Orrin McIntyre critiques the "tough love" offered to white men facing economic stagnation, citing that 94% of recent S&P 100 jobs went to people of color while home prices hit seven times median income. He argues that laws like Griggs v. Duke Power and the 1991 Civil Rights Act legally disadvantage white men with clean records, urging a shift from a "works gospel" to Christian nationalism. McIntyre asserts the global order is reverting to a natural state of hierarchy and patriarchy, warning that embracing biblical patriarchy now prevents worse outcomes under radical alternatives like Islamic nationalism or pagan Darwinian naturalism. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why We Need Honest Advice00:03:34
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
Are you a young white man who?
Just can't seem to get a stable job that will afford a home, a family, and a modest lifestyle?
Well, have no fear.
Panda Express is hiring assistant managers for $70,000 a year.
Or you could work at Chipotle stuffing burritos and making $100,000 in just a few years.
Now, it seems silly, but this is real advice being offered by conservative, and I'm putting conservative in quotation marks, think tank journalists and pundits.
If after all they managed to make their own big break a decade or two ago, Then there's no reason that you can't put on a suit and a tie and walk into a job interview and be offered a great job by simply having a solid handshake and a smile.
Now, I'm being a little bit tongue in cheek, but in biblical terms, it's important to recognize that this process is called exasperating your sons.
Real wages are the lowest that they've ever been today, housing is flat out unaffordable.
And all this while 94% of new jobs added to the SP 100 companies are going to people of color, who are a significant minority in the U.S., advice that really did work for the prior generation just doesn't get you as far anymore.
It's harder than ever to provide, save, and build up an inheritance.
And for us to actually give helpful, loving advice, we have to be honest about the challenges that young men are facing today.
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon members and faithful donors.
You can join our Patreon by going to patreon.com forward slash Right Response Ministries, or you can donate at Right Response Ministries.com forward slash donate.
In this episode, we'll also be joined by the one and only Orrin McIntyre to address and discuss this very important topic.
Tune in now.
You've listened to all these people, and so what have you learned?
The bad news is that people feel like they've done absolutely everything right and their lives are trapped.
They, you know, young people say, Look, okay, I went through, I got an education, I work nonstop, and I have made the calculation that there is no mathematical path for me to own a house.
It's just not possible.
In Toronto, here, for example, if you take the average income and the average house price, It would take you 29 years to save up for a down payment.
For a down payment?
For a down payment, not to pay it off, forget paying it off.
And so, if you're a young woman who's got a biological clock, obviously, well, do the math.
You're going to be in your 50s before you can afford the average house.
The Math of Modern Struggle00:06:10
All right, guys, thanks for joining us today.
If you're wondering what was going on during that cold open, we had written it out.
And so, I was doing my best to read, but over the screen where it was written, There was another screen covering up a good 30% of the words.
So I couldn't read it.
And then some of you might be wondering I saw in the live chat somebody said, Hey, somebody's walking in front of the camera.
Well, that was Michael.
God bless him.
He did the right thing.
I was just sitting here like, Well, you're in for the long haul.
Hope it goes well.
Michael was trying to run over to Nathan to say, Hey, basically the entire teleprompter is covered by another screen.
And Joel is literally just from memory guessing right now, which is what I was doing.
So to read a three minute script.
This is the one I haven't written in a while, too.
Today, I was like, we got a longer one, got a great time.
It's a three minute script.
And Wes even talked to me before.
He wrote it and he said, Do you think you can read a three minute script without messing up?
And I should have said, I didn't.
I said, Yes.
What I should have said is, Yes, if I can see it.
Right.
If it's actually on the screen, which it was not, unfortunately.
So, but we got through it.
I think you get the main point.
So, Orrin McIntyre, he's going to be joining us at 3 30 Central Time, 3 30 PM Central Time.
So, we've got about 25 minutes or so to outline this episode for you.
And basically, the big idea of what I was saying is that right now it is not a great time to be a young man, especially to be a young white man.
Well, I'm not white.
Are you just excluding me?
Yes.
Not everybody's included in everything.
If you are a young black man, the last eight years were easier for you.
That's just the truth.
And on average, not every single person comparatively, we're speaking in dynamics.
We're speaking in dynamics, right?
So if you were, it's like, well, I was a young black man, but I'm a quadriplegic.
Okay, well, that's different.
Okay, there of course there are exceptions, but in generalities in group dynamics from about 2015, and you could argue earlier, but definitely 2015 all the way up until 2024.
Yes, if you were a young white man, you had added disadvantages that a person of color did not have.
And so, we are talking to everybody, but we are especially talking to young white heterosexual Christian men.
Who have our culture has essentially said, our economy, our culture, our society, and sadly, even many of their churches has essentially said that we don't care about you and there is nothing for you.
And a lot of the advice and counsel that you'll get from older men should you seek out godly, mature older men, especially older Christian men, in order to give counsel and advice?
And of course, but you have to recognize that a lot of the advice they're giving is not malicious necessarily.
We're not saying that it's on purpose or intentional.
But it is still just a reality that the advice that a boomer is giving, if he's giving the kind of advice of practical things for earning an income and getting married, these kinds of things that worked for him, well, the reality is those things don't work anymore.
When a boomer says, well, all you need to do is dress not for the job you have, but for the job that you want, clean yourself up.
Why don't you shave your beard, get a haircut, put on a nice suit and a tie, go in with a Firm handshake and smile.
And that look him in the eye, young man.
Look him in the eye, young man, and stop being so lazy, you know, and stop whining.
Yeah, that's great if you're a young black man.
Let's just be honest.
And if you're a young black man who can wear glasses, that's even better.
I mean, they did an entire episode on Curb Your Enthusiasm, right?
One of the black characters throughout the entire episode, he didn't need glasses, but he got a fake pair of non prescription glasses and he put them on.
And they were mocking, but there's some truth in it.
They were mocking the fact that, you know, he all of a sudden he was.
Well received by the upper echelon of white society, a bunch of boomers that had money and affluence and influence and jobs.
And they were laughing at it, but they were laughing at it for a reason.
It was comedy, it's fiction, a fictional story, curb your enthusiasm.
But they made a joke about it for a reason.
For a reason.
It wasn't completely random.
And so, yeah, the game has changed, the world has changed, and there are certain things that used to work that don't work anymore, right?
When a boomer says, Well, you think interest rates are bad today.
I remember in the 70s, you know, we had our home had an 18%, 17%, 18% interest rate.
Yeah, your home, that the principal was $48,000.
I'll take that.
Something like four times your median average wage.
So, in real terms, because you would say, like, well, it was less the cost of the home, but then the wages were less too.
But think in terms, not just of raw, like 50,000, 100,000, but think in terms of how many times my yearly income does it take.
And we'll show the graph in a minute, but like, A tiny amount compared to what you would need now.
Because they might say, well, but we only made 30 grand a year.
Okay, but your house was 48,000.
So you're talking about in that kind of scenario, your house is barely over 50% one year's income.
Whereas now people are looking at $400,000 houses and their income is 70,000 or 80,000.
So wages have maybe a little over doubled, but the housing prices have multiplied by 10x.
Right?
It's just, this is just basic math.
And crying about it, of course, crying about it doesn't solve the problem.
Nobody's saying that it does.
But there's something to be said.
I mean, even pastorally or as a father, when you're counseling one of your sons or daughters, as a pastor who's counseling one of his parishioners, one of the things that you want to do if they say, hey, I have been devastated by this situation or this person, you know, Wrong to me.
You want to determine whether or not, first and foremost, it's actually true.
Crying Won't Fix the Problem00:02:58
But if it's true, then you can actually sympathize with someone and say, Oh my goodness, I am so sorry that that happened.
So you are now, because of this, because we live in a world that's tarnished by sin, you are objectively at an extreme disadvantage.
I'm so sorry, brother.
I'm so sorry, sister.
And so let's talk about because you're behind the eight ball, and that's actually not your fault.
We can acknowledge that and say, I'm so sorry that that's the case.
And so now, what can we do?
But a lot of guys today, a lot of in the sad thing, it'd be one thing if it was a bunch of progressive leftists, right?
Be one thing if it was AOC, you know, and she was the only, you know, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, they're the only ones, you know, who are saying this.
But you're talking about conservatives, guys who, over the last decade, not just conservatives, but guys who, over the last decade, were supposedly leading the charge against DEI and these kinds of things.
And these are the guys who are giving the advice and saying, hey, you know what, things aren't so bad.
You can go and stuff burritos at Chipotle, right?
Things aren't so bad.
Just go work in fast food, you know, whereas.
It's like, but can't you acknowledge that 15 minutes ago, literally 15 minutes ago, the advice was, well, who do you think you are thinking that you're going to be able to make a livable wage doing fast food?
You need to apply yourself and get a real job.
Fast food is supposed to be a job that's temporary just for teenagers.
And then literally, it's like by the week, by the week.
So the same guys who are saying, well, that's ridiculous that you would expect to make a Real wage and fast food.
And then they turn around a week later and they're like, all the software engineering jobs and all the manufacturing jobs are going to a bunch of Vivek Ramaswamy's friends in India with the H 1B visas.
Well, whoever told you that you would be able to have a middle management job in an industry that you actually were attracted to?
Everybody knows for the last 15 minutes, everybody knows that.
If you want to feed a family, you do it at Chipotle.
So it's just, you can't win.
You can't win.
And one of the things that we're trying to do as a ministry is give real counsel from the Word of God, spiritual counsel, but also real practical, tangible counsel for young men how to live in the world today.
But we try to preface it because a lot of guys aren't doing this.
A lot of conservatives aren't doing this.
A lot of Christian pastors aren't doing this.
We try to preface it by first acknowledging.
Yeah, the deck is absolutely rigged against you.
It is rigged against you.
This is not fair.
Your parents lived in a golden age, a golden age.
Your Parents Had a Golden Age00:15:25
This is one of the first generations, one of the first generations in American history where, in terms of economically and real purchasing power of wages, the children, the following generation, will make far less than the preceding generation.
So we're living in real terms.
In real terms.
Money makes you buy less.
Can buy.
But what it can buy.
So the purchasing power of your wages today, if you're a young man in your 20s and 30s and even early 40s, the purchasing power has radically decreased from what your parents at that same stage of life were able to purchase with their wages.
And this is really one of the first times, at least in American history, I can't speak to every place at every time since the beginning of human history, but for American history, what we've seen is basically generation after generation after generation from our founding.
Things improved and improved and improved, and that just became assumed.
It just became assumed that things will always get better.
But we are living in a historic moment, at least for American history.
This is a historic moment where things are actually going down.
Life expectancy going down, IQ going down, real purchasing power of wages going down.
The only things that are going up are criminals, crime, immigration, women's use of antidepressants, yeah, female use of antidepressants, food dye, you know, in the grocery store.
Those are the cancer.
So I don't want to be completely negative.
There are some things that are going up, some numbers, cancer numbers, they're up.
But all the good things that you would like to see go up are going down.
And that's the world you're living in.
That's what you're up against.
And those are the things that we want to address today.
Real quick, we've got a super chat.
I appreciate this.
This is from Michael.
He says, I'm very thankful that you're speaking up for me, a young white man like me, and sharing that we actually are discriminated against in America today, especially over the last decade, rather than just bashing me.
Michael, you're welcome.
I don't normally do this, and I don't want to be cliche, but I mean this genuinely from the bottom of my heart.
Let's just pray for Michael and everybody else that he represents.
You're talking about millions of young men.
Father God, we just ask for your mercy.
Our country and our fathers and mothers sold out their children and grandchildren's future for the GDP to go up and to be able to pat themselves on the back and console themselves by telling them that they're not racist.
And so, in the name of not being racist and in the name of their 401k going up because of companies, not the American people, but corporations doing better because the bottom line went lower because jobs were outsourced for cheap labor, for those things, the prior generation of boomers was willing to sell the future of their own children and grandchildren.
Incredibly, incredibly wicked thing.
Much like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a bowl of soup.
The boomers have sold the birthrights, not even of themselves.
In many ways, it's even more wicked than Esau.
They didn't sell their own birthright, they sold the birthright of their own children and grandchildren.
And they did it for something comparable to soup.
They did it for GDP must go up and foreigners must come in so that I can tell myself I'm not a racist.
What a wicked, wicked thing.
Father, we pray for repentance for those boomers who are still alive, that they would acknowledge that sin, a real sin, repent of it, and find mercy and forgiveness and grace in Jesus Christ.
And we pray for their children and children's children, for these upcoming generations, for millennials, for Zoomers.
Lord, we pray just for your mercy and we pray for incredible wisdom, God.
We pray that you would make us as innocent as doves, that we wouldn't compromise or take cheap shots in order to get ahead, but that we would be innocent as doves, but that we would be as shrewd as vipers, that you would give to us a Christian spirit of shrewdness and strategy.
That we would be wise and cunning and find new ways to succeed in a world that has been stacked against us.
We pray this on behalf of every young man who listens to this podcast.
And we pray it in the name of Jesus.
Amen.
All right, Wes, this is your episode.
Go ahead and lead us off.
Let's actually start at the end what Michael was saying.
So, when we say, well, a lot of new jobs they've been going to people of color, let me show you this analysis.
So, this is from Bloomberg News.
Bloomberg went ahead and they dived into the data.
Just following the year after George Floyd.
So you think June 2020, George Floyd and all of the Black Lives Matter protests, the rallies, the commitments, right?
The kind of, I promise I'm not racist, statements from CEOs.
And they promised, we're going to hire more people of color.
We're going to hire more people of color for CEOs.
We're going to put them in middle management.
We're going to put them in leadership.
We're going to do it.
And so they went ahead and they actually did it.
This was kind of Bloomberg was shocked to really show it.
So, of the SP 100, so top 100 companies, I think by market cap, the US stock exchange, It's an ETF.
So out of these 100 companies, in that year they added 320,000 jobs, 320,000 jobs, which is a decent amount of jobs.
And these are four companies that have great pension plans, great benefits, great health insurance.
Top tier companies, when you think of your dad worked at Dell back in the day, think of these types of companies.
So they added 320,000 jobs.
94% of these jobs went to people of color, 6% of them went to white men, to whites.
So out of these top companies, out of 320,000 jobs that have been added, only 6% went to basically the stock, the founders of.
This nation, you think about the founding fathers when they said, for our, for us and our posterity, for our people.
The founders would be just rolling over in their graves.
They would be enraged.
Yes.
You did what to our children?
And all of these dots right here, like just think about the US.
So it's about 55 to 60% white or so, and then groupings of different people.
Say it landed along those lines, right?
15 to 20% black, if you're 50, 60% white.
Those fallings out, you wouldn't see, you wouldn't look at that and say, unequal weights and measures were definitely utilized here.
But you look at the dots there, and every one of those dots represents to a high degree five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 generations of Americans, young men that were looking for a good job.
And once you get a job, what typically happens when a man is stable, affords a home, he lives somewhere for a while, so he's able to date and then marry, is children.
You can think of many of those dots as representing young men who entered the workforce in 2021, 2022, 2023, and they had to settle for something much less.
To make much less money, to move around more.
So, because they were in a job that was just sales and unstable, and then they had to move here, it's not affording them to be able to move out of their parents' home.
That's what we're looking at here.
I'm going to go to home prices.
You mentioned it, Joel.
This is a chart here of home prices in terms of the ratio of median income, median household income ratio, to the actual cost of the home.
So, think about if you made $50,000 a year, the average home was $200,000, that would be a ratio of four.
Through the 70s, through the 80s, through the 90s, you're coming out of kind of the Great Depression and World War II there on the left side.
Through them, you had a ratio that at times was below, but roughly around four.
So, again, that means you make $50,000 a year annually.
Your home, $200,000.
You have the bubble that's a housing bubble.
And now we've surpassed that to where the ratio is closer to seven.
So now you probably, the average median rate income, it's not $50,000 anymore, it's $100,000.
But did that house stay $200,000?
Or did maybe the average even just go up to $400,000?
It's now seven times.
So, say you make $100,000, your dad made $50,000, bought a $200,000 home.
That was the average.
That's what he was looking at.
That was the type of salary he was getting.
That was the cost of the home.
Say now you make $100,000 and your dad's proud of you.
Good job, son.
You went out there, you got a six figure salary.
Well, that $100,000 salary, the ratio to the median home cost, is now a $700,000 home.
Interest, taxes, all of those things, they're exponentially higher.
And in terms of purchasing power, the home, that portion of your budget is going to be twice.
Yes.
So if it was a third of your parents' budget, and well, now you're cash poor because it's going to be two thirds, it's going to be the vast majority of your entire paycheck is going towards housing.
Yep.
Exactly.
And this is not the first time that the economy is like, well, you may not care about the economy, but the economy cares about you.
The Great Depression, all of these things, clearly the economy matters.
But there's a lot of guys who just dug in and they did it.
But I would say the one thing about it when I listen to stories, it was more my great grandparents about the Great Depression and stuff.
At the end of the day, they had kids and a wife and family.
They lived around their kind of extended family.
There's a bit of a sense of all in it together.
But as we know from the statistics, millennials and marriage are not going very well.
The average age of marriage is increasing.
And if you're a young man, we don't talk about this a lot, probably because we're all married, but your options out there for dating, and let's just even say just a non Christian, say you're non Christian, but you're a general right wing man.
Well, what are your options?
Well, according to the statistics, about 15 to 20% of women out there would be on hormonal birth control.
Hormonal birth control changes the profile of the type of man she's attracted to.
Women on hormonal birth control are more tuned towards men that are more feminine in their nature and the disposition.
Someday we'll maybe do a whole episode on this.
Women are also in increasing rates, and I have some charts here on the screen.
They're going on antidepressants, SSRIs, between hormonal birth control, SSRIs, increased promiscuity.
This one that you'll see on your screen, they're more liberal than ever.
Young men, they're actually turning right wing, generally speaking.
That's where the trend is going.
But young women are more liberal than ever.
So, in terms of home, in terms of a job, And just in terms of dating and finding a woman to start a family with, young men across the board, certainly Christian men, and certainly a vast majority of that white men, they have it so much harder.
Like this right here is antidepressant use, just accelerating, almost doubling in women from 20 to 24 years old from 1995 to 2010.
Birth control, hormonal birth control, antidepressants, liberal in their political views.
And you just have to be honest with it.
This stuff is real.
These are young men meeting real women, trying to purchase real homes, trying to find real jobs, and they're just not able to.
Michael, you had some stuff on purchasing power as well that I think is helpful to flesh out.
So, some of the numbers can get a little bit, you know, they're numbers, right?
But one of the things I did some research on was comparing adjusted average salary.
And I excluded things like just working at a car wash or something like this.
This would be like your first job at an actual company, like your first career job.
But just starting off, okay?
The kind of job that maybe a 22 year old guy is gonna be looking for.
So adjusting that number between 1920 to now to match real time dollars.
So adjusting for inflation to now.
And then comparing that purchasing power or how much it would take for one of your years of salary to pay for some of the expenses.
So in 1920, it would take that young man with that entry level but career job, entry level job, it would take him.
Four of his annual salaries to pay off the home that he and his wife just purchased.
Now it would take 10 years, 10 annual salaries to pay off the average starter home.
That's his whole salary.
That's assuming he were to put all of his salary.
Right.
But so if he's making $40,000, $160,000 in adjusted modern dollars, so more than double, two and a half times increase.
Things like an average car, it would have taken.
Three a third of his annual salary to pay off a car.
Now it takes 0.75 years to pay off a car, so it's more than doubled, right?
Just the amount of dollars that he's earning two and a half times higher to pay off a home or longer, two times longer to pay a car.
College affordability is crazy.
It used to take 0.1 years of that 1920 salary, now it takes 0.375 of his yearly salary to pay off that college.
And what's really interesting is some of these numbers.
They fluctuated some, but they kind of went pretty steadily.
I looked at every 20 year increment 20s, 40s, 60s, 80s, 2000s, and 2020s.
And it was really only in the 2000s and now the 2020s, especially, that the purchasing power of the wage that he was making compared to how long it would take him, same amount of stuff to buy, has just increased astronomically.
It's crazy.
So I'm sure, as we mentioned in the cold open, conservatives have some great thoughts on this, some good solutions, and they're recognizing the dynamics.
This is the post that set off a firestorm.
And for the record, when we get into social media and stuff, for one, we're highlighting people that have significant influence and voices, right?
I don't think you're ever going to see anyone up here with just 15 followers.
We're talking about people that command a lot of influence in the type of circles that you, the listener, would be in.
And so this is Chris Ruffo, who, for the record, as you were alluding to earlier, he's done great work on DEI, on exposing the practices, especially at public universities, so universities funded by your tax dollars.
But someone said this, they essentially said, I'm looking around.
They're like, I've made it.
I've done well.
But I'm looking around and I'm seeing layoffs and everything, everything everywhere.
So this is a pedantic killjoy.
He said, People keep telling me the economy is strong.
But every time I look at the news, I see layoffs and businesses closing.
Personally, I'm doing just fine.
But I can see with my own eyes that something is wrong.
Not sure what to believe here.
Did you say I'm doing just fine?
I'm mewing just fine.
I'm doing just fine.
I'm doing just fine.
Chris Ruffo, he's here to help.
He said, This is basically, he's referring to the unemployment numbers, full employment.
So the unemployment rate is about 4.1%, which, for the record, a lot of men, they've actually, there's a new category, which would be they've left the workforce.
So when we say unemployment, there's 4.1% of people of the working force that's unemployed.
That's actually, there are millions and millions of men that they just, they've stopped looking for jobs.
Building Multi-Generational Wealth00:02:48
They've either moved back in with their family, they're on some type of disability.
And so it's not capturing those, it's simply saying of those that are looking for work, and we know are still looking for work.
Only 4% of them are unemployed.
So, Chris Ruffo said this is basically full employment.
The Panda Express near my house is offering $70K a year plus benefits for the assistant manager.
You can make $100K a year working at Chipotle for a few years and working up to the store manager.
I have a couple other examples, but this is the one that really got people.
Because in all of what we just said home prices, cost of living, food, inflation, cars the advice is, well, go.
Go serve orange chicken for 70k a year, and that should be so.
Young man, you're concerned about a family, you're concerned about a stable, uh, like a stable home life, you're concerned about an inheritance, right?
So, you're saving not just to be able to retire hopefully at some point, but an inheritance.
And, uh, and the advice is there's tons of places where you can work for a job that's not going to take you very far, and you should be happy about it.
There's an abundance out there.
What's the big fuss, essentially?
So, that gives you guys the lay of the land that sets the Framework for this episode.
We're going to go to our first commercial break and then we'll come back with Orrin McIntyre.
Our sponsor, Private Family Banking, wants to help you with one money move that'll implicate itself in multi generational wealth building starting the first day.
They help you to avoid taxation and to draw compound interest to your money.
Now, if you're a high net worth individual, someone who has maybe even $10 million in net worth, then they can help you even more.
W 2 workers, contract workers, business owners, It's all about cash flow and making tax deferred gains on all your money for the rest of your life.
Don't avoid this.
It's a big move, but it's a great time to make it.
Click the link below, and you can get on Chuck de La Torrante's calendar, and he'll go over your background and what you want to accomplish.
And he's going to help model a program that exactly fits your needs.
So go ahead and send an email to Chuck at Private Family Banking.com.
Again, that's Chuck at Private Family Banking.com, or you can click the link below.
Make a free discovery call now.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though they're commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
America's Christian Foundation00:11:44
Reese Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
All right, we are back and we should have Orrin McIntyre ready to join the show.
There he is.
Orrin, thanks for coming on.
Hey guys, how's it going?
It's going.
It is going.
So we've been watching you a little bit on X. You're coming to our conference, by the way.
I got to plug that real quick.
So April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, the year of our Lord 2025.
It's a Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
We've got Steve Dace.
We've got Orrin McIntyre.
He'll be there.
We've got Calvin Robinson.
We've got all the Ogden boys from New Christendom Press.
We've got Andrew Isker and CJ Engel and Dr. Stephen Wolfe and A whole host of others.
So we're really excited.
John Harris, AD Robles, really excited about this conference.
The Christian Prince himself, Dusty Devers, the Senator, Dusty Devers, forgive me.
So we're excited about that conference.
But I've been following you for a while, Oren, and we connected, and you were gracious enough to come to the conference.
You had me on your show.
I've had you a couple of times, but I've been watching you over the last, well, really since Christmas, since the whole H1B and Vivek, who came out of hibernation today on X. God bless him.
He's ready now that Trump's going to be inaugurated to.
To show his face again and hope that we all forgot that he's for India first instead of America first.
But you've been doing a great job.
And so, can you just kind of, I don't know, weigh into the discussion?
We already showed the tweet from Chris Rufo.
And what do you think is going on here and how do we fix it?
I think that there's kind of this default mode that most conservatives fall into, which is everybody needs some tough love, right?
You got to tell the kids to get out there, get off the video games, you know, touch some grass.
Uh, go work hard and that'll just fix everything, right?
And obviously, one on one, like clean up your room, work hard like that's good advice.
If I have a friend and he's down on his luck, he can't pay his bills, the kids aren't getting food on their plate, and there's a job at a Panda Express, and the question is, Hey, Orin, would you tell that guy to go work at Panda Express?
The answer is, Yeah, of course.
Like, yes, like you shouldn't be drawing welfare, you shouldn't be sitting on your butt playing a video game while your kids are starving or you can't, you know, pay your bills.
This is not beneath you.
You should do this work.
However, when your job is literally to shape public policy, when you are a leader of men, you can't just tell everybody, oh, well, I mean, the system's kind of screwed, but just work hard.
Like that doesn't work.
When you spend literally years saying, hey, Bidenomics is failing, inflation is out of control, illegal immigration is destroying opportunity and social fabric, the ability to form families, get married is under assault.
We are uncovering these DEI programs that specifically target men and specifically target white men, and they're not allowed to go to college and get ahead and get hired.
When you literally make a career pointing all of this stuff out, you can't just be like, oh, well, Trump got elected.
Just go work hard, I guess.
No, you need a plan.
You have to show people that you care and you notice the problems.
And yes, they need to work hard.
They can't just wallow in self pity, but you are taking action to change the system that you know and have talked about is failing.
Agreed.
Yeah.
So, I mean, what do you think it is?
I mean, I feel like immigration is a major factor.
I feel like we're finally at the place where, you know, illegal immigration, of course, that's off the table.
But it seems like as conservatives and even some Christians, Christians, sadly, per usual, are not really leading the charge, but instead, kind of, you know, what did Ben Shapiro say?
Okay.
All right.
Well, you know, it's safe to say it now, you know.
But it does seem like the conversation of legal, not illegal, but legal immigration is finally on the table.
We're like, yeah, maybe not a ton of that either.
That seems a little bit hopeful.
What do you think?
Yeah, no, it's definitely a good sign.
I want people to understand that, yes, it was annoying to have Elon and Vivek come out on Christmas Day and say, well, we kind of need infinite foreigners to take the jobs that you really want to do.
Yeah, before we were saying immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want to do, but now we specifically are bringing them in.
To do jobs you absolutely want to do and are going to college to do.
Like that's very frustrating.
However, the very fact that the conversation has shifted away from open borders and infinite illegal immigration instead to how much legal immigration should we have is itself a great sign.
That is momentum in our direction.
That is a victory.
Yes, we still have to fight these fights.
Yes, we still have to hash out the coalition as it was created to get Trump elected.
These are all just parts of the political process.
You get a coalition together for politics.
And then once the victory comes, you got to have the internal kind of struggle session.
Unfortunately, it would be great if that wasn't the way that politics work, but it just is.
And so no one should be defeated.
No one should be down on themselves because this conversation is taking place.
You're only having this conversation because of a victory.
You just can't stop after the victory.
That's what conservatives always do.
You win the election and then they just stop paying attention to what's going on.
And what I'm hoping and what many people are hoping is that we can keep the attention focused.
And we can actually continue that victory, not just get Trump across the finish line, but actually get the things that were promised that people who support Trump really want.
Right.
Yeah.
I agree.
There's a comment, real quick, I want to read because I think it's insightful.
It's from Glorious and Free Ministries.
It says, It'll be nice when evangelical boomers prioritize telling third worlders in Africa and elsewhere who can't properly feed their own 10 children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of telling that to their own struggling children here in America.
Now, I personally, you know, this is my position, I would advocate for neither.
But point taken, I think it's a good point.
Do you think, Orn, that it's a bit ironic, perchance even we could use a word as strong as hypocritical, that you never see that type of rhetoric levied against the third world?
You never see, right?
Like we would never look at Uganda and say, well, you know, they're just lazy.
You know, maybe if they just worked a little bit harder, you know, and why aren't they wearing a suit and a tie when they go to their job interview, you know, and a firm head hangs?
Handshake and look the employer in the eyes, you know, with a warm smile.
You know, it works for me.
Why does it work for them?
And like what I'm saying is, we would immediately recognize, well, wait a second, there's actually such a thing in nations as corrupt elites who actually make things impossible.
So it's not fair entirely.
Like, yeah, you still have to work with the hand that you've been dealt.
And so we can talk about that all day long.
But before you talk about how to dig yourself out of a hole when you're starting at a disadvantage, it's first very helpful to recognize that the disadvantage actually exists, that you actually have a disadvantage.
And then Begin talking about solutions.
But my point is, it seems as though Americans, and especially evangelicals and especially boomers, but that the older generation of Christians here in America are it's like nobody has to sit them down and show them a chart or graphs or statistics or even history books or the politics of Uganda or the politics of the Sudan.
They instinctively understand that it's the elite's fault.
In these other nations, and that the people there, that the actual citizens are being oppressed, and that the poverty is induced, right?
Like, I don't know any Christian boomer, any Christian over the age of 65 who's saying, man, the North Koreans, gosh, they're lazy.
You know, like, they would say, no, they're poor, but the poverty can be tracked back to sin.
Poverty is always linked to sin, but it's not always linked to your sin, right?
It's not always, I'm poor and it's my sin.
It can sometimes be, and often throughout world history, it can be I'm poor and it's your sin, it's somebody else who's actually made me impoverished.
And it seems like Americans and Christian Americans and older Americans instinctively understand this with every nation except for our own.
So, in this house, I got this from you, Warren.
In this house, we believe in elite theory.
Can you talk a little bit about that for our listeners?
Sure, absolutely.
One of the things that I focus on a lot in my work, my writing, and my show is a school of political theory called Italian elite theory.
And really, it Comes from Machiavelli and moves through guys like Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels.
And ultimately, what these guys were trying to highlight is that every civilization is ultimately influenced and run by its elite.
And that's not to say that the elite aren't influenced by the common people and religion and culture and everything else, but that the tastemakers and the movers of the levers of power ultimately do a lot more to kind of inform the citizenry and create their situations.
Then vice versa, and so if you want to understand the mechanics of a civilization, its culture, the way things are moving, the best thing to do is to focus on its elites.
Now, what a lot of people worry about, what a lot of the kind of the uh mainstream conservative commentators that were kind of digging into this were is that ultimately this creates a kind of uh helplessness, right?
That this creates a victim mentality, and of course, we see this on the left, we see this with Marxist based class analysis, right?
Well, the elites control everything, there's nothing we can do, they're all corrupt, we got to get rid of them.
And in the meantime, well, just be lazy.
You can blame everything on them.
We absolutely want to avoid that.
They are right to say that that is not the mentality that you should have.
We have to cultivate virtue in the population.
Young men need the virtue that comes with hard work and ambition.
But what is the real disconnect here, I think, is understanding the well being of the people.
Ultimately, right?
We want men to work hard, but we want them to work hard because it's meaningful, because it's connecting to something that matters.
Telling someone to put 80 hours into Panda Express or Chipotle every week just makes them a cog in the machine.
They have no agency.
They are simply under a bunch of managers and bureaucrats.
Now, telling a man to work 80 hours opening his own restaurant, giving him the ability to build something that he can pass on to his children, that is a radically different thing.
But there was just this huge disconnect, I think, from a lot of people who are worried that all these young Zuber men are just going to sit around and they're going to blame society.
And of course, that does exist.
I'm not pretending that there aren't lazy or entitled people that young people don't need to learn the value of work.
But ultimately, you build the right to tell a man to give him that advice, to give him that tough love speech, because you've shown that you care about him.
As elite, you have a responsibility to first show that you care about and you are working towards the betterment of someone.
And then you can look in the eye and say, and by the way, now that I've made this easier for you, you need to get out there and get this done.
But you have to take the action first.
Right.
Well said.
Understanding Civil Rights Laws00:02:14
Wes, Michael, any thoughts?
Aaron, I was interested in, so when we talk about.
The difficulties young men face.
It's kind of like, well, you know, these gangs of Asian men in Britain are doing terrible things.
Well, no, it's a very specific subgroup within this.
And so when we talk about young men, it is specifically white men.
And you could blame it on DEI.
So DEI hiring practices, the preference for people of color in hiring and promoting and hiring them above white men.
But I feel like, to me at least, that seems almost like a symptom of some type of underlying root cause.
I don't know if I could go as far back as the Civil Rights Act and kind of removing the freedom of association.
Where would you say the train came off the tracks as far as these big companies really got it in their veins, got it in their mindset to really set to the side, push aside, and bring in?
I mean, certainly immigrants for sure, but just generally a preference for people of color at the expense of white European Christian men.
Like you said, this goes back pretty far, and the Civil Rights Act is pretty central to this.
A lot of people think of the Civil Rights Act in its First iteration, right, where it specifically says that this can't be used to discriminate against anyone or elevate anyone based on their race, including white people.
However, what we've seen over time is as civil rights law has developed, as the different layers of law have been added, court decisions and these kinds of things, this is altered radically.
Specifically, the most pernicious one is the ruling in Griggs versus Duke Power, which created the idea of disparate impact.
And this is a policy that says anything that affects Any racial group disproportionately is automatically prima facie evidence of discrimination.
You don't need to intentionally discriminate.
If there are any differences, then you are discriminating no matter what.
And this leads to modern decisions.
For instance, the Biden administration sued their Department of Justice, sued a gas station company, and actually won the judgment because they were using criminal background checks.
And disproportionately, minorities are more represented in criminal background checks.
So fewer minorities were getting hired.
The Trap of Disparate Impact00:14:31
That meant that.
Checking criminal backgrounds was evidence of racism and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Now, this court ruling is so bad that it was basically repealed through court law, but then it was reintroduced and codified into the 1991 Civil Rights Act.
So, a lot of people hear the Civil Rights Act and they think, oh, well, this just makes everybody equal.
But no, it literally makes it illegal for you to hire more white people if they happen to not have a criminal record.
And this radiates out into basically every interaction in our society.
Yeah, I think one of the things that I realized a few years back was, you know, because at first it was like, well, let's just, you know, let's just not be woke, right?
Let's be anti woke.
And even before that, like 2017, 18, 19, preceding 2020 and the summer of love, mostly peaceful riots and things like that, in the church world, the conversation was all about social justice.
And I was a part of a network at that time called Acts 29 Network that very much was beating the social justice drum.
And I remember being bothered by it and starting to speak out against it.
But at the time, like, Most of the rhetoric, most of the defense against social justice in the church, a social justice gospel, was, you know, we would say, well, that's a blurring of the gospel, right?
Because the gospel is, it's grace and it's not works.
And you're making this a works gospel because you're adding to the gospel.
You're saying that, you know, you're blurring the lines and you're not just saying that we should do good things, you know, as a result, as an evidence of being saved by grace, but.
You're actually saying that we should do the gospel.
And the gospel is not something we do, it's just something we believe.
So, this is a works gospel where it's faith in Jesus plus being a social justice advocate and working towards protecting the poor from being oppressed or whatever.
And so, that was like the line of attack from conservative Christians, and I was one of them.
And I picked up that rhetoric probably in 2017, 18, 19.
It wasn't until about 2020 that I started to realize, well, and then it became woke, social justice.
What wasn't, you know, woke became the thing.
And so we need to be not woke.
But it wasn't until, you know, probably like 2020 that I started to realize wait a second.
Like the problem here, it's not technically, it's not justice.
Justice isn't a problem.
Justice is a good thing.
And the problem isn't even just wokeness, you know, that became a stand in for social justice in regards to minority people.
The problem is that it's all lies.
Like, what we need is truth.
There is actually a theological problem, in my view, of blending salvation by grace alone and doing certain works in order to merit the favor and love of God.
So, there is a theological problem there.
But the best of the social justice guys were careful enough theologically not to blur those lines.
And so they would say, no, no, no, we're not saying you do it to be saved, but we're saying that if you're saved, that salvation will be evidenced by doing good works, and there's no Better work than to let justice roll down like mighty rivers.
And what that means, you know, is basically everything that, you know, Martin Luther King preached.
And you need to be doing that.
And so it wasn't, you know, for about three years from 2017 leading up to 2020, I, you know, I was hitting it from this angle of, well, don't blend social justice with the gospel or don't be woke, don't be a racist towards black people.
Just don't be a racist at all.
Be colorblind.
Don't see color at all.
Race is insignificant.
It doesn't even, it's not even a thing.
It's just, You know, different shades of melanin, and there's just one race, the human race, and all those kinds of things I picked up.
And then it just finally hit me, and I realized that the problem with the left is that it's not true.
So, the problem of saying that all these people of color discriminated, one of the biggest problems with that is not because it focuses us on social justice or it takes us away from the gospel or this, that, and the other.
The problem is it's fundamentally a lie.
At the time that we were being told, That people of color were being discriminated against, white people on the books were being discriminated against.
And so now I'm of the frame of mind that, no, we do need to talk about justice.
We just need to talk about it truthfully.
We need to talk about justice as it pertains to those who really are experiencing injustice.
And we need to talk about fixing those things, especially when a country is hating its own native citizens.
But that kind of rhetoric, which is basically, you correct me if I'm wrong, Orrin, but from You know, doing some of the reading, that kind of rhetoric seems to be the obvious no duh from any writer who existed before, you know, 1945.
But basically, what I've been told is that if you think the same way that every single person ever thought in the history of the world until about 70, 80 years ago, then you're woke.
You're woke right.
And there's a wonderful, brilliant, staunch conservative thinker, James Lindsay, who talks about this.
What do you?
What do you think about his conception of the woke right?
And what do you think about what I'm talking about in terms of, no, we really do need to fight injustice, but it needs to be actual injustice?
You know, in the 1930s, if you had come to me and said, hey, there is actual racism, like there are racist laws on the books, I would have agreed with you.
And if you had said, hey, we need to change these laws so that they don't discriminate against Black people in America, I'd be like, well, yes, of course, that's wrong.
If you come to me in 2020 and tell me that that's the case, then that's just obviously not true.
Like, it's just factually inaccurate that there are laws put in place that are on the books that actively discriminate against Black Americans.
However, if you told me in the 1930s that we needed to change something because white people were to be discriminated against, I would say, well, that doesn't seem right.
It doesn't seem like those laws are on the books.
However, if in 2020 you told me that, well, I can literally point to Affirmative action.
I can literally point to Gregg's versus Duke Power.
Like these things exist, they are in the law.
I don't understand why we needed to get rid of laws that specifically were biased against Black Americans, but we don't need to get rid of laws that are specifically biased today against white Americans, mostly and also Asian Americans, sometimes other groups as well.
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
And the problem was not that you needed to have justice, as you point out.
The problem was the definition of justice, the fact that you were bending.
Over backwards to create problems in the law that simply did not exist.
I'm not asking for any special treatment for white people.
I don't think we need white identity politics, but I think it's very stupid to pretend that noticing a literal law on the books that is actively limiting the ability of white people and most often white men to advance in society, I don't think there's a problem with that.
That doesn't turn you into a victim.
I don't think you should build an entire BLM style movement around this.
We don't need BLM or DEI for white people, which has now become the catchphrase.
But when you're calling just having an immigration system or getting rid of active racist laws against white people, DEI for white people, now you're just being dishonest.
Like now you are very obviously playing for your own advantage, not actually playing by the rules.
Yeah, well said.
And for anybody who's listening, it's funny because I see you on social media, particularly X, and a lot of times guys like James Lindsay, who I was using.
Facetiously, just a moment ago, you know, make you out to be like some kind of far right extremist.
And I'm listening to everything you said, and I think it's well said, and I agree with it 90%.
And I'm thinking, Orrin McIntyre, one of my favorite centrists, just a moderate conservative.
Because I'm thinking theoretically in terms of arguments for permissibility.
So I'm not saying what's ideal and what we should do tomorrow or any of that.
But if we're just talking about permissibility and we're talking about theoretically and political philosophy, and me as a pastor blending some of that with my theological convictions, then there's nothing wrong, there's nothing inherently immoral about a nation.
Actually, preferring in our case, because America is unique, it wouldn't necessarily be white people in an exclusive sense.
But if a nation prioritizes one faith, for instance, like I would advocate as a Christian nationalist, I would say I'm happy to wear the moniker.
I totally understand why some people don't.
And I would be a part of the larger conversation on the team of New Dissident Right or the New Christian Right or whatever you want to call it, very much for that team and on that team.
But I also like the moniker Christian nationalism.
And so for me, as a proud Christian nationalist, I would say, yeah, in terms of permissibility, there would be nothing wrong with America, which is a Christian nation.
I would argue we're currently in apostasy, but in terms of its founding, its origin, all those kinds of things, there's nothing wrong with a Christian nation prioritizing in terms of faith, religion, saying, yeah, we're going to be, because America is also unique in the sense of its tolerance of those who have different views.
And so I would like for America to still be America, where it's not Sharia law, and that's not even compatible with Christian theological.
Convictions, but also not America and its culture and its founding and the people that we are.
So, okay, so America will probably, if I was king for a day, America would always have, I think, some added measure of patience and tolerance and compassion in a way that many other parts of the world don't have when it comes to different religions.
But blasphemy would not be tolerated in the public square.
You wouldn't have, you know, the police rounding up, you know, people who are, you know, Muslims or a different faith in their private homes.
But in the public square, there wouldn't be blasphemy.
There'd be things like that.
I'm okay with blue laws, again, in terms of permissibility and conviction, those kinds of things.
But there would be an exalting.
So it's not necessarily putting everyone else out, but the esteeming of the Christian faith, right?
Your holidays, national parades or ceremonies, they would be distinctly Christian, right?
You swear into office, it's the Christian Bible, the Quran, sorry.
You can privately read it in your home, but that doesn't work in a court of law.
It needs to be the Bible, the Word of God, the Triune God.
So, there's nothing wrong in terms of permissibility on the theological side of actually preferring the Christian faith, the faith of that particular nation.
On the social side, there seems to me, in terms of arguments of permissibility, I'm not saying we have to do it tomorrow or that we'll even ever do it, but it doesn't seem as though there's anything inherently immoral about preferring also a particular people.
In our case, with America being unique, it wasn't all white, it was predominantly white, but it wasn't all white.
But I would just say heritage Americans to say, yeah, we're going, and so what does that mean?
It means.
That America would prefer those who can track their ancestry to this piece of land, this country, their fathers fought in our wars, and they can do so more than just 15 minutes ago.
They didn't just arrive on an H 1B visa to take your job at the software company yesterday.
But instead, there's actually an esteeming and a preference given to Christian faith over other faiths.
And American heritage people over other people.
And that doesn't mean that we have to be rude or anything like that.
But it does mean that there's actually something to be said for this is my place.
These are my people.
These are my traditions.
This is my religion.
This is my country.
And I think about that, you know, and the more I think about it, you know, because people will say, well, if you want those good jobs, then you just, you gotta compete, you know, you gotta be better.
And I just, I think I would disagree on two levels.
One, I would say, I don't think that Americans are fundamentally lazy, you know, because they watch too much.
You know, boy meets world.
I think I take great offense at that actually.
I think that the rest of the world, wherever we see innovation, it's usually copying the innovation that happened in America.
Americans are the most innovative, you know, the most ingenuity.
Like Americans have done incredible things.
So, one, I just disagree with that sentiment that we've got it, you know, all the geniuses, the next Tesla is going to be found in India, you know, and not America.
I just statistically, I don't think that's true.
And then, secondly, I also think, but wait a second, it's your country.
And if America first means America as a sports team beats in the global Olympics of widget factories, if that's what it means to be America first, then I would just say, then I'm perfectly content with America coming in second place or third place or 50th place.
If it means, if the price to be paid for America first is that America as a jersey, as a sports jersey, wins the Super Bowl of widget making, but American people are unemployed.
And devastated.
I feel like the leaders of a country, their first priority has to be to their people above their country making trades with other teams, with India or whatever, just to make sure that they win the Super Bowl of who can colonize Mars the fastest.
Any thoughts on that?
Prioritizing People Over Politics00:03:28
Yeah, there's this guy, Samuel Huntington, and he's famous for his Clash of Civilizations thesis, but he was a professor at Harvard.
He's a center left guy, actually, but he wrote this great book called Who Are We?
And really, Huntington was looking after the Cold War and said, Hey, we had this weird moment where the entire world was basically set in this bifurcated scenario.
You were either communist or you were a capitalist.
You were either United States or Soviet Union.
And that kind of superseded the normal national identity.
And now that that is gone, now that we have seen the end of the Cold War, we're going to start moving back towards traditional forms of identity.
And that's going to become more and more important.
Every nation is going to be defined by its more classic features and no longer by the kind of this.
Rough ideology of capitalism versus communism.
And he said, We in the United States need to grapple with this question who are we?
If we are going to return to a more traditional understanding of peoplehood, of nationhood, then we can't keep this idea of just being an abstract principle.
We have to be grounded in what nations have been grounded in for pretty much all of history.
And again, this guy is a center left guy.
He's not some right wing bomb thrower.
But in the book, he basically comes to the conclusion that America is an Anglo Protestant nation, that everything about it, all of these principles that we love to talk about, Aren't just some abstract Gnostic thing floating around.
It's grounded in a particular people, a particular religion, a particular tradition and heritage and understanding.
And of course, being a man of the left, he was not looking for any kind of hardline identity of, you know, Anglo Protestantism.
He said people can join, people must join, they must assimilate.
But that is key.
They must assimilate, they have to become part of that process.
We can't just leave identity off the table.
Identity will continue to exist.
If you just leave it to the left, Then guess what happens?
They define it.
The same thing that happened when we tried to push religion out.
Oh, we're going to be a neutral country when it comes to religion.
Well, guess what we ended up with?
Wokeness as the new religion, because the left dominated all of those quote unquote neutral spaces.
The same thing is going to be true of identity.
If you just abandon it as the right, then guess who's going to control what American identity is?
It's going to be the left.
And I think having an Anglo Protestant core identity is critical.
Again, we are a nation that has always allowed people to join in that, but we must make it the priority.
It has to be something that binds us together.
And by the way, Preferring a particular people is actually great for you.
It doesn't, it's not just morally permissible, spiritually permissible.
It's actually achieves a lot of the goals that conservatives and libertarians want to achieve.
Because when you have a multicultural society, you have conflicting worldviews and conflicting moral visions.
And guess who can be the only person who can arbitrate that conflict in every level from the personal to the political to the business interaction?
It's the government.
Yes, the state has to get involved.
So when you prefer, A specific way of doing things, everyone shares the same culture, the same religion, at least superficially, at least as part of the culture, then the state doesn't have to involve itself in every interaction because there is a baseline shared moral vision, tradition, understanding, heritage that everyone can be a part of.
But when you create a multicultural society, you necessarily grow the government because it's the only one that can dictate what's going to happen when all these other moral visions are clashing.
Well said.
Changing Conservative Rhetoric00:14:04
We're going to go to our final commercial break of the day and then we'll come back with Oren for our last segment.
All right, the clock is running out.
You need to go and register now for our Christ is King How to Defeat Trash World Conference.
It's happening the year of our Lord 2025, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
That's a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
And by God's grace, we're able to provide for you an all star lineup.
We've got Steve Dace, Calvin Robinson, Oren McIntyre, Dr. Stephen Wolf.
Eric Kahn, David Reese, Andrew Isker, John Harris, AD Robles, Dan Burkholder, Dusty Devers, Ben Garrett, CJ Engel, and yours truly, Pastor Joel Webbin.
Come on out, join us April 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025, Thursday through a Saturday.
Go to RightResponseConference.com to register today.
Again, that's RightResponseConference.com.
Listen, guys, you probably listen to RightResponse Ministries because you take the dominion mandate offered to us in Scripture.
Seriously.
Well, unsurprisingly, so does Dominion Wealth Strategist.
As the only distinctly reformed financial consulting firm, they help Calvinistic, covenantal, and confessional Christians to steward their resources faithfully in a way that actually aligns with God's Word.
Dominion Wealth leverages all corners of the financial service industry as independent brokerage agents, matching you with suitable products and services from dozens of top industry providers.
Their mission is to equip Believers to secure their family's future and build a legacy that glorifies God by building holistic financial strategies that include budgeting, insurance, debt management, retirement planning, estate planning, and more.
In order to make wealth Christian again with a portfolio that might even put King Solomon to shame, go and take dominion over your finances today by visiting www.reformed.money and book an introductory overview right now.
All of Christ for all of life, and all of finance for Christendom.
All right, we are back.
I'm going to give it to Michael Belch.
He's going to ask some questions for Orrin.
Just one question.
Oren, thanks for joining the show today.
As you said earlier, the fact that we are having the discussion about immigration and even whether we ought to have some limits on our immigration policy is, in a sense, a victory.
The conversation is happening.
I'm curious about your assessment of the coalition that is under Trump.
I mean, I hate to call it the conservative party anymore because it really isn't.
It really is the party of the dissidents who have all aligned under Trump's umbrella.
And the quote, or not the quote, the tweet that we had from Christopher Ruffo at the beginning of the episode, which I'm sure you saw, where he said, there's the $70,000 job at Panda Express, go take that.
I'm curious if that indicates something about the new dissident conservative movement where the goal, conservatism has always been kind of equated with fiscal responsibility or at least fiscal conservatism.
Is the fact that Rufo would think, oh, there's a $70,000 job.
It's just cash.
As opposed to kind of what you were talking about with the nobility of your purpose, building something, having kind of a more sincere ownership and attachment to providing a service that's really worthwhile that you can pass on to your children.
Is there anything that is being talked about, do you think, in the new Trump conservative coalition about, Really, the spirit of what it means to be a worker as opposed to a cog is that is that head conversation happening at all?
Is it something that we should push for as uh dissonant right members?
How do you think that that is going in the new dissonant right?
I should say at the outset that I like Chris, I've had him on the show, I've talked to him, he does great work.
So, I want to make it clear that just because we're having a disagreement on this doesn't mean that he doesn't have a large body of work to stand on and people shouldn't respect.
What he's done that's good.
That said, there are a lot of kind of mechanical assumptions going into this.
I'm somebody who grew up on conservative talk radio, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager and all these guys.
And I learned a lot there.
And I had a lot of those kind of, you know, that mentality locked in for most of my life until just a few years ago.
So it takes a while to turn this ship.
There's a lot of reflex.
And I think that's what we saw in the last few days here online was kind of this conservative rhetoric reflex.
Rather than thinking through the implications of kind of the ideas that have been onboarded, the really odd thing is if you listen to JD Vance, he gave an interview in which he specifically addressed this topic and pointed out that kind of the workforce participation numbers were fake.
And ultimately, it was important to give to prefer Americans over any foreigner and make sure that we're giving meaningful work to these guys.
It's kind of weird that all these people who have been rah, rah, rah for JD Vance over the last few years, and rightly so, I think Vance is awesome.
But the fact that they kind of just blew past this point that he himself has been making is very strange.
Vance has also said explicitly America is a nation, it is a people.
It's not just an office park or an economic zone.
Again, this is the rhetoric at the core of the Trump movement at this point.
JD Vance is riding shotgun next to a president who's over 80 years old, he's right next to power.
And the fact that he holds this belief, I think, ultimately underlines that this current is running very strong.
Through kind of, I guess, what would people call the new right?
I really think it's the old right.
It's just the actual right coming back.
But that's what we need.
And hopefully that continues.
I went to the National Conservatism Conference.
JD Vance spoke there before he was declared as the vice president, presidential nominee.
And his ideas were very much alive in that room.
There were others.
Vec was also there.
He started selling this idea of libertarian nationalism.
And I knew right then that things were not going to go well, that eventually we were going to get that knife in the back.
But to be clear, guys like Vance don't just have a seat at the table, they are the guys at the head of the table.
And that's great news.
That is great news.
He's not writing shotgun, though.
He's writing shotgun to a guy from South Africa who's writing shotgun.
To be fair, but no, but no, you're right.
It's super hopeful.
And who knows?
I mean, do you think what I just, I know it's way early to make a prediction here, but what do you, I feel like the next four years are going to be largely positive at minimum.
I've heard you say and others have said, and I agree, you know, four years to build, you know, some breathing room, a pause.
So for conservatives to build, but I think that it's entirely possible that it could be more than just.
A time to build, but there actually could be some serious achievements that the right is able to accomplish during this time.
And so, assuming that things might be positive, then we might have more than four years.
Do you think that someone like JD Vance could be president?
Could we get 12 years?
Is that possible?
I think it's absolutely possible.
And again, it really all depends on what they do here.
The fact that we need things like voter security and ID, and if we close the borders, Like so many of these things will permanently shape the way that elections operate inside the United States.
They have a lot of opportunities to make significant changes that will not only better the lives of Americans, but will also ensure a more conservative or right wing kind of bent to elections and outcomes and all these other things.
The leftists certainly think about this when they leave the border open for infinite new voters.
The right needs to start thinking the same way.
I do, I am hopeful ultimately that we will see some big gains.
But like you said, I always preach to people.
You've got to be active.
It's not enough to sit around and wait for Trump or Vance or whoever to make the big changes.
Even though I'm an elite theory guy, I do think ultimately they will make the largest contributions.
But I think what we really need on the right now is a farm team.
We need to be building talent.
We need to be building an aristocracy.
We need to become worthy to be in those positions of power and make sure we have a deep bench.
So there's a guy behind Trump and behind JD Vance and behind the next guy who is very good and very conservative.
We need to raise up.
Leaders across the country, locally, state level, and at the national level.
And that has to be our priority, which is, again, why I think it's so important for conservative influencers and politicians and others to change their language on this kind of stuff.
You need to be encouraging young men.
You need to be giving them a future that is not just about securing a managerial job at some kind of fast food chain.
You need to give them a vision where they are meaningful contributors to their community and they have a path forward.
Not just to make money, but to make a difference.
The left sells young people on their ability to make a difference, not on their ability to make X amount of dollars.
And that is a huge motivator.
There is zero reason that the left should own that, especially when we're the side that can actually give people hope.
We can actually give them meaning.
We know what is good and true and beautiful.
The left does not.
We should be giving that to the young.
Well said.
Two questions.
One's a super fast one.
Are you Southern Baptist?
What is your.
Yep, Southern Baptist.
Okay.
And then, two, that's what I thought.
Number two, if you said you were Catholic, I was going to be in huge trouble.
At this point, you know, you got one, you know, if you got one, you know, might as well invite them all.
Anyways, I don't know if you've seen on Twitter, but I've gotten some pushback from Calvin Robinson, which I'm happy that he's going to be joining us, much to the chagrin of many others.
Second question is for these next four years, and it seems like conservatives are going to have tailwinds for the first time in my lifetime, maybe, you know, so not just like losing some of the headwinds, but maybe even some tailwinds, you know, wind in our sails.
And I was thinking about that just in regards to, you know, in multiple different arenas, but particularly just as it pertains to social media.
I mean, if you've got Zuckerberg coming out, you know, and saying, yeah, I, you know, like, I'm going to, you know, basically just start copying what Elon has done with X.
And, you know, what I told everybody was like, I don't really think he's repentant.
I don't think he had a change of heart.
And for me, I've, you know, I've said multiple times publicly, good.
I actually prefer that.
Not at an individual level.
I do, as a Christian, I do prefer that he actually would feel, you know, not just worldly sorrow, but like 2 Corinthians talks about, you know, godly sorrow for the fact that he rigged an election.
I mean, he had a major hand in suppressing true stories that affected how people would vote and is responsible for it.
To that end, he bears some responsibility, and I would argue a decent share of 13, you know, U.S. service members that died in that, like all the bad decisions that were made under the Biden administration.
Administration and real human beings who lost their lives, Zuckerberg bears some responsibility for that.
He absolutely helped Biden get elected.
And so, because of that, I do pray as a Christian that there would be godly sorrow for what I would consider actually sin.
I think it's actually sin.
And that ultimately he would put his faith in Jesus Christ and be saved and not go to hell.
So, I'm hoping for that.
When I say good, what I mean is at a political level and more of a practical, temporal level, I actually think it's an even stronger win for the right when some of the most powerful, not just your 85% of the population, your NPCs, who are doing She's So Brat, and then all of a sudden, and the robots power down and the chip is removed and then replaced.
And now, literally, turn on a dot, now they're doing this, whether it's an NFL star or a musician or just all the TikTok videos from the sorority girls.
Literally on the turn of a dime, 180 degree, you know, that's your NPCs.
But when you have Zuckerberg, when you have billionaires, you know, at that level, who arguably are not, they don't have godly sorrow.
They don't feel actual remorse and don't see it as they did something evil, but they're still going to say the line and change the rhetoric and change course.
To me, that's when you know you're winning, right?
You know, you're winning when, because for the longest time, I would have said, you know, like, well, it's just, you know, one, One heart and one mind at a time.
You know, it's, it's, you know, facts don't care about your feelings.
And so I got to, you know, bust out, you know, the spreadsheets and the charts.
And I need to just simply persuade and convince people one heart at a time, one mind at a time.
And if we can get 50% of the population plus one, you know, then in our sacred democracy, we can win elections and we can start to make change and blah, And now I look at it and I'm like, you actually don't have to persuade that many people.
I would actually, you don't even actually have to persuade most people or the majority of people.
You just have to win.
Because if you win, they persuade themselves overnight, all of a sudden.
Trump dance instead of she's so brat.
Persuading Minds One at a Time00:02:11
Just like that.
Like, you don't have to persuade 22 year old college girls.
You don't.
You just have to win.
And then they realize, oh, gosh, I don't want to be a loser.
And they switch teams.
And Zuckerberg, I think, has more in common, even though he's a billionaire, with a 22 year old sorority girl than an actual man of history who shapes the world, somebody who's actually a leader.
And so, all that being said, as it pertains to social media, if Zuckerberg, if I'm right, About that.
And it's not a genuine change of heart.
It's just falling in line because there's a new winner in town.
If that's true, then YouTube might fall in line and everything might fall in line.
And I perceive at least the possibility of not just that the headwinds finally lighten up for conservatives across the board, but especially in the realm of social media, but that we actually experience some tailwinds.
Like, I'm wondering, and I'm curious if you, you know, as a media voice yourself, I think the next four years, like, we could actually put some numbers on the board.
Like, we could, like, some big things could happen without just having to take a tenth the size of your audience over on Rumble, but that you could actually be on major platforms saying the things that we're saying and maybe not be suppressed, and maybe even a tailwind of an algorithm that favors you.
People want to hear it and are actually interested.
Do you think that those kinds of things, like, am I, do I need, do I need a couple black pills maybe?
Like, I've sold too many white pills.
Like, what do you think?
Am I crazy?
I have a white pill and a black pill for you.
So, a couple black pills.
Okay.
Two crazy.
Got one in each hand.
So, the good news, the part that I agree with you is, of course, the, as we said, we believe in elite theory in this house.
And so we know that actually opinion does not determine power, power determines opinions.
Hierarchy Over Egalitarianism00:15:59
And so when you win, Then they like you.
It really is that simple.
Most people want status.
Most people want to be cool.
And that's way better than any argument in the marketplace of ideas you will ever, ever make.
And so the most important thing, if you would like to change culture, is to have the power, the levers of which it is manufactured.
Most conservatives don't see that because they kind of think of popular sovereignty.
It's democracy.
That's what makes these things happen.
But it's not.
It makes some people angry, but that's just the truth.
And so, you know, if you have that, Then the changes you're talking about are much easier, right?
And that's how you know a real political win.
A political win is not something that changes one issue that you want, though that is good.
It's a thing that makes the next win easier.
And once you win all the things, you can change whatever you want because then you don't have to worry about any of those encumbrances.
So that is the good news.
I do think we have big wins.
I do think that we are seeing that shift that you're talking about.
The vibe shift is coming.
A lot of elites who were kind of on, didn't care, they weren't committed one way or another.
They're on board.
They're going to change things.
They see the way that things are blowing and they want to be on the winning team.
And that's going to cascade down.
That preference cascade is going to move all the way down the socioeconomic ladder to the average person.
A lot of people get angry about this.
Oh, you're just saying people are led.
And no, don't hate people.
That's just how they work.
That's fine.
You don't need to judge people on that.
You don't need to feel bad about it.
That's just.
Yeah, we're not speaking to people's innate dignity or value.
So by making that statement, we're not saying, and therefore, these people have no value and we don't love them.
No, all equal footing in the sight of God as image bearers of the living God.
They have an eternal soul.
Jesus loves them.
We, as fellow human beings, love them as a neighbor.
We also love them as Christians and love their soul and want to see them born again.
If they're not, or if they are, then they're our Christian brother, our Christian sister.
So we're not speaking of innate dignity or value or anything like that.
But what we're recognizing is that God, it's God's world, right?
God made the world and He made the rules by which His world functions and operates.
And one of the ways that God made the world, it's just a fact, is that the world is not the egalitarian utopia, which I would argue would be a dystopia.
That the left imagines.
That's not the way the world works.
The world, God has orchestrated into the world, which He has made inescapable hierarchy.
Inescapable hierarchy.
And that's why a nation should never have women in combat.
Like men and women are different.
Also, at an individual level, there are people like the idea of, well, not equal outcomes, but equal opportunity.
We don't have equal.
I've never had the equal opportunity as Michael Jordan to play in the NBA.
I never had it, never will have it.
We don't have equal opportunities because God made a beautiful world, and a beautiful world is not a homogenous world.
It's a world that actually has real diversity different people, different gifts, different skills, different intellect, different abilities, all these different things.
And so, what we're talking about is the concept is this simple if everyone's a leader, then there's no such thing as a leader.
All throughout human history, there are leaders.
And a leader, what it signifies, what it assumes, is that there's, you know, for every leader, there's a handful at least of followers, whether that's a one to 10 ratio, you know, or a one to 100, or, but there's leaders, which assumes followers.
And I think it's not that much further to say probably more followers than leaders, not just, you know, 50% are leaders and they're each leading one person, but it's probably less than half of the population are leaders.
So, So, it's not some crazy statement for me to say the majority of people are followers.
That doesn't mean the majority of people are worthless or those followers have less innate dignity than the leaders do in the sight of God, or that they should be treated differently under the law, or none of that.
But it's just recognizing God made the world, He made it according to His rules.
God, for whatever reason, has seen fit in His infinite wisdom to orchestrate hierarchy and not a homogenous, steamrolled population where everybody's exactly the same.
So, some people are leaders, some people are followers.
There's probably less leaders than there are followers, and that's how change happens.
I still have my black pill for you, though.
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Go for it.
So, the black pill is that I think scale is a real factor.
I talk about this in my book, The Total State.
I think that some of the problems that we are facing are fundamentally ones that emerge once you hit a certain level of scale that requires managerial bureaucracies.
And the tendencies of those bureaucracies lead us to what we identify as very leftist outcomes.
When we kind of pull away from that subsidiary, that locality, those natural hierarchies, and them influencing people that they really know and care about directly, we start to take on leftist features.
And the more we scale up, the more we move towards those things.
And so while I think our elite are moving in the direction of conservatism and right wing leadership under Trump and Vance and others, and that's good, and I think they can accomplish a lot, and we should be optimistic.
I think there are systemic limitations to the ways in which tech companies and larger corporations and just many social features can actively work.
We see this in everything from churches to corporations to government.
The bigger it gets, often the more leftists gets.
And that's not some kind of weird thing.
That's not, that's an actual feature of the way that scale works.
And so we're going to have to think about big questions of how we can address that if we still want our society to operate kind of the way it does.
We might have to fundamentally address some of those issues if we want to avoid a constant leftist slide, even if the elites are currently looking to the right for kind of their taste making.
Yeah.
That's insightful.
Anything else you guys want to follow up with?
Michael, Wes?
Don't think so.
Okay.
We have one final super chat.
I don't quite understand.
I think it's making a statement and then asking for your thoughts, I assume, Orrin.
But this is Jeff Halfley, super chat from Jeff Halfley.
We appreciate it.
He says In the past, white workers and bosses had their own political parties representing them.
Now they are forced, they have forced them into a single party, resulting in Elon versus X type of things.
What do you think?
Does that make sense to you, Warren?
Do you have a thought?
I mean, I can take my best stab at, I think, maybe what he's getting to there.
Yeah, obviously, we don't have specific parties based on race at this point, not explicitly, at least.
Obviously, you're going to have a sorting feature that moves majorities of one racial population or another into the parties, and that's often how we see them characterized.
But obviously, there's no official move of that.
And I don't think there should be.
Again, I'm not looking for specific.
White identity politics.
I don't think that's a solution to America's problems overall.
And I don't think morally it's advisable either.
That said, we should be comfortable inside the coalition on the right of recognizing things that affect everyone in that coalition, including white workers.
And if there is something that is specifically targeting them, working against them, then that should be brought up.
And so when someone like Elon says, no, I'm going to bring in infinite migrants from India or whatever to do these jobs because they do them cheaper, I'm not going to invest.
And any of the people in the United States, the majority of which barely still are white, I'm going to bring in people of another faith and another heritage and another race, and I'm going to bring them in and I'm going to favor them over you.
We should be able to address that.
It's okay to notice that.
It's okay to say explicitly, that's not good.
But I don't think that needs to result in some kind of separate white solidarity party or movement.
I really hope that people can understand that we need to take care of this problem in the right way so we don't get a worse problem.
Later on, if we are active and loud and real about this problem today, then we won't get many of the more bombastic identity politics that people are more worried about.
And this is where I think kind of the James Lindsay's of the world often fail.
They say any step in the direction of recognizing a problem will automatically lead you to mid century German goose stepping.
I think that's exactly the wrong understanding.
If you take forceful action now to solve an injustice, Now, you can prevent the very thing you're worried about because you will have good people in positions of leadership.
If you leave it on the table and you don't address it, people get more radical and they start listening to anyone who will talk about it, including the worst people in the room.
This is the Andrew Tate effect, right?
No one would talk about masculinity, so you get Andrew Tate.
And if no one will talk about the problems facing white working class people, then you will get much worse than Andrew Tate for white people if you don't address them legitimately in a moral way today.
Right.
I think you're absolutely right.
Yeah, we just did an episode on Andrew Tate, but we've been talking for a few years in regards to both nationalism and also biblical patriarchy.
And, you know, I constantly tell the detractors, my detractors, you think I'm extreme.
You will be, if you silence every, you know, me and everybody like me in five years' time, maybe sooner, two, three years, but definitely five to 10 years' time, you will be begging for the centrist, moderate, reasonable, you know, Joel Webbins of the world.
That if you hate men long enough, the way I see it is, it's just, Right now, like in the theological world, the big argument is about natural law.
It's just, it's a return to nature.
Nature is healing, as the kids say, you know.
And so it seems as though, you know, like life finds a way, you know, a great prophet from Jurassic Park once said.
And the industrial age and all this technology and things like that, you know, made it to where instead of manual labor outside, you know, for 12 hours a day, you can work eight hours, you know, in an office, pushing pencils and counting beans, you know, with HVAC.
And so in that world, like, you know, What women could work and maybe even provide for a family and these kinds of things, but all of it was superficial.
God designed the world in a particular way.
And it seems as though the world, it's not even just an American thing, because you see this happening in other countries as well, Argentina.
And so it seems like the world is reverting back to a natural order.
And I think that means nationalism over globalism.
I think that means patriarchy over feminism.
I think that means hierarchy over egalitarianism.
I think all these different things, the whole world seems to be the rubber band.
Was stretched so far for so long, it's now snapping back.
And if I was to boil it down to a word, the common denominator across the board, whether it's nationalism, globalism, patriarchy, feminism, you know, really to sum it up in a word, the word would be nature.
The world seems to be reverting back to nature.
And so, in that nature category, we just need to recognize as Christians, Christians don't have a monopoly on natural things.
I think Christians do it the best.
I'm a Christian.
But if we study the world, there were plenty of places for centuries, if not millennia, before the Christian gospel was ever introduced to them, before they converted to Christianity, that had sustainable, with certain levels of atrocities, but sustainable, viable ways of doing life for centuries, if not millennia.
So I think the Aztecs would have hated Christ and also hated feminism.
Is what I'm saying, globalism.
Like they were, they were, they operated in God's natural world according to his natural, his rules, natural law.
And so, what I'm saying is that all the guys who think you're crazy, Orin, you're extreme, you're crazy, Joel, you're extreme, the way I see it is not whether, but which.
The rubber band is snapping back to naturalism.
And that's nationalism, that's patriarch, all the things I've already listed.
So, then the question is not whether, but which kinds of these things will we get?
Globalism is not viable.
So that's going away.
You don't have an option there.
That's going away.
That's not a viable option.
It's proven not to be a viable option.
So instead, you're going to get nationalism.
The choice that we have right now before us, if we can stop running like chicken litter, the sky is falling to Christian nationalists.
No, no, you're going to get nationalism.
You are going to wish and hope and beg 10 years from now that it had been Christian nationalism.
Because the other choices are not gay homo globalism.
That's not a choice.
It's not viable.
So, your alternatives is Christian nationalism or Islamic nationalism or just pagan, kind of Darwinian naturalism.
There are forms of nationalism, whether it's the Vikings' form of nationalism, the Aztecs' form of nationalism, or the Muslims' form of nationalism.
But you're going to get nationalism.
I implore you to consider now, before the waiter just orders for you, while you're still holding the menu, before the dishes come.
Can I interest you in the special of the day?
It is called Christian nationalism.
Can I interest you?
In biblical patriarchy instead of Sharia patriarchy.
Can I interest you in, like, and I'm telling you, if the James Lindsay's of the world win this argument and successfully scare all the listeners to simply just double down on gay globalism and egalitarianism for another 10 years, Andrew Tate will be mild with what we'll get.
So that's my final thought for the day.
Do you agree with that assessment, Warren?
Do you think it's.
I'm sure you would word it differently, but.
No, I think that's exactly right.
You know, you had in the Soviet Union had, you know, this insane revolution.
It was supposed to be universal, it was supposed to be global.
And guess what?
It worked terribly until finally a guy named Stalin came in and he made it national and he basically converted to fascism because that's what actually worked.
That's the way you could actually make that system work.
You don't want to just sit around and wait until a guy like that shows up.
Like someone will eventually make the trains run on time.
But if you wait until the guy who makes the trains run on time shows up, history tells you bad things happen.
Yes, identity is scary.
Yes, a lot of these questions are difficult, but the strong gods are coming back no matter what.
We will answer the question, who are we?
So the best answer would be brothers in Christ.
Amen.
Let me just read Jeff Halfley.
He followed up, and it's a really good distinction.
So he left two super chats.
I just want to read them both, and I can wrap it up.
There you go.
That's how we get super chats if every time somebody says something, we intentionally misunderstand.
We're like, what?
I can't read this.
You're going to have to send seven more super chats to clarify.
So, Jeff first asked, he just said, This is the first super chat.
Who Are We Really00:01:14
In the past, white workers and bosses had their own political parties.
They weren't the same, but different, representing them.
Now they are forced into a single party, resulting in these kind of Elon versus X, like an H 1B type of things.
What do you think?
And then he followed up and said Democrats used to represent the workers, think unions, and Republicans used to represent bosses.
Demography has shown forced them into single parties, resulting in friction.
And then finally, followed it up monocultural societies tend to divide along income and class.
Multicultural societies tend to divide along race and religion.
And I think that's 100% true.
Well said.
All right.
Well, that's it for us today.
I hope you can be blessed.
Where can people follow?
Yeah.
Where can people follow you, Oren?
Oh, of course.
Yeah.
I've got obviously the Oren McIntyre show.
It's on YouTube.
It's on Rumble.
It's on Odyssey.
It's on all your favorite podcast platforms.
And of course, I'm over at Blaze TV and I'm on Twitter and pretty much everything else at Oren McIntyre.
At Orrin McIntyre.
Great.
And he will also be at our conference.
Go to Right Response Conference.com, not Right Response Ministries.
Right Response Conference.com.
Register for the conference coming up.
Christ is King Conference, April 3rd, 4th, and 5th.