Gavin Newsom attempts a desperate rebrand as the left implodes, with hosts arguing that identity politics and feminism have alienated young men globally. They cite declining support for same-sex marriage and a widening ideological gap where men are becoming more conservative than women. The discussion predicts the Overton window will shift right, potentially making MAGA the new center while figures like Josh Shriver prove controversial views can win landslides. Ultimately, the segment frames these political upheavals as part of a divine pattern where suffering leads to growth, hoping a movement further right than Trump will eventually emerge. [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 Left Google00:02:44
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.
The last six months have been absolutely devastating for the political left.
Yes, they lost the election.
Yes, they have an image problem.
Yes, their funding network of government cash and rich donors is drying up.
But right now, these might be the least of their problems.
The younger generation is shockingly conservative, especially young men.
Politically correct language and tone that safeguarded leftist frame for decades is regularly flaunted and mocked, spelling doom for the consensus they rely so heavily upon.
Support for gay marriage and transgenderism is plummeting.
We are looking at the complete and utter implosion of a political party.
But it wasn't always this way.
Less than three decades ago, Democrat President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as one man and one woman into law.
Hillary Clinton advocated for rapid deportation of criminal illegal aliens in 2008.
You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally, you have to pay back taxes.
And you have to try to learn English and you have to wait in line.
The Democrat Party platform in 2004 advocated for, and I quote, safeguarding all the greatness of America by protecting our people, securing our homeland, and reinforcing our values, faith and family, duty and service, individual freedom, and a common purpose to build one nation under God.
This is not to say they were not still radically wicked even then.
They were, especially on abortion.
But as they embraced more and more radical leftist positions, they quickly fell into the very trap they set for others.
Guilt and greed have consumed their constituents.
Their gender ideology accepts not even the slightest deviation from the revolutionary orthodoxy, and they appear to have no recourse other than to keep doubling down.
Meeting Singles at Zionism Conference00:04:41
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon members and our faithful donors.
You can join our Patreon by going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries, or you can donate by going to right response ministries.com forward slash donate.
Join us now as we discuss the fascinating history of the modern left, the commencement of California Governor Gavin Newsom's attempt to Rebrand as a moderate the surprisingly positive direction that things are going and what the future might hold.
Here we are.
Welcome back.
Welcome back.
It is Monday afternoon.
If you're new to our channel and joining the stream, first thing, please subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so that you'll be notified with all of our new content.
Our schedule is as follows Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 3 p.m. Central Time, we do our live stream.
And then on Friday evenings at 8 p.m. Central Time, we come out with the Friday special.
We actually just concluded a series with myself and Pastor Andrew Isker, a nine part series on all things Israel.
So, we covered Zionism, dispensationalism.
How should the church and evangelicals and Christians today think about the Jews?
How should we think about the modern nation state of Israel?
What does the Bible say about these things?
Ethnically, are these the same people?
Covenantally, are these the same people?
That being people who had descended from Abraham.
So, we answer all those big questions to the best of our ability.
That's a nine part series.
You can get all of that on our YouTube channel.
You could also join us, become a member on Patreon.
By going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries, we will be starting in April.
So, we've got a couple weeks of downtime in between.
But starting in April, first Friday of April at 8 p.m. Central Time, the new season of the Friday special will begin.
And that's going to be a 10 part series on Christian nationalism with myself and Dr. Stephen Wolf.
One more quick announcement, and then we'll go ahead and jump right in.
We have three tickets available for our Christ is King conference that we would like to donate for free.
To a very specific type of person.
We want this to be a single Christian woman who is, Nathan, 25 plus on the age.
Yes, it says, yep.
25 plus.
What is the DEI that, right?
Responsible.
Very DEI.
Yeah, so basically, what we're doing is we're having an organized official singles mixer.
I've had the distinct pleasure of officiating at least one wedding now that has come out of our previous conferences.
It's a great place.
To meet fellow believers who are like minded, especially if you're single and looking toward marriage.
And so right now we are full with the single Christian young men, but we are lacking.
We need three more.
Well, we actually need five more, but we have three free tickets to give away.
So three free tickets for any single Christian woman who is 25 plus.
Can I clarify here, Joel?
Because the sign says for the singles event.
Is this conference tickets or two of the events?
Yeah, we're going to give the singles event free.
And the conference will be free because the singles event is only open, it's not just open to the public, but as a subset for the registrants for the conference.
So it's only open to people who go to the conference, and the conference is what's more expensive.
So we're actually giving three tickets to the conference, so you wouldn't pay a dime.
So your conference ticket would be covered, and the singles event ticket would be covered as well.
We're doing kind of two brackets based off of age 18 to 25 or 24, whatever it is, years old, and then 25 plus.
So this is three.
Again, three single Christian ladies who are 25 years old or older who are looking to find a Christian man and would like to come to the conference.
We would like to be able to pay your way.
So go to Right Response Conference, not ministries, but Right Response Conference.com.
Right Response Conference.com.
No, that's not the way to do it because then you'll have to pay.
Best thing to do actually would just be to email.
If you can email contact At rightresponseministries.com.
Ideologies That Worked in Labs00:15:28
There we go.
That'll be the way to do it.
Email contact the word contact at rightresponse ministries.com and say, Hey, I'm a single Christian lady who's 25 years old or older, and I want to take you up on the offer, and we will get it done.
Okay, Wes, take us away.
I've had this topic on my mind for a while.
I love the statistics, and I love them because you could tell like a story.
Like today, the Black Lives Matter mural sidewalk thing in DC is going down, which is awesome.
Like that's super cool.
That represents definitely.
Four and a half years of a stain of social justice on our nation's capital.
But it's easy to tell stories like that or of a celebrity or this, that, or the other.
But you're not getting underneath and actually seeing are people changing?
Is the tide turning?
So I've really wanted to get into for a while into what's actually shifting public perception, public approval of same sex marriage, of religion, of all these different things.
Where are the young men going?
Wanted to get into this.
And as I dug into it, I realized that really the story there is actually of a political party that very rapidly.
Hit just turbo on embracing these ideologies and embrace them fast, embrace them quick, led them into a death spiral.
And we're looking at right now, I really think, the end of the relevance, at least for a time until a good rebrand or the birth of something new, the end of the relevance for the Democratic Party.
We're not just going to talk about partisan politics today.
We really want to get into actually what this means for us because that means there's a whole new battle going on.
And right now, then maybe it wouldn't be just with the political left as an organized, Caucus, the Democratic Party, but it would be with the left that's here within our own, under our conservative banner.
So, I really want to talk about the left GOP.
Exactly.
Many of which, many such cases.
Many conservatives are, they're leftist.
Bill Clinton is to their right.
And so, I want to start with where actually we were and how quickly it happened, because it's pretty surprising.
I'm the youngest here.
I'm 29, I'll be 30 in less than a month.
But this happened just in my lifetime.
So, I was born in 1995, and this entire transition occurred not over a century, not even just since World War II.
Just in our modern era, especially post Obama and post really many ways, the explosion of the internet, it being accessible, it being in every single home.
And so, to start with, I don't like Reagan and I don't like Clinton, but we have to be honest.
Clinton did some good things and Reagan did some terrible things.
On the whole, again, there's a conversation of what that looked like.
Just briefly for the listener, because a lot of people will be thinking, well, Reagan was amazing and he did some good things.
We recognize that he was conservative in many ways, but Reagan also did a few detrimental things that changed the fabric of California for sure and the country as a whole.
Can you mention just a couple reasons?
Because that's kind of a, for the longest time, it's like, I'm a conservative.
I'm, you know, I'm a Reaganite.
Let's get back to Reagan.
Let's get back to Reagan's story.
So, when you, as someone who is to Reagan's right, which isn't that hard to accomplish, what do you mean by that?
So, big one, California was amnesty, a much more lax policy on immigration, on forgiveness of individuals that were already in the country.
He made California blue.
He did.
He won in a landslide, and his very policies are what made it now impossible to win again.
To win again.
In a landslide like that, to that degree again.
That's what I mean.
No fault divorce, which then quickly spread nationally to where now every single state would have a provision for no fault divorce.
He's also the famous one.
This is his farewell speech.
He said, You know, you can't go to Japan and become Japanese.
You can't go to Australia and be Australian.
But anyone, anywhere can come to America and be an American.
That's the genesis of so much this propositional nationhood, these ideas that have consequences.
Reagan was a big spender, too.
I don't have on this graph, Nate, you can actually pull up this first graph.
It doesn't go all the way back.
But the most recent time, and this is a crazy idea, almost like I was reading it, I had to read it twice.
In 1998, from 1998 to 2001, the fiscal year, this was under President Bill Clinton.
The United States ran a surplus, the government.
That means it took in more money than it spent.
So you see right here on the graph, this is from the 70s and the 80s, those three, four years right there up to 2001, the United States government actually took in more money than it spent.
And if you see right there, and to be fair, COVID impacted that, but our deficit now for all three years of Joe Biden was $1 trillion plus.
So you had Bill Clinton, and by God's grace, and that's a huge part.
I mean, how.
My goodness, eggs these days.
I take out a home equity line of credit.
I go to Walmart and I pick up eggs.
These fiscal policies, where you spend, spend, spend, they have real tangible impact on families.
Speaking of families, Bill Clinton signed into law.
And again, he was a degenerate in his private life.
We know that.
He signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act.
Marriage is one man and one woman.
That's to the right of Donald Trump today.
Barack Obama, for all his faults, and he had many, especially as he got later on in life, but a Barack Obama was in many ways a family man.
Barack Obama, same way, he said, I think marriage is one man and one woman.
And he supported a type of civic union for them.
So he said, you know, if you're together, I want you to be able to visit one another in the hospital.
He opened up the gate for it.
But even in the identity politics, so Nate, you can pull up, it was graph one, it's now graph two.
I made this one myself, actually.
So this is a graph of three different interest groups.
And I used the United States House of Representatives with women of individuals of color.
So these would be mostly people that would have an ancestry outside of America.
And then people that were openly LGBTQ within the Democrat Party.
So if you have 435 representatives in the House of Representatives, roughly half of that is Democrat, roughly half Republican.
This is kind of tracing.
And if you're listening, the lines, especially for women and people of color, they go up quickly.
Very rapidly, from the early 2000s, you see a massive increase.
So from 2000 or so, 1995 is when this starts.
Less than 20% of Democratic representatives were women.
So it was an 80% male led party.
And they were mostly also the second chart.
They would have mostly been Anglo Americans.
Right now, today, 2025, where this ends, both of those numbers are over 40%.
So, roughly half of Democrat representatives, Democrat leadership, all of that are now women.
Same thing, LGBTQ representation, practically nil in 1995.
Now it's up to 3%.
3% of Democrat representatives in the House.
That's representation of elected officials.
That's elected to one of the highest offices.
In the land.
I don't even think that's accurate.
I feel like every Democrat officially is technically gay, just by default of being a Democrat.
And you had Hillary Clinton, we covered it in the Cold Open.
She's like, if you commit a crime and you're here illegally, you have to go.
And so all the grievance politics, all of the reparations, even their branding, I think this was a big one that they really latched onto.
It's really pretty novel.
Racism, that was the thing they latched onto.
America was a racist country and America's history of slavery.
And so we owe something to these people.
We owe reparations.
We have to make it up.
We have to atone for the lack of privileges that we gave other people.
But even just in that chart, there, the other things I charted about Bill Clinton, you can see that the left's evolution was rapid and it was quick.
And it is absolutely right now, it is destroying them.
They ran two women in not back to back.
There was Joe Biden in the middle, who actually, biggest air quotes ever won.
They ran two women and it lost them consequential presidencies.
They've embraced identity politics.
They don't hold the Senate right now or the House.
They've lost all over the states.
So tons of states now have.
A strong, entrenched Republican majority.
Same thing on the Supreme Court.
They are losing at every political angle.
And of course, there's a symbiotic relationship.
But in many ways, politics is downstream of culture.
So these elections and these results are downstream of people's changes and their opinions and their thoughts, their perception of these identity and diversity politics.
And they are flat out rejecting it.
And I just find that really fascinating that we're talking 15 years, and especially 2008, 2010, which I can get to in a minute.
They embraced it and they did so to their own destruction.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It is interesting.
I feel like at some level, the Democrat Party, they outran their constituents and just went too far.
Like the classic meme of the left left me, I've been standing here in the same place.
And I think there's some truth to that.
But I also think it's not just that the left, The Democrat Party and their representatives, you know, sprinted further left and left all of their voters.
But it's also that the right, you know, Republicans also moved left and picked up a lot of those voters.
Like, I, you know, I'm super grateful that Trump, you know, won.
And I think he's doing a lot of amazing things.
But on most moral issues, he's to the left of Bill Clinton.
Yeah.
You know, like, I mean, we just have to be honest, like, we, like, all three of us voted for Trump.
We're super grateful.
We think he's doing a great job in many ways, a lot of his executive orders.
But, you know, like the RNC was super gay.
And if it was only gay, that would have been an improvement.
Unfortunately, it was gay and demonic, you know, and blasphemous and praying to false demon gods.
And so, you know, like Trump, part of the reason he won, it's not just that he won because every, you know, the populace has shifted hard to the traditional right.
But, you know, the, the, The left Democrat platform moved too far left, and the right kind of cowed out, and at least on some issues, to the people, you know, and said, like, hey, like, you know, like, I mean, you know, gays against groomers.
I mean, like, how is that even a thing, right?
Gays against groomers.
Like, yeah, we've done a whole episode on the statistics of, yeah, of LGBT and grooming.
Um, but the point is that, like, there's a ton of things, like, you mentioned it, like, it was on X, it was.
Few days ago, where it's like, if this, if you have a problem with two guys in bed, then you're not, you don't know what it means to be conservative.
You're not a true conservative.
Well, you're not a true conservative.
Well, because the argument there is, you know, really libertarianism.
Right.
Like, don't push a position where the government would be invading people's lives in this way.
And conservatism has to be hands off in all areas.
And so you can't be like, they're trying to, they, that, I guess, I know we're going to get there later, but one of the things that we have to realize as Christians and as people on the right is that.
The definitions are always being recreated constantly.
Live in a time, I think that's one of the curses of our time is that definitions are constantly being recreated at a speed that's hard to keep up with.
And so, what we need to realize right now is the definition of conservative, of Republican, of Christian, of Christian nationalist, all of that is constantly being recreated.
And, like you say, Wes, it is constantly being leveraged against or for certain ends.
And that's, as I was thinking about this episode, that's kind of one of the things I hope we get across is.
Like the victory lap has been run.
The first two weeks of Trump's administration was the victory lap, right?
It was, I saw on Twitter or on X, someone said, you know, it's Christmas every morning and it never stops, right?
Like, okay, well, it's March now and there's work to be done over the next four years.
And now is the time to be doing it.
I wanted to mention one other thing, Wes, and that is part of what happened with the Democratic Party, I think, is that a lot of the ideologies that they bought into only worked in laboratories.
And that laboratory was.
The ivory tower, the university.
And a lot of the common blue collar workers maybe could have been convinced to buy into it, but most people are just too busy, right?
And they have to go with what is actual reality, right?
Because it bites them in the butt every single day.
And if they violate reality, it is going to just knock them over.
And so part of what happened with those 10 or 15 years is that that actually had been bubbling.
In the ivory tower for a long time, since the Frankfurt School, since the liberals took over the universities in the 60s and 70s.
And what's interesting to me is actually all that we got to see was how those ideas would play out in reality.
And it's like we think 10 or 15 years is a long time because we're short lived creatures, but 10 to 15 years is nothing.
And the fact that that mold or those spores, they bubbled up.
And then within 10 to 15 years, reality was like, no, that's going to die in the Petri dish.
Like, that's actually quite astonishing.
Well, it's not astonishing.
It's quite encouraging.
Yeah, it is.
Yeah.
Black Lives Matter lasted less than 10 years.
I remember 2017, 2018.
I was aware of Black Lives Matter and the different activists' work that they did.
It was Michael Brown, the shooting in Baltimore.
Yep.
What was the other one?
There was another big one before.
Trayvon Martin.
Is Michael Brown the one who never said, hands up, don't shoot?
Yep.
He's the one who charged a cop.
Important to state it, and the one who never said, hands up.
Don't shoot.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Yep.
That became the rallying word.
And they were nice little code words.
The cops are out here killing people.
These poor black men.
Hands up.
Don't shoot.
Trayvon Martin was another one.
I remember most of this because I was in Acts 29, which was also BLM.
Which is fascinating that it was taking root every single shooting.
Yeah.
That was talked about ad nauseum.
I mean, you could be an Acts 29 church planter or you could be a BLM Antifa protester, and it'd be hard to.
Tell the difference.
Sometimes, absolutely.
Yeah.
You said when the pastors were out, it was pretty much a circle.
But they hit their high watermark.
Yeah.
2020.
And I remember it because it was like, we've been telling you for all these years there's systemic racism and there's brutality, and we got it on camera, and here it is.
Right.
But since that high watermark, I mean, Fortune 500 companies begging, pleading, like, please, we will employ any of you, we will do the work of justice.
Guilt and Gullibility After 202000:02:26
Millions and millions, billions of dollars flowing in.
This is in 2020.
This is not a lifetime ago.
They're done.
Their mural being removed, the last vestiges of DEI wiped from a lot of corporate boardrooms, most certainly wiped from the United States government.
Like their movement, as big as it was and as pervasive as it was, guys, it had 10 years, which is awesome.
And in many ways, a white pill, but it also shows how quickly you can get momentum behind a narrative and idea.
But then, honestly, probably some of it, like Ibram Kendi got close to $50 million, I think, for a center for anti racist research at Boston University.
Like, this was it.
We're going to put a center in here.
We're going to study it, study racism, its systemic effects, this, that, or the other.
It closed like three months ago.
Its funding has run out.
They haven't produced any meaningful work.
So, to your point, Michael, very easy to have ideas, very easy to have pithy statements, and very easy for them, unfortunately, to be picked up by the public and ran with and donated to and all of that.
But the rubber meets the road and we see how long they last.
And honestly, part of the reason it was so easy is because that wouldn't get picked up in so many different cultures and so many different countries and so many different Time periods, it was easy to get picked up in a microcosm, specifically the United States of America, which is still a majority white nation in the 2020s.
In that environment, it was easy to get picked up.
Why?
Because honestly, a lot of white Americans are pretty good people.
They're empathetic to a fault.
They're compassionate.
They're relatively well off, so they weren't worrying about the system.
Like a lot of them are, they're hardworking.
They have a surplus.
They've saved their money.
They haven't just, you know, been silly and just, you know, in the way that they like, they save, they work, and a lot of them go to church.
Not all, obviously, but like go to church and want to be charitable.
They want to be generous, you know, and so you can run a scam like that, you know, in that kind of environment.
I mean, most, most.
Countries, if you know, like BLM would not have been successful in most time periods, like pretty much every time period until now, like it wouldn't have stood a snowflake's chance in hell.
Empathy Without Systemic Awareness00:17:16
But it's worked here because it worked off of guilt and gullibility.
And I think part of that is, you know, and part of that ties into feminism.
I think that women are uniquely susceptible to because, and I'm not, I don't mean this as a negative thing, women.
When they're embracing what God has called them to do, they're incredible.
I can't do what my wife does the way that she cares for our five children.
I can never do what she does.
But when you take women outside of the role, the primary role that God intends, then all of a sudden, the natural feminine disposition of being nurturing, compassionate, caring, Concerned, all those things can be much more easily exploited than with men.
Like with men, you know, like, and you see that even in the courtroom, you know, like Katanji Brown Jackson, like when she was doing, you know, all of her hearings, you know, working towards being, you know, officially put in as a Supreme Court justice.
I remember, you know, they were bringing up old court cases where she had been really soft on a pedophile.
Pedophiles, but one in particular.
And when men hear cases like that, I remember looking and seeing the case and what it was.
And women, their instinct is if only this young man had a good mother.
And men's instinct is if only we had a short rope and a tree.
Right.
You know, and both of those are actually correct instincts, but they have to be rightly ordered.
Right.
So, like, if it's, you know, short rope and a tall tree, and that's the primary nurturer in the home, and then if only they had a good mom, and then that's your primary breadwinner, you know, and like, then things get, you know, outside of the home, then things get disordered.
And that's where we are, you know, like, That's what HR is.
It's women who wanted to be moms, but chose to be moms in corporate America instead of their home.
Right.
That's what it is.
It's moms.
It's moms.
HR ladies are corporate moms.
They bought into the feminist lie, but they still have that natural instinct to be maternal.
And so they've decided to become moms of 35 year old men and scold them.
I remember working in corporate America, and I could tell with some women that did not have kids and were in their 30s.
This is your child.
This is what you think about.
This is what you orient your life around.
This is what you dedicate your energy to.
This is your baby.
Work.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
So, two ideas that I want to tie together here to comment on what Joel was saying a minute ago.
I remember watching some training videos from the 40s that the communists were putting out to train communist agitators in America to spread the communist movement.
And one of the things that they said this is old black and white video they said, You need to find what's going to appeal to the people that you're trying to convince to our side.
And they said America is a Christian country.
And so you need to push really hard on things like mercy and compassion.
Because even for men, like we are commanded as Christians to have mercy and have compassion.
And so the communist training videos, propaganda, specifically targeted the virtues of mercy and compassion and kindness, all of the goodwill.
And they said, and then you need to present the worker as the victim.
And as soon as you can place the worker as the victim, exploited, and then say your response to this needs to be to have an emotion of compassion or mercy, then you have won a communist sympathizer without them realizing that they've joined the communist side.
Now, here's the point that Lewis made C.S. Lewis said that when we train students, one of the things that the purpose of education serves is to train their emotional responses.
He, you know, and we've shared it before, but he said it's inappropriate to be standing in the vista of a magnificent waterfall that's just stunningly beautiful and to have no reaction to it.
And it's also inappropriate to have an overly extreme reaction to some minor inconvenience.
And he said that Christian education trains even the emotional responses that we have to things.
And I think that what happened in one of the things, one of the many things that happened in America leading to.
Advocacy for or embracing gay rights and BLM and all of those things is we got told as a nation you need to have strong emotions about the victimization of gay people, the victimization of black people currently in the 2020s and the 2010s.
And really, what happened was we had no training for what emotional responses are to be triggered to things.
And Lewis's point was not to devalue the emotions.
But just train them appropriately.
And what really got run on America and Christians in America was you need to feel bad about this rather than indignant about its opposite, right?
All it was was even the men, the Acts 29 pastors, we feel so sad.
We feel so sorry for the abuse that African Americans have suffered.
And it was just one emotional play after the other.
There was very little actual objective discernment going on there.
It was just an appeal to emotion.
And as soon as they were told, have this emotion about it, and we agreed, the conversation was over.
Yeah.
I remember being angry at an Acts 29 conference because it was.
For pastors and their wives.
And so, you know, my wife was with me, and there's all these women.
And I remember like looking around the room and seeing all these women, you know, crying and like tears in their eyes.
And like you could just tell they like their heads kind of their posture, body posture, heads, you know, down low.
And just, just you could feel like a weight of shame and guilt as a couple guys.
It was Leonce Crump and Eric Mason, Brandon Washington.
Dwayne Bond, I think it was the year that they brought in Ron Burns, who changed his name to Thabidi Anabwile.
And, you know, all these men were on stage, all these black men talking about all the terrible atrocities and not of the past, but like, you know, those two.
But the big emphasis was that these things are still happening and nothing's really changed, you know, and this shooting that just happened.
I remember sitting there and be like, That, like, this is a shooting.
They were, you know, Eric Mason was referencing some shooting that had just happened within like 48 hours.
And I remember, like, there were no facts.
We didn't have any details.
And I remember thinking, like, okay, so a cop shot a black man, but was it wrong?
I don't know.
Were they armed?
Were they trying to kill the cop?
Was it self defense?
Like, there's a million different scenarios that could have, and we don't even know.
And you're just immediately assuming that somehow this is.
Racism, or somehow it's unjust, and you're doing so in a pastors and wives conference setting with all these.
I mean, like, frankly, it was just it was like hundreds of white women sniffling and crying.
Now, my wife wasn't crying because I've discipled my wife, and she knew better.
She knew, like, yeah, we're being exploited right now.
And lo and behold, like, I can't remember the person's name, you know, because there were so many cases like this during that time period where.
You find out a week later, two weeks later, oh, actually, they had a gun, or actually, they had a knife, or trying to stab the cop, or actually, you know, this, and actually that.
But yeah, that, I mean, that was a dark, dark period of time for our nation that, like, for the better part of a decade, you just had propaganda after propaganda after propaganda.
And all of it really just, I mean, one clear message white people, evil.
Let me tie that right to the, could you pull that chart up again, Nate?
A decade of propaganda.
Let's look at this chart.
So, this is again the increase in women and people of color and LGBTQ.
What year does that biggest, well, you guys can't read it because it's small, the year that the biggest increase comes, and it's a sharp increase across this whole chart, there's an increase slowly from 1995.
What year is it?
2010, 2011.
Now, there was the financial crash of 2008.
You also know what I remember becoming really mainstream, 2008, 2009, 2010?
The internet in everybody's homes.
As the saying goes, you know, like the lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
What if, in many ways, truth has actually started getting his shoes on and getting his statistics and getting his narrative, what we're seeing right now?
But there really was a decade where, like, I remember Pepsi commercials, you know, like we're all one family, the human family, everyone belongs.
Pithy statements, you know, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
I really think that increase, like you're tying that into the rise of wokeness, tying that into Black Lives Matter, tying it into the systemic racism narrative.
And you can see the increase.
And I think a good bit of it was the very effective use and manipulation and leveraging of the internet and propaganda to push a message.
This is what to believe.
This is what's going on.
You need to feel bad for it.
That's probably what brought about.
And I mean, it culminated in the election of Joe Biden.
I mean, they did their best to destroy.
This country for three years.
They did a lot of damage, and we will see if, by God's grace, it was the final nail in the coffin.
But about 10 years of propaganda, Barack Obama and their embrace of those radical politics really led to the state we are in right now.
Yeah.
It did.
And I'm hopeful in the sense that, like we've already said, there's a lot of work to be done, but I'm hopeful.
Oh, this is the sad part, but I'll say it out loud because it bears saying.
I'm not hopeful because of the church.
No.
Like you and I, Wes, have been in arguments even with some of our friends in group chats who are all Christians.
That's why we're in those chats with those guys.
Some of them are formerly in ministry and some of them are business owners or they lead this or lead that.
And we've had guys disagree with us.
But every day that goes by, I'm more confident that our friends, who they are, our friends, we love them, but they're profoundly wrong.
There is a conservative conserve, uh, resurgence right now, and it's undeniable, it's blatant, it's visible, and um, and it's massive.
I think it's only picking up steam, and I think it shows no signs of stopping.
A massive return to nature, natural order that men are men and women are women, and the you know, children a boy is a boy, a girl is a girl, you know, it's not a lump of clump of cells, you know, in that woman's you know, in her womb, but it's a baby, like these kinds of natural things.
There is a return, but um.
Christians aren't.
I mean, we're just like, let's just not kid ourselves.
We are not leading the way.
We're not leading the way.
It's happening, but I see it all the time.
I see it on X, I see it on people's podcasts, I see it on Joe Rogan.
I see it on like, I mean, there's a million different, whether it's Ian Carroll or Joe Rogan or Elon Musk or this, that, or the other.
It's just example after example after example of people who they're not Christian.
They're not Christian.
And yet they are leading and garnering the groundswell for this.
Conservative researchers, and you look at like all the different statistics of like Gen Z and the widest gap.
I think we're going to get to that in a moment, but between men and women, that politically and culturally, the widest gap between men and women that we've had in a very, very long time, if not ever.
And, you know, young male Gen Z are very, very conservative, but not necessarily very Christian, right?
But very conservative.
And so, like, there's this return to nature, and it's happening.
It's happening in many ways without us.
And I think, like, Christians would do well to take a small dose of humility and admit that there was a crown lying in the gutter.
There was an opportunity.
Christians could have been the hero of the story and stepped in.
But few did.
I mean, honestly, like, the church is always, let's just be honest, like, at least for decades now, the church is always 10 years behind.
The culture.
So, honestly, one of the last woke places you'll be able to find on earth will probably be an evangelical Protestant church.
Like when a whole rest of the country and culture and everything you could possibly imagine, every other crook and cranny of our culture is just completely done with wokeness, you can bet your bottom dollar you'll be able to find some Baptist Protestant church that's still as woke as all get out.
That would be the last place you'll find it.
Same with feminism.
The Japanese who kept fighting the war, you know, 30 years after it was over.
Exactly.
Yeah.
That's.
That is evangelicals.
And it's, I mean, it's really, really sad.
Just for the record, I pick on evangelicals because I am one.
I am an evangelical, and it's probably the most embarrassing thing about me.
But that's just where we are.
So there is this massive resurgence, but it's rooted in nature more than it is in Christ because it's unbelievers, non Christians, who are predominantly leading the way.
Because a lot of the Christians, It's because of this misordered sentiment of empathy or whatever it is.
Christians have proven that they are not a safeguard against communism, wokeism, Marxism, feminism.
Michael's point earlier.
Yeah, and just agreeing with you, Michael, all these things.
Christianity, really, this is what it comes down to.
So, Christianity is so vulnerable to communism, Marxism, all these things.
Why?
Because Christianity is feminine.
Now, I don't believe it is in the objective case.
I don't.
True Christianity.
True Christianity is not feminine.
But what I'm talking about is modern, particularly Protestant evangelical Christianity, has been thoroughly feminized.
Feminine and almost suicidal in many ways.
Right.
Well, and that's what I mean.
I remember seeing the videos of.
I can't even remember at this point if it was France or Germany or England, some pathetic country in Europe.
I mean, there's so many to choose from at this point.
It's hard to narrow it down.
But I think it was France.
And seeing like old elderly women, you know, out there, not as their town is being set on fire and burned to the ground.
And they're not out there pleading or protesting against the people who are doing it, who are destroying all their heritage, all their legacy, everything they have.
No, they're out there pleading with the police, the French police, and saying, please don't hurt these monsters who are destroying our entire civilization.
Right.
That's evangelicalism.
I mean, you could just take that picture right there of like an 86 year old woman on her knees.
And she's, and you see flames in the background behind her.
Her own home is being burnt to a crisp, where she raised her children and played, you know, in the backyard with her grandchildren.
And she's on her knees and she is contending with and begging and pleading, not with her oppressors, but with the French police who are actually trying to stop those and saying, please don't intervene.
Please don't hurt them.
Please don't, you know, use any force.
Please don't be masculine.
Please let them kill us.
Let them kill us all.
The true heart of an evangelical pastor.
Let them kill us all, said evangelical pastors.
And yeah, I mean, and so young, back to my point, there is a conservative resurgence, and it's coming predominantly from men.
Shocker.
That's to be expected.
And young men, and predominantly young white men, because they've been hated from their birth, and they're aware of that, and they don't like that.
Usually people don't enjoy being hated.
Conservative Resurgence Among Men00:16:51
And guess where they're not looking for guidance and inspiration?
To evangelical pastors.
And why would they?
Why would they?
How many NGOs, Catholic and Lutheran especially, facilitated, not passively, like, oh, we'll let this happen, actively facilitated the settling of refugees and migrants by the millions in the United States?
A ton.
Tons of Catholic and Lutheran non government organizations actively facilitated the destruction of the West by doing their best to bring in as many, using Christian language, the least of these, this, that, or the other, to destroy us.
The church doing that.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
Oh, the last thing I was going to say, because you kept mentioning Lewis, C.S. Lewis, and you were saying that he was arguing that Christian education and schooling would not, you know, it's not just shaping the intellect, but it's forming virtue.
And so it was shaping even the soul and flowing out of that, stemming out of that, the emotions, and how to have a mature and full orbed, appropriate, proper human response, emotional response to things, whether it's Niagara Falls or whether it's a minor grievance.
And I was thinking that the whole time you were talking, I was thinking, yeah, and C.S. Lewis also thought it was absolutely insane to educate boys and girls in the same school together.
Yeah.
So the same guy who said, like, children need to be taught and shaped in terms of not just their intellect, right?
My facts don't care about your feelings, but also their hearts, their souls, because feelings, if not properly trained, won't care about the facts.
But in the sense of, in that vein of recognizing the importance, Importance and the necessity of shaping feelings and the soul, C.S. Lewis would be one of the first to recognize that the feelings and the emotional state of a boy and girl are not the same, and therefore they require different, distinct shaping in separate environments.
Separate, but equal for boys and girls.
Separate, but equal.
But he recognized like boys and girls are not the same.
They need to have different education, different shaping, because they've been designed by God for separate purposes.
Yep.
So, all right, we'll hit our first commercial break.
Be right back with I think some white pills.
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 Lauderante'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.
Reese Fund, Christian Capital.
Boldly deployed.
All right, all right, welcome back.
So let's jump right in.
Let's substantiate where you talked about young men and the difference that's growing in their conservative ideology compared to young women.
So, Nate, you can pull this graph up.
This is from Financial Times, just really recently published, I think about six months ago or so.
And it says this for anyone listening a wide ideology gap is opening up between young men and women in countries around the world.
So, if you look at this graph, what you'll see is in red you have women, and then in blue you have men.
And the higher that the red or the blue goes is more liberal, and the lower it goes would be.
More conservative.
So, red is women, higher is more liberal, blue is men, lower is more conservative.
For anyone listening, when you look at this graph, what you see, and this didn't just start last year or two years ago, this is something that's been going on since 2010, actually, is you see men starting to decouple from women.
So, that would mean on average in every single one of these graphs, except for the UK, which, God help them, in South Korea, the US most notably, and in Germany, men decoupling from women, and on the whole, 10, 20, Percent more conservative, and where this is completely exacerbated, South Korea is actually the most, the biggest difference.
The men in South Korea are based.
Wow!
Well, South Korea has been destroyed, like their fertility rate is one of the lowest, and they've done everything for decades to raise it.
There's no future for that country in many ways.
But what you see in this graph, and it's fascinating, is that 2020, 2015, especially men and women, huge gap with men being much, much, much more conservative.
This is not just a single survey.
This is not just one kind of like opinion poll.
These are dozens of different graphs averaged out showing that across not just America, not just since 2020, but for the last decade across the world, men are getting significantly more conservative, especially in comparison to women, which poses some problems in its own right.
But that's an episode.
You know, it sounds like if I were on the left, you know what I would be doing right now?
This is just totally hypothetical, but I would be trying to arrange a massive world war.
To kill off some of that young conservative resurgence among the men.
That's brilliant.
That's brilliant.
UK is working on it real hard.
I was about to say, it's not even getting better.
Old Kier, huh?
He's like, listen, we've got Muslims just coming out of every corner of the UK.
It's wonderful.
We absolutely love it.
We need more of them.
We're going to find a way to get rid of the young men, but we don't want to get rid of the Muslim men.
We want to kill all the white native Brits, you know?
And so, is there any place where we can count on white people, maybe because of Patriotism, you know, or traditional values.
Oh, the military, Ukraine, we're coming.
I'll send our 90%, you know, military that's all a bunch of 20 something year old Muslim men.
Nope, they're not in the military.
All the white boys are going to go and die.
And then we'll be able to have our dystopian hellhole Islamic country.
I said white pills.
All right.
Next graph the decline of Christianity.
Probably a lot of you saw this.
Well, here's the white pill.
We fought Great Britain for a reason, and we're not them.
Right.
That's the white thing.
This is America.
As difficult as things are here, my goodness.
Oh, yeah.
The U.K. is just fighting here.
If you speak English, just call it.
Just give us a call.
Come over.
Well, I don't know.
No, don't.
Sorry.
Come over to your country.
You had your chance 400 years ago.
Yep, yep.
We beat you once.
All right.
You guys have probably seen this.
This is a New York Times.
Christianity.
It's a serious decline from 2007.
This is percent Christian in the United States.
Serious decline from 2007 all the way until about 2019 and then a little bit farther down until 2021.
But it's for the last three years been on the increase.
This corresponds to everything that we're talking about.
You push the propaganda, you push the nonsense, you push the identity politics too far.
And for now, getting close to half a decade, Christianity is actually back on the rise.
We had 80% before.
We were a 97% Protestant country in 1900.
And by God's grace, we'll have it again.
But again, this rise is predominantly when you look at the statistics, it's men who are returning to the church for the first time.
The church has always been female heavy, but now it's men that are returning.
And here's my theory on that because I've given that a bit of thought.
All right, so I think nature remains the undefeated champ.
You can't destroy nature.
You can try, you can suppress nature temporarily, but you can't destroy it.
Grace will elevate and restore nature.
And then, apart from grace, then you still have nature.
It's not restored nature, but you still have nature.
And you can use demonic tactics to try to temporarily suppress it, but it will bounce back.
So, all that said, I believe that it is a woman's nature to be.
Honoring.
I'll just say it.
The whole time I'm just mindful like, what is right wing watch going to clip?
And they're going to clip this, but here we go.
Women, I believe by nature, are submissive.
And so then the question is not whether, but which.
It's not as though, you know, like you might have a few individuals, right?
There are always exceptions to the rule.
I'm speaking in group dynamics, women as a whole, in generalities.
But in general, women are their followers, not leaders.
They are submissive.
And so, all that you've really seen is historically, you know, men tend to be, you know, they're more likely to be contrarian, you know, or independent thinkers or whatever it might be, for better and for worse.
Like, I'm not saying that's inherently always good, there's pros and cons.
And so, as you saw a lot of, you know, the ramping up of apostasy in the West and turning against Christ, it was a lot of men leading the way in that apostasy.
So, it's men who were departing from church attendance.
It was men who are bucking against the machine, who are sticking it to the man and sticking it to the clergy and sticking it to their parents in their typical sowing their wild oats and their typical masculine rebellious ways.
And women were the ones who remained dutiful, or, like I said earlier, I think it is the proper word, submissive.
And so, in a spirit of feminine, natural feminine submission, whether they were regenerate or not, and I'm sure plenty of them were genuinely born again Christians, but even I suspect that there were probably a great many that weren't actually born again Christians.
But just their natural feminine spirit, even apart from that feminine nature being elevated by grace, was still sufficient for them to want to please their elders, to please their authority.
And the authority, still, the reigning authority at that time, there was still a dominant Christian hegemony.
So, what does it look like for women when there's these new rebellious movements against the church and against?
Christianity that are ramping up, but still the dominant, you know, older authority happens to be largely Christian.
Well, it looks like men leaving the church and women staying, you know.
And now, I think in many ways, it's precisely not despite, but in some ways, you could argue it's precisely because the left has won.
Um, and this anti Christ, anti religion, anti tradition has so thoroughly won and replaced all of our institutions and all the authority in our in every single you know vector of our culture that now.
The rebellious spirit of young men is like, all my leaders are purple haired queers.
Well, then I'm going to church.
Right.
Right.
You know what I mean?
And women, so it's not actually that all these leftist women, here's my point.
It's not that all these leftist women are free thinking, independent.
They're not.
They're just women, aka they're submitting to authority.
And the authority right now is godless.
Right.
And they're submitting to it as they always have done and as they always will do.
And men are bucking against it as they've always done and always will do.
And because right now the reigning champ in the realm of authority is every university.
Is leftist.
Predominantly women and leftists.
Exactly.
So men are like, well, then, uh uh, I'm going to go the opposite direction.
And I think plenty of the men don't even care if it's right or wrong.
They're going to do the opposite.
They're going to live their own lives and they're going to buck against the machine and stick it to the man.
And the women are not, my point is, they're not being independent, free spirited.
No, they're being dutiful the way God intended.
Unfortunately, the reigning champ, the reigning authority, happens to be a godless, purple haired freak.
And so women are submitting to that.
True.
All right, let's get to the last one, this last chart.
This is a white pill.
So, this is a survey.
This is leading up to 2022.
So, from 2018 to 2022, homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another.
So, this is survey results across evangelicalism, the mainline denominations, and Catholicism.
And so, in the red bar, you have, and I'll describe it for anyone listening, on the red bar, you have ages 18 to 39.
This is young people.
If you parse it out by men, the results would be exactly what we're getting at here.
But in red, you have 18 to 39 years old, younger individuals, Gen X and Gen Z and millennials.
And then in blue, you have the 40 plus.
And so you can kind of see, and this is pretty cool.
It's not as noticeable in every category.
But since 2018, so you had Bergefell versus Taj's?
Yes, I think so.
Yep, 2015.
So this is 2018, three years.
This is when the survey starts.
After that, you have over 50% approval in evangelicalism, 90% approval.
This is among young people.
In the mainline and in Catholicism, 84% approval that homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another.
Black bill.
That's rough.
That number has fallen in every category in the four years following 2018.
So, from 55% of evangelicals and young people to 47%, 90% to 75% in mainlines, a 15% decrease in four years in the mainline institutions of support for gay marriage.
Catholicism, 84% to 70%.
In young individuals.
So a 14% decline.
And the point is, someone mentioned, like, well, DEI is not coming out of the boardroom.
I'm sure there's X or Y or Z. You got to catch the trend, guys.
What is the direction trending?
Is it more approval, more celebration, bigger pride parades?
No.
Is DEI, are more companies adding DEI, more companies joining the human rights campaign?
No, they're leaving it.
Support is declining.
And all of these trends, that's what we needed to see.
Things were bad, we've talked about 2015 to 2020.
All of those were on the rise.
More programs, more investment in Black Lives Matter, more donations, more talking about systemic racism, more approval for same sex marriage.
And since about that turning point, we've seen every single one of them crest.
Do you think that, say, evangelicalism, that it gets down to 40, 30% approval for gay marriage, and then it just shoots up to 70% in the decade following?
No.
Nope.
It keeps going down.
People are seeing the results of it.
They're seeing, now that Pandora's box has been opened, how horrific it is.
And they're saying, we want nothing to do with that.
And that 44%, that 75% that was two years ago, I would bet today is even lower.
And that trend continuing then leads to legislation, leads to Supreme Court decisions being overruled.
So I think there's a lot of reason for optimism.
And again, these are trends not from yesterday or last month or even in the last year.
This is looking at the decade.
We can see 2018, 2019, 2020, when all of this peaked, all the momentum, all the capital, all the support, all the public opinion, and every single metric that we're looking at from the decline of Christianity to men to conservative support, all of those, they're on the decline.
And by God's grace, They're going to continue to.
Black Lives Matter was just the first casualty that we're going to see.
The implosion of their movement, all of that.
2021 was a high watermark for the left.
Yep.
Absolutely.
Are you going to say anything, Michael?
I was just going to say it's anecdotal, but when, and I mention Tim Pool occasionally because they're one of the larger YouTube presences of alternative media.
When Tim Pool comes on there and says gay marriage will be overturned in this country before too long.
Yep.
Like.
Yep.
Charlie Kirk's Political Pivot00:13:37
Right.
And he's not even a conservative.
He's not a conservative.
He's just, he's a weatherbane kind of.
He's just.
He's just a normal guy who likes to skateboard.
Yep.
So, yeah, so he's a good, you're right, he's a good litmus test.
Yep.
Exactly.
So, we're going to get into Gavin Newsom because the left, those that are prescient enough, those that are not fully bought into the ideology, they realize that they have a problem.
They realize that they're looking at the doomsday scenario.
So, we're going to play clip one, Nate, and this is from Gavin Newsom's sit down with Charlie Kirk that happened last week.
This Democratic leader has been a staunch LGBTQ. Advocate, but he's suddenly speaking Trump's language.
With hopes of reaching voters and possibly a 2028 2028 presidential ambitions, California Governor Gavin Newsom has launched his own podcast.
Newsom's first sit down was with founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk.
The duo discussed why the Democrats are losing the media war.
Let's take a look.
We are losing.
I feel it's the asymmetry of Donald Trump and Elon Musk sending out tweets.
Are you?
Doing social media.
And then me doing a three minute hit at three o'clock in the afternoon on CNN.
I mean, how the hell do we compete?
We're toast.
Well, I mean, part of it, and credit to you for doing long form podcasting, because long form podcasting does penetrate different audiences, right?
And our show does very well.
But part of the problem of the Democrat Party, that for the health of the country would be great to change, is that Democrats cannot survive in long form podcasting environments.
It's too unscripted.
It's too masculine, honestly.
And the Democrat Party's become too masculine.
What is masculine about a podcast?
Honestly, because I get the whole manosphere that's pro podcast.
It's like, just go into the wilderness with no rules and duel it out and see who's better or who's stronger.
No, seriously.
I mean, like, what?
Democrats.
No, I mean, like.
We don't do it.
You're right.
We, for whatever reason, don't do it.
You can laugh, but like, who in the Democrat Party.
We're not.
I have to say.
He gets it.
Real quick, before we get into the substance, the mannerisms, like, it's uncanny watching Gavin Newsom for me because I feel like I'm watching Matt Chandler.
That's the little thing, tall, skinny white men that are well spoken.
But like, yeah, he's well spoken.
Yeah, but like his mannerisms, the way that he talks, the way that he moves.
Yeah.
Anyways, go ahead.
And Gavin Newsom, I mean, there's not much hope.
For one, like, who are they going to run in 2028?
Gavin Newsom.
Like, besides Gavin.
It would have to be Gavin.
You think that's the only, because if that's true, that's the only hope they got.
Think about it.
They just got trounced and they've got one shot and he has to do a major rebrand, which we'll get to in a minute.
You think that's their only shot?
Like Pete Buterzheim?
No.
Bernie Sanders?
Too old.
Tim Walz?
Who's that Clinton lady?
They'll pull her out of the crypt.
They have no stars.
So their one star is literally, and I think it's because he's actually decently competent.
He's woke and he's slimy, but he's decently competent.
He's like, shoot, if we do this again, if we go out in 2028 and hide and don't do long form and nobody knows what we're on about and I don't rebrand, we are done.
Well, they have to hide because their policies really are terrible.
And anybody with common sense will immediately realize that.
So that's why Charlie Kirk is right.
In the sense that Democrats, it's not just like they've never done long form podcasts because they haven't had to.
The whole thing has been artificially manipulated and propped up, right?
So, like, they haven't had to argue their point of view.
They haven't had to prove something.
They haven't had to make their point.
They've just been able to assume that everything in the media, they have Hollywood at their disposal.
They have every major legacy news station at their disposal.
They have the entire universities, you know, like every single academic realm teaching every young person, you know, the moment that they.
Reached the age, you know, voting age, teaching them that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong.
And so they've won so handedly because they did win and it was impressive.
It was wicked, but impressive.
But they won so handedly that they're flabby, they're soft.
Like Democrats are in many ways out of shape and out of touch.
And so now that said, I think it's actually, I'll be maybe a little bit of the contrarian here, but I think it's an easy win for Democrats.
And what I mean by that, like, I think they have a pretty promising path to victory.
Now, I'm still hopeful, and I think JD Vance will probably be the front runner for 2028.
At least that's what it looks like now.
He'll certainly have my vote.
I think he's doing a great job.
But when you think about it, like, how.
How much of Donald Trump's recent win is because, you know, so much of the nation has really, you know, shifted back to traditional values and this, that, and the other versus the fact that Trump just assumed the center?
You know, he just assumed that, like, he's like, hey, we're gay now.
You know, the GOP's gay now.
And hey, you know, like, we're okay with abortion, kind of, you know, and, you know, we're not as far as the Democrats, like, you know, like for any cause, all full nine months, even after.
Afterbirth, you know, like that.
But that was his rhetoric, you know.
He was like, but it wasn't like, hey, we're against abortion no matter what.
And so a lot of it was kind of a concession and assuming the center.
And so my point is Gavin will certainly disappoint a lot of his constituents.
Like a lot of people are already, you know, livid with Randy.
I was about to say, there are a lot of progressives for this next clip we're about to play that are just.
Oh, yeah.
How could you?
Yeah.
They're already viewed the fact that he sat down with Charlie Kirk as like a betrayal.
And it is a betrayal to them.
Like he, I mean, he is shifting, he's pivoting.
And so, like, they're watching him in real time pivot.
It is a pivot, absolutely.
He's turning on a dime that, like, this constitutes a real change for Gavin.
But my point is, he, my point is that, like, I don't think that you have, like, this, you know, this moral majority in America anymore that's truly virtuous, that's, like, truly, you know, by conviction, you know, committed to a set of principles and values.
I just don't think we have that.
I think we still have those people.
I think they still exist.
And I think we have more of those people in our country than virtually any other place on earth.
You know, like if America goes down, the whole world, like this is the last step.
Especially the South is the real battle.
So I'm not saying that like other places are better.
I think this is the best place on earth.
But even being the best place on earth, it's not saying much.
The standard's pretty low right now.
And so, my point is just to say that I think a lot of Trump's victory can be chalked up to him assuming the center and getting, you know, like just getting a bunch of normies who are like, yeah, we're fine with being gay.
Just don't be too gay.
He also plastered his face everywhere.
You couldn't escape the man.
Rogan, Theo Vaughn, like, I will be Newsome.
Just imagine Newsome, right?
Because we're, what, two months in?
Right.
So I think that this is telling.
Like, if we're seeing two months in, Gavin Newsom is sitting down with Charlie Kirk, and we think that that's going to be it for the next four years, then I think we're being naive.
This marks a turning point, I think.
Like, he's on it.
He realizes where they need to pivot.
He's starting a podcast.
He's going to be like, you sat down with Charlie Kirk.
I would be shocked if before the 2028 election, if we don't see him with Joe Rogan.
Sure.
If we don't see him on Theo Vaughn, if we don't.
Sure.
So he's going to make that move.
And I think he's willing to completely pivot because he is slimy.
Like, he doesn't actually have.
He's Machiavellian.
He's in search of power.
Like, some of the left really are ideologues.
I don't think Gavin Newsom is an ideologue.
That's because he's.
We know he's not because he's pivoting like that.
Exactly.
Like, some.
Like, women are prone to the ideological capture.
They all run that play.
Like, AOC, you know, for better or worse, you gotta, you know, gotta give her credit.
Like, she really believes.
Oh, yeah.
She's all in.
She's a true believer.
And hey, God might use her in his ironic sense, his ironic way to tamp down usury.
She's been floated for president by different groups.
Just prank it on.
Isn't it?
I would donate to her campaign.
Me too.
You're telling me she's got a shot?
How much can I donate legally?
That would be the easiest win ever.
But my point is, I think they recognize, all right, we did Hillary, now we did Kamala.
And I think they're like, yeah, Joe Biden won because he feigned normalcy.
Like he, you know, he assumed the center.
Now he wasn't.
He's the most radical left president that we've had to date.
But he pretended, right?
It was moderate old Joe, Uncle Joe.
He's just.
He's vice president during a moderate time.
Right.
Moderate.
He's going to come in and he's going to restore normalcy.
And, you know, and it's not red or blue.
It's just America.
And now all of that was a lie, obviously.
Like he was, you know, 50% of the time he's a radical leftist.
The other 50% of the time he was, you know, dementia.
Asleep.
Asleep, yeah.
But Gavin, I think.
Joe won, and I think Gavin absolutely can do what Joe did substantially better with more charisma.
I think he can be more convincing.
I'm not convinced, but yeah, I think.
But here's the thing, though the fact that he's not an ideologue, I don't think it would just be a show.
Like, yeah, I think he's slimy.
Yeah, I think he reminds me of an actor.
But really, I mean, that's what politicians in many ways are.
Like, he is a true politician.
Yeah.
Like Gavin Newsom is a true politician in all the bad sense of the word and all the positive sense.
And so I think, like, he, I think he over the next four years can pivot and say things that directly contradict everything, all of his policies that he's done before.
You know, like he even told Charlie Kirk, we're going to see, you know, but like he's like, my kid, you know, wanted to come today because he's a big fan of yours, Charlie.
Yeah.
Young man raised in the bed of liberalism, likes Charlie Kirk.
Right.
Is that Charlie Kirk?
Of course.
And he was like, but I didn't let him because he can't miss school.
And Charlie Kirk did a great job in saying, like, but you let kids, you force kids to miss two years of school because of your policies.
What's a day?
You know, because of COVID.
So, Gavin Newsom, like his policies have been far leftist, but because he's not an ideologue, I think he could turn on a dime and genuinely mean it, you know, like where he's like, yeah, you know what, this is too far and I've changed my mind on this.
And he really has changed his mind.
And so, but my point is, if that's the competition, then it's really just a coin toss, like because there isn't really any true, if it was Trump versus Gavin.
And it's not Gavin today, but Gavin after four years of going on Rogan.
Gavin two months ago.
Okay, yeah.
It's Gavin after this full rebrand that I think we're going to see a thorough, deep, four year long rebrand.
If it's that Gavin and it was Trump, then I think you could go either way.
Because Trump is a 1990s liberal Democrat from New York, from The Apprentice and pictures with Hugh Hefner.
And Gavin would.
Be, you know, they like they're both, it's the same thing.
That the reason I'm hopeful though is I think JD Vance actually has some real convictions.
Let me play this clip, then we'll go to our second break.
This is clip 2 Nate, and this is just hilarious because you've got two left, uh, the hosts of The Hill.
Watch how they just don't get it.
Would you do something like that?
Would you say no men in female sports?
Well, I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that.
So much to get to, Stephen.
I cannot let the moment pass without saying that there is nothing inherently. masculine or feminine about long-form podcasts.
I think we can do without that sort of absurdity from Charlie Kirk.
I think, you know, going into the wilderness, Charlie is venturing boldly where no person has gone before by talking in a nice warm studio for a long period of time.
I would argue that we had a discussion last week when I was on the show about JD Vance and what that means.
It's a good discussion, actually.
I can pick up on like generally what he's saying.
You know, you actually have to fight for your viewpoint.
You have to be assertive rather than accommodating.
Sure.
And I think the accommodating nature of so many Democratic politicians where they are thinking a thousand miles an hour about every possible group they can offend with any one of their viewpoints makes it really, really hard to have any discourse.
I mean, when I am doing this show and I'm thinking through what I want to say, I'm thinking about a couple people and groups that I maybe don't want to offend unnecessarily, but not at the extent of, I think, your average Democratic politician who cannot alienate anyone.
I don't know.
You have to be willing to do that.
You do have to be willing to let it roll and let it fly.
The Dominion Mandate Explained00:02:24
For sure.
They refused to get it.
Yeah.
They just refused.
All right.
We'll go to our last commercial break and we'll get back.
We'll look at some more of Gavin's comments.
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, Orrin McIntyre, Dr. Stephen Wolfe.
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.com.
And book an introductory overview right now.
All of Christ for all of life and all of finance for Christendom.
Building Financial Legacies for God00:15:26
All right, welcome back.
Let's roll right into our next clip.
This is the one that got a lot of attention because it's a pretty radical step for Gavin Newsom in a break with the rest of the party.
Would you do something like that?
Would you say no men in female sports?
Well, I think it's an issue of fairness.
I completely agree with you on that.
It is an issue of fairness.
So it's deeply unfair.
Would you speak out against this young man, A.B. Hernandez, who right now is going to win the state championship in the long term?
I can see you wrestling with it.
No, I'm not wrestling.
I'm not relaxing with the fairness issue.
I totally agree with you.
By the way, as someone with four kids, I think I'm two daughters, right?
Two daughters, yeah.
And I have a daughter, too.
And a wife that went, God forbid, to Stanford and played on the junior national soccer team, and a guy who got into college only because I was left handed and could throw a baseball a little bit or hit the ball for a little bit.
So I revere sports.
And so the issue of fairness is completely legit.
I don't know, Joel.
I'm more bearish on Gavin Newsome's chance because right there he's caught.
Any type of full endorsement, like, yeah, I'll walk it back or whatever, suicide with a Democrat party.
But he also looked pretty cheesy, trying to deflect and pull a halfway.
And I think it's going to be really hard.
The whole point of this episode, they went whole hog.
They bet the House on gender ideology and everything like that.
And you can see one of the best they got, the sharpest, most well spoken, young, good track record of governor in California.
And he is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Josh Shapiro.
Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, yeah.
He's going to be tough, though, because he is Jewish and the Democrat Party has largely been more pro Palestine.
That's probably why Kamala didn't actually pick him as a running mate.
I think that's why she picked their own identity politics again, destroying them.
No, you're right.
The identity politics makes it nearly impossible.
It's because it's counterproductive.
But I guess my thought is with Gavin is not that he'll be able to move the Democrat Party.
My thought is that it's.
I just think that the whole Democrat Party, like you're right, like they.
They bet the farm.
They lost.
It's over.
The whole thing, I think, is just going to sink.
But the guys who weren't ideological, that never really were tied to it, like they picked up the rhetoric.
They looked like they were tied to it, you know.
But those guys will pivot.
Like, my point is how many people in our party were Democrats two years ago?
Too many.
Elon Musk was voting for Joe Biden.
Right.
And now he's like conservative extraordinaire, you know, and I'm grateful for what he's doing, you know, in some aspects, but I'm not going to be fooled by Elon Musk.
Like, he's not a conservative.
He's doing some things for which I'm grateful.
But that's just because of how desperate, you know, we've been.
But my point is like, it's the same thing as Trump, like when he ran Republican, you know, or, you know, and he, so my point is that like, I, I think that what you'll probably see is, you know, you've got all these guys.
I think that, like, if we just think, like, okay, like, we so handedly beat the Democrats that now, you know, they're forever gone.
I think, yeah, you beat that party, but what they'll do, what they're already doing, it's the same thing they did with Joe Biden when, you know, he had the debate with Trump and it became undeniable that he, you know, was a walking corpse, you know, and he couldn't finish a sentence, you know.
Well, what did they do?
They all pretended that they had no clue.
They all pretended to be surprised.
Jake Tapper, everybody in the media, and all the other Democrat politicians were like, oh my goodness, who could have known?
And they all pretended to be surprised.
That's what they do.
They don't ever tie it to the party.
What they do is that somebody will have to pick someone to atone for the sins.
They'll have a scapegoat, right?
They'll put the albatross around somebody's neck and And say, like, well, you know, really, I never thought these things, you know, I always thought it was kind of extreme, you know, but let's play this clip then, actually, of him talking about that with Latinx and pronouns.
This is our last clip, Nate, because it illustrates exactly what you said.
The Latinx stuff that, by the way, not one person ever in my office has ever used the word Latinx.
So, can we finally put that to bed?
Yeah, but where did that even come from?
No more Latinx, everybody.
Well, just didn't even know where it came from.
Like, what are people talking about?
Was it the pronouns?
By the way, once, once, you'd think California invented the frame of the program.
Now, I mean, literally, I had one meeting.
Where people started going around the table pronouns.
One.
There's been a hell of a lot of days between 2020 and today, and one meeting.
So it's not like this is, I'm like, what the hell is, why is this the biggest issue?
Then you can just put up the screenshot, Nate.
This is the law that Gavin Newsom signed last year that California bans school rules requiring parent notification of child pronoun change.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, he's full of it.
So there's no question about that.
You will not catch me saying that.
No, I know you're not saying that.
I mean, when everybody was locked in their homes, he was at the, what is it, the dirty, the French laundry.
French laundry.
I wanted to call it the dirty laundry.
Dirty laundry.
$200 entrees.
Yeah.
And so, you know, wining and dining rules for thee, but not for me.
He's, you know, that's, he's a politician for sure.
But my point is just to say that that's kind of what politicians do.
If something utterly fails, and it's not just politicians, like honestly, I'm 38 years old, I've been in enough.
Conflicts at this point that, like, every single time I've won an argument, like, uh, this is sad, you know, because most of the conflicts have been with you know brothers in Christ, we disagree on something, you know, in a Christian environment, and yet, even in those environments, I've never really had the experience where there was a deep rift, a deep disagreement, and then the other side came and said, You know what, we realized that we were wrong and you were right.
I've never had that happen.
Um, but I have been right.
I've been wrong plenty of times too, but every time I've been right, and it became, it got to the point of critical mass where it was undeniable.
It was undeniable that I was right.
The other side has no out at that point.
Like people come around one way or another, they come around.
The question, though, is how do they come around like through the door of humility?
Do they actually acknowledge I was saying this and now I'm saying that?
You might notice that I just did a 180 degree turn and it's quite obvious.
And the reason why, you know, how do you account for this?
Well, simply you account for it by saying I was wrong and I'm now repenting and acknowledging that and now I'm taking this other position.
That has not been my experience.
With others.
It has always been somehow they end up being right too with my position.
Like, seriously, it's uncanny.
Nate, am I telling the truth right now?
Can you testify to that?
Nathan's been with me for a long time.
He's watched it happen where there could be a six month argument.
And then all of a sudden, we're all on the same side, on my side.
And yet, yet, but everyone's right.
You know, nobody was wrong.
And so I just think that that's just human nature.
That's just the way, I mean, that's even that, that, that, that applies in my experience, that applies with Christians, that applies with pastors, for Pete's sake.
So certainly it'll apply with, you know, Democrat politicians from California.
Like, I think that what you'll see is it'll be 180 degrees.
Like, we just posted this screenshot.
This was your policy.
This is what you did.
It directly, you know, contradicts what you just said with Charlie Kirk.
When has that ever stopped a politician?
Yeah.
When has that ever?
That's not a hindrance.
In some ways, I think it becomes a strength of, look at how versatile he is.
And so I just think that my point is that there are sinking ships.
So it's like playing battleship and you sink a ship and you think that you've won.
But all the pirates from that ship.
They just transfer to another one.
So I do believe that we have thoroughly, by the grace of God, defeated the ship that is the Democrat platform of 2020 to 2024.
I think that dog won't hunt.
It's done.
It's absolutely done.
But all the people who are on that ship, they're not done.
I think if we think that the people, we beat the platform.
We beat the platform.
We beat the policies.
But if we think that the people are just going to go away, that there will be a few ideologues, because there have to be, strategically speaking, a few, the captain will go down with the ship.
And what will happen is that they'll find a few willing, sacrificial lambs who are willing to be the captain and wear the albatross as a badge of honor.
That's how they'll view it.
Yes, I really did believe that America could be better and repent of its.
Great racism and blah, And they'll go down with the ship and they'll be able to say, See, like we've separated from them and they'll pay the cost.
But 90% of the Democrat representatives will be able to get off the ship to live to fight another day.
Half of them will run as Republicans.
The other half will run as the new sensible Democrat part.
About 40% women were 38%.
But the dynamic going on, Joel, that we've Alluded to a couple of times already is that the Republican Party has moved to the left, and now the Democratic Party is going to have to, like Gavin Newsom's going to have to move to the right.
And so there's two things that really will determine this.
One is if there's any ground that can be carved out of separation.
And this makes me very sad to say this.
Can Gavin Newsom occupy the middle at all, but still distinguish himself from the Republicans who made that strategic move?
And maybe he might not be able to because the Republican platform has been very pro LGBTQ, all of those things.
That's the thing.
I think he can move to the right.
I absolutely believe that's possible.
But you're absolutely right.
The question is, okay, if you can move the right, but then how do you still meaningfully distinguish yourself from Trump?
So, and Trump has taken, and this is sad, but like Trump has taken all the Democrat things.
Trump is like, gayness is mine.
I am Donald Trump and I am pro gay.
So, like, I mean, he has owned gayness.
He has owned abortion.
He has owned IVF.
IVF.
He has owned all the crappiest things you could imagine to own.
He is, Own them.
So he's left really nothing for the Democrat.
Like they could assume the center, but then they would just be an inferior Trump.
Yep.
So the question is would Vance occupy that same position or the future Republican nominee?
And it'll really come down to whether the Overton window can move enough that we can run someone who's more Christian, more conservative.
And then, unfortunately, That comes with if we move to the right, then the Democrats can jump right into the space that Trump carved out there in the middle.
That's potentially more popular than a more right wing position.
That's correct.
Exactly.
That's where I'm going.
And that's why it really is a white pill.
So the black pill is like, no, I don't think we've seen the last of Gavin Newsom.
And I think he absolutely can rebrand and live to fight another day.
So that's the black pill 90% of the Democrats that tried to lock you in your homes and give you a vaccine that was untested in this long term effects and all this and killed your grandma and all these kinds of things.
They're not going to jail.
They're not getting fined.
They have complete and clear.
Anthony Fauci is free and clear.
They're free and clear, living high on the hog, and they will receive zero accountability for their crimes.
And I do believe that they have committed, many of them have committed legitimate crimes.
So that's the black pill.
The black pill is they will live to fight another day, and they're doing just fine.
The white pill, though, is that they will move to the right.
They will just rebrand, turn on a dime.
And assume the center.
So here's the white pill I don't think, and so we won't have a two party system anymore.
And I'm not a huge fan of our two party system, but I absolutely think we will continue to have a two party system.
And so what it means is that in order to distinguish the two parties, if the left assumes the Donald Trump center, then it'll actually be the distinguishing will be to the right of that.
I think that someone like Gavin Newsom, right now, I mean, that was his first attempt with Charlie Kirk, right?
He's two months in.
To his rebrand.
That's his first, he's two hours in that interview into his rebrand, you know.
And I mean, honestly, it's pretty good for Gavin Newsom.
He's getting all the flack from the left for even trying.
Right.
But if you think he's going to just quit and go away, no, I think we're going to see a lot more of this over the next four years.
He's going to get pretty good at it.
And by the time we come up to an election, I think it's entirely possible that Gavin Newsom will have moved so far to the right that he'll be somewhat indistinguishable from Trump.
Right.
So then, what's your second party?
So it's now MAGA and AOC?
No, not a chance.
Bernie Sanders?
Not a chance.
No, it's MAGA and then it'll be Vance.
And it'll be Vance actually over these next four years.
I think Gavin will get close to Trump.
Vance, I think, will begin slowly.
He's very loyal to Trump and all that, but slowly over time, I think Vance will actually distinguish himself from Trump distinctly, definitively to Trump's right.
And if it's not Vance, I think it'll be someone like that.
And they'll probably, you know, have a hard time in 2028.
But as the years go on and the Overton continues to push and shift to the right, then that'll become a formidable party.
And I think MAGA.
Will be, that'll quickly, I think, become the new left wing in America.
Yep.
Which is awesome.
So that's the white bill that I'm encouraged by.
Right.
Right.
The black bill was over the last 20 years.
I mean, like, even the 2004 Democratic Party platform, I was reading it.
We want to balance the budget.
Yep.
Like that, the right moved, occupied a lot of positions like that.
Bad 20 years, but then totally can go the other direction.
The Catch-22 of MAGA Politics00:04:28
And so we got some questions to get to, but the last thing, What does all this mean?
This is just a lot of parsing politics.
No, it means we have four years to push to the right, to set the Overton to the right, to watch JD Vance as he observes, as he interacts with, and granted, a lot of that's going to be elites and it's going to be governors and senators and all of that.
But as much as you have influence, especially locally and especially at the state level, pushing the Overton window as far as it can go.
So by the time we get to 2028, because again, it's probably not going to be a radical leftist that wins the nomination.
If it does, I mean, what a gift sent.
That is just gift wrapped, all that.
But assuming it's going to be a probably pretty moderate, it's going to be on us to be a greater and greater distinction so that when people look at them, they say, man, that still represents the kind of lousy politics, the worst part of Trump.
We voted for that at the time because it was the best we had.
But now we have a better option.
And we are picking the better.
Yeah, I agree with you 100%.
One other thought that I just randomly had, but I think it's worth saying, is one issue.
This is not a prescription.
This is a prediction.
One easy way, right?
If you're a politician and you've got your finger in the air and seeing which way the winds are blowing and you want to distinguish yourself from the rest of the DC swamp, you know, and have your own distinguished, unique party.
But, you know, but like here's the catch-22.
You can be unique and distinguished, but you'll probably also be unpopular because you're a rarity, you're a novelty, you know, you're outside.
Like MAGA is the thing.
Right now, it is the thing.
And so to step to the left or to the right of MAGA puts you in the minority.
So that's the catch 22.
The downside, you become a minority.
And so your chances of winning might be slim.
The upside is, well, you've got some kind of issue that makes you distinct and causes you to stand out.
So it's like you get visibility, but not popularity.
That's the catch 22.
So how could you accomplish both?
How could you distinguish yourself from Trump, from MAGA, and from all the rest of DC for that matter, from virtually 99.9%?
Of politicians in America, and yet also in terms of the base of America, the voters, the constituents, find an issue that's becoming rapidly popular that the majority of Americans might side with you on?
I already know.
What is it?
Israel.
Israel.
Yep.
Being against Israel.
Thomas Massey is one of the most.
His approval rating is great, and he's loved by the entire nation, and he's very against Israel's influence in our government.
Anybody who comes in and runs with the best of MAGA.
But the distinguishing quality being no more greatest ally, that person will win in the landslide.
Not today they won't, but in a couple of years they will.
In four years, they will.
The noticing, dear brothers and sisters, is not going away.
Right.
You are talking about one of the quickest phenomenons that I've witnessed going mainstream.
From Joe Rogan and Ian Carroll to Martyr Maid and Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.
And I mean, the list goes on and on and on and on.
And if you think, yep, and that's it, it's done now.
Support for Israel will go back up to 70% in no time.
So here's my takeaway, Joel.
What you're saying is, The disputes have been right.
What I'm saying is, I'm going to run.
The disputes have been right the whole time, and we are just part of the great plan to, at the end, have the whole world turn against Israel.
I guess some would take that interpretation.
Some probably would.
I love it.
They're like, so you're saying there's a chance?
There's a state rep in Michigan, Josh Shriver.
The dude was hardcore right wing, and he went back and he won his reelection in a landslide.
The dude was like, gay marriage should be illegal, and this isn't even controversial.
He voted against very basic, like honoring Black History Month, stuff like that.
I don't remember exactly what it was.
Voted against it, super controversial.
Everyone hated him, but he didn't get popularity necessarily.
He got visibility, he got loyalty because his constituents said, I see my representative up there, and I kind of don't like these things either.
And he's the one, he literally said, He's like, My goal is that there will be no one that governs to the right of me.
Guys, he won.
Like the time to push the Overton is right now, now, responsibly, biblically.
Yeah, as far as you can drive it.
Real People Behind Viral Clips00:02:17
You see us going viral, and it's hate viral, it's not popularity viral.
And they see us going viral every single week.
And they're like, those people, the only way they even get views is just people making fun of them.
And that's what a lot of our detractors genuinely think.
What they don't realize is that there is a growing, sizable swath of the population that is quiet.
Because they know that right now, if you stick your head out beyond the Overton window, then it is suicide.
For example, if you're a CEO or something and you have to do that as a CEO, it doesn't.
But I'm talking about powerful people like CEOs.
Some of them are CEOs of multiple companies, for that matter.
I'm talking about powerful, rich, influential people who will not say a word publicly because they know.
They know.
But privately, these guys, they will back you.
They will support you.
They'll do it quietly, they'll do it subtly.
But, um, But they like, if you just think that, oh, well, this is where normies are because this is what I'm seeing on social media.
This is what's being said publicly.
This is what's being said out loud.
And, and, you know, guys who are outside, you know, beyond the Overton window, you know, they may get a lot of views, but it's all hate watching and nobody takes them seriously and they're just a joke and, you know, nobody agrees with them.
You're, see, you know, I think both statements are true.
X is real life and X is also not real life.
And what I'm speaking to right now is the, The latter portion of that.
There's a sense in which social media really is real life.
It represents real people.
But there also is a very real sense in which it's not real life.
There are plenty of real people with real influence who they're just, they're not podcasters.
They're not political pundits.
They're doing, there's all the different pieces on the chessboard.
Not everybody's the same.
Not everybody has the same purpose.
Some are going to be outspoken and they're going to be pushing the Overton window a little bit at a time.
Others are not going to be doing anything like that.
They're going to be very quiet.
Social Media vs Real Life Influence00:10:01
They're going to maintain a position in the public square of prestige and influence and wealth, but they will be silently, quietly backing and funding those who are pushing the overturn because they agree with us.
They actually agree with us.
They want to see a country that's Christian, they want to see a country that's conservative, they want to see a country with borders.
They're white men who have white wives and white daughters and don't want to see them replaced.
And want them to have a future.
And they're not going to say what I just said from a microphone because they are worth $20 million and own multiple companies that have all these different clientele that don't necessarily share their views and they're wise and they're calculated and they're careful.
But they absolutely have an ambition and a goal and a set of convictions and it aligns with us and people like us.
And they will come to bat when it counts.
So, all that being said, yeah, I think.
I actually think that it's not just that MAGA, and this is, I think, again, a white pill.
It's very encouraging.
We should be encouraged by it.
I don't think that it's like MAGA is what we're witnessing isn't just that MAGA is the new GOP.
They've thoroughly beat the neocons.
That is undeniable.
That's certainly true.
But they have also so sufficiently and thoroughly and in a humiliating fashion beat the Democrats that MAGA is kind of, in a sense, it's like, That's all there is.
And there's really nothing, like, there's nothing other than just hopium and wishing on the behalf of liberals to suggest that the next, the Democrats are done and the neocons, you know, GOP is done.
It's just MAGA.
And there's nothing that guarantees or asserts that the next party, the second party, has to be to the left of MAGA.
It could just as easily be to the right.
And trends suggest it will.
And trends suggest it will be to the right of MAGA.
And one way to be to the right of MAGA and have a lot of the MAGA glory and all the best of MAGA, because there are a lot of good things that we appreciate and support, but to still be somehow clearly distinct is the issue of Israel.
Yeah.
Like, it's like the meme with the guy who's got a whiteboard and he's standing before all the employees and he's pitching.
He's like, I feel like that guy right now.
I'm like, guys, Trump, but without the Zionism.
All in.
It's like, take my money.
Are you kidding me?
I think a lot of people would come out for that.
All right.
Got some super chats.
Go ahead, Michael.
Cole Billiatt, thank you very much.
$4.99 super chat.
Cole says this thoughts on the right, lobbying groups, think tanks, et cetera, funding subverts on the left like they do for us.
Article coming out soon on Political Christiana.
I think if you have the wherewithal and the means and you wanted to do something like that, more power to you.
Let's be strategic.
There's a lot of podcasts, and we do need, like, we actually do need some thoughtful academics writing lawyers.
Well, what he's saying, though, is he's saying, should the right fund the crazy leftists so that there's a reaction against the left?
I see.
Like getting in and being like, we can't abandon these identity policies.
Oh, right.
Let me say it this way if Kamala Harris was $200 away from winning the primary, I would send $400.
That's right.
You mean the next go around?
Yes, the next go around, if she almost captures it again.
And she writes and she says, I am $200 away from our fundraising goal.
It's within reach.
I'm whipping out that American Express and I'm saying, what do you need from me to be the nominee for the Democratic Party platform?
I think money's too tight right now to necessarily do that.
But if there was very well funded, you funded a lot of good research, good writing, good all of that.
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see if you could bankroll.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
But I agree with what you just said.
I think right now, economically, money is more dire to set up new institutions that are truly on the right.
What we forget is that a lot of them, the reason that the left had money to do that sort of thing was that cycle through USAID, going through Ukraine, going back into Democratic think tanks.
Another white pill that I even forgot to mention Act Blue is a huge Democrat donor apparatus, like for just donations.
It's not necessarily funded by the government.
They are in disarray.
Seven of their board members have resigned.
None of them will go on the record as stating why.
And it's very likely divisions over exactly what we're talking about now.
What's the future of the country?
Future of our party, who's going to run, what do we have left, how do we save face?
Which that's an engine because money drives a lot of this.
That is an engine that is on its last leg, which is going to be huge in three years to have billions and billions of dollars not available, not well routed, not sourced, not tied into the grassroots.
Yep.
Axe of Boniface, Super Chat 499.
He says, Thank you very much, Axe.
Yes, Matthew 5 13.
Gives a glimpse of what is to come for the woke evangelical churches.
I think that's the Millstone verse, right?
Yeah, I think so.
We will take their buildings and they will be evicted.
Hopefully.
The main line, at least.
I don't want their sheet metal buildings.
We already got one of those.
Right, right, right.
Yeah, it is funny.
Architecture, absolutely, there's a theological premise to the transcendence of God with vaulted ceilings and natural light coming through stained glasses to speak to the transcendence and all the beauty of God.
I love it.
And Protestants should care about architecture.
But it's always funny to me when people are like, well, why did you guys have a really nice building?
It's like, our church is four years old and we don't have $10 million.
Protestants should care more.
But I think there's a certain point where people act as though it's a preference.
It's like, you guys could have had a crystal cathedral, but by sheer preference, And you chose a strip mall.
It's like, no, my brother in Christ.
That's right.
That was not my preference.
That's just what the budget allowed for.
Well, and there's huge cathedrals in Europe.
I'm not saying every Christian church has to be Notre Dame or Sagrada Familia or something like that, but those were multiple century projects.
Right.
Like entire generations, three generations of men would work on different stages of that building.
Right.
Yep.
Yep.
Okay.
Jeff Hafley, thanks very much.
$199.
And I think a couple here from Jeff.
So we'll.
Will hit his.
He says, to the privileged, equality seems like prejudice.
He clarified later, saying that the privileged in our time have been the quote unquote minority, the oppressed minorities.
And now to insist on any sort of equality in the system to them seems like there's now prejudice.
Right.
499.
Also, he says, have you read Who is My Neighbor? The Encyclopedia of Natural Relations from Western Front Books.
Is that Thomas Acor?
Yes.
His name's not technically on it.
But that is very ambitious of Jeff to ask if I've read it because it is like 650 pages in tiny print.
So, of course, he's right.
The answer being, obviously.
No, I have it.
I bought it.
It's awesome.
It's a great.
It's literally like, it's not a novel.
It's not like the case for Christian nationalism.
It's quotes upon quotes upon quotes from all sorts of church fathers, all sorts of philosophers for about 2,000 years in the West and how they thought about family and race and nation.
I mean, some of them from like leftists.
Like, this is not just a compendium of just the most extreme guys you could find.
This is kind of showing how did Aristotle, how did Plato, how did Calvin, how did Luther, how did Aquinas, how did all these different guys think about the relation of man to family, to nation, to race, all of that.
So I recommend it.
I've started reading it.
Great resource.
Michael, $5 super chat.
Thanks, Michael.
He says, which study Bibles, if any, do you recommend with 0% dispensationalism included?
Matthew Henry's is now out of print, from my understanding.
What's the Schofield?
I was about to say that.
You want the Schofield study Bible, my brother?
I don't know.
I have a church history study Bible that it's not a study Bible where it'll give you like an overview of covenant theology.
But for every section it has, it's quotes from typically Puritans, Reformers, and the early church.
So, you're not at all getting Darby or anything in there, but you'll get, I almost said Aristotle, but you're not getting Aristotle, but you would get Augustine and you would get a lot of guys down through the Middle Ages.
Church history study Bible and the ESV.
The Reformation study Bible, Sproul was the lead editor.
He wasn't dispensational.
I have a copy and I haven't noticed anything dispensational in it.
Okay, this is from Cole Billiatt.
He did a super chat.
What?
He's just following up.
Follow up, Cole Billiatt, super chat $10.
Thanks, Cole.
He says, Mike, love you.
Oh, I see it.
But you misunderstood the angle.
Fund leftists to push more Christian values.
Use our money to replace the computer chip in the back of their head.
Get them promoting, not necessarily, obviously, Christian values, but like, hey, we'll find your podcast that's failing because your audience is lost.
And you're going to push our agenda now.
I like that.
Selling Facebook Pages in 201800:08:20
Yeah, that's maybe possible.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Especially like the anti Zionism piece, like propping up those on the left that would be negative towards the money that we send to Israel, more isolationist, kind of saying, like, this is a guy to listen to, even though you won't vote for him.
You wouldn't fund him.
You wouldn't do all that.
Positioning them maybe as the left.
Saying, this guy who's relatively friendly to our positions still wouldn't vote for him.
This is the voice of the left and all of you clamoring for the spotlight.
Well, because so much of what's difficult about the situation that we're in, maybe it's just human nature during all time, is.
The argument doesn't always win the day.
It's, and it's not even always the emotion that wins the day.
Sometimes it's just, I've listened to that guy for three years and now he's changed what he's saying and I just continue to listen to him.
Right.
No, yeah, there is something to be said for, I mean, especially when social media was still new, like people would build up Facebook pages and then just sell them.
Right.
And people would buy them.
Like, so it's like somebody had like an Instagram, you know, that's, All about dog walking.
And then a corporate business with 200,000 followers and a corporate business that is selling car tires.
It has nothing to do with it.
Would buy it and they would keep up the page, right?
Because the followers like dog walking.
So it's like dog walking posts, dog walking.
And they would hire somebody to do this.
Keep up the dog walking posts, do seven of those posts every single week.
And then once a week, we're going to do a post about.
Our tire company, right?
And so, um, that's absolutely a.
I'm not saying that it's inherently right or wrong, but not speaking to the moral capacity, but in terms of strategic effectiveness, that is a tried and true method.
And so I think you definitely will see, because it's easier to start with critical mass than to start from scratch, especially now because there's so much competition.
Like your grandma probably has a podcast, right?
Everybody has a podcast, you know?
Like I think I said this on a previous episode, but remember Raymond from Everybody Loves Raymond, he did like a stand up podcast.
Comedy show on Netflix a year ago, or something like that.
And there was one bit that he had where he was looking at the audience and he said, Now, look, I can tell you a few things from having my own show.
And he said, Now, when you get your show, and the crowd starts laughing, you know, and he looks at me and he's like, No, no, no, no, trust me.
You all get a show.
Everybody in America gets a show now.
And he had a point, you know, it's just like everybody has a show, you know, and everybody has a podcast, everybody has a blog, everybody has.
You know, and everything.
And so there's a lot of competition.
Part of that is because everybody's opinionated.
Part of it is just, you know, following the trends.
And then part of it is just because of the advancements and innovation with technology, right?
Like one of the reasons why things were more scarce and there was less competition is, you know, like especially with media early on, especially with video, was like, I, you know, I still remember within my lifetime as a kid where like our family didn't have a video camera.
It was only a few of our friends that had a video camera.
And it's like, you know, it was this big honking, you know, 50 pound piece of machinery, you know, and you'd have to take out like, you know, a second mortgage on the house to have one, you know, it was like a $10,000 piece of equipment.
And now everybody, you know, pays $20 a month for an iPhone 1715.
And it has like 48 different cameras on the back of it, you know, and shoots in 4K and I don't know, whatever.
And so, for like a couple hundred bucks, you could actually have decent sound, decent video, definitely video sound might cost a little bit more, but even like you can get the, you know, the Shure mic, like, That's the thing.
You look at it, it's like Joe Rogan has this podcast.
It's the biggest thing in the world and is pulling in millions and millions of dollars.
And so he's going to have, you know, multi trillion dollar equipment.
No, he's got the same microphone.
I mean, these are nice mics, but they're not.
They are.
But it's a $400 mic.
And it's just because technology is so advanced now.
And then you throw into the equation AI, you know, which is filling the internet with a lot of slop.
A lot of slop.
But if somebody's intentional and uses it as a tool instead of just handing it over and saying, AI, you know, make me, you know, Seven clips, you know, but like you get AI to make those clips and you go back and and so and then everybody's also tech savvy.
So, not just that technology is advanced and and it's fairly cheap, but then a lot of people have the know how now, especially Gen Z as they come up.
So, you're going to be competing if you enter into you know the podcast realm, you're going to be competing with you know everyone, you know.
So, all that being said, um, there but there's something to be said like there's there's a certain critical mass where you know, like you call it early adopters, that's what it is.
So, it's like, why is Joe Rogan's podcast so big?
Part of it is because he was a TV host for Fear Factor.
And part of it is because he was successful with MMA, you know, and like he already had some credibility.
He already had name recognition.
So I'm not discounting any of that.
But there's also the factor he was an early adopter, he was an early podcaster, right?
And some like guys on YouTube, you already mentioned, you know, Tim Poole, right?
Like Tim Poole, you know, some of this I'm actually even, you know, basing off of something I heard him say not too long ago.
But he said that he said that it was a markable difference.
That he noticed in it right around like 2018 to 2020, where all of a sudden he's like, dude, we could just put things out on YouTube and it would just fly.
Like, I remember when Facebook radically shifted and changed its algorithm to where, if you wanted to be seen, you could have 50,000 followers on Facebook and you could do a post.
And there was a time where, if you followed the page, then you saw the post, right?
It wasn't until later with social media that it became bifurcated.
It was like, well, subscribing, you could subscribe on YouTube to a channel and never see a piece of their content for six months.
And so, what do we always have to say now?
We'll also click the bell to notify.
That tells YouTube that you actually want to see our content.
And it was the same kind of thing with Facebook.
There was a time where it's like if you had 50,000 followers, that was really valuable because it meant anything you said and posted was going to be seen by 50,000 people.
And then I remember when it shifted and it got to the point like 2015, 16, where you could have 50,000 followers, but you post something, it could literally, I'm not talking about likes, I'm talking about views.
It was a 250 views.
Yeah.
250 views.
And it's like, I have 50,000 followers.
What do you mean 250 views?
And it's just because everybody got on Facebook and a bunch of companies and corporate guys got on Facebook.
And so it just becomes a cesspool of schlop.
Right.
So, well, algorithmically, it targeted the content people were spending the most time with.
That's even how X is now.
People can have tens of thousands of followers, but people never engage.
And they put, like, Gospel Coalition, they'll put out a video.
Nobody's watching it.
Nobody's sharing it.
Nobody's commenting.
Suppress, suppress, suppress.
Give the people.
So, there's opportunity for new creators and new influencers and new podcasts and new shows.
There is opportunity.
I'm not saying, you know, pack it up, boys, it's over.
But it is a whole new world.
Like, what we're doing, Like, we are putting out three live streams every single week with a Friday special with good cameras, good equipment in a nicely organized and decorated studio.
Uh, Nathan is really solid with tech, you know.
Like, we're bringing charts every single day and statistics.
I mean, charts, guys, charts literally saved Donald Trump's life, it's a big deal.
And so, like, we're, I mean, you know, good content, all these kinds, and obviously, I'm biased, but like, it's not just your webcam, you know, at the top of your laptop, like, we're doing some quality shows, and yet.
We have hit in many ways, like, you know, like we've just hit resistance, you know, like we're just like, man, we're just kind of hovering around the same level of subscribers for a while.
Like, I remember like blasting up, and then you just kind of hit a wall.
And part of that is because the algorithms continue to change and get more tight and more narrow.
The market gets flooded with, you know, everybody else says, you know what, I'm going to start a podcast, you know, and that's fine.
Federalists and Anti-Federalist Beginnings00:02:41
It's fair game.
So, all that being said, my point is, Um, to purchase or to fund, you know, to invest into someone who already has critical mass, some of these leftist, you know, podcasters and stuff like that, that were early adopters that already have, you know, a million followers, you know, plus, and actually, and were able to kind of assume the center and plant a flag on the hill before the game became difficult, but just simply because of timing, they were just early adopters.
Um, it, in many ways, it's far easier to say, Hey, we'll give you, you know, 250 grand.
But I want to come on the show.
Or this, you know, one of my guys is going to come on the show, you know, once a quarter, you know, to talk about this.
And I'd like to see you, you know, start to push into this topic a little bit more.
That's way easier than just starting from scratch.
Yep.
Yep.
Okay.
Two more from Jeff, and then it looks like one more from Belushi for Violin.
Yep.
Jeff Havley said this.
$4.99, thank you very much.
If Democrats had stayed a New Deal coalition party that was masculine and culturally conservative, they would still be the dominant party in America.
Yeah.
Honestly, if it was not Hillary Clinton, she ran a very pro LGBTQ campaign.
If it was a man and they had held back the wokeness a little bit, they probably would still be in effect because they would have won against Trump in 2016.
It's like Star Wars, like A New Hope, 2016, The Empire Strikes Back, 2020, The Return of the Dawn, 2024, Return of the Jedi.
Jeff Hathley, do you like your winner take all or proportional representation?
And then, second question, your ideal number of parties or party factions and their leaders and platforms.
I.
The European coalition parties, where there's like five different parties and the two that get the most that are most to one side form a coalition government, those I think are even worse for gridlock, to be honest.
Like our two party system is terrible as it is, but I don't think adding more in most scenarios helps.
I wouldn't mind.
What's that voting system where it's ranked choice voting?
Yep.
I think that would possibly help more conservative people win or at least get more name recognition.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of what to do.
The founding fathers, even the first generation, warned about the two party system strongly.
They said, don't go into it, even though they were already two parties.
It was the Federalists and the Anti Federalists from the beginning.
It was the Whigs and the Tories from the beginning.
Natural Law and Political Neutrality00:15:48
But I don't know.
I don't want what Europe has, that's for sure.
I don't see our system.
No, it's not going to.
Even the architecture of the Capitol building is built around two parties.
There's two cloak rooms, there's two entrances, there's the two halves.
Even when someone's a third party or a green party or something like that, independent, they have to put them in with one of the two major parties for their location.
Right.
There's a great system called a monarchy that evades all of that.
Super chat $2 from Belushi Pravilan.
He says, What's the natural law view of neutrality?
Natural law view of neutrality.
Well, because we say neutrality is a myth.
Yeah, neutrality is a myth.
A presupposition that would say there are no facts that man doesn't interpret from his pre.
Existing kind of orientation or worldview, if you want to use that term.
And so, because of that, because the mind of the natural man is hostile to God, he doesn't approach any fact neutrally.
So, he looks at biology and he says, Look what evolution did because he's hostile to God.
He doesn't want to acknowledge his lordship.
So, I guess he's kind of asking if you would not be presuppositional and not be theonomic, who would take the common kingdom and the natural law and more classical apologetics view, what would be the view of neutrality?
Does neutrality exist in that system?
Would you take the same moniker?
That's a good question.
That is a good question.
I actually, I'm like, I want to go home and research that.
I don't have a good answer for that.
Yep.
I'm not sure.
For me personally, it's not a hindrance because, in that sense, I've remained presuppositional.
Like I think I said a few weeks ago, for me, presuppositionalism, even in, you know, like listening to, you know, OG guys like Bonson, you know, or Van Til, for me, presuppositionalism, it never meant that you can't appeal.
To nature or to logic, or like there are laws outside of the scripture, right?
Sola scriptura, even just like a lot of this comes down to the solas.
And as a Protestant, sola scriptura never meant that scripture was the only authority, it just means it's the only infallible authority.
And of all these other authorities, number one, they're fallible, they can err, and number two, they're subordinate.
So scripture is the highest, it's the only infallible authority.
And it's the same kind of concept for me applied to my, you know, how far I take my presuppositionalism, meaning that for me to be presuppositional is, it's in answering the question of, you know, what comes first, the chicken or the egg.
That, you know, if the chicken in this analogy represents the Bible, well, then it's answering the chicken every time.
So for me, like, I would appeal to natural law.
I would appeal to the laws of logic.
I would appeal to experience.
I would appeal to people's emotions and try to.
Exercise the pathos, you know, passions and all these storytelling, you know, like stories are powerful.
We need stories on the right.
It can't just be charts and stats.
It also has to be stories and examples and compelling, you know, narratives and all these kinds of things.
But all of them are subordinate to the Word of God.
So for me, what it means to be presuppositional is that I believe that this particular story is good, true, and beautiful because I believe that it accurately embodies the goodness and trueness and beauty that comes from the Bible.
I'm appealing to nature, but I'm appealing to nature as an authority.
It is an authority.
But I'm trusting in my five senses and observation, the scientific method, and what I can observe in nature because, at the end of the day, the Bible tells me that nature is not happenstance.
It's not chaotic or random or arbitrary, but it was actually orderly, fashioned, and designed by an intelligent creator, the triune God.
And so it's because the Bible tells me so.
Because what the Bible tells me about the created order, that I value natural law.
Like, I think that's what kind of won me over from, you know, and this isn't all presuppositional guys by any stretch.
There's some really good presuppositional guys that I still really appreciate.
But some of them, you know, some of them I think kind of degraded to the point where it's like every argument is basically just reciting Romans chapter one, you know, Romans one.
Asking by what standard do you make this assertion?
Yeah, by what standard?
By what standard?
By what standard?
You know, and it's like, But I don't think that presuppositionalism necessitates that.
I think it can include that and it can lead to that, but not by necessity.
And so for me, I'm presuppositional in the sense that I'm going to appeal to nature as an authority, but I'm going to do so ultimately because the Bible tells me that God made the world and he made it a certain way and that he has revealed himself by what he has made.
And so.
So, I'm not going to just recite scripture.
I'm not going to do anything less than reciting scripture, but I'm going to do more.
I'm going to appeal to logic.
I'm going to appeal to story.
I'm going to appeal to nature and say, These things are plain for all to see.
God has made these things manifest and He made you in His image.
And you're degraded by sin.
You're totally depraved apart from salvation in Christ, but you're still a rational being.
And I'm going to appeal to you as a rational being.
And I'm going to count on you being able, just like me, Being able to observe things in nature.
And I know that because of sin, because of your total depravity, you're going to want to suppress those things and deeds of unrighteousness.
And so I'm aware of that.
But I'm still going to present to you the arguments.
I'm still going to try to appeal to you and to win you over.
Because here's the thing I'm not going to be able to use natural arguments to get you to submit your life to Christ.
That's going to have to be the Holy Spirit.
That's going to, like, that requires regeneration.
Your total depravity will 10 out of 10 times inhibit you from coming to Christ unless Christ first seeks you.
That I absolutely believe, 100%.
The Bible's clear about that.
But here's the thing even as fallen man, fallen man doesn't seek for God.
Romans 3, right?
No one seeks for God.
Their throats are open graves.
But even fallen man still has some ambitions that align with the Christian.
So, like when Jesus says, when he's encouraging his disciples to appeal to God as a heavenly father to ask for the things that they need, he says, Which of you, if your son asks, For a fish, he would give him a scorpion or a serpent.
Or if he asked for a loaf of bread, he would give him a stone, a rock.
And then he follows it up with a total depravity, you know, tip of the hat.
If you then, being evil, know how, he doesn't say, and you want to do this, you would give your child food instead of a rock or a scorpion because you're Christians and regenerate and no longer totally depraved.
That's not what Jesus says.
He says, no, if you, being evil, if even totally depraved people still have a vested interest.
In the preservation of their posterity, then how much more?
It's an argument from the lesser to the greater.
But in the lesser, evil people, totally depraved apart from Christ, there's still something to argue from.
There's still something there.
And so Jesus argues from the lesser to the greater.
Now, if you, as evil fathers, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask?
And so my point is, especially in the realm of the political, in the realm of the political, that's.
That's precisely why I believe that we can be co belligerents on a great many issues, not on everything, but on a great many issues.
We can say, like Elon Musk, I believe, you know, I'm not excited about this.
I don't wish this for him.
I've prayed for him personally in my prayer lives God, please save Elon.
And please help him not to put, you know, microchips in everybody's hands.
Save Elon from himself and also save us from Elon.
But, you know, but I want him to be a Christian and I prayed for him.
So it brings me no joy in saying what I'm about to say.
But as it currently stands, as far as I can tell, the dude is for sure going to hell.
Right.
I think the Babylon Bee, unfortunately, was not successful in their lousy gospel evangelistic attempt.
When they made a joke out of evangelism, that dude is not a Christian.
He's not a Christian.
However, you know what, Elon, as you then being evil know how to give good gifts, you know what Elon still gets as a totally depraved, hell bound reprobate?
He knows that extinction of the human population maybe isn't a good thing.
Who would have thought?
Right?
So I can appeal to that.
With Elon, and I don't even have to have a Bible verse.
Now, for me, ultimately, the Bible is my reasoning.
It's why I'm doing everything that I'm doing, and it's the highest authority, and it's the truth.
When you get to the bottom, it's like, well, because nature says so.
Okay, but how can you trust nature?
Well, because my five senses are reliable, and how can you trust because a rational mind?
Because God.
That's what makes me still presuppositional, I believe, is because my final answer, the ultimate answer, the bottom, the foundation under it all, is because the Bible told me so.
The Bible, because the Bible says so.
And in that sense, and I'm convinced that that's all that's really required, ultimately, in the truest sense, to be presuppositional.
I don't think that a lot of the modern presuppositional arguments are necessary in order to be presuppositional.
And so, all that being said, I think we can be co belligerents with Catholics on a ton of things.
Praise God, I'm grateful for many of them.
With Eastern Orthodox guys on a ton of things.
And then, even rippling out beyond that, we can be co belligerents with Mormons.
On a lot of things.
Mormons like to have kids.
I like that too.
And then, even beyond that, we can be co belligerents with guys who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and just realized that Democrats might not be a good idea in 2022, like Elon Musk.
And because we can appeal to these other things.
And I don't think that means, like, well, Joel's embracing natural law and he's making arguments from nature and logic and this kind of thing.
So he's officially handed back in his presuppositional card.
I have been under the persuasion that that's never.
That was never against, you know, in contradiction to presuppositionalism to begin with.
I'll do my best to answer from, say, Stephen Wolfe's perspective.
I read his book, I think, three times.
So I just, in regards to the question of self neutrality, I think there's a difference between theological neutrality when it comes to assertions of the truth of God, of the necessity of repentance and faith in Jesus, and then properties that are anthropological to man.
And so, in that sense, maybe the presuppositionalist across the board is saying neutrality in any of these areas, in law, in government, in home, this side of the other, neutrality is.
Non existent.
But then I think some natural law guys, and again, if I could do my best to say what maybe Stephen Wolfe would say, is yes, that is certainly true.
It's in the Bible, especially theologically.
When it comes to the anthropological category, we're not necessarily thinking in theological presuppositions, but much more so what is taught to us about government and law and all those things.
So I think if I could get into the mind of someone that would advocate for a natural law approach versus a theonomic approach, they would say that about neutrality.
They would say that proper reasoning will lead to right conclusions about natural issues, regardless of who's doing the reasoning.
Yep.
And even theologically, they have shortcuts or deficiencies.
Still, as man being men, they can leverage reason to greater and lesser degrees to arrive at sometimes true conclusions.
Right.
Nobody has ever reasoned themselves to salvation.
Nope.
But you can reason yourself to stopping human extinction.
You can reason yourself to God existing.
Aristotle and Plato both.
Right.
Yeah.
God is real, exists, and made all things.
Right.
And that actually is Romans 1.
And so, like, yeah.
And I think.
With law specifically, there may be some categories that would differ, but law is I mean, all law is the imposition of morality.
So when it comes to law, I think that that's something that I could talk to an unbeliever like Elon Musk could be sitting in this room, who again, I think is hellbound.
And I think in 15 seconds, I could get him to agree that in the realm of law, neutrality is a myth.
Because that's all law is, it's legislating morality.
Someone's morality.
Every single law that exists is always from the basis of this is morally good, this is morally reprehensible, and always.
And so I actually think that you could convince a non believer about that in the realm of law.
I'd have to think of every single category in society and whether or not.
But with something like law and the political, I think.
I think politics is, there's no neutrality in politics.
And I think that, too, that you could substantiate that argument that neutrality is a myth in the realm of the political and the realm of law because both are inherently moral, they're moral categories.
Now, we would argue all day long about what is moral, you know, and we'd have very different ideas.
You know, Elon, even in his infamous tweet in 2022 when he said, like, all right, I'm switching over and I'm going to vote for Republican now, even in that, morality was the language in which he expressed that transition.
He said, I used to think that the Democrats were the party of kindness and compassion.
So, what is he expressing?
He's saying, man is a political animal.
Everyone's political.
I, too, am not above it all.
Nobody's really above it all.
That, even that is a, is a, Political strategy to somehow, you know, get your way, you know, or appear to be, you know, whatever.
So everyone's political.
I'm a political animal.
And in the realm of the political, I voted for one political party because I thought it was the more moral party.
Right.
And the minute that I realized that they weren't and that another party was morally superior to that, then I switched political allegiance.
Which, to bring it full circle, my last comment here is the left won.
Through a lot of the 10s and the 20s, because they made appeals to morality.
It was a false morality, but they convinced people that theirs was the moral cause.
Yeah, it was constant appeals to compassion and kindness and the least of these, all those kinds of things.
And there is a sense of morality there, but it was always, I think, if I could sum it up in a phrase, It wasn't like we're taking something that's truly a vice, like just clearly on its face a vice, and convincing you that it's somehow a virtue.
I think they would actually pick out, in some ways, it became that, and that's why they've now lost.
Gentleness in Eternal Growth00:09:01
They went too far.
But initially, they would pick things that really are virtuous, and even by biblical standards, are virtuous.
But it would be such a particular virtue that it would be.
Missing the forest for the tree, right?
So, like, and evangelicals do this all the time.
Christians do this too.
So, it's like you think of, you think, for instance, of like gentleness, you know, it's like gentleness is a virtue.
And you can think of like, well, it doesn't seem like God was being gentle, you know, when, you know, like you would hone in on, you know, the woman caught in adultery and see this is Jesus' gentleness.
And so, therefore, Jesus is different than his father because his father, you know, the sin of Achan, there's no gentleness there that, you know, they put him and his whole household is put to death, you know, for his animals.
Yeah, and even his animals just because he didn't want to waste some of the gold.
You know, he was just practicing good stewardship, you know, by keeping some of the plunder from Jericho.
But then, the way that you're able to do that is.
Is by zooming in so acutely on one tree that you miss the forest.
Like, what you're missing there is like, no, it actually is gentleness in both cases.
Yes, it's a strict judgment and a harsh penalty, but that's not the absence of gentleness.
The question is always who is God being gentle to in this particular scenario?
So you see the individual direct gentleness towards the woman who's caught in adultery.
You know, in John chapter 8, but in the case of Achan, you actually see God being gentle to the entire nation of Israel by nipping sin in the bud that would spread like gangrene and infect all the camp, that all of them would be given over to idolatry and to disobedience to the Lord.
So, the Lord actually is being gentle, right?
That's why I hate the idea of like gentle parenting because it literally is a slap in the face to Hebrews chapter 12.
Right.
So, God disciplines those he loves.
It's not as though God puts gentleness to the side.
No, it's in gentleness that God disciplines because discipline is far better than eternal judgment.
And that's what Hebrews 12 explicitly says that no discipline is pleasant for the time.
But But the point is that what it produces, but then also that it really is painful, but the pain is fleeting.
It's temporary.
It's only for but for a moment.
And that's all of our lives.
If you're a child of God, if you're a Christian, then your whole life is filled with highs but also with lows.
Your whole life is filled with suffering and difficulty and challenge and disappointment.
And none of this is random or coincidence.
All of this is being orchestrated by a sovereign God who stands.
Meticulously sovereign above all of it.
And he's only allowing for these things to take place because he's trying to steal your joy, because he just doesn't want you to have a good time.
No, it's actually because he is intimately concerned and committed to your greatest degree of joy and your eternal happiness.
There's not one thing for the Christian that will happen to us here in this life that in eternity that we would look back and say, I wish that never happened.
Like, we will still have a sense of, like, yeah, I shouldn't have sinned against God, but even my sin, he used for his glory, and not only for his glory, but for my eternal good.
All of it, all of our scars in this life will become eternal monuments to the glory and the goodness and the kindness of God because it's forming in us Christ like character, more dependency on God, more capacity.
Like, Jonathan Edwards used this language of, like, the person being expanded by God in sanctification to have a higher, greater capacity for enjoyment of God.
In heaven, everyone will be full, is kind of what Edwards argued.
So, nobody will be like the glass half full.
Nobody will be empty.
There'll be no lack in heaven.
Everyone will be fully enjoying God, but some will have higher capacities.
They'll be full, but it'll be like a gallon jug, whereas somebody else might only be a thimble.
So, everybody will be full and satisfied in God and his presence forever, but some will have a higher capacity for enjoying God than others based off of varying degrees of sanctification in this life.
And we talked about this right before we came on, so it's fresh in my mind.
But I also don't think that heaven, even in the eternal state, I don't think it'll be static.
I think that we'll continue to develop and grow in our knowledge of God because we'll still be creatures, sinless, but still finite.
And so, growing in our knowledge of God, and as we grow in our knowledge of the infinite, we'll never fully arrive because you can't fully know that which is infinite if you're finite.
And so, there'll always be more of God to know, even eons and eons into eternity.
And as we grow, and that's just in the realm of Just in the realm of knowledge, you know, epistemology.
But like as we grow in our knowledge of God, there'll be more for us to consciously enjoy of God, you know?
And so, yeah.
So, all that being said, my point is just that I think that, well, I don't know what I think.
Michael, do you want to bring it home?
What do you think?
I actually, this is a rare occasion for me, but I actually did, I'll admit, I actually did forget my original point.
I'm usually able to take the rabbit trail and come back home, but this time it's escaping me.
I don't know where the plane would land there, to be honest.
I was talking about, I know I started somehow with Elon Musk and how he could be convinced from natural reasoning of this and that and the other, you know, and then I was getting into, you know, getting into more of a Christian dynamic and salvation and how ultimately, you know, God has to change the heart.
But the point was just, the point, I guess, was just to say that God is in control of all these things.
Everything is happening for a reason.
And we're continuing to develop in real time.
I don't believe that that ends upon the moment of death.
I think that even in the eternal state, that it's not static.
But it will continue.
And it's all building towards something.
And I think, even politically, when you think of the political and you think of legislation, you think of what's happening in God's providence here and now in America, in our country, all of it's building towards something.
And the easiest example that we could use is just the four year term of the Biden administration.
I don't think we'd get the Trump that we have today if he didn't lose.
Now, whether or not he actually lost, that doesn't really matter.
But the point is that, like, part of the reason that he won in a landslide in 2024 is because of the pain of 2020 through 2024.
And I think that that's a pattern that we see in our world.
We see it individually in our sanctification.
We see it at the universally with humanity as a whole that we're continuing to develop and learn.
And sometimes there is a sharp decline.
It feels like we're taking three steps back.
But I believe that by God's grace, it's.
Because he's intending, you know, we can't always see the end game, but I think it's because he's intending if we are taking three steps back that eventually we're going to take four or five steps forward.
And I think that we're learning a lot.
And I'm not sure the lesson has really come home for all of us or even myself, not in full, but I do think that the left has overplayed its hand.
And we've learned a great deal.
And I think there are some lessons that hopefully we won't have to repeat.
For the near future, and that the left was so atrocious and so far that MAGA might actually now be the new center.
And I think there'll be some little left faction from that, but ultimately it'll be insignificant.
And then hopefully, over time, there'll be something to the right of MAGA that becomes significant.
And for that, I feel white pilled and hopeful.
Wes, do you have any final thoughts for today's episode?
Gavin News from.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Good summer.
That was good.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Any other questions in the chat, Nate?
All right.
That's it.
Well, thank you guys for tuning in.
And Lord willing, we will see you again this Wednesday at 3 p.m. Central Time.