at you know, still probably
think Franco was a fascist or you know, you know
the or you know what the tzars were doing. You
know in nineteen oh five, what the Czar did in
nineteen oh five bringing the army home from bringing the
army home from the Russo Japanese War, and pointing it
at toward towards the revolutionaries with three parentheses around them,
that that, oh, well, that you shouldn't do. What do
you do?
Speaker 2: How do you?
Speaker 1: How do you do this? How do you how do
you say? Oh, we must remain the person, you know,
the the lib in California who's voting. You know, if
if they ever got rid of the the electoral college,
basically you would have like New York and California deciding
who's president. Texas wouldn't even matter anymore. You're not You
do not have liberty. You're not going to have freedom
by electing one person. I don't care who it is,
because they're not going to crush their enemies. There's there's
this theory that Napoleon and a certain Austrian painter, you know,
when they spoke, they were speaking for their people. They
were channeling the spirit of their people. Well they were
a lot of those two guys were channeling the spirit
of a of a monoculture, of a people, not a
frigging not not where you have you have you know,
Somalians in Minnesota, and you know, Mexicans in California and
Cubans in Miami and Puerto Ricans in in New York
and blacks everywhere, all trying to compete and get power.
And then you have it, you know, the group that's
basically been occupying us for one hundred years. Well, how
do you how do how would you elect a leader
who would be able to what spirit of the people
is he going to channel?
Speaker 2: He's going to have if he channel the spirit of
the people, he would have to be hud be like
multiple multiple personality disorder. He'd have to be schizophrenic, he'd
have to be I'm going to be shifting in and
out of channeling, you know, one personality of the country
then another. But yeah, so you're absolutely right. We have
to have a monoculture, and yeah, we we have to
and and monoculture doesn't mean that everybody you know has
the exact same ancestry, although that helps, uh, you know,
especially if a country at least the majority is of
a particular stock, you know, an Anglo Protestant stock. But
I think there is a way in our case, it
would be Anglo Protestant because that's the founding of our nation.
But my point is there's a way of still having
different peoples in terms of in terms of ancestry, but
that's still have all aligned with a monoculture. But we
don't have that right now. And I think it was
I think it was Aristotle who talked about that. You know,
republics eventually devolve into raw democracies and then and then
once that happens, it's basically just like a ticking time bomb.
It's only a matter of time until the people recognize
that they can that they can balkanize, you know, and
play identity politics and all politics is really identity politics,
and that they can vote for stuff that one group
can lobby and vote for another group's stuff, and then
the politicians that so then you know, republics become democracies.
Democracies become allligarchy. So now you have certain leaders who
what they do is they simply need the votes, and
so they open up the borders. You know, borders become
porous and I don't have the votes, so I'll import
the votes and beef up my numbers, and then you know,
oligar key just devolves into tyranny. And so I think
like to say we're going to constitution even harder. You know,
I viewed as kind of like a circle instead of linear.
I don't think you can go back, not directly. I
think you have to go forward, and eventually he might
be able to get back. And what I mean by
that is our constitutional republic that we used to have.
And you know, a republic if if you can keep
it and the verdict has come back in. We did
not keep it. But the constitutional republic that we used
to have did not come out of the ether. It
didn't come out of the vacuum. It It's like, well,
we had this awesome thing. Yeah, but we had a
particular people that were capable right of self governance and
that were religious and moral. And that's which where did
not where did we get the form of government? But
where do we get the people who are capable of
that form of government? And the answer to that is
on the heels of seven hundred years of the Christian monarchy.
So it's like, I'm all for constitutional republics if you
have the people, and we currently do not have the people.
And where do you get those people? Well, you get
those people, to be frank, you get those people from
strict rule for centuries. And I'll say one thing that
a little spicy, but I hope the listener will give
me credit and understand the way that I'm using this term.
Every every people, every culture, every every especially religion. I'll
say it that way. Every worldview or religion has a
eugenics program. And what I mean by that is you
look at the Bible and it's like, you marry somebody
who's your sister or your cousin, your line is cut
off from Israel. You marry somebody too far of related,
a foreigner who worships, you know, idols, your line is
cut off from Israel. You eat too much shellfish, believe
it or not, your line is cut off from Israel.
And then you look at other other nations, and like,
when you look at religion, it's funny, but religion, every
single religion, including Christianity, has dietary restrictions. So well, I
thought it was just about culture, It's just about worship. Well,
culture cultists worship. Worship always involves very practical and very physical,
not just spiritual, but physical elements such as dietary restrictions
which have to do with nutritions. So when I think
of peoples and the way that there's shapes. None of
this happens in fifteen minutes, but over time, right when
you think of consecutive generations thirty forty, over the course
of five hundred years, or over the course of a millennia,
and you think of people having a religion, and that
religion having dictates and parameters, it include physical elements such
as nutrients, and not just that, but the Christian ethic
of sober mindedness. Right, so there's not substance abuse, We're
not smoking piote and then worshiping you know, demon gods.
And then back to nutrition, the difference between eating cow
and cooking the cow properly with sanitation versus using the
cow's dung to cook with and making the food with
no sanitation, without washing your hands. And then you bring
not just nutrients, and not just substance abuse versus sober mindedness,
but monogamy for the most part in general, monogamy versus
polygamy and promiscuity. And then you bring into the equation,
you know, Christians invented the sewer system and sanitation.
Speaker 3: You know, and figuring out, you know, what was the
cause of the black plague, you know, and these kinds
of things, and so when it comes to substance abuse,
and when it comes to monogamy versus promiscuity and nutrition,
and then you add education on top of that and
learning to be you know, literate, and all these kinds
of things from a young age.
Speaker 2: That doesn't just shape people. It's it's the cultures, the cultures.
The culture that doesn't just shape people's behaviors and their
patterns and their attitudes. Religion has a I believe, has
a biological Again, not in fifteen minutes. I'm not just saying, hey,
teach someone the Christian worldview and all of a sudden,
you know, over the course of a one year training,
their biology will change. I'm not saying that I'm not
retarded by the grace of God. But what I am
saying is that religion, worship, whether it's false worship or
true worship, and all the corresponding dictates that come from
Christianity or Islam, or Buddhism or Judaism or atheism, secularism,
religion not quickly, but slowly over time, does not just
shape behaviors and attitudes and culture in the sense that
we use the word culture today, but over time, generations
and centuries, it even has I believe a physical effect
on people, because I believe the Gospel changes everything. That
let God be true in every man a liar. If
truth is truth, and it's God's truth, then that truth
actually will shape I'm not a gnostic. It's not just
you know, the seventeenth dimension. No, I'm a historic Christian. Yes,
the spiritual is of ultimate value, but the physical and
the natural, also the temporal, it also matters. And it
matters not just to us, but it matters to God.
And so I believe that God's truth, if it is truth,
will have an effect not just spiritually, and not just emotionally,
and not just behaviorally, but even physically and even biologically
over time. And that's the impact of worship. And that's
the impact of true worship. And likewise, consequently, the impact
of false worship will have devastating effects and even devastating
physical biological effects again over time, over time. So then
what do you do when you take a nation like
ours in a matter of not centuries but mere decades,
and as we've seen recently, in just mere years and
just the last five years, and you import in mass
different peoples from all over the planet, shaped by different
religions over centuries, and not just shaping their culture or
their worldview or the way that they think, or the
behaviors or patterns or attitudes, but even their physical person
has been shaped for a millennia or two. And then
you just throw them all in to the same country,
the same plot of land. And then you do that.
Not only do you do that, but you do that
with a form of government that is quickly devolved into
a all democracy with a established oligarchy, where people are
well aware that they can balkanize, group up and vote
for stuff. And then to say that through that democratic system,
with that lay of the land, this mix of people,
that we can vote our way out and write this
ship is insane. And so yeah, so I'm not trying
to I'm not trying to just get a rise out
of people just to do it and be an edge lord.
Obviously there are better words than eugenics, and that has
massive negative connotations, but I think that I hope that
you Pete understand my point is that we're not gnostics. Worship,
whether true or false, changes everything, and it doesn't do
it all at once in fifteen minutes, but over time
it doesn't just change hearts and spiritual things and attitudes,
but it actually religion dictates so much. Even dietary restricts
physical things to where not in a moment, but over
time generations, it has an impact on the people, not
just spiritually but also physically. I think that's the way
God made the world. And for us not to be
aware of that, to be aware that people are different,
not just the way they think. It's not just well,
I if I just present the facts and make good arguments,
then this Haitian, you know, will become magically an American.
You know that, No, that's not the world that God made.
And so with that lay of the land and our
current government system, you're screwed. Well.
Speaker 1: I think the allowing people to culturally integrate is you
see that in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
There is always opening for being grafted in.
Speaker 2: Amen.
Speaker 1: But it's yeah.
Speaker 2: And even with that, you think of like Ruth or rehab.
Like Ruth does not come in with five hundred thousand
mobiites and they're idols. Ruth comes in and she one
of the ways to integrate. When we think of assimilation,
I'm not saying that it's an absolute necessity, but it
certainly helps as a catalyst and speeds up assimilation. Is
inner marriage. Ruth comes in and she marries an Israelite,
and and I don't think it's a coincidence that David,
who's a man after God's own heart, the second King
of Israel and the best king of Israel, David is
not a Mobid himself who immigrated in and he's also
not the second generation from Ruth being first generation immigrant.
But it's Ruth Mary's bo as they have Obed, Obed
begets Jesse, and then jesse begets David. So by the
time you get to David, right, it's Ruth who is
a Mobis. But then you have Ruth then Obed, than Jesse,
than David. By the time you get to David, it's
actually in the big scheme of things, not that much time.
We're talking about maybe one hundred years. But by the
time you get to David, David is not just in spirit,
not just in word, but in every sense of the word.
He is in Israelite, a true Israelite, born and raised
right eating Israelite apple pie. And he is fit. He
is fit in his pedigree, his descendancy, his ancestry and
his of course spiritually in his heart for the Lord,
and that's of most importance. But not just in that way,
but in every way. He's fit to be king and
to be a good one. And so yes, the world
that God made allows for some reasonable measure of mitigated
immigration with assimilation over time. But what we're doing now
is not what I just described from scripture with Ruth
to Obed to Jesse to David.
Speaker 1: No, no, you're just importing people who have no no
skin in the game. And they they're here, they're not
even here for to become Americans. You're here to send
money home. That's that's all they're that, That's all they're
here to do. It's it's the the whole trope of
we become a an open air strip, mall and everything.
We're just a financial zone and that's it. And you
hear you hear people who are around Trump talk like that.
You hear Elon Musk talk like that. But veg Ramaswine,
who's probably going to be the friggin next governor of Ohio.
They I mean, these are not people who you know,
when when my when when my great grandfather came here,
he was literally escaping Jewish revolutionaries in Poland, who are
you know, basically rising up? And he's from he was
from he was from the Hungarian Austro Hungarian Empire. Actually
he was probably more in Austria at the time that
he left on that side. But I mean, he didn't
come here because he was sending money home. He came
here knowing that, like he's basically cutting off everything that
he has back there.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's what you did again, Like she says
your people will be my people, your God will be
my god. It's not just what she's adding, and this
is paramount, it's what she's forsaken. She's for saying. She's
saying your people will be my people. She's not saying
in addition to the mobikes. No, She's saying, no, I'm
I'm making a switch. I am cutting off my own people,
my own family. And I'm sure she still loves him,
And I'm sure ten years into living in Israel and
being married to bo As, there was still probably moments
where she catches the scent of, you know, some particular
food that reminds her of some of her you know,
She's like, you know, like home is a powerful thing
and she probably for the rest of her life felt
that sense of home. But she made the switch and
she severed the line to where she probably had some
moments of grieving, not grieving like oh, I wish I
could worship idols again, but still just the nostalgia and
the sense of home that people the smells, the sights.
But because she actually severed the line and truly assimilated.
You know who doesn't have that drawl back towards home,
o Bet And you know who also does, Jesse, and
then who also David? For them, Israel is all they've none.
They're truly Israelites. And when you bring up Vi Vek
and Elon, here's the deal. It's like, what's the common
denominator between those two guys? And I know you agree,
and I'll say it. They're not American. I'm not saying that,
they don't have that, they're not American citizens. I'm not
saying that, but they are not American. And it's like, well,
Vivek was born you know, in America, know, like maybe
Elon you know, South Africa, but the Vek was born no.
Biblically speaking, and deuterrotomy talks about this and we don't
have time for it, but I think that there is
a strong biblical argument to be made that it is
not until the third generation. So even for those who
immigrated into Israel, it wasn't until the third generation that
they were able to have the full rights, especially as
it pertained to worship and entering the temple and making sacrifices,
these kinds of things. It's not until the third generation
that they're fully assimilated in and the Vek would not
qualify with using a biblical metric, God's metric for what
it means to truly assimilate into that country. So we
can look and that doesn't mean and therefore exploit them
and mistreat them. And I'm not saying that right for
goodness sake. It can't just be either or they either
are can you know, make them king? Or you hate
them and you're personal. There's a lot of space in
between those two positions. And so elon treat them with respect.
That treat them with respect, but recognize neither one with
that a little bit more so second generation, but neither
one is by God's standard, not Joel's standard, not jewels,
you know, whatever bigoted standards you know, allegedly, but by
God's standard, neither one. They can both be American citizens,
and even that there's a longer discussion to have about
that and what that means and whether you get full
voting riots and blah blah blah. But American citizenship is
different than I'm an American. I can get citizenship. It'd
probably be tough, but I think I could pull it off.
I could get citizenship in Japan, but I will never
be Japanese. But if I move there as a single
man and a marry Japanese woman, then my grandchildren will
not only be Japanese citizens, but they will be Japanese.
But I will always be an American. I could be
an American who lives in Japan with Japanese citizenship, but
I am not Japanese, and I never will be, not
in one generation, not in one lifetime. That is not possible.
And so when we look at like who's going to
lead the country and who's going to have massive influence,
and who's going to be a governor of a state,
like one of the things that we should hold as
a prerequisite is not just American citizenship, but they have
to be American and those kinds of ties and bonds,
ancestral bonds, and fidelity. We are kidding ourselves if we
think that those things happen apart from time time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I can't argue with you. It's
you either have people who are arguing that anyone can
come here and be a citizen right away, you just
become an American. Then you have the other end that's like, well,
I mean unless we deport everybody who wasn't here during
the Civil War, you know, whose family wasn't here during
the Civil War, And it's like, all right, yeah, I
mean sure that includes me, although I think I think
on my mother's side there were people here who were
before the Civil War. It's hard to some of those
genealogies es are really hard. But that doesn't seem to
make sense. I mean you, if you look around, it's
pretty obvious. And really, let's let's circle back on this.
The way you make this easy is you have to
facto balkanization. You have you start putting things down smaller,
and then people can go, Okay, well who does not
belong here? Well you're going to have to go somewhere else.
Doing it for three hundred million people, I mean or
three hundred and fifty. I mean, I have a tendency
believe there might be four hundred million people in the
country right now. You can't. You're talking, Oh Trump to
port all these people. Well he said he could deport
all these people. Well he's not the smartest, he's not
the light. He's not the brightest bulb in the room.
Speaker 2: For better or worse. Pete, you got to know this
about me. I love me some Trump that said, I'm
really struggling to trust the plan right now.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the thing. You this. When you say that
you can do this, you can't. You can only do
this if you reduce it down to the local level.
You have to. You have to mobilize people city wise,
county wise, statewide. That's the only way this is going
to happen. And those states, counties, and cities who refuse
to do it, well, now you have them on the list. Yeah,
and now you know, Now you know when it comes
to balkanization time. Who yep, Yeah, they're the that the
military might have to show up, right, because we're not
playing games.
Speaker 2: Anymore, that's right, yep, Yeah, No, you're right. We know
what needs to be done, and we can do it.
And we can do it as moderates. Right, Well, what
you're describing this this, I mean like people are, oh
my gosh, they're experience like this is the moderate position. Guys,
there are way more, right you and I both that
we've been in the back recesses of the internet, like
there are there are way more severe positions out there,
and this is the moderate position. Right. I always tell
people all the time, I'm just you know, I'm just
your your friendly neighborhood, moderate centrist, and and this is
this is the moderate position. But but you're right in
terms of what not what should be done, but what
can be done. It cannot be done apart from getting smaller.
We have to get smaller. Balkanization is I think it's inevitable.
It's either Cromwellian. That's why I asked you earlier. Cromwellian
or Balkanization. And here's the thing about Cromwell. Even if
you could pull it off, it's a short shelf life.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It worked, you know, like it works for maybe one generation,
and then Cromwell's son turns out to be crappy, you know,
and you and then you just default back to, you know,
the previous position. So I think Balkanization is inevitable and
and it will be hard, There'll be challenges, and there's downsides.
It's not all roses, but on the whole, I believe,
by God's grace, it will be good. And what it
provides the is for certain groups to keep being lib tarts,
you know, and that's the prerogative, but it allows other
groups to actually have now not just theoretically, you know,
the ideas, but the ability to actually do these things,
including the moderate positions. I won't speak for you. I
don't know your thoughts, but for me, I don't think
Thomas full has to go back. I just don't call
me a lib whatever, Clarence Thomas, he's my guy. He
doesn't have to go back. But I do think, I
do think that that we do need to look at
who has been here for three generations, and there needs
to be a full moratorium on immigration, especially immigration from
the Third World. And let's be honest, what are we
talking about there, Like we're talking about we should only
have some immigration that's a net zero with people who
are actually leaving the country from countries that are compatible
with America, which are predominantly European, countries which are predominantly
European stock. Right, we know what we're talking about, and
it's not racist, and we're not picking on people because
we don't like certain colors. We're just talking about people
who actually are compatible with our country and its founding
in its way of life. But you can't do that
as the country currently is with three hundred and thirty
three hundred and fifty million people and one guy, Donald Trump.
Give you know, the guy has faults, but give him
a break. It's not just oh well, Donald Trump, he's failing.
Is like, no, he can't do it. No one can
do it, doesn't matter. Donald Trump could be Jesus incarnate
and he's absolutely not, just for the record, but even
if he wants, there's just there's some things you can't do.
So we have to get smaller. We get smaller, then
we can not just talk about what we should do,
but we can actually have the conversation about what we
can do. And there are I believe, humane, god glorifying, merciful,
even moderate options of saying, Okay, this person has to
go back, this other person gets to stay, but and
they can have some form of citizenship and they have
equal rights under the law, they can't be exploited, blah
blah blah. But they're not a voting citizen. They're not
because they still in the big scheme of things. They
arrived relatively recently. And it's not just American citizen that
gets to direct the country, but it's American and that
speaks to ancestry, that speaks to rootedness. And and with that,
if I was king, which I'm not, but if I
was king and we had any voting at all, which
even that I'm suspicious of, but we have any voting
at all, I would want to limit voting to heads
of household representative government at the household level, not individuals,
but heads of households. I would want them to be men.
I would want them to be Christian men, and I
want I would want them to have a stake both
in the past and in the future, meaning that in
the past three generations minimum to be able to be
a voting citizen in the future stake in the future.
Married married, with the assumption that marriage is for the
purpose many purposes, but one of the chief purposes being
procreation and posterity, so that they have they have a steak.
Speaker 1: In the ground.
Speaker 2: Looking back and looking forward right in the history of
the country, third generation at least, and the future of
the country. I'm married, and I have children or the
intention of having children. Also, I am a man. So
it's not that the wife and children don't have a voice,
but they don't have a vote. One household vote, and
that the voices of the whole household being expressed through
the vote of the head of that household. And I
would want them to be Christian, so Christian, male married,
third generation, not just American citizen, but American and those
that what is a moderate I mean you might even
when we're done with this conversations and Joel's I'm not
going to have him on the show again because he's
a lib. But I like that is an extremely moderate position.
It's not even bringing color into the equation. It's not
bringing it's just saying you have to have a steak
in the past, you have to have a steak in
the future, and those kinds of conversations. Believe it or not,
I know it sounds crazy, but it actually not just
things that should be done. It can be done if
if we balkanize and get smaller, and I'm hopeful I
am despite all the despair at the end of the day,
because I love the Lord Jesus Christ and I trust him.
I actually think not only that, not only that it's
a possibility, but I'm fairly white piled at the end
of the day. I think it's I don't know if
it happens in my lifetime, but I think it happens.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say I'm white pilled too, mostly because
I'm not putting my faith in politicians in Washington, DC.
Speaker 2: Amen.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're that's the easiest black pill. If you
you know, there are people who are listening to this
who are still I mean, they're screaming Balkanization means China
is going to take over this. You're not going to
be able to fight the Jews. You're not gonna be
It's like.
Speaker 2: Enough about Michael O'Fallon, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're you just have no you have no clue
how one person or one body and how many how
much is three hundred and three hundred and fifty four
hundred million people, and how that just doesn't work. You
want to complain about, oh all these libs and everything
like that. It's like, well, what you just want them
to keep being a part of your polity.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, they get a country. They get a country, they
get to be inside board, we get to know where
they are.
Speaker 2: Mhm.
Speaker 1: But they have no say in our life.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: And I'm perfectly fine with that. And you know, people
get start arguing, well you have the cities versus the
rural and are shut up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll have to move man. That that's it. I
tell people that all the time. I don't know if
you know this, but I'm not much of a writer.
My book it's a glorified blog, like who am I kidding?
But it's you know, it's short, it's sweet, and it's
I don't have poetry and prose, but it's but it's true.
It's a good it's a simple point, but but it's
a it's a relevant, pertinent and true point. And so
I wrote this little book Pete called a fight by
Fight and and the subtitle is why leaving Godless Places
is loving Godless places? And I know that's hard for
that's and I'm going to be sensitive everything. We're talking
about home and heritage, and that's hard for the fifth
generation you know, California farmer who doesn't live in La
he lives in Bakersfield, you know, or Modesto or something
like that. I get it, and I'm so sympathetic. But
and and he can say, you know, if he wants
for the time being, I'm not trying to bind the conscience.
But if we're going to have hope, we're gonna have
to eventually balkanize. And when we balkanize, it's not gonna
be by city. That's just that's that's we just have
to be honest with ourselves. Geography matters, right. God sets
nations and borders and times, and he's done so. Even
the fabric of how he built the world physically geographically,
with mountain ranges and rivers and oceans. This is just
this is the world we live in. This is reality.
Welcome to reality. And what it means is that there
are some salt of the earth, good Christian, blue collar
people who live in California and voted for Trump three times,
and they're gonna have to move. They're going to have
to They're going to have to come to us. I
might have to move Texas is kind of it's a
little it's a little bit more sketchy than I like
to admit, but we're all gonna have to be flexible.
But by God's grace, it will pay dividends in the
end and it will be worth it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree. People argue that, you know, we
we should own the cities, and we should. People argue
that's where political power is, and it is. But you know,
show me a really good plan for taking back the
cities that's realistic, not don't don't. Don't tell me that
Gerbel that Gebels went to Berlin and they took they
took over Berlin. Okay, in a in a mono culture
and in a lawless nation where you were warring in
the streets. Okay, I get yeah, I get that. I mean,
I know the history. I read the book, actually read
the book that's not here. You have to figure something
else out, especially in a when you have a country
and even localities that have five and six different interests
in it. You're going to have to figure something out.
And it's not it's not what you think it's going
to be. It never is what you think it's going
to be. It just does it isn't. All You have
to do is look at politics, see everything we are
in the in the world. See everything's going on in
the world, and you think you know what's happening. You
don't know what's happening. They tell you what's happening, and
then you find out what they told you is happening
isn't what's happening. You don't know, you think you do,
and you think that you're anger or you know you're
all because of the knowledge you have in all the
books you read that you're going to figure it out.
You have it figured out on your own, you and
your little group chat. You know, you know it's not
the same remedy for everywhere. You're just gonna have to
figure it out. And stop. I mean, yeah, just stop. Stop,
Stop what you're doing right now. Re examine everything that
you believe, and think about what we've been talking about.
And we're not saying that we have it perfectly right,
but I think both of us have been examining this
for a long time and trying to examine it from
a place where you put ideology aside for a second
and you're like, okay, how does this work? Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
I'm not an idelogue. It is. What is It's all
about the culture where you're going to what you're trying
to build. Until you figure that out, until you just
get over yourself, you're not it's not gonna work. What
what you're thinking is not going to work, So you
have to figure out what is going to work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the name of the Gangs, the way I would
say it is short and sweet, is all the way
back to the beginning of our conversation, which I've enjoyed thoroughly,
is timeliness, not time lessness.
Speaker 2: Timelyiness right. The sons of Zikr they knew the times,
and they're not just visionaries and profits, but they were pragmatists.
They knew the times, and they knew what Israel ought
to do. That's what we's that's what we need. We
do not need rainbows and unicorns. We do not need ideologues.
We do not need beautiful losers, and we also don't
need principled losers who are trying to fight fight dead
corpses that are our forefathers already fought and buried, but
ignoring the raging living dragons in our own. We need
guys who know the times and who have conviction and principles,
but also are pragmatists and know what to do today
and are willing to do. That's what we need. And
apart from that, you are just LARPing. It's a joke.
Speaker 1: Jael, I really enjoyed our conversation. Tell people where they
can find your work.
Speaker 2: I've enjoyed it too, Thanks Pete. It means a lot.
I'm honored you had me on. So go to right
response ministries on YouTube search right Response Ministries, and then
on X the handle is at right response m as
in Macy's Right Response and that's about it.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, y'all. Until the next time. Thank you,
all right, Thanks
Speaker 2: You