Timothy Gordon and Joel Webbin dissect the documentary "What a Woman Is," arguing that functional gender dysphoria stems from 1848 Seneca Falls feminism and Babylonian witchcraft. They assert biological superiority in sports, advocate for $1.99 pricing to cover production costs, and claim churches should lock doors to justify lethal force against protesters. The discussion promotes American imperialism, ethno-nationalist states, and biblical patriarchy where wives obey husbands in all things, concluding that rejecting modern egalitarianism is essential for restoring Christian household order. [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
Defining Womanhood00:07:32
So, we've answered the question, what is a woman?
Matt Walsh did his documentary.
It's ridiculous that something like that even had to be done, but he did a good job.
We're grateful for that work.
The answer to that question is simple What is a woman?
It's an adult female human being.
All of humanity has known this forever until people decided to be retarded.
And not just retarded, but ultimately wicked.
It's absolutely a deceitful suppression of the truth.
Romans chapter 1, suppressing the truth and deeds of unrighteousness.
And so, something like that actually became Merited.
It became needed to do a documentary, What is a Woman? to thwart off the ridiculousness and the deceit of our time.
But there's a deeper question that is burning that must be answered, not merely What is a woman, but What a woman is?
That's the deeper question.
Or to pose it a different way, you could say What is a woman?
The other question What is a woman for?
Or Why is a woman?
Why is a woman?
Why does she exist?
How did God make her?
What is her?
Purpose.
And so there's a new documentary that is fantastic.
My wife and I, we actually watched it last night, and it's not just good because I agree with it theologically and these things from the scripture.
It was incredibly well produced.
I've seen several documentaries, and this would be up there.
I don't want to be exaggerated.
I don't want to use hyperbole.
I would say easily in the top five in terms of just production value of documentaries I've ever seen.
Really, really well done.
My wife was tearing up.
Now, That's not saying a whole lot because she is, after all, a woman.
And so she was getting teary eyed at some of the touchy points of romance and love between a husband and his wife.
But it was a phenomenal documentary.
And I have to admit, as a Protestant, I kept watching it, and there was a sense in which I was grieving because there were certain lines throughout the film that I thought I'm the only Protestant I know who would be willing to say this.
Maybe one or two others.
They address things, not just.
Well, a wife submits to the spiritual headship of her husband, but that's in theory.
In practice, what does that look like?
Well, it means over the course of a 50 year marriage that anytime they disagree, they have to go and talk to their pastors first.
And if their pastors are a direct tie, they have four elders and two are on one side and two are on the other, then they have to sit and pray and fast.
And if they ever get to a point where the voice of God or the voice of the elders or this, that, and the other is just a perfect split 50 50, then instead of flipping a coin, then the complementarian headship of The husband comes into play.
In other words, what is the headship of a husband?
What does it mean?
Absolutely nothing.
That's how a lot of guys who salute, they give, you know, they tip the hat to male headship, federal headship.
That's how a lot of them, at the end of the day, that's what they actually believe.
It means nothing.
It's theoretical.
The husband has no real tangible authority in practice.
But this documentary did not toe that line.
This documentary, without apology, Without being ashamed, but also without being cruel or capricious, but in beautiful language from the scripture and from testimonies of both men and women pointed towards and exemplified, esteemed the beauty of male headship and womanly, domestic, feminine submission.
They used the word multiple times, and I was shocked, pleasantly shocked, but they used the word, did not shy away from it, obey.
They said, obey.
She obeys.
Her husband.
They even quoted certain church fathers and saying that we know that when it comes to all human authority, human authorities can err.
Human authorities are not infallible.
So, whether it's a civil father over citizens, or whether it's father and mother over children, or whether it's ecclesiastical fathers, bishops, pastors, in the realm of the church, we know that no matter who we are, a wife to her husband, or children to their parents, or citizens to civil fathers, or congregants to church leaders, we know that anytime a human authority commands that which God forbids or forbids that which God commands, then we are not called to submit or obey.
But one of the lines in this documentary is.
Was quoting, it was phenomenal.
It said, In all things deferential or prudential.
All things deferential or prudential.
Because the bottom line is there are many things in the scripture.
We're not biblicists.
We love the Bible and it is the supreme authority, but we're not biblicists, meaning I don't have to have chapter and verse in the New Testament to dissuade me from drinking water out of the toilet.
I can use prudence and reason and natural law and come to these conclusions knowing that there is no contradiction.
With the scripture whatsoever.
And the reality is, between husband and wife in the context of marriage, there are a million daily decisions happening on a moment to moment basis where there's not a chapter and verse.
It's not something that God explicitly commands or explicitly forbids, right?
Like, what are we going to make for dinner tonight?
What are we going to do for family day on Saturday?
Are we going to go to this place or that place?
The Bible doesn't give a clear command one way or the other.
So who decides?
And if the husband's authority, it's only those things which are chapter and verse in a biblicist wooden framework.
Explicitly commanded by God or explicitly forbidden by God, then what you're really saying at the end of the day is that the husband actually has no authority.
It's just God has authority through his word only, and it's equally binding on both.
And so there's actually no human leadership in the home whatsoever.
We don't believe that.
So, in those matters which are not expressly forbidden by God or commanded by God, but areas of deference and prudence, the husband has full, total authority.
He must love his wife as Christ loves the church.
He should not lord it over her in an abusive manner, but he is a lowercase l lord.
Sarah called her husband Abraham Lord, and God esteems this and honors this.
And you do well, wives here today, Christian wives, if you honor the mothers of the faith, those great women of old, also showing deference to your husband.
So this documentary, it honestly blew my mind.
I was shocked that in the year of our Lord, pleasantly shocked, in the year of our Lord 2026, That someone would have the guts, the grit to say wives should obey their husbands in everything, which is literally just a quote from scripture.
The Bible literally says in everything, but someone to have the guts to actually say that and to frame it in a way that was God glorifying, not degrading towards women whatsoever, beautiful.
It was really, really well done.
So we have the privilege today to have Timothy Gordon.
Who was instrumental in this documentary and helping direct it and those kinds of things with high production?
He's also one of the characters in the film.
His wife is one of the characters in the film, and he is with us in house, in the studio, in the flesh.
And that's what we're going to be talking about in today's episode of NXR Live.
Gender Dysphoria Explained00:15:22
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin gifted Jerry Falwell a luxurious Learjet 25 worth millions of dollars.
Officially, it was a token of gratitude for his support.
But the truth?
It was a transaction.
Falwell was now Israel's valuable ally, flying high as a lobbyist in the skies.
And from that moment on, Falwell's allegiance soared.
His moral majority made backing Israel a core platform, preaching American prosperity hinged upon blessing the Jewish state, or else face God's wrath.
Genesis 12 3 was twisted into foreign policy.
Now explore the full account in the hyphenated heresy, Judeo Christianity.
Learn how the faith was hijacked and rediscover Christianity.
On its own historic terms.
Pick up your copy today at Amazon.com.
See, when a nation rejects God, scripture is plain in telling us what we should expect to follow confusion, disorder, judgment, and one of the first things in a society to be corrupted is our money.
The markets actually exposed this back in 2025.
The SP 500 was up about 16%.
Meanwhile, gold rose more than 65%, and silver, believe it or not, actually surged well over 144%.
And so this is why I trust my friends at Golden Crest Metals.
They're a five star rated company trusted by thousands of Americans nationwide.
And right now, Golden Crest is offering a free information kit that explains how to own physical gold and silver directly, as well as how to add physical gold or silver to an IRA or your 401k tax and penalty free.
And for a limited time, qualified purchases may also include up to $25,000 in free silver plus free shipping or secure storage.
So, If you would like to understand better your options and act with prudence and wisdom while you still have the chance, then go to GoldencrestMetals.com.
Again, that's GoldencrestMetals.com.
Or you can call 888 891 3916 to get a free information kit and speak with someone directly today.
Radical Christian Nationalist Pastor Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I want to talk about Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin is an excellent.
All right, here we are, Timothy Gordon, live in the studio.
We're honored to have you with us.
What possessed you?
What gave you the goal, the unmitigated audacity to produce a film like this?
Well, I would say it's being a man who has to go out into society.
You're accosted everywhere at every moment by women, women who are out of control.
And the movie, What a Woman Is, is.
The translation of my book, The Case for Patriarchy.
And when I announced that I was writing this book in the Catholic world, it was summer of 2019.
And I went on Matt Frad's show and I said, Look, I'm writing this book.
Matt Frad was excited to have me out, it was an in person meeting.
And I just said, Women are out of control.
You know what I mean?
And Matt, who's a good guy and an honest observer, was like, No, no, I don't.
And that shocked me.
I was going to say, As soon as you said Matt Fratt, I thought, I don't think that he would agree with us.
Yeah.
Simply by virtue of not that I'm a longtime listener to Pints with Aquinas or anything like that, but although I know that he's done good work and I've heard that from several people, so I'm not trying to be unnecessarily discouraging, but I just, he was picked up by the Daily Wire.
Yeah.
And so to me, that said, like, there's, I'll just say this way you will not be getting any offers to host a show.
To come to Timothy Gordon on the Daily Wire.
For some reason.
For some reasons.
At least two of them JQ and WQ.
But he's a good guy.
He loves the Lord, Matt Frad.
But it was terrifying.
I think it was his most watched show ever.
And I told a story.
This is when he was still in Atlanta.
I'd just gone to Disney World with my family the night before.
And we took the RV, which you saw in.
I was like, you know, women are out of control.
You don't know what I'm talking about.
Let me give you a story.
You know, we were walking to the parking lot yesterday, and, you know, a big fat woman was walking with her husband, and he was dutifully, lovingly trying to get her carbonated beverage after a long day at Disney World.
And she was screaming at him about the wrong flavor of diet.
You know, the diet wasn't really working.
And my wife was, I mean, Steph gets pumped up.
She's like, I want to go tell this lady to like shut her trap, or you're not cute enough to act like this, or something.
And I was saying this, and the audience had just never heard it.
And that was 2019.
And that's when I announced I was writing it.
And the next month, I got an invitation to go debate feminism with Trent Horn, who's another Catholic, a friend of Matt Frad's.
And we had a feminism debate that's now kind of legendary.
You can still go listen to it.
But he was arguing in 2019 and I believe September that feminism was good or there was some good iteration of it.
And I just thought, and the debate went very well for me.
And I encourage people to go check it out.
But then the book came out two and a half years later.
It took a while to get all of the scripture and the patristic fathers together.
And in 2021 22, the world still wasn't ready to hear the message.
And something has changed between then and now.
And so the movie, which translates all of this, it really was set up as you won't believe this as a sequel to.
Matt Walsh's film, because I do have some Catholic friends in the brass at Daily Wire, and I said, This is going to be extreme.
We're actually going to answer the question, What is a woman?
which Walsh's film, for all its merits, did not do, aside from a one line answer.
What it really did.
He did it, but only in the physical plane.
Sure.
Not the deeper, not spiritual, not emotional, not like.
Species and genus, taxonomy, and a woman is an adult human female.
I don't know about you, I knew that.
And he also does a capable job of saying what a woman is not.
But I don't know about you, but I also knew that a woman is not a man.
And so, what I guess the 2014, 2015 gender dysphoria world.
Really did was it crossed everyone's wires that the transsexual world, where one could be conservative and actually this is still going on to some extent over the last 10 years to be a more feminist, to be a greater advocate of feminism on the right than on the left as a response to gender dysphoria.
And so, what I said is okay, the primary argument of my book, and it needs to be the movie, is that the original gender dysphoria.
Is feminism.
It's functional behavioral gender dysphoria.
Or if gender dysphoria is defined as hating your own sex or wanting to be the opposite sex, functionally and behaviorally, it's everywhere.
It affects 99% of people, it affects 99% of households.
Ontological gender dysphoria, transsexualism, is a psyop run by certain people on top of society that don't even think.
Influences one out of a thousand people.
I don't know what the numbers are, but they're saturated, they're exaggerated.
So, ontological gender dysphoria is not really a thing.
But when I had been looking into functional gender dysphoria, feminism, which makes a woman want to act like a man and a man want to act like a woman, it traces its roots back to the middle 1800s.
And, you know, so there's this myth that had been abiding in conservative academia, conservative popular media.
Which said that the first wave was good.
When you look into the first wave of feminism, you realize there aren't waves of feminism.
Gender dysphoria is the main thing, it just makes men and women want to cross roles.
And first wave feminism had five big goals that are all cognizable and recognizable as the five main goals of second and third wave feminism, which leads to the conclusion that there are no genuine, earnest waves of feminism at all.
So to talk about them is to be misled and The last two years has given me some hope.
I thought this might be the kind of Kierkegaardian project where your last refuge is shaking your fist to the sky and saying, The future will show that I'm right or will prove that I'm right.
But something happened with the red pill online, which we'll have to discuss, and Pearl Davis that shook things loose in 2022, 2023.
And we're bearing fruit quicker than we thought we would.
And Candace Owens is hosting this documentary on her website, which is where you can go find it.
Which, honestly, I got to be honest, that surprises me.
Yeah.
You know, but I think you told me that, and I'm sure she does this with anything that she doesn't produce herself, but especially your project.
Isn't there like a disclaimer at the beginning?
It's like, we don't necessarily agree with these views, something like that?
There is.
There is.
Yeah.
And we were fine with that.
Yeah, that's okay.
I get it because it's mutual indemnification in a way.
It works both ways.
And it's honest.
And I'm friends with her husband, George, husband and CEO.
And I think.
George, to his credit, George was really behind the project.
Had loved it for nine months.
Yeah.
And he really pushed it.
So for him.
Yeah.
That's cool.
Let's do this.
So, your trailer for this is like five minutes long.
So, we, you know, for the sake of time, we shorten it a little bit.
But we have a two minute version of your trailer for the film, What a Woman Is.
And I just wanted for people who haven't, you know, even seen the trailer and they don't even know this is the first time they're hearing about it, I wanted them to see just one, to hear the messaging and two, to see just the production value of the film.
So, let's go ahead, Nathan, and play that trailer and then we'll come back and I've got some stories.
Specific questions I want to ask.
Excellent.
It's been answered simply a woman is not a man.
But in our age, it's never been answered with any specificity what a woman actually is.
The main thing that people need to grasp is that patriarchy is reality.
You have no choice between patriarchy and.
No patriarchy.
How many of your friends or your neighbors out in the burbs or in the herbs regularly use the refrains, happy wife, happy life?
Happy wife, happy life, right?
Happy wife, happy life.
Let me go ask the boss.
We'll have to check with the boss on this one, okay?
Let me check with my wife, okay?
I gotta ask my wife first.
This is the widespread evidence that everyone knows is there.
Feminism is one of the key elements they had to do first to bring about all the other revolutions.
So, whether it's the 60s counterculture revolution or whether it's the biological trans revolution, all of that had to be preceded by the feminist revolution first.
But in the first place, the mutual agreement to swap sex roles was not called gender dysphoria.
It was called simply feminism.
So, any woman who is truly feminine, according to a feminist, is degraded.
Are you interested in knowing what the truth is?
Are you willing to submit to the truth?
Now you need to be ready to change whatever plans you think you had.
You have to decide what kind of woman you want to be.
Dude, it was so well done.
There were so many things.
This is what I want to get into.
There were so many moments.
So, his wife, there's a section that keeps kind of coming back to her.
There's some main characters in the film, and it goes to them for a little bit and goes to somebody else for a little bit, like a typical documentary.
And so, Timothy Gordon's wife, and this is what I love I don't know your wife's first name.
Based.
So, it goes on her, and they ask, What is your name?
And she says, Mrs. Timothy Gordon.
I was like, baseballer.
And it's like, and where is she in this documentary?
They put her seated at the island in her kitchen.
I was like, this is baller.
My wife and I were so impressed.
And there was a moment in the movie later on where you, Timothy, you were discussing, okay, so like a man, we would agree as conservatives, what is a conservative today?
Just a liberal from 15 minutes ago, but conservatives would agree, yeah, a man shouldn't wear a dress.
But then you started saying, Yeah, but we're still perfectly fine with not only permissibility, but like vehemently advocating and advancing, pushing for a man not to wear a dress, but to behave as though he does.
And the examples cited, guys, they're like, Why are we pushing for a man to do the dishes?
Why are we pushing for a man to change diapers?
And it showed like clips of a man like helping, you know, doing all these kind of domestical duties.
And showed first wave feminism being people in black and white being interviewed on the street.
It looked like it was London, somewhere in England, and asking, like, on the weekends, you know, like, do you work outside of the home?
And the woman's like, some of them are like, yes, some of them are no.
Well, on the weekends, you know, does your husband help you with the duties?
You know, what is your husband doing on the weekends when he's not working, when he's at home?
Female Athlete Triad00:15:13
It's like, oh, he's doing the dishes and he's doing this and he's doing it.
And what is the woman doing?
Oh, she's resting.
And then, like, Timothy comes back on and makes the point, yeah, so that's a man who's not wearing a dress, but he's living as though he does.
I was like, Lord.
You can say that.
I was like, look at that.
I was like, I'm surprised that the disclaimer that Candace Owens put on this was not like, you know, like bolder and bigger.
During the whole film, right in the bottom third is just size 150 font.
You know, I don't necessarily agree with these things.
It was based, man.
I was impressed.
Thanks, folks.
That section's also important.
Thank you for all the praise.
That section is important because the narrator, who is the director, Nicholas Stumphauser, who's.
Got a lot of films for a young guy under his belt, and you've seen his crazy good style.
Also, directed Died Suddenly, which like 50 million people saw.
He says, Your grandparents' grandparents were feminists.
You've been lied to.
That was powerful.
And it's true because feminism is, if you want to go original, original, it's original sin.
It's Eve, and we'll have to talk about Lilith some, fake apocryphal Lilith, but it's at least Eve and Adam.
Mutually agreeing to swap roles.
But historically in the Anglo West or whatever, in Western civilization, it's 1848.
And I've been in squabbles with elderly relatives who, you know, were 90 or 100 saying, I could have been your boss.
Because I remember talking once about my tyrannical femme boss when I was a land man.
I was like, I have a land man boss.
I don't even know what to call it.
Was she a land man or a land woman?
And You know, my relative was like, I could have been your good boss.
I was like, no, you're a woman.
I don't want that.
No man wants it.
It's so mortifying.
And what we have en masse in society is a ritual humiliation ritual.
I mean, a ceremonial ritual of humiliation where we go to work and we're told to act in a way that befits women.
We're told to say things that make women feel good about themselves.
You guys know the red pill content gets that much right.
But I think once people get their mind around that point that you're highlighting there, Joel, that.
Conservatives, normies all condemn women going in the men's bathroom or men going in the women's bathroom or men wearing a woman's dress.
But those are just behaviors that are illicit and they should be illicit.
But why?
We had a segment called Diapergate with this woman, all the way living in the United Arab Emirates, who set Catholic Twitter on fire, right as she was converting, by saying, Why are all these men changing diapers?
We call it Diapergate.
And good trad Catholics, Latin mass Catholics, Jumped all over her case.
They jumped all over her case.
I was the only guy I knew that came to her aid.
I was like, no, this is right.
Are you guys gender dysphorics or not?
You know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's, you know, it's like, hey, the Trump administration is going to ban men from being in women's sports.
And it's like, wake me up when they ban women's sports.
Thank you.
What's more gender dysphoric?
It is.
Women in women's sports or men in women's sports?
Because men playing women's sports, at least they're playing sports.
Right.
They're being competitive.
They're acting like men.
Right.
They're acting like men.
Women and women's sports are more gender dysphoric, in my view, and the view of Western civilization.
Let's go into that for just a little bit because I actually think that it's not just nitpicky and it's not just, you know, like, hey, this is a moment to be super based.
There's a ton of reasoning behind this and a lot of medical study.
And, Wes, maybe you can share a couple examples of that.
Wes's background is he's a Columbia grad and has done a lot of biology and things like that and also has his master's.
But for you first, though, Timothy, what was some of the reasoning that you would say that it's not It does not behoove women in a domestic feminine role to be competing in sports.
Well, I'd give two answers.
I think Wes will give the hyper muscular version of my second answer.
But I would say first off, we don't like short, skanky outfits on cheerleaders, but cheerleading proper in maybe the older outfits, I don't know what a cheerleader can wear that's appropriate.
But if you can conceive of an outfit, let the costumery people deal with that.
It's very appropriate for men to take center stage, even at the level of high school, especially at the level of high school where we're grooming young men to grow up and be warrior poets or whatever you want.
It gets LARPy fast, but whatever education is supposed to do, men should be at center stage.
And women being on the sidelines, cheering them on, is entirely appropriate.
So that's answer one.
And I remember I had another sort of relative of a relative who said, I don't want my daughter to grow up and be a cheerleader.
I want her to grow up and Be a volleyball star.
And I was like, like, this is gender dysphoric.
Once again, you look under a rock and you're going to see gender dysphoria.
So that's answer number one.
Answer number two that Wes can probably, this will just be a runway for him, is female athlete triad.
I would ask most basically, what is the telos, the goal or the end of male sports?
They are to prepare in some broad, perhaps overbroad, but some.
General sense for war.
And more than that, they are healthy for the individual warrior coming of age, meaning they literally increase his virility, increase his testosterone, and make him more likely to be able to reproduce.
That's what sports do.
That's what they do when they increase your testosterone.
When you look at what sports, almost any sports, we're talking, the studies I've seen were JV high school level sports.
We're not just talking about hyper athletic female Olympians.
It's called the female athlete triad.
They become very easily.
They have too much testosterone in their system, not enough to be good at the sport, but enough to make them reproductively unsound.
And many girls, it's something like in some studies, up to 35 or 40% will stop hitting their period monthly.
Not to be gross, but it's important because it shows that sports do the exact opposite thing to a woman.
They make her less womanly and less able to bear children, whereas sports make a man more able to bear children.
Sports are masculine.
It's competition.
It's taking two teams, or you could say two armies.
That's what it is.
It's a simulation of taking two armies, forging them together, training for battle, and then having a scrimmage, having a simulation of war and what it would be like, except without the blood and bullets.
And so it's befitting of a man.
It's in this masculine direction.
And so it only makes logical sense that when you put boys, future men in sports, it actually, if anything, works as a catalyst and expedites.
Their manhood maturing.
It propels them more into masculinity.
But when you put women into that, it actually inhibits them being feminine, even at a biological level.
And I love what you said about the cheerleading thing, because that's not just a funny throwaway line.
That's actually significant.
I think that it is far more gender dysphoric and therefore immoral and outside of God's plan for humanity, for men and women, for a man.
To be a cheerleader than for a man to be in women's sports.
I don't think we should have men in women's sports, but more than that, I think we shouldn't have women's sports, period.
But you take a man and you put him in women's volleyball, you allow him to play in women's volleyball.
That actually is less perverse.
It's unfair, but that's less of a perversion for the man than it is to put a man as a cheerleader because that is a feminine role of a help meet role that you're cheering on, you're encouraging.
You're on the side, esteeming and drawing attention.
I think of like, you know, Proverbs 31, the woman that she's constantly singing the praises of her husband, you know, as he sits in the city gates.
Like he's among the elders, he's making these decisions for the community, for the village.
He's in the leadership role, and she's playing this background part.
You know, he's the solo instrument, she's the accompaniment, and her whole purpose is to serve and highlight.
And draw attention to his prominent role.
And so to take a young man and allow him to be a cheerleader is to allow him to be womanly.
To take a man and put him in women's sports is he's being a man with a bunch of other people who shouldn't be, you know, but are pretending to be men.
To take a man and make him a cheerleader is taking a man and causing him to behave in every regard as a woman.
And it's not a coincidence.
Every NFL cheerleader, those are some effeminate men.
There's a couple of teams now that have added male cheerleaders to their NFL regimen.
Those are men that are limp wristed.
Those are men that are effeminate in their conduct.
And when it comes to the women in sports thing, unless we're talking a sport like chess or e gaming or something like that, every meaningful sport, your tennis, your CrossFit, whatever it would be, for a woman to compete in that, she is going to be, if she wants to win, she wants to succeed and be the best, the more muscle, the more testosterone, and the less body fat she has.
All of those factors within reason, if she has more muscle, if she has less body fat and higher testosterone, is going to make her faster, better, and stronger.
But those things in a woman directly conflict.
With her ability to have children, to be healthy, and to be fertile.
When it comes to CrossFit, for example, testosterone is what builds your muscle.
Testosterone is what helps you recover.
Testosterone is what helps your drive.
You're tired, it's day, whatever would be of training, testosterone is what helps get you up.
So women do everything they can, whether it be through supplements, whether it be through lifting heavy weights, whether it be outside in the sun.
They do all of these things to increase their testosterone.
But then all of these women, they either, for one, they're training through their menstrual period, which is terrible.
I have a story right here.
Sarah Singman's daughter, a CrossFit athlete, she's throwing up on the field again and again, trying to train through her period.
And then she loses it for two years.
So you can't have both.
It can't be, and I want to be a fertile, healthy woman.
And also, I want to compete in this sport.
But even walk it back a little bit to college, your healthiest years of life, and the stress of competition, the travel with competition, your cycle, also your schedule.
You're up late at night, you're traveling, you're crossing time zones.
Women, when it comes to nurses, for example, women that work third shift, Their lives get destroyed way worse than men.
Being up at night and having to switch nights and days, men are a lot more suited to that.
Men are suited biologically to everything that makes them competitive and good at sports.
And for women to do that, if they're going to actually meaningfully do it at a competitive level, it means doing nothing that is womanly and everything that is manly more testosterone, more drive, more lifting, more heavy muscle.
It's literally the complete opposite.
And we, of course, see oh, and these women lose their period.
Or if they want to be competitive, I think Serena Williams, a tennis star, she was talking about this.
She's like, what in the world?
I want to have kids, but I also want to be this tennis star.
It's not fair.
Men get to do that.
Men don't have to worry about having kids.
It's like, wow.
Yeah.
Because you're a woman.
Because God designed us absolutely not a little different, which has become politically correct for even some conservatives to admit, but oppositely.
Men become more virile.
Women become less womanly by sports.
And thus, because, like, literally the opposite of virile.
So, virile meaning fertility, fecundity.
Manly.
Yeah.
Men.
More women, less in sports directly.
Can we talk about?
I wanted to address tennis and then chess really fast.
What did you say, Antonio?
Well, I was just going to say also on the topic of sports, like you think about the biological realities that women have to cross.
Like it's not lost to me that culturally, even as you see the development of sports in the West, it goes from these very physical sports, I mean, you can even think about like medieval sports, jousting and archery and those sorts of things, physical sports, even into.
You know, the development of football, American football, and those sorts of things to real football.
Look at some of the sports that exist now.
You just look at the Olympics.
I mean, they have steadily gotten less physically sort of demanding in the sense of like skating and surfing and all of these things that have sort of all these sports have gained in popularity and developed.
They're all there, there are attempts, you could say, culturally for women to sort of create an act, you know, a sport or some kind of like competition ground where the biological realities aren't as prevalent.
So, so that's just also something to.
Worth considering.
Yeah, I share in the case for patriarchy, I share this story about Serena Williams, who said, who always, believe it or not, has had a reasonably realistic conception of what a female athlete is in relation to a male athlete, not even second class.
But she, this is around the turn of the century, predicted, I think I ought to be able to beat around the 200th ranked male tennis star.
So she picked out someone that was ranked around 200th.
He was a German named Karsten Brasch.
And she's like, I want to play him.
I think I could beat him.
So, Karsten, before he played her, he chugged a beer, he smoked a cig, and he beat her.
I can't remember.
Tennis scores are weird either 6 1 or 6 1.
And she was like, wow, I've never.
Afterwards, they interviewed her.
She said, I've never seen serve return to me like that.
It's a different sport altogether.
And then her sister came up and tried him, and he beat her 6 0 or 6 1 as well.
So, the point is that.
And this is the greatest female tennis player.
This is not like top 10 or top five, like built her whole life tennis, tennis, tennis, live and breathe.
This dude sent me a serve that I couldn't even return.
Exactly.
She's the goat.
She's the goat.
And this isn't even the same sport.
And her sister is like, what, second best or whatever?
I mean, we're majoring in the minors when we're talking about female sports in general.
But yeah, she is the goat.
She is the widely received goat.
And she just, if you look at what she says about females in sports, it's.
It's borderline based, even though she understands what the stakes of the game are.
Lilith Fair Feminism00:08:31
And I would just say, tennis is probably better for women than now.
NFL is pushing, you know, the power, what used to be called powder puff.
They're pushing women in flag football really hard.
That's extra bad.
Tennis is one of the ones you'd kind of, when you're a young man, you'd kind of like your girlfriend to play tennis or soccer because it's a lot of running, which is estrogenic.
And, but it's still bad for them.
I would just say, chess, if you check the all time 50 highest ranked.
Chess players, or check Bobby Fischer, who's very based about WQ or JQ.
You're not going to find women anywhere there.
He was a very based guy.
He was Jewish himself.
I know he was.
And came out and he's like, Yeah, the United States is a Jewish farce.
Eventually.
He was the goat.
Yeah, if you get that good at chess, I just want to point out there seems to be a direct correlation.
It's like, if you are brilliant enough to be a chess master, and even if you happen to be Jewish, that level of intelligence in one field, Tends to boil over to be like, yeah, Judas are a problem.
Well, I'll say even too with chess, because sometimes people conflate.
There's the Polgar sisters, which were trained from very early on by their father to be really good at chess.
And I think Judith Polgar would be considered the greatest chess player for women.
And she's a couple times beat like Magnus Carlsen in Blitz or something like that.
But we're talking classic, like actual chess where the strategy blitz can be as short as 60 seconds.
So sometimes people will try to whip that out as a gotcha and like, well, actually, Judith Polgar, blah, blah, blah, and Blitz.
But no, in classic chess, It's not even close.
There's been no one to match some of the greats like Magnus Carlsen.
He can play 10 people blindfolded, memorizing all the pieces.
And that's, like you said, it's mental.
Nothing physical about it.
Nothing to do with muscle mass or body fat or any of that.
Purely mental.
And again, categorical, massive chasm between the two.
Right.
It just has to be recognized.
I forget what I was going to say.
Oh, OK.
So I've got to bring this up.
One of the most fascinating sections of the documentary was You Had an Exorcist.
In the film.
And he was pretty based.
Now, there was one part, which we don't have to go into it.
You're Catholic, I'm Protestant, so help me.
But, you know, there was one part where, like, my wife was listening.
She was like, she was like, based.
And, like, he's sitting there talking.
And then, you know, he got, he couldn't help himself.
He got into purgatory for a moment there.
And my wife and I, we looked at each other and we smiled.
We're like, it's inevitable.
It's good.
You know, they're Catholic.
It's going to happen.
You know, but everything else he was saying.
But here's the deal.
This is what I found so fascinating was, you know, he was showing his office and he was showing, you know, like, his library and all his different literature.
And he was like, this is an entire section over here, you know, on, Because, like, what does exorcism have to do with feminism?
That was the big question, the burning question.
And the correlation was, what does feminism have to do with exorcism and demons and Satan?
He was like, witches, witches.
And there was a whole portion of the documentary directly linking.
And you mentioned earlier, briefly, we got to talk about Lilith.
So, can we go there?
Let's go there.
And I think, by the way, this is the segment that really sold Candace, that she was like, this is really cool the witchcraft segment.
It's toward the beginning of the film.
And people should go check it out.
So, one thing I like to say is that you have Eve, who is the godmother of feminism, and feminists today, like we quote one named Katie Scott Marshall, a prominent feminist, who says, Look, Eve is honestly very emblematic of feminism and the struggle against patriarchy.
Feminists are quite honest.
That's the good thing.
Particularly secular feminists.
Feminism cannot coexist with Christianity.
We'll get into that.
The widespread admission by the first wave feminists who all said feminism can't coexist with Christianity.
Yeah, they've literally admitted like, if we're going to win, we don't just have to dismantle the patriarchy, we have to dismantle Christianity.
The patriarchy is Christianity.
Of course.
Well, and that's what I always say the patriarchy is Christianity.
It doesn't matter what type of Christian you are.
If you're a Trinitarian Christian, patriarchy is Christianity.
We and the Orthodox would say it's a bimodal patriarchy, a clerical one, and a lay patriarchy.
But the feminists object to all of it.
And literally, the lady who was the head of first wave feminism, Seneca Falls Convention in upstate New York in 1848, she rewrote the Bible and she said, The Bible cannot coexist with our goals.
There can be no Christian feminism.
So they're more honest and they're more useful to guys like us nowadays to say, Look at the actual first wave feminists.
They didn't think that you could have this circular square known as a Christian feminist.
But what I wanted to point out is, of course, Eve.
She rejected, she repudiated the God and man instituted patriarchy and she got punished for it.
So she is the feminist tragic hero, fallen hero.
Apocryphal Lilith, and kids that grew up in the 90s that are about our age will remember the fascination in the popular culture in the 90s with Lilith.
Lilith Fest, Lilith Fair, Lilith Crane from Frazier and Cheers, Lilith Jewish Women's Magazine.
Is a is one of the considered one of the cornerstones of uh printed periodical feminism, Lilith Jewish Women's Magazine.
I'm sure you guys are avid readers of that monthly.
Uh, who is Lilith?
Lilith comes out of the Babylonian Talmud, so you know she's this is going to be rich.
She was Adam's apocryphal first wife.
We as Christians know it's nonsense, but the Jews believe she was Adam's first wife, and she was and is, uh, as a template for feminists, she's the superhero.
Whereas Eve is the tragic hero who got punished.
Lilith spawned with demons, killed Adam's children, is known as sort of the demon of Sid's deaths and abortions.
And the earliest feminists were all witches.
They all spent much time at the seance table, and they all really looked up to Lilith even more than Eve because she got away with it.
She refused to have sex with her husband.
Husband Adam, and she spawned with demons, and she was a scourge on humanity.
So that's why feminists loved that.
That's what all this Lilith Fair, Lilith Fest business was in the 90s, and still she's very important to them.
Q Witchcraft, we looked up, and Father Chad, the based exorcist, who's one of the few Catholics that's really strong on this, the coolest priest in the world when you ask him on this, and he spends time at Mar a Lago, so he's gotten in close there.
Very, very based all around.
He's like, Look, that book he was pulling out of his library, he started saying it, but he didn't say it.
It was called The Hammer of Witches, the Malleus Maleficarum.
And it says that there's this connection between witches and the act of coitus and seven specific demonic things they do, including, you know, the dismemberment and, you know, killing children.
Um, abortion is one of them.
So, the earliest known abortions in medieval Europe were all witches using Jewish Lilith as a template to kill children.
And witches are the earliest European, I don't want to say leitmotif, um, icon of what modern feminists hail.
And modern feminists are just first wave feminists, so they don't want children, they hate men, they compete with men, and if they're forced into the role of woman.
This is the, I'm quoting now from that document at Seneca Falls in 1848.
It's called the Declaration of Grievances.
It says, they will be subjugated as wives, as Christian wives.
So they're very honest, and that's very useful to us now.
Yeah.
Yeah, very useful.
Declaration of Grievances00:03:01
Any other, well, first, where can people go and watch the film?
So go to CandaceOwens.com.
If you scroll a little bit down, it's under documentaries.
It will be free for the public for.
Two days, a day and a half on February 4th and February 5th.
Okay.
I think Matt Walsh used this model with his documentary, What is a Woman?
And it worked very well.
They released it at first, and however many people watched it, paid for it.
But a couple, I think it was like a weekend of free views helped everyone to say, you know, I need to go see this, even if I didn't catch it free.
So February 4th and 5th, if you don't want to pay, it's only $1.99.
Right.
But if you don't want to pay $1.99, go check it out.
Pay $1.99.
Please pay it.
Yeah, pay the $1.99.
I could use it.
Yeah, it's $1.99.
And you probably get what, like nine cents of that $1.99?
No, no.
To Candace's credit, the film's director, myself, and our investors get 60% of that.
Oh, good.
So literally over, it's like $1.20 out of every $2.
Candace was very generous.
Good.
That's good to hear.
Okay.
Yeah, $1.99.
That's her benchmark.
And that's the same price, I think.
The Fuentes interview, yeah.
Yeah, when she paid all that, Nick was not very excited about it.
No, I thought $1.99 is good.
See, originally, George, Candace's husband, said, What do you think?
$3.99, $4.99.
I was like, let's do the same amount you charge for the Fuentes interview.
Right.
And I think $1.99 is good.
Everyone was mad about that $2.00 on the phone.
That's ridiculous.
Yeah.
People, that's the thing.
It's like, yeah, we want to get truth out and we want to get it to as many people as possible.
And we don't want to paywall things if we don't have to.
But at the same time, it's like, it's just the way of the world that it costs money.
Like watching that documentary, it's like, no, this isn't free.
You know, like it costs.
You know, the camera equipment, the production value, you know, getting flying people out and all these kinds of things.
Like, so it's, you know, it's not so much like, oh, we're trying to make a profit and get rich off of the masses.
It's like, no, we're trying to just at least not be in the hole.
Yeah, Nick, Nick.
Not have to take a second mortgage out on our own home, you know, in order to do this.
Preferably.
Yeah.
Usury is wicked.
Nick, Nick flew to the United Arab Emirates.
He flew to England.
He flew to Rome, Italy to get some of our interviews all over the United States.
So it shows up on his screen.
What is this?
That's not Fuentes.
No, this is Nicholas Stumphauser, the director of the film, who has, I think, eight films under his belt.
So, what was your experience with this film?
So, I am co creator, I'm creator, co writer, and producer of the film because it was based on my book, Case for Patriarchy, and I storyboarded it.
It's also partly based on my wife's book.
You will not find it under.
Ask her husband?
Ask her husband.
Serpent and Deception00:15:36
Yeah.
I brought you a copy of that.
By Mrs. Timothy J. Gordon.
She refused to.
So, this is a funny story.
That.
That book was originally on a Catholic title, a Catholic publication.
And we had to break with them because a month in, they said, This is, you know, we had to break with them.
And I'll leave it there.
But it's a controversial work.
Ask your husband.
And so when she had published it, they're like, We want to use your name.
She's like, I want to go, Mrs. Timothy J. Gordon.
And they're like, We have to force you to use your name.
So once we started self publishing it after we broke with Tan Books, A based Catholic publisher by most measures.
Steph's like, okay, well, at least cool.
Now I can go with my real name, Mrs. Timothy Jacqueline.
I love that.
Let's talk about that real quick, because you're saying we had to break with this Catholic publication.
And one of the first things that you and I were talking about right when you walked into the studio this morning was I was like, man, dude, watching that documentary, I know a ton of Catholics are nominal just across the board.
And then, especially on this issue, a ton of them would take a much more liberal feminist position.
But the fact that there's at least some out there that have it, you know, and so, anyways, we were going back and forth and I was saying, man, I feel like Protestants, I was saying this, I feel like Protestants are the worst on feminism.
You're like, I feel like Catholics are the worst.
And so, you know, and we both have that sense because we're each in our own camp.
Like, you're, you know, you're probably, I would imagine, like, for every engagement and interaction you have with a Protestant, you probably have 10 with Catholics.
Of course.
And vice versa.
But for me, I'm like, Protestants have not held the line on this issue at all.
I mean, even the best ones are like, yeah, we're patriarchy.
I can't even say that.
The average conservative Protestant won't even use the word patriarchy because they think it's gross.
They think it's icky.
So they'll say, we're complementarian, which the whole idea, just for the record, with complementarianism is aside from the physical distinctions in design, right?
Like women having breasts and hips and men having broader shoulders, aside from the physical distinctions between the sexes.
The complementarian, what they're essentially asserting is that there is, in the realm of design, a distinction in the physical.
That's it, only in the physical.
But aside from that, in every other regard, it's two individuals who complement one another predominantly in the realm of role.
So if you think like the two main headlines are role and design, they would say, well, the roles are distinct in order to complement one another.
But the design is mostly the same, the only distinction being in a subcategory of the design category, physical.
But they wouldn't really speak to any distinction in the realm of design in terms of the soul.
Or in terms of emotional, certainly not mental.
They would not point to studies of like, hey, well, it's just because men are stronger and that's not why they win at tennis or that's why they win at basketball.
They will totally avoid, it's like, okay, but how much physical strength does it take to move a bishop across the board?
And how come men always win with that too?
Oh, there's a mental distinction at every single level.
Like I would argue, and I know you agree with this, but.
One of the reasons that St. Paul cites for the husband being the head and the woman not is not just because of physical strength or these kinds of things, but he roots it in the order of creation.
Man was formed first, and woman was formed from man and for man.
He also roots it not only in the order of creation, but the order of the fall.
Woman fell first, all right, and then Adam followed his wife into this fall.
But then also not just the order of the fall, but the manner of the fall, which gets into design.
The woman was.
Deceived and became, and you read all the authors within Quisidim of antiquity, and they all, without blushing or without even equivocation, they just plainly say, and they're not being degrading or rude about it.
It's just they state it as a theological fact that, oh, yeah, well, one of the reasons that women aren't called to lead, not only in the realm of the church or the home, but even the civil sphere and the public square, is because women are more susceptible to being deceived than men.
Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom all make this point very explicitly that.
I mean, Chris Austin says.
Even the reformers in the 16th and 17th century continue to, you know, like William Gooch, domestic duties, they make the same argument.
Yeah.
No, of course, because they're smart guys.
I mean, like, I think Chris Austin goes so far as to say, look, man was sort of semi deceived, a deception within a deception, by his wife, who's a human being.
But Eve was deceived by a beast.
You know, he's kind of having some fun with it.
So there is no patristic father that doesn't.
That doesn't think that.
Think that, yeah.
And I tend to be in the position in terms of Adam, I think that the primary sin was less of deception and more of idolatry.
I think that ultimately what Adam, and I think the parallel of the garden, you know, in Christ as the second Adam, you have the first Adam.
He's actually formed in the wilderness, but immediately, as far as we can tell, immediately placed into a garden context, a place of.
Plenty, a place of protection, and all these things.
And he starts, he's able to start his life.
He doesn't start as a baby, he starts as a full grown, mature man.
He's created in a state of maturity and, you know, in a state of integrity or innocence.
And there's one adversary, you know, the serpent, you know, that creeps into the garden.
But in the case of Adam, it's like the whole thing is set in his favor.
He has the advantage, he has the high ground, he's on the hill to defend, and the serpent is.
Is at an immense disadvantage.
And when you think of, like, when you parallel Adam in a garden, Christ in the wilderness, thinking of his three temptations, Adam, a place of plenty, Christ, a place of scarcity, Adam, well, all his victuals and provisions, you know, he's full, like, Christ, you know, fasting, you know, for 40 days and 40 nights.
Adam having to resist sin, not through infancy or through childhood, but being able to begin as a fully mature man, Christ having to make it through the terrible twos, you know, as sinless, you know.
And, you know, all these different parallels.
But then, When it comes to Adam and Eve being deceived, my thought is what Adam should have done.
One, he should have been guarding and keeping the garden from the adversary, from the serpent.
But had the serpent snuck in, and it wasn't a matter of his lack of watchfulness, it was more in the category of his finitude rather than fallenness.
It's like the serpent just got in, it wasn't his fault, it wasn't because he was abdicating his duties, but still came in and deceived his wife.
And Adam had.
He had an alibi.
It wasn't a moral failure.
He was down gathering water or something like that.
Even if that was the case, what Adam should have done the very moment that he realized what happened is he should have gone and approached the Lord in the cool of the day when God would walk with them, this theophany or Christophany, however you view that.
And he should have approached God and said, God, something terrible has happened.
My wife has broken your commandment.
And I know that she should surely die.
That's what you promised.
The day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
But I, as the Christ, he should have said, I would.
Is there any way that I could die in her place?
And most of the guys, you know, church fathers that I've read on this subject, they say that Adam's primary sin, rather than being deception, was idolatry.
He knew he was not deceived, he sinned with his eyes wide open.
He knew what happened, he knew that it was wrong, he knew that it meant death.
And he essentially said, I'd rather die with my wife than live with the Lord.
Right.
He loved, so he actually, it is this sacrificial love.
But it's an idolatrous love that he exalted Eve above the Lord in that moment.
And that was the fatal flaw.
Father Chad makes a similar point in the film, actually.
Yeah.
Not in as much detail, but it's true.
It's just not wanting to be removed from her company.
Her company.
Yeah.
I'd rather die with her than live with God, which is idolatry.
Which is idolatry.
And we still see that.
That's what white knights are.
Yeah.
That's what it is to be, you know, like.
You know, excuse the language, but completely cucked.
Yeah.
To be long housed.
Yeah.
Is to say, like, I'd rather, like, so many men are, my point is, so many men, like Adam, also are sinning with their eyes wide open.
Many, many young modern women really are deceived.
They really are.
They're still culpable.
I'm not saying that deception means there's no moral culpability, they're responsible for being deceived.
But so many men are actually not deceived.
I see men all the time and interact with them, and, you know, behind the scenes, they won't admit it publicly, but they're like, yeah, I know, Joel.
Yeah, I know, but what are we going to do?
You know, and like, it's my wife, or, you know, it's my daughter, or, you know, it's whatever.
And essentially what they're saying is the same thing that Adam, you know, without words, but what Adam conveyed, I think what Adam would have said, I'd rather go down with the ship.
I'd rather die with her than live with God.
That's reflected and best expressed by happy wife, happy life.
Men are saying with their eyes wide open, yeah, I know that if you put.
The second in charge, my helpmeet, which is what a woman really is, is a helpmeet.
She's not the main character.
If I tell her she's the main character along with society and I put her in charge, she will immediately become a tyrant.
And I've done so, but I'm going to keep her happy and just have a, it's like a perverse sacrificial love, just the way you're describing, Joel.
I'll just have a rotten life and she'll be yelling at me all the time and I'll feel bad about myself.
It'll lower my testosterone.
It's not ultimately good, but there will be a kind of happiness because there will be this uneasy peace around the household, which is what 98, 99% of households are running with.
And I think too, at the base of it, it's also she'll at least have sex with me sometime.
I can hold the line.
Right.
And I'm getting nothing.
At least where I'm at right now, it's once or twice a month.
And literally, it's like, it's sexual, just not perversion, but a type of sexual appetite that it's like, I can't say no to this.
And so, because I can't say no to this, I can't endanger this thing that I so desperately long for.
That's right.
I refuse to lay down the law in my house.
And that's, and most of them, they would probably admit that.
They'd be like, if I'm honest, here's why I won't lay down the law.
Yeah, it's because of this.
Versus the deception of women.
I mean, so many of them, they think they're right.
Like, you give them the truth, Sam, they'd be like, I've been the victim my whole life.
I truly believe it.
Whereas men, it's like, yeah, I'm a little bit of a simp.
Right.
Real quick, just one more time, going back to the Adam and the second Adam Christ parallel, I think that there's even a correlation.
And this is implicit.
And so I admit that I'm reading into the text some, but I don't think that it's contradictory.
But there's something Adam saying, essentially saying, I'd rather die with her than live with God.
And Christ, one of the temptations in the wilderness is, you know, That Satan brings him up to a high hill and shows him, and I think this was probably more than just physical, but a vision shows him all the kingdoms of the earth and says, I'll give them to you, you know, if you'll commit idolatry, if you'll bow down and worship me.
And it's not just idolatry of him worshiping Satan, right?
Substituting Satan for the Father.
But in some sense, yes, it speaks to rule and reign, authority.
Like, I'll give these kingdoms to you.
You will be their king.
You'll rule over them.
But there's also a sense in which, like, Jesus came.
Not to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
1 John 3 17, I'll give the kingdoms of the world and all their subjects, the peoples of the world.
And Jesus did come.
He came for the people of the world to ransom them.
Behold, the Lamb of God who is slain for the world.
And so Jesus is coming for the peoples of the world.
And it's almost like Satan saying, I'll give you that, the very thing you came for, I'll give it to you.
But there's just another path.
And this is actually an easier path.
The path is that You simply have to bow down and worship me.
It's an idolatrous bath, but I will give you the people.
And it's almost like Jesus is posed with the same quandary, the same dichotomy that Adam was in the garden.
I can die with her or I can live with God.
You know, die with her or live without her.
Jesus is, by committing idolatry, if he had, of course he didn't, bowing down and worshiping Satan, it's like you'll get the peoples of the earth, you'll get the kingdoms of the earth, you'll get to live with them.
But Jesus, the difference is Adam is thinking, I can either die with her or live without her.
The third option, the one that Jesus takes, is instead of I can die with the kingdoms of the world, my people will all ultimately perish because of idolatry apart from the Lord.
I can either die with her, my bride, or live without her.
Jesus takes the option, instead of dying with her, I could die for her.
And that's the gospel, the gospel avenue that Adam.
Either didn't see or didn't have faith to believe that it would have been possible.
And so it's, and that's, I think that's where we are today in many ways.
It's like there's so many men that the man with his tail between his legs who is not deceived, he sees these things with his eyes wide open.
He's opted for, well, but I love her.
And we're not advocating.
See, the red pill is, yeah, the problem, that's the problem is that you love her.
So just stop loving her.
Hate women.
Use women.
And we're saying, no, no, no, that's not an option.
And so you have the red pill that says, the problem is that you love her.
Stop it.
Stop loving her.
And then you have the feminist men who, many of them, are not deceived.
Their eyes are wide open.
I love her, so therefore I have to die with her.
But the third option for the true patriarch, the Christian patriarch, is I'm not going to stop loving her.
And I'm not going to, in loving her, die with her.
In loving her, I'll die for her.
And part of that, what that means, that sacrificial death is I'm going to love her at the cost of her not loving me, at the cost of she may hate me, she may resent me, she may revile me because she's.
Deceived and under the spell of the dragon.
She may not, but I'm going to love her.
I'm going to speak the truth.
I'm not going to simp for her.
I'm not going to bow down to her.
I'm going to love.
So I'm not going to, in love for her, die with her, but I'm also not going to stop loving her.
In love for her, I'm not going to die with her.
I'm going to die for her.
Toxic Friend Groups00:12:32
That's a gospel picture.
That is.
And I'm 100% with you.
But that's the heuristic that men need to.
Check at the door.
The heuristic is I need to be willing to jeopardize this feeling that I have, whether it's sexual relations or peaceability around the homestead, for the first month or two or three when they're getting the power back.
Because, you know, we also, my wife and I work as a kind of ministry with couples that need coaching.
But women will, after they've been.
Condition habituated is the Aristotelian term, habituated to virtue this way, it's what they naturally crave.
So it's not like a death of the rest of your natural life, right?
You're right.
First, you need to be willing to give it up 100%.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying it won't ever get better.
Yeah, I'm not black pills, they're sexually attracted, but I'm saying that just like Christ, there's a death and then there's life forevermore, there's a resurrection.
Death isn't the end of the story, exactly.
But uh, but what I'm saying is that because we are so far off the rails and so many are uh, women are so deceived, um.
You do get to the life ever after.
And that's the hopefulness that your film contained.
The red pill has no hope.
It's just hedonism.
But there was a hopefulness.
And so I'm not saying that you have to die for the rest of your life.
I'm saying, no, you can get to beauty and health in your marriage.
But because feminism is so strong with the average woman today, you can live happily ever after, but probably after a momentary death.
Exactly.
That's all I'm saying.
And my wife's book points this out Ask Your Husband.
Women, when they, it's unusual, even more unusual for a woman to cheat on a man than a man on a woman, a more unnatural vice.
But what women always do when they cheat is they have a simpy, long housed husband and it's one that always tells them yes.
In the moment, they want to be given controls over the purse strings or be invited to spend on whatever they want.
But what that does to their sexual attraction to not be told no, which is actually a natural.
Aphrodisiac, when we're considering what a woman's nature is, she's attracted to a man that will tell her no.
Is eventually she wants to find and she'll go outside, in some cases, the marriage to find what she's sexually attracted to, which is a delimiting limit on her sovereignty.
That's why women are attracted to bad boys or men that will be a little bit mean to them.
I'm not suggesting that husbands should actually be mean to their wives, but they should be delimiters.
And so, the whole point is just to put the cap on there is a kind of uh happily ever after if men choose to take the reins back, the reins of power.
It might be rough for a month or up to six months, but if a man really wants to do it, he can get control of his marriage, and your wife will be more sexually attracted to you once you do that.
That's what we tell the red pill all the time.
Red pill says this doesn't work, and we're like, you're claiming that nature doesn't work.
I thought you guys are naturalists, right?
I thought you're like.
You know, Bronze Age pervert or whatever, adjacent.
We're the true naturalists, the Christians in this sense, men and women, intersexuality.
And I think we have to reclaim that boldly.
Well said.
And what role do you think other women think about the context of marriage?
And, you know, a wife might have friends who are in her ear giving her sort of advice and saying, hey, no, actually, this is how your husband should behave.
What's your perspective on what role that actually has in sort of women feeding into this themselves and in their friend group into this sort of This feminist mentality and sort of actually trying to go against their natural, as you put it, their natural cravings and sort of natural desire within a relationship.
It depends on temperaments.
Female, you know, women married friend groups because it's such an age of toxic females.
Unless your wife is really one of those ones who's been red pilled in a Christian way, patriarchy pilled, and she can really preponderate as the kind of leader or the loudest voice in the friend group, then it's going to be toxic and you're going to have to.
Drown it out.
If she's having to hear from the rank and file, then we know what the rank and file is.
They're all agent smiths, right?
They're matrix agent smiths.
Nobody hates women like women hate women.
No, it's true.
It's true.
They love to hate each other.
They'll give each other bad advice.
They do.
Oh, that looks great.
It looks terrible.
Right.
Yeah.
To destroy, because there's a sense of jealousy there.
Women friend groups do not have that bond that men do.
That's just how God's made the world.
It's a fact.
It's a fact.
That's why I'm saying, unless you have a really strong Patriarchal woman, patriarchal in the sense that she loves her husband and she realizes what she is a helpmeet in her essence, in her nature.
As the head of the group of women, this is why I think an older woman, maybe with younger women, is biblical, as it expressly is in the Pauline passages.
It might be hard to have a female friend group that heads in a direction of travel toward patriarchy if they're all peers, because there's just going to be so much peer pressure to.
They're the great conformers, females, right?
And they're going to go with where the status quo is.
And right now, the status quo is being changed by guys like us four, but it's not changed yet.
And so, yeah, that's the hedgy language I would use, right?
Female friend groups.
Yeah, I've said that several times that women are NPCs and not just like non player character, that they have no rationale or ability to think.
But NPC naturally pursuing consensus.
Right.
You know, and so, like, when you think, what would it take for the average woman to change?
It actually doesn't require going and changing individual hearts and minds one at a time.
Now, we need to do that hard work on the ground with the individual women that God has entrusted to us, our wives, our daughters, so on and so forth.
But in terms of culturally, in the macro, you don't have to persuade all the women to agree to repeal the 19th Amendment or to leave the workforce and go back home.
All you have to do is you have to.
To win optically the battle at the top level.
And women will, like, shockingly fast, will just fall in line the moment that it begins to seem as though, like, the momentum is on this side.
You know, the moment that there seems to be critical mass, the moment that, like, then women will be like, oh, yeah, yeah, I believe that.
I've always believed that.
And, like, that's just who they are.
So, but, you know, right now, because feminism reigns the day, sadly, you have that natural instinct of women naturally pursuing consensus, working in the wrong.
A misordered direction working against us, but not just with the friend group.
The thing that I wanted to ask and bring up briefly is, especially in regards to their family, one of the most difficult things that, as I'm counseling young married couples and that I've dealt with personally in my own experience,
is the command to honor thy father and mother, and coupling that with just the statistical reality that the average woman, even if she is persuaded and seeks to be.
A patriarchal woman submitting and obeying her husband, her own parents will be actively seeking, in many cases, to dissuade her, her sisters, her brothers, her.
So she's going to have all her family.
And it's not going to be like, we love Lilith, you know?
No.
It's going to be, we're concerned for you.
We love you.
And, you know, you used to think this way.
And there were certain things about you that we miss.
I remember when you're a little girl, you know, you always wanted to be a veterinarian, you know?
And I hate to see.
It's who you are is being eroded and erased.
And I'm concerned for you.
I feel like you're losing yourself.
Like that's the language, that's the frame that will be presented, and not just by friends.
It'll be presented by parents, fathers, patrons, patrons, patrons.
And that's so tragic.
How do you counsel individuals in that instance?
I'm so glad you brought that up because it's such a shrewd disclaimer.
Don't expect it to be.
Lilith worshiping Jewish feminists.
Yeah, women who are.
I mean, it will be, but it won't be said out loud.
That's behind the scenes.
That's Wizard of Oz stuff.
But now that there are, we didn't really get to this historically, the historical morphology is now there are Christian feminists everywhere.
The host has been infected by the parasite.
And so now Christianity just has all these feminists that don't even bother to call themselves feminists.
And a lot of them are conservative right wing dads.
Who think that they want powerful women to go to college and be powerful conservative voices for Jesus?
So it's really interesting.
When I was theology department chairman, eventually got fired in the crazy summer of BLM for a bunch of tweets at a high school.
Based.
Thank you.
Yeah.
And attacking a number of other, you know, I think Islam's Jews, gays.
It was a summer, so it was weird to be fired, particularly as theology department chair.
But I would say this the year before I got fired, the only complaints from parents I got, and it was in California, but a relatively conservative enclave of that state in the farming interior, it wasn't for saying things against Judaism, Islam, or the left as such.
It was for encouraging women to, if you have to go to college, get the MRS degree and get out.
If your parents say, oh, remember when you used to want to be a veterinarian?
Right.
Go take that first year and say, Dad, look, if you are still willing to pay the other three years of college, thanks.
Could I use this for a down payment?
I found a goodly husband in my freshman year of college.
I don't want to go more into debt.
I don't want to waste money because I'm not going to use this degree.
Or it might take longer than that to find a husband.
But hey, a lot of girls have found a really high quality boyfriend in the senior year of high school, and they're flushing, they're being encouraged by their conservative fathers.
Christian fathers to flush this down the toilet.
And it's usually in those college years that guys and girls go off to college and defile themselves and just run up their body counts and make themselves unmarriageable by all decent measures.
So it's really important that late high school kids and early, you know, freshman year of college kids know, well, I have this conflict of interest given what my parents and teachers and all of society is telling me.
I feel young and fecund and fertile, and it's not unnatural or premature for someone to date when they're 17 or 18, depending on prudential differences.
And once you're old enough to date, you're old enough to get married.
And what parents would get really mad at me for, conservative parents, was encouraging people to, as a Catholic, same as the Orthodox, we have a vocation either get married, that's a vocation, or pursue the priesthood or religious life.
Parents should not be blocking vocations, and marriage is a vocation.
So, if you find a high quality boyfriend or girlfriend and you're 17 or 18, pursue marriage early.
Not everyone finds that, but you don't need to live the Christian life.
Live Stream Q&A00:03:08
You don't even need two college degrees, same as you don't need two incomes.
And it's actually sort of proscribed the more you look into it.
Yeah, well said.
Let's do this.
We wanted to play a clip from the film.
So, we've already shown you the short version of the trailer.
But this is a clip from the end of the film that I just found inspiring and profound.
We want to play that and comment on it just a little bit.
And then we'll go to our last message from our sponsors and we'll take Super Chat.
So if you're watching, just a couple points of order, real quick.
NXR Studios, we produce content three times a week.
So we do every Monday and every Tuesday and every, I'm sorry, every Monday, every Wednesday and every Friday.
We do 12 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
Monday and Friday is our live stream.
So it's NXR Live.
And then on Wednesdays, we call it.
The NXR special.
And right now we're doing a 10 part series on Wednesdays with Nick Fuentes.
And many of you have tuned in for that.
And it's been really great.
If you want to see Nick buttoned up, you want to get Nick, instead of unfiltered, you want to get Nick filtered with some of the rhetoric and style, but very unfiltered in terms of his actual positions and beliefs and views.
A lot of people have really been enjoying the series.
And we're super grateful that Nick took the time to do it.
So that's on Wednesdays.
But Monday and Friday, that's our live stream.
So make sure to subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so you'll be notified as we come out with new content.
subscribe on Rumble and click the bell there as well.
And make sure to also to follow us on X.
We actually live stream simultaneously, both the special on Wednesday and the live streams on Monday and Friday are simultaneously broadcast on Rumble, three main platforms, Rumble, YouTube, and X.
And so X, it's not just my spicy tweets at three in the morning when it's like, I feel like I'm cooking and then wake up the next day and say, oh, you know.
So it's not just that.
You actually get the video, you get the broadcast live right when it's coming out, even if you're on X.
So My handle on X, if you want all of that over there on X, is at Joel Webbin.
So make sure to follow us on X as well.
But YouTube, X, and Rumble, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
And then later on, it'll be posted on Apple and Spotify as a podcast.
So, anyway, so first thing is to subscribe.
Second thing is we're going to come back after this final message from our sponsors here in just a moment and take super chats.
And so if you have a question or a comment, the way that we do Monday and Friday with a live stream is anybody who sends in a super chat.
Whether it be a comment or a question, we're going to read that live on the air.
That's our obligation to you.
Our promise to you is that we'll read it live on the air as long as it's not vulgar or something like that.
So make sure to get your comments and your super chats in.
You could do it on Rumble or on YouTube, and we'll address that in our final segment of today's live stream.
But before we do, and before we go to our final sponsor, let's just watch this.
It's right there, kind of at the end of the film, this final clip from What a Woman Is.
Rebuilding Patriarchy00:03:39
We've answered what is a woman, an adult human female.
But what a woman is goes far deeper.
Because what you are in your essence, in your soul, informs what behaviors and pursuits are truly good and will make one happy.
And when that nature is hijacked and violated with disordered desires and behaviors, everyone suffers.
No one is happy until they live in accordance with the natural law.
And yet there seems to be nothing more dangerous than to describe what a woman truly is and ought to be.
But let's give it a shot.
A woman is a helpmate to the man, made from his rib to guard his heart and to obey him in love.
She is to be thin, submissive, and attractive to her husband.
She is to wear what he likes, to do what he likes, to flirt with her husband, to make the home a happy, clean, safe haven.
to educate her children in the home, and to defer to her husband on all prudential and preferential matters.
She is the glory of man, and man the glory of God.
It has been said that if a civilization begins to fall, an indication will be that the people will blur the lines between man and woman.
So there is only one way out of this, and it's not the red pill.
The manosphere encourages men not to become a virtuous patriarch.
Intent on bringing their wives and children to heaven, but rather to become lower than the carnal animals, worshipping sex without procreation or unity, thereby helping to build the feminist dystopia they claim to loathe so much.
The only way out is to rebuild the patriarchy.
One man, one family at a time, encouraged by the loving submission of all women who take this message to heart.
Here in the United States of America, we believe that we're blessed in this nation with an abundance of resources, and that it's our God given duty to exercise wise stewardship over them for the flourishing of our people, but also the security of our homeland.
See, some of our viewers, you might remember when we first featured a sponsor called Saga Medals, and since that spotlight, shares for Saga have surged by over 130%.
Now the results are in, and they're the strongest to date.
On January 2nd, Saga released drill results from their flagship.
Radar Titanium Project.
The market reacted immediately, sending the stock flying up over 17% in a single day.
Saga Metals is publicly traded here in the U.S. under the ticker SAGMF.
And if you're in Canada, it trades under the ticker SAGA.
Strategic government focus, multiple high potential projects, and a team pushing forward relentlessly through the winter, Saga Metals is now moving full steam ahead.
If you want to learn more about this critical mineral story, then you can check out the link in our description below.
A special thanks to Saga Metals for making today's video possible.
Timothy, phenomenal.
Scriptural Patriarchy Goal00:12:55
That clip, I just, I mean, what a woman is.
She is her husband's helpmate, made from his rib to guard his heart.
She is to wear what he likes.
She is to obey him in all things deferential and prudential.
I'm listening to that and I'm just thinking, like, I'm a Reformed Protestant and I'm not ashamed of my tradition.
I am ashamed of my camp.
I'm not ashamed of the tradition.
I love the tradition.
But the people who, the modern Reformed guys today who have influence and who are leading the way, I'm watching that clip and names of pastors.
With large platforms are just going through my head.
And I know, and I'm not trying to be extreme or emotional, I know that not one of them would ever, ever produce a film with those lines in it.
Never.
At best, they would do that and immediately follow it up with 40 minutes of clarifications and how those lines don't really actually mean what they mean.
And so they would either do it and then spend the rest of their lives working to undo it.
Or they just wouldn't do it at all.
Or, in most cases, to be brutally honest about reformed ministers today, they would play that.
Well, I'm sorry, they wouldn't play that.
They would actually produce volumes of books and podcasts and lectures against that.
Why a woman, in fearing the Lord and seeking to be feminine, absolutely does not need to wear what her husband likes, absolutely does not need to wear what her husband likes.
To obey her husband in all matters, deferential and prudential.
I mean, that's literally, it's so on the nose.
It's insane.
Like, there was a whole little controversy within the reformed neck of the woods just a few months back.
And it was on does a husband have authority to ask his wife to wear a red dress?
And we were the only ones, there might have been like one other group of some guys, reformed guys that we appreciate and we've partnered with.
Other than the two of us, we were like the only ones to say, yes, he does.
It's not a sin to wear a red dress, assuming it's not skimpy and immodest.
It's not a sin.
And as provider and protector and head of the house, if he is providing for her, you know, ideally more than just one red dress, you know, so it's not like you have to wear the same dress every day, you know, without it ever being washed or something.
But it's like, hey, I have seven red dresses.
And for the foreseeable future, I think that red speaks to, you know, that there's something about beauty and roses and, Femininity and the dress and the way that it flows.
And we have young daughters in the home, and I want them to see you in this.
We're swarmed by feminism.
I want to make a statement for the foreseeable future for my pleasure, first and foremost, simply my pleasure.
There's enough reason as your husband.
And second, for setting, exemplifying godly womanhood for our daughters in the home.
And as a statement of the beauty of patriarchal Christianity to the world, for the foreseeable future, I want you to wear a red dress every day.
And that was the case study.
And reformed minister after reformed minister after reformed minister who pride themselves in being complementarian, and we would never have a woman as an elder, all came out saying, a husband does not have that authority.
That is abusive.
A wife in that situation, she should go and she should actually run and tell on her husband to the elders of the church.
Wow.
And I'm just watching that and I'm thinking, And it grieves me, deeply grieves me.
I'm watching that and thinking, I don't know any Protestant tradition today.
I do historically, but today that would have supported you in this film.
And not just because of the Catholic stuff.
Like if you had just produced this as a broader film and didn't really make it particularly Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, I don't think you would have gotten any support from anyone but us.
Well, this goes back to the politeness contest we were having in the kitchen here when I was like, I thought Protestants were better on this.
And you were like, I thought Catholics were better on it.
I was just appreciative for the.
We had an Orthodox Jay Dyer in and we used Rachel Wilson's book.
She's an Orthodox scholar and I'm friends with Andrew and Rachel as well.
But I'm appreciative deeply to Father Chad, the exorcist, because you'll remember that one section in the film when he runs through side by side Father Mike Schmitz.
Huge, huge podcast, Bible in a Year.
And Father Mike Schmitz runs through this circular square called Mutual Submission.
Joel, that.
I remember that.
And Father Chad was like, we had like a red X, and Father Chad's like, this is absurd.
Here's why.
Then he went through another dimension of what Father Mike at Ascension Presents, humongous ministry, was just saying false words, false gospel.
And he said, nope, here's why that's wrong.
So we just appreciated anyone, any Christian, That's willing to partner with us on this to speak the truth to the emperor who's nude, claiming to be wearing new clothes.
And of course, a red dress, if his husband likes it and it's modest, then go for it.
Or I would say this if it's somewhat immodest, but it's inside the house, that's another thing.
I mean, what guys out there wouldn't, if it would help the marital act along, wouldn't wear a certain outfit for their wives?
I'm not an egalitarian.
I don't believe in egalitarianism, but most guys would be willing to do this.
Goodly women, godly women are like, Yeah, help me pick out dresses.
It's a fun Christmas tradition I have for my wife, shopping for clothes.
She loves the dresses I pick out for her.
So it's really a shame that there aren't more Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants.
I was just talking to Andrew Wilson at his house last night about how few Orthodox are willing to join them.
I thought they were better than Catholics too, because I think we're the worst.
We're each pointing inwardly.
But Christendom has just been overrun with feminism.
And, you know, what about the men, though, as Andrew calls it?
What about the men?
Well, you didn't even say what men are doing wrong here.
Yeah, should men really tell their wives what they're attracted to?
Yes.
Another thing we got heavy pressure to take out of the film that, again, thank you to CandaceOwens.com for not pressuring us to.
I'd rather have the disclaimer than pressure is to say that wives as well as husbands should aim to be thin.
That was a big one that we weren't expecting.
I heard that little word there as I was playing.
I was like, oh, snap.
That was the main one.
That was great.
We were like, look, I mean, I've gained some Christmas pounds myself.
A lot of people have this time of the year, but.
Everyone, man and woman alike, I think especially women, are aiming this time of the year to shave those off.
And body positivity is something we didn't talk about today, but it's really, diabolic and evil.
And so, just anyone that watched this film and said, yeah, full stop, the producer and the director of this thing, Tim and Nick, wanted to get together and make sure that everything is all the way to the hilt.
Any viewers that watched it or people that are going to be intermediate passers on of the film, like yourselves?
Joel et al. that watched it and don't try to shave something off like thank you.
What we want is scriptural patriarchy.
That's the only way forward for society.
It's going to crumble without it.
Yeah.
All right.
Well said.
So go watch the film, pay the buck 99.
It's at candaceowens.com.
That's where you'll find it.
And yeah, you should watch it.
Let's go ahead and do the super chats.
Antonio, will you read the first?
Yep.
Dakota Davis sent $5.
We appreciate that.
And says, Good morning.
Should the church in Minnesota have used Physical force to defend themselves yesterday.
How do the Beatitudes govern the church when under attack?
So, I've given this a lot of thought.
Our church, we have a pretty heavy duty security team just because of my public presence and all the controversy that I often find myself in.
And so, for us, we have security waiting at the door.
I think the big problem, once they're in there, man, it's a mess.
It's a mess.
And so we have multiple security at the door.
And as soon as the service starts, or even a few minutes before, the doors are all locked.
And so nobody can get in, and security is still standing looking through the door, a glass door.
And so they would not be able to come in.
And they would be questioned if they're not a member of the church that we recognize and they're coming late, you know, like halfway through the service or even just 10 minutes into the service at any point once the service begins.
Anybody who's trying to get through the door has to be recognized.
If not, they're going to be stopped and questioned.
So I think the biggest thing, the biggest problem that I saw with that is how did they get inside to begin with?
Your church doors should be locked.
We're at war.
Your church doors should be locked once the service begins or a few minutes before or after.
You should have security the entire time there.
We have earpieces for all of our security.
Our security, of course, are carrying, but in addition to that, virtually every man in the church is carrying.
I have body armor that I'm wearing.
I have a shield that I am able to keep beneath the pulpit.
I am carrying on my person as well.
And security is constantly talking to each other during the service.
If there's anyone they don't recognize, anybody that they find to be suspicious.
So I think the biggest thing is keeping them out.
And if you had kept them out, then it requires them to actually try to break in, actually trying to break down the door or push or shove, and that would, you know, their way in.
And then that, I think, would you'd have a much better case.
Of taking lethal means.
Because if they're breaking down the window or something like that, then I think you would just have a better case.
Now, we're in Texas, so we'd have an even stronger case in the state of Texas with its laws, you know, castle laws and those kinds of things.
But once they're in, like we saw in the case of Minnesota, one, you're in a terrible state that is not going to favor you, and you need to consider that.
Two, somehow, some way, you did not guard the door.
And so now you have multiple protesters who are in the sanctuary during the middle of the service.
This isn't before the service.
They came in during the middle of the service on the Lord's Day.
They're in the sanctuary.
They're now terrorizing children and women.
And at that point, you know, to pull a gun out once they're already in and they're not actually touching you at that point.
See, that's what you would have to do in a nutshell.
You would have to set it up in such a way that they would have to use force to get in in the first place.
So then you could meet force with force.
But instead, They never had to use force.
And so it's really hard to make a case of self defense because they just walked freely in and they're not touching anybody.
They're just shouting and filming and walking around, you know, and questioning.
And so then to meet that with force, especially in the state of Minnesota, you're like, you're going to jail.
Tim Wallace personally will be on his way to the church to lock you up forever.
So my answer to this is you can't let them inside.
You should be locking your doors before the service, not unlocking them until after the service.
If there's anyone who comes late to church, they should be someone that you're able to recognize.
If they're not, then you need to be able to right there at the door.
It's locked.
They can't get inside.
You're able to ask them questions.
You can step outside if they try to push back.
Now it's force.
And you can respond.
You can see if they're with 20 other people.
One Act Play Drama00:02:43
Okay.
One person trying to come in.
Maybe he misdirections.
20 people with signs.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Yeah.
And think about that.
This was, they came in the building after the service had already started, in the middle of the church service.
And not just one, you know, looking like, oh, I'm just coming to hear the word of God as a visitor, and I just happened to be late.
I got lost or something.
No, a group of like 20, 30 people halfway through the service, they never should have been able to get inside.
Never.
So I, and I just think that, you know, and I don't want to disparage this precious church that's worshiping the Lord and has just been through this ordeal.
So I'm not trying to pick on them, but I'm saying, I hope that this, Wakes Christians up and they realize, oh, we really are at war and that they act accordingly.
No group of protesters should be able to get inside a church during the middle of the service.
So I don't know.
Well said.
All right, we'll keep going.
The Edgerow Whistle sent $5 and says, Welcome to the Wisdom White Beard Club, Joel.
It's coming in faster now after the last few months and you've earned it.
We need a more based white beard rep. When I first saw the Wisdom White, I thought it was Wilson White.
Like Doug Wilson and James White.
And I was like, oh, wisdom slash love.
Here's the thing by the grace of God, I'm not a perfect man, not even close, but by the grace of God, I've done a lot as Joel the Gray.
But I return to you now as Joel the White.
There we go.
How old were you, Joel, when you realized that you could grow the phenomenal beard?
So I was about four or five years old.
No, it was actually, I was 16.
And when I was 16, I won a great battle.
No, I was 16 years old.
I was in high school.
And all my friends, I know this is super gay, but all my friends were in one act play.
And so just to spend time with my friends, and also I realized that I could get out of like a class and one act play.
Play would count as one of the periods that I could go to instead of going to something else that would be far worse.
And so I joined One Act Play.
And one of the big reasons I did it was to spend time with my friends.
And secondly, because I realized that there was the principal had made an exception.
If anybody was on the drama team and they were in One Act Play competing with other schools, that they would be permitted because there was no facial hair policy at the school, but they could have an exemption.
And so I was like, you know, like the only high schooler.
That was able to have a full beard.
And so that's why I joined One Act Play.
And I was like, I'm going to see if I can grow a beard.
I was 16 years old and I was like, oh my God.
Have you ever shaved it since?
Small Republic Vision00:15:38
I can grow a beard.
Like, truly?
Yes, I have.
I have shaved it, but no, I have never had really any long season of being smooth faced.
You're like the James Harden of the past.
Like, no one knows what you'd look like.
I'll probably never know.
Think about this in heaven.
If he's resurrected with that beard, all of eternity, I'm never going to know what.
Clean shaven Joel looks like.
Praise God.
I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing.
Edra Whistle followed up with a $2 super chat to say thank you for your work and effort, Timothy G. Amen.
Going to the next one, maybe we'll turn this to you, Timothy.
Justin Holt, 2247, sent $5 and says, When does it go from just helping with dishes and diapers?
Because that's loving my wife and she needs help today, to a simp wearing a metaphorical dress?
I would say that if you want to.
See where these two lines, parallel lines, can be bent somewhere in eternity to meet justice and mercy around the household economy?
I would say they can, insofar as have your wife, because you're the master of ceremonies around your house, is the man, have your wife tell you what's your least favorite chore.
This is what I did with Steph.
And she's an amazing cleaner.
She's like a whirlwind cleaner.
She runs through with eight kids and cleans.
Two or three times a day, and it's just fast.
And we like to play video games, watch movies, do things as a family once we get done.
So she's a whiz at cleaning really fast.
She's a good cook, but laundry, laundry's the bete noire.
So I just say, look, just don't beat yourself up on laundry.
We can all fold, or you can fold once every week or something like that and do it in front of movies.
And sometimes I would help you there.
But it's important to rather than just.
Take over the jobs yourself, which really does corrupt the economy.
You know, I'm not saying if she's sick or something like that, you can't do it, but it ought to be that level of exceptionality because otherwise you're corrupting the economy of the household the way it works.
You go to work, you don't ask her to go to work for you unless it's an extreme extenuating circumstance.
I would just say be lax with, you know, maybe her least favorite chore.
But that's just one guy's impression.
The real answer is that prudential judgment or Phronesis in the Greek is what you wield as a sword and as a shield.
And so you can be as stringent or as lenient as you want to be.
I would just say your wife's probably your favorite person on earth.
And to maximize time, you know, I'm not a slave driver, but you're not going to see me doing the dishes either way.
Also, that's why you have a lot of kids, so you can make them do training.
I was thinking about that, you know, I mean, it's different when the kids are, you know, itty bitty, but as the kids age, that like a husband can help his wife as master of ceremonies by directing, commanding the children to help the wife.
Exactly.
Employing the children to help your.
You're a queen, you know.
Exactly.
Yeah, one of the shames we didn't even touch on in this episode, but one of the shames, I guess, of modernity is actually the eradication of the multi generational household.
Yes.
And you just think about the ways in which even 100 years ago, a woman might be supported by, you know, the husband's mother or her own mother or her sister who was unmarried.
And the ways that, as that sort of eradicated, even, you know, stay at home mothers, homemakers today, they don't have that support, but they're still trying to fulfill that duty.
And so it obviously, I'm coming upon a husband to love his wife in a way of, Like you said, sort of arranging the household such that she's not overworked or flustered or discouraged and those sorts of things.
So, Lord willing, we can regain that, I think, in the West and see sort of a better balance, if you will.
For several reasons.
It's not a truly pro life culture.
You know, you can't just eradicate abortion, you have to eradicate euthanasia and the attitudes attendant to abortion and euthanasia.
Usually that follows suit, but it's sort of pre and post.
And that really is.
Is best accomplished, effectuated by having multi generation households.
So you can actually appreciate what the older generations can offer.
Right now, you're kind of lying or LARPing if you're not raised with old people in the home.
If you're not just like, what do old people do?
You need to be raised with old people who can contribute to the household and they contribute different things than a middle aged father and mother do.
Yeah, well said.
Wes, go ahead and take us through the next couple.
All right.
Wolf Capital sent in a $20 super chat.
Very generous.
Thank you.
Hidden said this great channel and discussion.
Keep it up, gents.
Thank you.
That one reply guy sent $5 and then sent a second one that comes with a question.
All caps.
He said, Love the.
And there's going to be about five words here with a lot of letters that I don't think quite belong.
Love the pose, ask guys.
He'll work.
Moving on.
One question.
Do you think it would be a good idea to annex Canada?
I love the America as an imperial nation, imperial empire idea.
We'll have to expand more on it sometime, but.
There could be a time where we rescue our Canadian brothers and sisters up north, but I don't think soon.
Yeah.
Yeah, not anytime soon.
You got to get rid of universal suffrage.
You got to get rid of democracy.
I'm not excited about including whatever it is 42 million libtards.
30 million Indians, another 12 million libtards.
Right, yeah, into our sacred democracy.
So you would have to clean up some stuff.
Annex India, annex Canada.
What do you mean?
But yeah, but Canada as a Province underneath an empire that actually functions as an empire, you know, that's much more of a republic with some elements of aristocracy and certainly not democracy.
I could, you know, I think that we could get there.
In the meantime, I think you just take whatever we want from Canada because they're not a real country.
Joel, we were both supposed to, I won't say what show it was, it was a show where one guy is surrounded by several other guys.
Oh, yeah.
We were supposed to appear on the Canadian Nationalism.
Yeah, they buried it.
What happened with that?
They buried it.
They said there were going to be callbacks.
There weren't callbacks.
I guess they did it without us.
I think we figured out who was going to be surrounded.
And usually they want to get a dumber surrounding audience than the guy in the center.
And we were going to obliterate the guy.
It turned out to be James Tallarico.
We'd correctly used context clues to guess it.
So he's a Texas congressman.
You and I and some other really smart people were going to be surrounding him.
And that would not have gone well.
It would not have been well for him.
I think that's why they did away with it.
But I do want to talk about the competing forms of Christian nationalism.
With you at some point.
Yeah.
Competing friendly like.
Yeah.
Because I'm not an empire guy.
I'm a republic, small r republic guy.
And even talking about state establishments of Christianity as a really realistic thing is a conversation for another discussion.
Yeah, no, we should talk about it.
And I think there's a progression of, in my view, there's a progression of how you get to certain later stages.
But right now, it seems like there's really a global.
You know, worldwide return to nationalism, and I think that that's good.
So, I think the emphasis right now absolutely needs to be nationalism and any empirical elements.
Um, I wouldn't want to see those at the expense of nationalism.
Uh, the difficulty is just that, like, right now, it's like we already have an empire both globally and in our foreign influence, but also, um, but also even domestically.
Like, right now, part of the problem is that, uh, you know, people are like, oh, we don't want ethno nationalism.
It's like, okay, you don't want national nationalism, okay, like, I don't know what that means.
And so, right now, it's like we already are like a geographically concentrated empire.
Like, we have the nation of Somalia, right?
We have the nation of Haiti.
We have the nation of, you know, fill in the blank.
Like, we're not one nation.
That's why we have so much division.
Yes, we have division ideologically and religiously.
Like, there are plenty of people who are white as the driven snow, and they are terrible.
You know, it's like, you know, they're demonic.
And, you know, like Joe Biden, I wish that I could find that he's actually Jewish.
But as far as I can tell, the dude's just white and hates America.
And he's Catholic.
And hates Christians.
Exactly.
So I'm the first to admit that it's not just foreigners and it's not just Jews.
There are plenty of people, probably direct descendants of King Alfred, and are trying to destroy our nation.
But I think the point still stands that we are not a nation right now.
Sadly, we are a collection of different nations.
So I think there's already this empirical element of we're trying to function.
And I think that's why, at first, We just need to achieve nationalism.
And that's why we need mass deportations.
Ilhan Omar should, like, Somalia, there should not be a Somalian enclave inside these United States.
So it's like we got to get all of them out and get one nation and one ethnicity that's distinctly Christian, it's distinctly Western, it's distinctly American.
It may not be one race.
I don't think that it would be with our history.
Ethnos in those other senses, but it would be still in the racial aspect, it still would be predominantly white.
And I think that it should be predominantly white.
And so I think we got to achieve that first.
And then there could be conversations about.
My contribution to that eventual conversation is just that no conservatives now, right wing based, right wing dissident, right wing normie, are talking about political geography.
And political geography is the missing component to.
The right wing segment of right wingers that want to do away with pluralism, because I hate pluralism, you hate pluralism, we believe in a res publica, meaning a public thing that we agree with.
I'm not supposed to be able to coexist with someone that believes in the Babylonian Talmud or the Quran or in nothing.
I'm supposed to be able to coexist only with other Christians and people that look like me and talk like me.
But this is not a reality if we believe that Res Publica can be a third of a billion people strong.
If you want to keep your little comic book club pure, only the true believers, you got to keep it small.
If you want to keep it small, you keep it pure.
A third of a billion Res Publica never happened.
So if you study the ancient republics, I'm talking the Swiss cantons, who all of our founding fathers looked to, lasted a thousand years.
They're very small.
If you talk about Venice, a 1,200 year long republic, it was very small.
England, before it became an empire and ruined itself by becoming an empire, was just very small.
Malta, you know, all of these lasted over a thousand years by being small.
And yes, I hate pluralism.
I love unicity.
I believe in a Res Publica, but it's got to be small.
That's why states' rights has got to be the center of an emerging Christian nationalism, in my strong view.
You'll get guys that say, think about guys that say, who's the most powerful country in the world?
It's Israel.
And it's like, yeah, maybe.
And think about how small they are.
They're the size of New Jersey.
So you don't need to be geographically large to be powerful.
Also, Canada, huge geographically, very weak.
Mexico, right?
Geographic expanse.
It's a Federalist 10 lie that we borrow from James Madison.
And it's been very pervasive and very corruptive, corrosive of American thought.
It's bad.
Political geography matters a lot.
That's a great point.
I think you're right.
And I'm all for states' rights, but I think that we're so divided at this point and infiltrated that I think it would, it seems as though it would have to be more than states' rights because I just don't think that California is ever going to agree with Kansas.
It seems like secession might be the only possibility.
And nationally, the Res Publica should be something like the Nicene Creed, which I think I've First, heard you say.
Yeah.
Each state is confessional to one sect of Christianity, the way original America was under the First Amendment.
Nine of the 13 states.
It was Maryland that was Catholic, right?
None of them were confessionally Catholic.
Nine of the 13 were, there were just nine sects of Christianity, Protestant Christians.
Maryland was almost close enough to be one, but only four of the states after the First Amendment were not creedally, confessionally one.
So have one.
Each state has its official establishment of religion, which the First Amendment actually guaranteed the right of until 1947.
And then, yeah, be united by that.
And at the national level, that's my thought is a national level would not be confessional, but rather would be creedal.
And so it would be Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, things that both Protestants and Orthodox and Catholics can all agree on.
I love it.
So you don't have a conflict from the national level to the state level.
And then states could be more particular.
And you would have states that were Catholic.
You'd have.
I don't know if the EO guys could even get one state.
I don't know if they have one island, one city, even.
Yeah, but maybe you have one state that's EO, and you'd have a few at this point that are Catholic.
And then with the Protestant ones, one would be Presbyterian, one would be Anglican, one would be, you know, so on and so forth.
So, okay.
I love it.
Great.
Let's keep going.
P.O. Andrews sent $5 and asks How do I effectively support the Christian patriarchy at the office, especially with female bosses?
You tell it, don't.
Go ahead.
Don't get fired.
Hide your power levels.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
I mean, at this point, the way that HR infiltrated as the sword and the shield of feminism in the workplace.
So it's really, really hard at this point until we get females out of the workplace more predominantly.
So basically, keep your job and don't do anything that's undignified, but there's nothing, there's really no benefit in pretending that.
HR is not by and for females, and that the workplace is not gynocratic because, like all the rest of the public spaces in America, it's completely gynocratic.
So, you have to cover your six first.
Focus on your home.
Once you go home, everyone, it doesn't matter how, as a Catholic or an Orthodox or a Protestant, doesn't matter how liberal or feminist your preacher or your bishop is, you can always take the power back in your home.
And that's where, you know, read.
The case for patriarchy, or ask your husband, or any of Joel's suggestions, tend to that first.
That's the real oikonomia.
Double Standards Explained00:15:40
That's your home.
And worry about the workplace later.
You're just there to earn a buck.
You know, you don't need to make it, it's not a real patriarchal household anyway.
It's not a true economy of its own.
Yeah, I don't think it's changing the workplace.
I think, if anything, it's getting your home in order and then bringing, reattaching work back to the home, right?
To have productive households.
So I would say the solution there is not to convince.
The CEO of your Fortune 500 company to be patriarchal.
I think the solution is try to free yourself from the plantation and to work for yourself.
Try to be your own employment and then be able to have your family as a part of that.
Like the Proverbs 31 woman that's constantly perverted and it's like, oh, look, she's a boss babe.
She's buying a field.
Yeah, with whose money?
And even when she's buying a field and, oh, she's a real estate tycoon.
No, no, she's not.
But I would say that get your home in order.
Don't try to persuade your business, but rather try to start a business.
And this glorious, godly woman who was, did have some elements of, she was industrious, but she's industrious working for her husband.
Her husband is her boss, and she's working underneath.
So you can bring your wife and children into the family business and at different capacities that are fitting domestic feminine role.
The role of children and so on and so forth.
So rather than convincing your job to become patriarchal, make your home patriarchal and bring your job to home if you can.
Yeah, and I'll just speak to this because I just recently had come from this context not that long ago.
And I would say, just to get really practical too, when you're in that context surrounded by women, there are all sorts of little compromises you can avoid making, whether it's the passive aggressiveness and the gossip and those conversations that just naturally happen in the sort of office context, just avoid them.
And I would say, even to be positive about it, Bring a masculine presence, right?
If you do nicotine pouches, pop a nicotine pouch in during a meeting or something like that.
Demonstrate.
Pop a Zimbabwe.
Right, right.
It's just those little things to demonstrate.
Saying the Zenner's prayer.
Right.
But also, don't use Zen.
They're gay.
Use something that's a little bit better.
Fair enough.
Yeah.
So I would just say set an example, even for if it's just younger men or men around you, to say, hey, look, I'm not afraid to show up, roll up my sleeve, and say, hey, I'm a man.
And I'm not going to play the game.
Now, obviously, be shrewd about it.
There are different contexts.
You might have an overly passive aggressive female boss, for example, and you got to play your cards right.
I would say, like my context, I had a fair bit of latitude in terms of not having a direct boss, if you will.
But yeah, I would say just don't make those little compromises that day in and day out you're going to see sort of other people sort of engaging in and making.
Amen.
People are like, Joel, how do you do it?
How do you produce so much content?
Well, little do you know, right now I'm rocking 24 milligrams as we speak.
All right, next one.
Most people would be dead.
All right.
Kyle sent in a $12.77 super chat.
Not sure the significance of that.
And asked, what needs to happen for the church tradition of head coverings for women to be commonplace?
We've talked about this some.
This is so good.
So I wrote Dale Partridge.
You may not be aware of him.
He wrote a book called Cover for Glory.
And I had the privilege of writing the forward to that and have held the head covering position for probably about five years now.
I'm curious.
I assume that you're a head covering guy.
Yeah, I'm a Latin Mass Catholic.
I go to the TLM.
You know, I attend the TLM as often as I can on Sundays, which the nearest one is New Orleans.
And you always.
Veil.
All of my, I have seven daughters and a wife.
My daughters are always, they're covered.
Yeah.
They're veiling and they're not considered weird.
It's the norm at the Tridentine Latin Mass.
If we do go inside to a Novus Ordo that's a post Vatican II Mass, they're always veiling.
And it looks weird to the normies at the Novus Ordo there, but it's biblical to veil.
So biblical.
Yeah.
It's funny that, you know, we're in Texas, you know, God's country.
Or at least it was.
You can absolutely mess with Texas, sadly, today, but once upon a time.
But still, there's the remnants of that tradition and culture.
And you're at a football game and they pray before the game and all the men take off their hats.
Why?
So we've kept one half.
So the man is, it's shameful for a man to cover his head when he's praying.
But then we say, oh, but that's radical to do the reverse.
The man should not cover and the woman should.
And it's funny that we've kept one piece, but not.
The other.
And the piece that we've kept is the one pertaining to men.
And the piece that we've left behind that we find offensive is the one pertaining to women, which again, just I think highlights our whole point here of how taken we have been by feminism.
All right.
Cleave to Antiquity said this I endorse Gordon's documentary.
All caps.
Excellent film.
It's a based ortho, bro.
Cleave.
Oh, okay.
I love it.
Ortho, Catholic, Protestant.
Got the whole gang here.
MrBeast1098 sent a $5 sticker.
Of a hippo's head popping out of water surrounded by hippo squad.
What does that even mean?
It's like a sticker that you put in, but it gives text to describe it.
Oh, I see.
I see.
It was just a generous donation.
Okay.
All right.
This says AED 100.
I have no idea what the nomination AED is.
Timothy, you knew everything.
Any idea?
I do not know.
No.
Arab Emirate dollar?
No.
That would be UAE.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Is it a $100 super chat?
Is that what?
I have no idea.
This could be at $1 and you would pay us.
Could be pesos.
If only I had a computer, this could be gold ounces.
Yeah, oh, it is.
Oh, is it?
Okay, your Emirate dollar.
Okay, you got it.
Yeah, you called that.
Sorry.
It's 0.27 US dollars.
So it's about $27.
Very generous.
LR Nicholas.
Oh, because it's 100 of them.
100 of them.
Oh, wow.
I thought you were saying it's 27 cents.
No, no.
Every individual one is.
Thank you.
We appreciate it.
Okay, so they said this I am a Gen X female, married 35 years.
Praise God to a wonderful man, and I 100% agree.
With the Christian ideal of what a woman is.
I wish your channel didn't put alcohol as part of the set.
Alcohol does more harm than good.
Very kind comments up front.
I want to say thank you for that.
Praise God for your marriage, your generosity, and all that kind of stuff.
And I'm not gonna bash you.
Um, I'm not Nick Fuentes, um, so Nick Fuentes would not have the alcohol, but he would also bash you for your super chat.
He uh, he hates his own followers very often.
Uh, we we try not to do that.
Um, I appreciate that, and to be fair, you're not the only person who has made that comment.
Um, we do think that there's an inherent goodness.
Uh, it's not just that, well, alcohol is inherently bad, but if you're very, very careful and it's only a drop, then you know, then.
It can be permissible.
I would argue much further than that and say that it's not just only permissible, but there is a goodness.
God made grass for the cattle, bread for man's stomach, and wine for the gladness of his heart.
And so I would actually say that we are, you know, if my only two options were pro or against, you know, for or against, I would say that I am for pro alcohol and absolutely against the abuse of alcohol.
Whether or not it should be a part of your design in your set, I think is debatable.
And, you know, even though I think we're in the right, and I can make those arguments from the scripture.
Because every single live stream and episode we do, I don't want to start with a 20 minute teaching on the inherent goodness of alcohol.
We may eventually get rid of it just so that people stick around.
We're going to put it on the table so they don't see it happening.
I think you're wrong.
Respectfully, I would say I think you're wrong to be turned off by it.
But if a great number of people are turned off by it, even if they're wrong, I would hate to miss out on being able to reach them.
So I say all that to say thank you for your comment and we'll give it consideration.
Timothy, I'm going to kind of combine these two.
You can read it on screen just to be respectful.
To the platform that hosted your documentary.
Two super chats from Captain Arrow.
They asked, Why did you release the film on Candace Owens' website?
And they just mentioned, for example, that she works publicly with kids in the home.
There's a few answers to the question Why do you use an iPhone or an Android instead of building your own?
You know what I mean?
Literally, Catholics will do this often.
They'll criticize me if I have like a Starbucks and a thing.
I also produce a lot of content and it gets tiring.
You need something like coffee, is what I requested when I got here.
It's Trifling to complain about someone, um, in I guess materially cooperating within a corporation they disfavor, and to do so, you have to write it on your Google, uh, iPhone, your Gmail, on YouTube, and they don't get the joke.
So, we cooperate with people, and and can't I'm not saying Candace is, um, equivalent to Apple, yeah, I'm not even throwing her under the bus, I'm just saying you don't like Candace, but you typed this on YouTube or Google or Gmail or something, um.
Candace has a differing view on how the assault on feminism ought to go.
I would say, I would hope she's coming around and coming the full circle, which would involve things like not working at all.
But she, like me, is a Roman Catholic.
And the age old teaching on feminism, which is quite robust, that most Catholics are embarrassed now, embarrassed by the embarrassment of riches in our papal teachings, is that, as Joel was insinuating earlier, home place work, working in what's called the curtilage traditionally, Wife and kids helping the husband to raise money at a farm is entirely licit, not illicit.
So she works from home.
And, you know, even Nick Fuentes said right after, you know, they finished the interview, she bolted.
She had to go do baby care.
So it's, I don't know.
I'm not a micromanager.
She's not my wife, but she's the host.
So the first part of the answer is because it's like the largest podcast platform I could get it on that's reasonably.
Right wing.
And the other one is we brought it to Tucker Carlson, who was very interested for a while.
We actually brought it to Daily Wire.
We said, Do you want to run this as a sequel?
We're not going to change any words.
And they said no.
But we showed it at Daily Wire, brought it to the blaze.
And among these normie places, and Tucker's not a total normie, they all said no.
Candace had the chutzpah to go for it.
So thank you, Candace.
People love to pick nits, but until you actually, and I'm not a movie maker by training, I'm a trained Thomistic philosopher.
I studied in Europe.
So, to engage in making a movie took years off of my life.
It's a huge undertaking.
We got tons of hate for it.
You know, Wall Street Journal came after me and Vogue magazines come after us.
So, I'm just happy to have it someplace where you can go watch it.
That's the answer.
And Candace does not work outside of her home.
Yeah, her studio's in her home.
You and I, we hold the same position on that.
We appreciate the things that Candace has said, but we both say, yeah, ideally, we'd prefer for you to just be a mom.
Yep.
Of course.
And so we both agree on that.
But I do think people view this as though it's a sign of hypocrisy, like it's a gotcha.
And it's not.
This is not, it's important for people to understand.
There's a difference between a double standard and two standards.
So it's not a double standard.
So here's a set of two different standards in my home, in my marriage between my wife and I. My wife and I, we have a standard that when we're in the bedroom alone at home, We're allowed to be naked.
And we have a standard that when the two of us are in public, we're not.
Oh, hypocrite!
Double standard!
No, just not being retarded.
You are stupid, individual.
Think about this.
Think logically and stop being stupid.
It is not a double standard, it is two separate standards for two separate contexts, right?
And so here's the deal Do you want to have Boss Babe, you know, so and so on your platform?
In your house, in your studio, and pushing her forward and that kind of.
No.
I think that would be hypocritical holding the views that we do about biblical patriarchy.
However, if Fox News, it'll never happen because it's Fox News, but just hypothetically, if Fox News called me up and said, hey, hand me that real quick, Wes.
We heard about your book, The Hyphenated Heresy, Judeo Christianity, right?
So Fox News, again, It's hypothetical.
They're never going to happen.
We're just never going to be in realm for this.
It's never going to happen.
Yeah.
But if they called me up and said, man, I heard about you and Jordan Hall's book, The Hyphenated Heresy, and it's getting great reviews on Amazon.
It's climbing the charts, and it is.
Praise God.
We're like two weeks in, and we've sold over 2,000 copies.
I think it's number one on historical theology right now on Amazon for new releases.
It's number two, I think, on conservatism and politics.
And so if I got that call from Fox and they said, we want you to come.
On one of our news shows and talk about the book and why it matters and how it's important.
And then I find out, you know, with the follow up that the news show that I'm going to be going on is led by a female anchor, news anchor.
I'm going on the show.
I'm going on the show.
And that is not hypocrisy.
That's not a double standard.
That's not the same as me hitting up, you know, Meg Kelly or something like that and saying, hey, will you come on our show?
I've got something to say.
But I'm kind of afraid to say it, and I need a blonde white chick, you know, to be there for moral support and to say it for me.
That's very different than I've got something to say.
I can only reach so many people with my platform.
Your platform is gargantuan.
I disagree with the basic premise, but this is the way that the world is.
And so I'm going to go on your platform and humbly accept your generous offer and use that strategically for the glory of God to get truth out to as many people as possible.
In the same way that we are right now using YouTube, even though, yeah, the people who head up YouTube, we have profound disagreements with.
We're using whatever.
That's not a double standard.
People got to stop doing that.
Stop being stupid.
Stop, well, you know, you would go on so and so's platform and she's a woman, and so therefore you're not really patriarchal.
No, I will be naked in my bedroom at home, and I'm not naked in public.
I will go on someone else's platform publicly, even if I disagree with them.
I will not have them on my platform.
Two separate contexts.
So it's not a double standard.
Two standards, two standards, but not a double standard.
Liberalism vs Biblicism00:04:10
Surely we can understand that.
So, all right, that's great.
Yeah, all right, last one here from Glenn Lawrence.
Uh, they sent ten dollars and say, Shout out to the homie Tim Gordon and the whole NXR studio crew for doing the Lord's work, standing on truth and fighting back against feminism.
Amen.
Thanks for the incredible thanks, Glenn.
Uh, Glenn's a good dude.
Yeah, he's a good dude.
Um, all right, let's end it like this.
Uh, Timothy, tell people where they can follow you one more time, where to watch the doc, but also uh, where they can follow you because you live stream, you do a bunch of stuff.
Yeah, so I'm on YouTube three times a week, and that's at Timothy Gordon.
The show is called Rules for Retrogrades.
It's general far right wing stuff, right wing stuff from a Catholic Christian perspective, but it's a lot of culture and politics.
So that's on YouTube.
You can follow me on Twitter or X, if you will, at Timo Theology, T I M O T H E E O L O G Y. CandaceOwens.com, and it's going to be free for two days or maybe only 36 hours if you need that $1.99 that much, if it's blood money or rent money.
On February the 4th and 5th, I believe, are those dates.
They're going to be absolutely free.
I hope Candace will talk about the free days coming up here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I hope she promotes that.
All right.
Well, thank you so much for coming on.
Thanks a million.
I'm honored to be hanging out with three legit patriarchs.
There aren't that many, and there need to be, it needs to be completely ubiquitous.
And that's what we're all trying to do is ubiquitize.
Christianity and patriarchy.
Amen.
Amen.
Thanks for tuning in.
And Lord willing, we will see you guys for sure on Wednesday.
That will be, I believe, episode four of the Nick series now.
So if you're keeping up with that, that'll be episode four of the series with Nick Fuentes.
I believe that particular episode is on calling out conservative grifters.
And so we get into some of the guys who are conservative, but at the end of the day are still ultimately subjected to liberalism.
And the heart of liberalism, we would argue, is.
Egalitarianism and egalitarianism need to be rooted up all the way down.
Johnny and Jimmy are not the same at the individual level.
Not all people are the same.
Johnny and Jackie are not the same.
You know, sexual egalitarianism and even racial egalitarianism.
We also believe that God created races and there are distinctions and there should be benevolence and love.
But again, egalitarianism at every level, whether it be sex, whether it be gender, whether it be at the individual level, whether it be race.
Is a lie, and many, many, many conservatives today, conservative pundits, may sound conservative in some aspects, but at the end of the day, they are liberals.
And if we're going to win, liberalism seems as though it's the final boss.
And so, Nick and I, myself, are addressing that in the episode for Wednesday.
That'll be 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
And we may or may not, we'll decide.
But we may actually do a bonus live stream tomorrow at 12 p.m. Eastern Time to talk about, and I'll just frame it like this: it would be homosexuality, polygamy, and interracial marriage, would be the topic, and breaking those down.
They're distinct, they're different, but breaking those down and really kind of building an argument against biblicism.
We're Bible guys.
We love the scripture.
But against Biblicism and really trying to carve out theologically this category of, I think, the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.
And so it is not just that permissibility, you could say it as concisely as this permissibility does not eradicate prudence.
Permissibility does not eradicate prudence.
And so we're going to do an episode, maybe.
Tomorrow on that topic.
If not, then we'll have to bump it to Friday.
So thanks for tuning in.
Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube, the Rumble.
Follow us on X. Again, my handle is at Joel Webbin.
You'll be able to follow everything that we do on X.
And we will see you, Lord willing, either Tuesday or Wednesday.