Jared Taylor and Joel Webbin dissect white genocide as demographic swamping rather than active extermination, attributing Western decline to "Holocaustianity" and proposing restrictive voting rights for third-generation male citizens. They argue that excluding women from suffrage prevents societal devolution, while prioritizing race over religion despite biblical precedents for caring for one's kin. The dialogue distinguishes their racial realism from "kinism," citing historical Christian orthodoxy to defend distinct national identities against progressive accusations, ultimately urging listeners to support NXR Studios and purchase "The Hyphenated Heresy." [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
Interviewing Jared Taylor00:03:19
Welcome back to NXR Live.
We have an incredibly important and profound episode for you today an interview with Jared Taylor.
We are talking about white genocide.
We are also going to be comparing and contrasting his view of a white nationalism versus my view of Christian nationalism and where these two views, in the case of our country, these United States of America, may overlap and some of the distinctions and which view is stronger, which view is more viable.
This is a Arguably, one of the more important episodes that we have produced as of late.
We are getting into some of the most crucial, significant crises of our current day.
We talk about the steep decline in the overall global white population, what that means for the Christian faith, and what that means for the world.
This is incredibly important.
We hope that you are blessed and informed.
And strengthened and encouraged by this episode, we're going to be coming on after the interview and taking super chats dealing with your questions and your comments.
If you send a comment or a question during this live broadcast at any point as a super chat supporting this organization and XR Studios, which we greatly appreciate, then our deal to you is that if it's a super chat, comment, or question, we will read it live on the air and address it as such.
So, Don't waste any time.
Make sure you get your super chats in, the questions that you have, the comments that you have, and we will be coming on after the interview to address every single one of them.
Tune in now.
At the foot of Mount Sinai, a nation met its God in thunder and fire.
From that covenant flowed the faith of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, fulfilled, not replaced, in Christ.
But somewhere between the martyrs and the modern West, the truth Was blurred.
Politicians and pastors began speaking of a Judeo Christian civilization, a phrase born not of Sinai, but in Washington, tracing its roots not to Moses, but to the Pharisees.
The hyphenated heresy challenges the myth of the hyphen, tracing how it reshaped Christian identity, redefined the church's witness, and bound modern faith to political Zionism.
Pick up your copy today.
On Amazon.com.
Radical Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I want to talk about Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin is an excellent.
The White Genocide Crisis00:11:24
Today, I am joined by Jared Taylor, and we are going to be talking about the plight of white peoples.
White people, it seems as though, have dropped significantly in the global population, and in the coming decades, it seems as though that will continue.
And it's plausible, it's conceivable that white people could go extinct altogether.
So I want to start the conversation by simply posing this question to Jared Taylor Would you define The plight of white peoples today as a genocide?
Is it fair to say that there is a white genocide underway?
And if not, why not?
Genocide, of course, requires the express intention of someone to eliminate a people.
And I honestly don't think that there are very many people who take this view towards whites.
There may be some who would be delighted to see us disappear, but I think that would be a small minority.
We are dwindling in numbers, no question about that.
Our habitat, so to speak, is diminishing as more and more non whites pour into white societies.
And to the extent that interracial marriage is being promoted relentlessly, really, you can hardly look at a television advertisement these days about a mixed race couple with mixed race babies.
All of this certainly encourages miscegenation, which will eliminate whites strictly through genetic swamping.
So, yes, more and more non whites are pouring into white countries.
We are not reproducing ourselves, and we don't have the will to say no.
This is for us.
You have to stay where you are.
So, we are certainly on the way towards long term extinction.
I agree 100% with that.
But to me, white replacement is something that is almost a natural phenomenon unless you work deliberately to oppose it.
And the reason is white people have built these wonderful societies, the best societies in the history of the world.
And people from failed societies who could never build something like Europe.
or the United States.
It's entirely understandable that they want to push their way into our societies and benefit from what our ancestors did.
There's this kind of push that's relentless.
And I would argue that if the East Asian countries, East Asians have also built very successful societies.
If they let them, Southeast Asians, Africans, Muslims, they'd want to be piling into those countries too because they could live better in those countries.
So the push is there, but at least the East Asians have the backbone.
And the loyalty to their own society to say, no, no, you ain't coming in.
You can't browbeat the Chinese into letting in a bunch of Pakistanis.
No, no, sir.
They're not interested.
They wouldn't let it happen.
So, yes, the prospect of ultimate extinction is definitely, I think, a realistic one for whites.
And I think in the technical definition of genocide, you could argue that white people are in perhaps the first stage of the many stages of genocide.
But I don't like to use that word because for most people, the idea is.
People knocking on your door with machetes or machine guns or whatever it is and trying to kill you.
That's not happening.
And even in a global sense, although I think a lot of people or maybe a certain number of people would be happy to see us disappear, I don't believe that they're in charge arranging it for all of these non-whites to push their way into our countries.
I think that's more unnatural than an engineered phenomenon.
Now, you could argue that our lack of resistance to it is unnatural and engineered, but that's something of a different angle of looking at it.
Yeah, that's well said.
I agree with you.
And it's helpful to not have to attribute to other people's malice if we're not certain of that, because that's quite a charge.
It has to be substantiated.
Yes, it is.
And it really does.
I do have sympathy in the sense that, okay, the whole world wants to live in my country.
And if I was living anywhere else, I would very likely feel the same way.
The moral obligation is not on the rest of the world.
To suppress their own desires and the betterment for their children out of some kind of disposition and favor towards whites.
The moral obligation is on white people to actually have a fidelity.
In Christian terms, it's the order of loves.
And it doesn't require that you hate anyone, it simply requires that if you are to truly love anyone at all, those loves have to be prioritized.
It's easy for the liberal to.
To claim to love everyone and to love everyone equally, because what that essentially accomplishes is that by loving everyone equally, they're not really required to love anyone specifically.
No one in practical terms.
Go ahead.
I agree 100%.
And I think that's well said.
The moral obligation is not on third worlders to say, well, you know, these white people are happy where they are.
We should not try to join them.
No, it's perfectly understandable that they should want to live with us.
And in fact, I would imagine that.
When a Guatemalan staggers across the border and discovers that he can be the beneficiary of affirmative action, racial preferences, as soon as he sets foot in the United States, he's going to think, wow, boy, did I make the right decision.
Maybe tomorrow it's going to rain beer.
I live in a miraculous country now.
So, no, it is our fault to have let this happen.
So, in that respect, again, although you could describe the eventual fate of whites as that which we could expect from genocide.
I prefer not to call it genocide because that imputes a motivation.
Yeah, I think that's fair.
So then I feel like the next question that it raises is why are white peoples so uniquely susceptible and vulnerable towards, if not engineering, that might be too strong of a term, certainly for the masses.
That might describe a few.
Yes.
But for the masses, maybe not engineering, but at least agreeing, subconsciously agreeing to our own societal suicide.
What is it about white people?
Because I don't.
I look at the rest of the world, and that's just not the conception that I have.
Like you already said, Japan is not like that.
The Chinese are not like that.
I don't even feel like certain countries, I don't feel like Uganda is like that or Ghanaians are like that.
It seems to be unique to Europeans, Americans.
So, what is it about white people that makes us so uniquely vulnerable to this suicidal, toxic empathy mindset?
I've thought about that for a long time, and I have a lot of theories about it.
Not Even together are they satisfactory.
Because whatever theories I might lay out to you today, 100 years ago, white people were not this way.
We have been conscious of race for hundreds of years.
We've been Christians in some cases for a thousand years.
We have made war.
We have made peace.
All of the things that human beings do, we've been doing for a very long time, but only in the last maybe century, maybe not even a century.
We have somehow been so completely denatured that we have stopped exercising the completely normal instincts that we find operating in all human populations everywhere.
Why?
Why has that happened?
I think that the two world wars were a devastating thing psychologically.
They killed off a great many of the best of white men.
And certainly the First World War left people thinking, my gosh, what kind of people are we to have stumbled into this?
unprecedented slaughter, this self-examination, a critical, scathing self-examination that took place after what they call the Great War.
That was a very demoralizing time.
And then what happens?
What is it, 21 years later?
We do it again?
I think those two events were devastating psychologically to whites.
Also, when you think about what are the hallmarks of Western civilization, what makes us different from every other race, I think there's a kind of consideration of the interests of others.
If you talk about one man, one vote, that means I may be much stronger, richer, smarter, better than you, but theoretically, I have no more political power than you.
Also, the idea of freedom of speech.
I may be in a position to crush you, but I'm not allowed to do that because what you have to say is potentially just as valuable as what I have to say.
These are alien concepts in any other society.
Respect for women.
In most non white societies, women are essentially sex servants, beasts of burden.
In traditional Japanese thinking, the status of a woman was somewhere between that of a man and a bird, maybe.
And so, this again is a respect for others.
Women have rights.
People who are weaker than we are have rights.
The whole idea of caring for the planet, other species, this is very much.
A Western European kind of concept.
Not only do human beings have rights, other human beings they may be weaker, the opposite sex, they have rights.
But unborn people have rights.
We have to care about them.
We have to care about the future of the planet.
We have to care about other species the Japanese, who i'm picking on today.
They're happy to eat the whales.
We want to save the whales, and so this idea of caring about the rights of others, caring about the rights of the unborn, caring about the entire planet, other species, All of this is something that I believe is uniquely European.
And this idea of caring, recognizing that the other species, the other sex, the other guy has a point of view, this can be very easily perverted into thinking that all of the other races, they too have a point of view.
And it makes it easier for us to see these people who were in war-torn Syria.
And God, well, Syria was a mess of a place.
And so Angela Merkel, she says, okay, I'm going to let in a million and a half.
Syrians, these young Syrian men, because they're suffering and we are nice to people.
They have a point of view.
And at the same time, she was probably convinced that race is a social construct, that after, you know, a few years, they'll be wearing Lederhosen and drinking beer and they'll be just like good Germans and they'll pay for their Social Security and their retirement.
All of these things, I think, combine to make white people particularly vulnerable.
Beyond Holocaustianity00:13:22
Warning this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
Society, real society, has always stood on three magnificent pillars caffeine to kick things off, alcohol to smooth the edges, and nicotine, which is the true gentleman's secret weapon.
See, in its glory day, nicotine fueled the greatest minds, the boldest leaders, and the quiet legends who simply got the job done.
But somewhere along the way, we lost the plot.
Effeminacy began to creep in.
Men traded their duty for comfort, and now big tobacco sells us nothing but compromise.
Nicknack raises the old banner again.
This is nicotine elevated, honest, and intentional, manufactured here in the United States by a family owned company that refuses to compromise.
See, Nicknack is a fully dissolvable nicotine lozenge made with just six premium ingredients.
They're all clearly listed on the back so you know exactly what's in it.
There's no smoke, no pouch, nothing hidden.
Essential oils for real flavor in three to six milligrams.
So, get knickknacks at knickknack.com.
Again, that's knickknack.com.
And use code Joel20! Joel20! to get 20% off.
Or use the store locator to find knickknacks near you.
Raise the standard.
Reject the slop.
Join the pursuit of the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Nickknack.
Crush your vice.
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.
I know you're aware of people who say, well, the problem is Christianity.
All of this turn the other cheek stuff, and in God there is no man or woman, no Jew nor Gentile, all of this stuff.
This opens us up to exploitation.
I don't see it that way.
I don't think Christianity as a big problem because our racially conscious ancestors were, I think, in many respects, much more serious Christians than people claim to be Christians today.
My Confederate ancestors, they had absolutely no illusions about race at all.
They did care very much about the salvation of the souls of their slaves.
Stonewall Jackson famously left a lot of money in his will for building Sunday schools and churches for black people because They were human beings and they deserved salvation.
But that didn't mean that they were our equals socially, that we should intermarry with them.
So all of this perversion of Christianity into the rainbow flag and Black Lives Matter and there's no hate here kind of stuff, that to me is a kind of perversion of Christianity, just as every other institution in the United States, the media, the universities, corporate interests, all of this has been perverted in a way that ultimately disarms us.
In the face of non whites who have pretty sharp elbows when it comes to pushing their way into our societies.
I'm glad to hear you say that because, you know, as a Christian, that's, you know, that's precisely what I would say.
I don't think that Christianity is to blame.
No.
If it was, it's difficult to make sense of Christian history.
You know, you think of the Crusades, you know, and I mean, they're just example after example after example of latter centuries and, you know, Great Christian men who had a spine and they had integrity and they weren't cruel or heartless, but yet at the same time, they understood the distinction between peoples.
This is ours, this is yours.
If you come over here, we're going to fight.
We're not going to allow it.
But somewhere along the line, we've demonized the South, the Confederates, and we've demonized the Crusades.
We've taken all those aspects of.
Our Christian history and European history, and rewritten the story to where these are just held as universal evils, that they're abhorrent.
But you don't really see that coming into play until, like you said, that I feel like after the first two world wars, that you're probably familiar with the concept or the phrase post war consensus.
It's like, why can the West not have nice things?
Well, because of the Austrian painter and this never again mentality.
And that's not to say, you know, I'm not a Hitler apologist.
You know, that's not to say that he was, you know, did wonderful things and that he did no wrong.
But it is to say that there are a lot of atrocious stories throughout antiquity.
And, but none of them are treated quite the same way as Hitler.
And there are other people who killed more.
There are other people who did more.
And yet he's this singular figure of, and that never again, it's not just never again should we.
You know, commit a holocaust or this or that.
It's never again should we be dogmatic.
Never again should we have any sense of being authoritarian.
Never again should we really even have a sense of affection for our own peoples.
The never again mentality that we've kind of sat under for the last 80 years is basically a full embrace of egalitarianism, of inclusion, of relativism when it comes to truth claims, that no one can be too sure, no one can be too dogmatic.
And here we are.
And I can't help but think because there's, again, there's plenty of atrocities throughout history.
And so when I look at that one and I look at the way that it's been weaponized, I call it Holocaustianity.
It's what you believe about the Holocaust in historical terms is that's fine.
That's up for debate.
Some go with the mainline consensus.
I would probably be somewhere more in the Pat Buchanan camp on World War II history.
But separating the Holocaust from Holocaustianity.
What I'm trying to say is that to me, what's unique is that that particular historic event has been not just weaponized, but it's been made to be religious.
It carries religious fervor, religious commitment, religious zeal.
And I don't think that that just happens.
So that's where I feel like someone engineered this.
Mm hmm.
Well, that's certainly true.
And I think you can make a convincing argument that Jews have been particularly busy in trying to make the Holocaust a central element of the way we are supposed to view history.
That doesn't mean that Gentiles had to go along with that.
We could have shrugged that off.
But even people who are not Jewish, people of goodwill, not necessarily influenced by that kind of thinking to a great degree, they looked at that colossal slaughter and they said, well, how did this start?
This started, this came from nationalism.
This came from Germans or Frenchmen or Italians or British thinking that they had something so important that it was worth slaughtering as many people as possible to preserve that or to expand that.
And this kind of nationalism, this kind of sense of us versus them, and in the case of the Germans, of a kind of racial folkish purity.
This brought about this horrible slaughter.
So we have to stop that any way we can.
And you can look at the origins of the European Union.
That was very much an attempt to try to tie Europe together, specifically France and Germany.
It started with the European coal and steel community, trying to get the coal and steel industries to work together in a way that made the economies dependent on each other.
The idea being if our economies are dependent, we won't make war.
Then this became the European Common Market and now the European Union and the idea that we're going to have one European government.
So we just will never, ever again have one of these fratricidal wars.
This is something that I think came from a sense of, my God, we made a terrible mistake.
We must never let this happen again.
But this has, of course, been manipulated into the point of saying that, well, if nationalism is the kind that produced the Second World War, if that is a bad thing, then any kind of nationalism.
Any kind of national consciousness, any sense of us versus them, watch out.
That could always lead to another blitzkrieg.
I think all of these things have worked together in a way that has reduced millions of white people into this capitulationist state of mind.
No question about it.
Right.
I agree.
So let's shift gears a little bit and talk about potential solutions.
What are some of your solutions?
And I know that you have some questions for me in terms of my worldview on the matter.
Well, for me, the solution for potential white extinction is simply for white people to regain a sense of peoplehood.
And they have to shake off this idea that people thinking in terms of our interests and preserving our interests is somehow wrong.
And only if we can do this will we have the courage to say to those who wish to live amongst us, marry amongst us, to say to them, no, this is for us.
This is not for you.
I think white people, because of the things I described earlier, this real concern for the views of outsiders, for those we consider downtrodden, the weak, it's terribly hard for white people to see people who are coming across the border in rags, so to speak, psychologically, and say, nope, nope, nope, nope.
This is a nice place.
We live in a nice place.
You live in a terrible place, but you have to stay where you are.
It's very hard.
I remember attending a conference with Richard Lynn.
He was a great scholar of race differences in IQ, which of course we're not supposed to talk about either, because that might explain the failures of non-whites in terms other than our wickedness.
We're supposed to be wicked and that causes that.
But he says, surely we are the only people who might disappear simply because we're too nice.
That's putting it in very simple terms, but as a practical matter, that's what it is.
I marveled at the tens of thousands of people thronging the streets of Minneapolis, I guess, I think it was just last Friday, demonstrating against ICE.
They are opposed to arresting illegal immigrants, even if they're convicted felons.
Where does this even come from?
This comes from some kind of utterly capitulationist mentality.
And to call ICE the Gestapo, that again is an example of what you talked about.
this Holocaustianity, did you call it that?
That's not a phrase that I would use, but the idea that consummate evil can be embodied in that one regime and those totemic names that we associate with that regime.
How to cure this?
How to cure this?
Preserving Our Peoplehood00:08:58
Now, in my view, well, I've devoted the last 35 years of my life to trying to explain to white people what is at stake.
and to try to convince them that our survival is a moral thing, a necessary thing, and to try to get them to completely get over this idea that somehow the necessary steps for us to preserve our peoplehood, our culture, our mere survival are somehow wrong.
This is something that has sunk deep, deep into the brains of certainly white people of my generation, but I'm delighted to see that so many young people They're not susceptible to this at all, or they are far less susceptible.
And it may require that my generation essentially die off before your generation and the ones following that can regain some kind of sensible control over their morality, over the kind of morality that's necessary for them to ensure their own survival.
I agree.
Yeah, it seems as though, one, getting over white guilt is what I hear you saying.
So, in terms of solutions, one is to get over white guilt.
And that's where I think that Christianity is.
Paramount because at the end of the day, Christianity actually does present a solution to the problem of guilt.
And the solution is atonement.
The solution is forgiveness and not just forgiving others, but being able to rest in the forgiveness that God has offered to you so that you don't just have to dot every I and cross every T.
And everyone doesn't have to be a historian and be able to articulate why the Crusades were justified or why this was justified or colonialism or this, that, and the other.
But you can actually, one, history is vital.
So we do need people who are just simply more literate in terms of white people's actual origins and history and these things.
But in addition to that, to be able to say, okay, well, even where white people have erred, because white people are not perfect and nobody has to land on that conclusion, you can still be able to rest in the grace of God.
Like I see the abandonment, like what you articulated, the abandonment and apostasy of white nations towards the Lord Jesus Christ coinciding.
It's not as though the West is abandoning Christianity and becoming more racially conscious, right?
That's not the correlation.
It's we're abandoning.
No.
The faith, the Christian faith, which is a religion of grace and the absolvement of guilt.
And as we're abandoning this religion of grace, we're becoming increasingly, not less so, but more so, a guilty people and more easily exploited.
So I see Christianity as a significant potential solution, but it has to be the historic faith, it has to be real Christianity and not a modern perversion.
Well, it's certainly true that in opposition to the people who say that Christianity is the problem of white people, that that has weakened us, made us susceptible to all kinds of manipulation and exploitation, the fact that as we become less Christian, we seem to become more manipulable, more susceptible to this exploitation.
But I am curious, you would call yourself a Christian nationalist, am I correct?
Yes, sir.
And if you don't mind, I'd be curious to know what the implications of that are.
I gather you would take the position that people should serve in elective office or at least in offices of some kind of control or dominance only if they are Christian in your ideal state.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I'd have a few different criteria for elected office, but also even for voting citizens.
So I don't think it could just necessarily require a black and white category of you're not a citizen at all, you have zero provisions, or you're a citizen.
So I think there could be tiers.
But in terms of like, A full citizenship with voting rights, I would not only want Christians, those who have made a profession of faith, as a requirement for office, but even a requirement for voting.
So I would see it as you would need to be third generation, have a stake in America's past and the nation's past.
So, third generation, third generation on both sides of the family in order to vote or hold electoral office.
In addition to that, you would have to be an adult male.
In addition to that, You would also have to.
A male, no women voting.
Yes, sir.
And we can, and we'll come back to that.
Yeah, change.
In addition to that, obviously an upstanding citizen without a crime record, criminal record.
In addition to that, a net positive tax paying citizen, not a drain financially on society.
There would be, you know, articulated some exceptions like a veteran, for instance, maybe getting more benefits, but that would be different.
But certainly not someone who's simply a part of the welfare class.
Right.
And then, lastly, that.
That Christian piece.
And then I would want to hold even marriage.
And I would see marriage, I wouldn't hold children because, you know, that can't always be helped biologically.
There are, you know, there are exceptions where people can't conceive, but I would root it in marriage.
Third generation, meaning you have a stake in the past.
And marriage, knowing that marriage ordinarily leads towards procreation, meaning you have a stake in the future.
I want people who have a heritage in the past and a stake in the future, and then also who are heads of household.
I view that.
One of my arguments for that would simply be representative government.
I think that a raw democracy, none of our founders had anything positive to say about that.
But I do believe in republics and I believe in representative government.
And I think that one of the problems, you know, so you mentioned guilt.
And so I think the Christian gospel is very necessary in overcoming guilt.
But I think another problem is being atomistic, so individualistic that white people, not only are they a guilty people, not necessarily objectively, but in terms of their perception, but in addition to viewing themselves as subjectively guilty, they also view, white people.
Cannot, for whatever reason, cannot view themselves as a collective.
They tend to not be able to think of themselves as a group.
And I think that democracy is part of that problem.
Our sacred democracy is the full separation, it boils down to the individual.
And I would say the basic building block of a nation, of a society, is not the individual, but the family.
And so just as I have representatives in local government, in my county, and in my state, and then at the federal level, I don't get to go and sit in the halls of Congress and make decisions for myself.
Somebody is elected and makes those decisions for me.
And so, by requiring the male piece that he's married, he's third generation, he's an upstanding citizen without a criminal record, he's a net positive taxpayer, what I'm thinking in the sense of repealing the 19th Amendment and holding the vote, certainly office, but also a vote to male citizens, is I'm viewing that in the banner of representative government.
It's not that the woman doesn't have a voice.
There's a view, a voice.
She speaks to her husband.
Correct.
Daughters are represented by fathers.
A widow, even, is represented by her brother or by her uncle or by her father.
And there would be some exceptions, as we've had in America's past, where a widow could perhaps have control over an estate because she was of great means.
Her husband was an elite man and died an untimely death, and that's not going to be stripped from her.
So there are always exceptions, even before we had the 19th Amendment.
You know, the average woman, you know, had less influence and less power.
But there was still, whether formal or informal, there was still always an aristocracy, and the women of that class were very powerful, informally so.
Well, so largely you're going back to the Constitution as originally written.
You had to be a free white person, and you had to be a property owner, and you had to be a man.
What you're describing adds a few more details to that.
You can't have a criminal record.
You have to have been there for three generations.
In 1789, that would have been asking a lot for people who were voting in the first elections of the United States.
But you are returning to a kind of voter qualification that restricts the franchise to a certain well defined subset of the entire population.
Defining Christian Prejudice00:04:49
That concept is one with which I 100% agree.
Now, my essential question to you would be is there a racial component to that?
A black person or an Asian person fits those qualifications, can they vote and can they serve in your Christian nationalist country?
That's a great question.
And so I have, you know, just for the record, like with all things, there's always a sliding scale and there's variance.
And so there are, you know, there are several individuals who are friends of mine who are, you know, would describe themselves as Christian nationalists.
And theologically, we would have many of the same convictions.
But politically speaking, going back to not just electoral office, but for the vote, they would restrict it to white men of good repute.
And they would root that in our heritage, our founding, you know, those documents, and not with any hatred in their heart towards, you know, non whites or anything like that, but they would just say America is a white country.
Certainly its heritage and history is a white country.
And that's not the Bible condemns partiality.
But here's the thing it condemns partiality on an unjustifiable or sinful basis.
The reality is that when we think of prejudice, prejudice is just prejudgment.
It's making a judgment ahead of time.
And when we make a judgment ahead of time from a sinful bias of hatred, then that's, I think, sinful.
And I think the Bible describes that.
But we are making, we are all prejudiced.
We have presuppositions.
We are making prejudgments.
All the time.
Every employer, when he holds an interview, you know, looks at how the person is dressed, you know, and, you know, the firm handshake, you know, and the eye contact and all those kinds.
That's a prejudgment because what we're saying is, I don't know.
I remember I went viral and got so much flack a couple of years ago because I moved to Texas.
I was born and raised here, but I was in California for a while.
And then I moved back and we were planting a church and all these things.
And I, on a podcast, I said, you know, that I had to choose a new doctor.
And I said that, You know, if I didn't have a relationship with the individual, I didn't know them, you know, and I can't look at all their credentials and their criteria, and I don't know them personally, and I don't know what they've actually merited and what their skill set actually is, what they've earned versus what they may have been given.
All things being equal, not knowing, let's say there's two doctors, I'm going to pick one as a primary care physician, and I have two choices before me, and one is white and one is black.
This is what I said.
And they're perfect strangers, I don't know them from Adam.
I would choose the white doctor.
Especially in the year of our Lord, this was 2022 or 2023, on the heels of massive DEI policies and all these.
And what I was saying is that there's absolutely, you know, it's conceivable, there's absolutely a chance that that black doctor might be a phenomenal doctor.
But statistically, and that's all I have to go off of with this pre judgment, statistically, I know that if either one of these two individuals did get a handout or a pass, it would have been the black doctor.
And so I knew that the statistical likelihood would be higher for the white doctor.
And so, all that being said, my point is to answer your question.
So, I have friends in my arena who would say this is a prejudice, but not what the Bible defines as a sinful prejudice that's arbitrary, that's capricious.
It's a prejudice that's rooted in pattern recognition and statistics and the order of morals and natural affections and good biblical reasoning.
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 Metals, 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 Medals for making today's video possible.
Carving Up The Pie00:15:55
Now, I actually do differ with these individuals, and you and I would differ on this as well.
I would say that a Clarence Thomas, for instance, who I think is right now one of the best of the Supreme Court justices.
However, I admit that the bar is fairly low for that.
But I would look at someone like that and say if you are a heritage black, right?
So not a Nigerian who came here last week, not a Haitian, but a heritage black and qualified, you are intelligent, articulate, and Christian and married and all my other qualifications, net positive.
Then I would say that someone like that would be able to vote.
But with my policy, going back to the third generation and marriage and all these other conditions that I include, and knowing what we know about the black community in general as a whole, just from the criminal record or the net positive tax paying or this, that, and the other, it would effectively be a disproportionately majority, vast majority white voters.
So a black like Thomas would be a full fledged citizen and voter, whereas A white person who was not a professed Christian would not be.
In my conception of Christian nationalism, much to your chagrin, yes, my answer would be yes.
Well, see, my emphasis, of course, is race.
And to me, I think Thomas is an admirable person, but he is not part of my family, my larger extended family.
We are biologically closer to all white people in the world than we are to any other non white person.
And when you were talking about the biblical affirmation of a number of things, and you said mentality or kinship, something that suggested kinship.
Natural affections.
Yes, natural affections.
Exactly right.
We have natural affections for people to whom we are genetically related.
And the most obvious example of that is our family.
You love your children more than you love the children of anybody else in the world.
That doesn't mean you dislike anybody else's children, and you can be very fond of other people's children, but your children come first.
That, to me, is an almost perfect example of how healthy people feel about their race.
They needn't be hostile to people of other races, but in fact, they can be very fond of individuals of people who are not of their same race.
But as an entity, my race is my family.
So that is where I would draw the line.
To me, that's more important than whether you're a Christian or not a Christian.
I think that if white racially conscious white people who want to live together, they can be Christian, not Christian, they can be pagan, they can be agnostic, they can be atheist, they can have no interest in religion at all.
I believe that if we start already carving up the pie in terms of, okay, they've all got to be Christian or they can't be Christian, there's some people who would say that, then we are already creating division where there need not be division.
So long as we all agree on the necessity.
Of saving our family.
That to me is what counts, and we can live with familial differences, with differences within the family.
Now, as far as the United States is concerned, people do talk about it as being a Christian country, and there is reason to say that.
But as I recall, at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, a deist of all people, at the very first meeting, he proposed that the proceedings open with a prayer.
And that was never adopted.
He proposed that a clergyman be hired to come and open with prayer.
And so far as the historical record is concerned, no prayers were ever publicly uttered at the Constitutional Convention.
And also, if you look in the Constitution, there is an oath of office of the President of the United States.
It has always said, I swear or affirm.
It always granted the option of a president not wishing to swear.
That suggests to me that he didn't necessarily have to be a Christian.
And furthermore, the official wording of the oath.
In the Constitution to this day, does not have so help me God as part of it.
And historical record suggests that up until Lincoln, Lincoln spontaneously added so help me God, although Lincoln himself was not a particularly devout or emphatic Christian.
And since that time, it's become traditional to say so help me God, although Teddy Roosevelt apparently did not say those things.
And the in God we trust did not appear on currency until I think it was 1957, 1958, something like that.
So I think you could argue that the conception of the original founders was not one of exclusive Christianity, whereas the very first Congress that met in 1789, brand new country, got to figure out a whole lot of things.
How are we going to make this country work?
Who's going to be an American?
It specified that naturalization was going to be available only to free white persons of good character.
That suggests to me that there was no religious test, but there was a racial test.
And so, not just for practical reasons, I think, as far as white people are concerned, if we are facing extinction, we need to help each other as much as we can, Christian or not Christian.
And so, not only do we need numbers, but also I think you could argue that from the founding of the United States, although it was predominantly Christian, many Christians, it was not and certainly was not explicitly, exclusively Christian.
Yes, so I agree with all of that.
It depends, you know.
Like you specified, the founding of the United States, thinking 1776, thinking about the Constitution.
So, we're talking about the latter 1700s onwards.
If we're looking at the 1600s and certainly the late 1500s, thinking of the 13 colonies and looking at certain state constitutions, like Maine, then at that point, I think that it was much more explicitly Christian, much more.
So, thinking about the Puritans.
But I agree with you.
If we're looking back to the latter 1700s, I would have no argument or dispute with you over the history.
I would simply look at it and say, that's what I would call a rare founder's L.
I think they messed up.
But this is what I want to do, real quick.
But I agree with you on the history.
I would just view that as a mistake.
But what I think would be fascinating if you would be willing to answer this question, kind of almost like playing a game, a hypothetical experiment.
All right.
All right.
If we, let's say this, just hypothetically, let's say that Jared versus Joel gets to be king starting now.
And in your conception, Let's say that, like, starting now, so not going back, you know, but from here moving forward, because we can't change the past.
We're trying to solve for the future.
If starting now in January of 2026, if you were able to determine the rules and persuade everyone, you know, at least the vast majority to agree with you, and your conception of the requirements for both office and voting citizens were put in place versus Joel, same scenario, now I get.
To be the one who's in charge, and I'm able to persuade a vast majority of the country in the same way with my criteria.
Which one, and let's also, one more piece let's say that we also were able to achieve 100 million deportations.
So instead of 59% white, let's say that we're sitting around 80% white country, and there's going to be, in your conception, in your scheme, some denaturalization.
They're not going to be mistreated or.
Exploited or hated, but they would not be voting citizens and certainly would not be able to hold office.
And then, same with me, the deportations happen.
And so, it's about 80% white country.
And so, you have your criteria of who gets to vote.
I have my criteria of who gets to vote moving forward.
Which one devolves into a third world hellhole faster?
You mean whether requiring that the voters be Christian or not?
Well, no, no, all my criteria.
So, I would say, in some sense, even more than the Christian peace, which that's a big one for me.
I'm a Christian nationalist after all.
Yes, yes.
So let's boil it down even more specifically.
Your peace, white voters.
My peace, no, no, no.
Female voters.
I think that the original Constitution was not a bad idea.
Okay.
And the original conception, you had to be a property owner, you had to be a man.
Okay.
So you would hold to that.
You would hold to a male.
Well, don't hold me to this publicly.
Okay, okay.
But certainly a restrictive franchise, I think, is 100% legitimate.
Good.
I've sometimes suggested that there be a very stiff test, for example, of politics, economics, and history that you had to pass in order to be a voter, in addition to all of these other qualifications.
But no, the idea of one man, one vote, one goofball who has a vote that counteracts that of the most incisive person in the whole country.
This to me is a very silly way of trying to run a country.
It's just nuts.
And the fact that every single Western country has devolved down to this lowest common denominator.
The word lowest common denominator, to me, the key word is lowest.
Why do we want the lowest?
Really?
Why do we want the lowest?
No, that's a terrible mistake.
Well said.
Okay, so I agree with much of that, the higher, the 30,000 foot view of that concept.
Basically, what I was getting at in posing that hypothetical is just to say, and I think that you would probably largely agree.
That if we could get, you know, with deportations, and I don't think it's going to happen, but if it did, and we could kind of repeal back to the Hartzeller Act, for instance, or close to it.
So not just the Biden admin.
I mean, we had millions and millions, both legal and illegal.
But not just going back four years or five years.
That's not enough.
Heaven's yes.
But let's say we.
We're like 50-60.
Correct.
So let's say we could go back 50-60.
Yes.
Be, you know, 80-85% white.
I guess what I'm trying to, you know, I pose it as a question, but I'll just make it.
The statement, because I obviously have a statement that I'm making.
I think that with an 80% white America, that if women were permitted to vote, that if in mind, if it's 85% white, if we allowed for 15% of non whites, but heritage in the sense of at least three generations and they're Christian, they could vote versus 50% of this population, 85% white, 15% non white, but 50% across the board women voting.
I feel like that scheme would devolve into open borders and those kind of faster than mine.
I think certainly women are by nature.
Compassionate.
Leftist.
Yes.
The way I describe it in almost shorthand terms is that women evolved as the central figures of the one human unit that really does always operate from each according to his ability and each according to his need, which is Marx's phrase.
And that's the family.
The family has to operate that way.
And women, as the key member of that unit, I believe that they are naturally compassionate, naturally caring.
Naturally willing to devote themselves to the weak.
And for that reason, that makes them more manipulable by people who really are outside the family, who are outside our natural purview.
And so I agree 100% that the more women have power, the more you are likely to devolve in that direction.
No question about it.
Great.
Yeah, we agree.
And I love the way that you phrased it, Jared, because we don't hate women, right?
People say, Are you a misogynist?
And I'll say, I'm not a misogynist.
I am a sexist.
In the technical sense, I believe there are two sexes and they're dynamic.
They're different, of course, but I'm not a massageist.
I don't hate women.
I love women.
But because I love women, precisely because of that, not despite it, I want the women that I love, particularly my wife, my daughters, the women in my life, I want them to thrive.
And everything you just described about women, you did such a good job with that.
None of those are liabilities.
No, they're wonderful.
If in the proper context, in the context of the family, if you have a child with special needs.
Right, you don't say, Oh, well, you know, one of the children is a quadriplegic, so um, I guess you know, they only get one meal a day instead of three.
Well, that would be atrocious, you know, and no woman would ever allow it.
But when you put her in a supreme court judge position and she's looking at the whole and she considers the whole world now, her family, well, it's just it's not sustainable.
No, um, there is a definite difference between the sexes, and I've always been astonished at the utterly unbelievable things we're supposed to believe about women in the last few decades.
There was a time when many white people in the United States had no direct contact with black people.
And it was very easy for them to believe everything they'd heard about black people, namely that they're just like us.
And the problem is all of those wicked southerners who've been mistreating them.
And if only we Minnesotans or we Vermonters had a chance to treat them the way they deserve, they'd be just like us.
It was possible to believe that.
And so people passed laws on the assumption that blacks and whites are exactly the same, their average intelligence is the same, their propensities to commit crimes are the same, their ability to control themselves or think in terms of the future, all of those things are identical.
I believe there are overwhelming arguments to say that they are not identical in that respect.
Now, I think that the American experiment has proven that this egalitarian notion is wrong.
However, when it began to be fashionable to say, well, women are just like men.
Their desires, their aggressiveness, their sexual appetites, their instincts, all of this.
You know, there are a few irrelevant biological differences.
But basically, fundamentally, they're the same.
And every difference is one that's just been socialization.
It has nothing to do with their nature.
I remember thinking, what in heaven's name?
Everybody's got a mother.
A whole lot of men have got sisters.
And they're supposed to grow up believing that by nature men and women are the same, more likely to have unbiased and coldly logical decision making in the face of crises, you name it, more likely to go to war, just as a killer instinct in the trenches as men.
This is utterly preposterous, utterly preposterous.
Finding Necessary Allies00:05:23
But this just goes to show you the kind of insanity that we are forced to believe.
As I say, I don't like to publicly take positions, say that women should be deprived of the vote.
Again, I like to look for unity whenever possible.
I don't want to scare white women away from some sense of racial solidarity.
And I suspect that it's impossible to make a trade-off of this kind.
But if a white ethnostate were to emerge only because women could vote on the same criteria as men, then that is a trade-off I would be willing to make if it were not to happen, as opposed to it not happening at all.
Now, again, this is an imaginary situation that would never come up in practical terms.
But again, in order for what I want to take place, for whites to regain control of their destiny, there have to be a whole lot more of us who think the way we do.
And for that to happen, I don't want to be carving up who is white or What is the white polity going to be like?
I hesitate to make those decisions in advance because I don't want to drive off potential allies at a time when we need so many more allies, if you can understand my approach to this.
I understand and I'm sympathetic.
I'm partially sympathetic because I know by way of experience you can only die on so many hills.
When you're fighting against a cultural milieu or when you're fighting against.
False doctrines, for instance.
There's a reason, for instance, there's a reason why all the historic Christian creeds can be almost, you know, the Nicene Creed's a little bit longer, the Apostles' Creed is shorter, but can be almost written in ink on the palm of your hand.
Because what they're saying is that when it comes to premier issues, you can't have 4,000, you can't have, you can value 4,000 things, you can have 4,000 values, but you can probably only have four or five priorities.
So, there are many things that we value, but you cannot prioritize.
If you prioritize everything, you prioritize nothing.
And so, I understand that for your purpose and what you're trying to accomplish and what you've devoted a lot of your life to, you're saying, I am going to be, you know, like I experience extreme pushback and opposition and be called a racist and be called this.
And because this issue is so near and dear to your heart, you're saying, okay, I.
It's one thing to have a barrage of oppositional fire on this issue.
If I expand and say, and I'm also going to fight for male only vote, and then I'm also going to fight for this, that, the other.
And I say I know this somewhat by experience because I've kind of gotten into the trenches on biblical patriarchy.
I've gotten into the trenches on not a race essentialism, but like a race realism is probably the way that I would describe it.
And I've gotten into the trenches.
With an anti Zionism kind of position and picking three hills, man, I get shot a lot.
The way I put it is you can't afford to be a crank on more than one question.
And my message has to do with race.
And if someone is looking for reasons to disagree with me, and then he finds, oh, and this guy thinks this about women, or he thinks this about Jews, or he thinks this about abortion or euthanasia, whatever some divisive question is, he thinks this about Christianity.
I don't want to be easily dismissed.
So I try to stick to my lane.
I can have private preferences on many things.
But I think that I have been successful to the extent that I have been successful by sticking to a fairly easily grasped idea.
And that is that people of different races don't end up building the same societies.
Races are not equivalent.
You can't swap out white people and swap in Asians or Somalis, Africans, and get the same country.
Not at all.
And that, as I like to put it, we as white people have the right to be us, and only we can be us.
It's a pretty simple way of putting it.
And so long as I stick to that basic message, I am unlikely to cause the kind of disagreement that diminishes our numbers in what is to me the most crucial and important battleground in the last, who knows, 5,000 years.
And that's why, to me, it is a pity when people draw lines and say, well, okay, if they're not Christians, white men, they're just not going to be part of the part of the show.
They can't vote.
They can't run for office.
Well, this brings me to a different question, though.
I mean, you certainly know the Bible far better than I, and you're going to slap this idea down with no difficulty whatsoever.
Creedal Christian Nationalism00:11:38
But didn't Jesus himself say, my kingdom is not of this world, and all this render unto Caesar, etc., etc.?
Could you not, based on the New Testament at any rate, say that Christianity is essentially a private Decision that it is not necessarily a basis for legislation, except perhaps for the Ten Commandments.
So, you certainly could say that, and Lord knows that many, many have, especially as of late, recently.
What I would say, just to answer the question, is I would say that Christianity is deeply personal, but I would bifurcate a distinction between a personal faith that must be personal versus a private faith.
So, I would say that Christianity must be personal, but also must be public.
I would say that Jesus is.
Lord of the public square.
So, the final thing that Jesus says when he's about to ascend to heaven after the resurrection and be taken up into heaven, disappear before the clouds, he gives the great commission to go in and baptize the nations.
But he prefers it by saying that all authority has been given to him, not only in the 17th dimension, in some ethereal spiritual terms exclusively, but all authority has been given to me on earth and in heaven.
And when Jesus says that my kingdom is not of this world, what I would say is I would just distinguish that in saying that it is true that the kingdom of God is not.
Of the world in the sense that it does not derive the source of its power and authority by worldly means.
But to say that Christ's kingdom is not of the world is not the same as to say that his kingdom is not in this world.
And I would say that the little bit of leaven, thinking of some of his parables, that eventually over time, gradually and progressively works through the whole batch of dough, or the mustard seed that eventually grows into a great global encompassing tree, that Jesus, like the seed, that if it is to grow, first must die.
Be planted and buried and die.
That Jesus, he was buried and he did die, and that his church, the body of Christ here on earth, is growing into this great tree, and that that is precisely his purpose not just souls in heaven, but Christians on earth, a Christian kingdom here.
Is that any different from Quranic Sharia law?
In other words, according to the Sharia, civil law should be based on the Quran.
Would you go so far as to say that?
All civil law or criminal law in a Christian nation would be based on the Bible?
I would say that it's a vast distinction between Sharia law, certainly.
In part, one of the biggest distinctions is just the distinction between the Quran and the Bible.
The Quran is the Quran.
Okay, aside from the content, yes, aside from the content, but the idea is that all laws in a Christian society should be founded on the Bible.
Would that be your position?
Yes, but I would specify how.
So I would say that.
In the Old Testament, you have three primary divisions of the law.
You have civil codes, you have ceremonial laws that are done away with.
They've been fulfilled by Christ.
We no longer make animal sacrifices, certain hand washing rituals, certain temple practices.
So the ceremonial laws are done away with.
The civil codes, I believe, were belonging to that particular administration of Old Covenant Israel.
So, for instance, having a parapet around the border of your roof.
If somebody did not have a border around their roof, then they would be liable to certain.
Penalties if someone was injured and rolled off the roof, but it's contextual because they didn't have HVAC, they didn't have air conditioning, people slept on the roof during the warmer summer months, and so there was a need for that.
So, what I would say is that you have the three main divisions of the Old Testament law one is ceremonial, that's done.
If we put those in place today, not only does that not honor God, but in a very real sense, it actually is directly opposed to the sufficiency of Christ.
He's the final lamb, He's the final priest.
To reimpose the ceremonial codes is to say that Jesus wasn't enough.
So, that's certainly not the moral law.
So, ceremonial, civil, and moral.
The moral law, there are many moral laws, but I would say, summary, moral summary law would be the Decalogue, Exodus chapter 20, rooted in the Ten Commandments.
And then, what I would say is the civil codes that are given to Israel, that every single one of them was particular to Israel.
So, it's not a one to one ratio where you could take the civil codes and drop them wholesale in America in 2026 or some other country.
But I would say that all these civil codes, such as the example of a parapet around the roof of a house, that every single one of them was a direct cultural application that ultimately had its general equity.
The moral foundational impetus for that particular civil code could be tracked back to one of the moral laws, the Ten Commandments.
So I would say that not the civil, certainly not the ceremonial laws, Jesus is enough, not a one to one ratio, a wholesale drop of the civil codes, hundreds of civil codes, but the Ten Commandments.
I would want to say, yes, these 10 commandments are for all nations and all peoples.
And then it takes prudence and wisdom to look at the Decalogue, the 10 commandments, moral commands from God, and appropriately apply them in our place and time today.
That's what I'm saying.
Okay.
So the Old Testament, that in effect, you can pick and choose parts of the Old Testament that would apply today.
I mean, that's putting it in somewhat derogatory terms.
But for example, yes, stoning women caught in adultery, for example.
The other thing that strikes me is that there are so many questions that we have to face today for which it seems to me it might be difficult to come up with a Christian policy.
That's true.
That's very true.
Taxation, the size of government, what is the purpose of prisons?
Are prisons to punish or are prisons penitentiaries in which people are to make penitence and come out forgiven?
Right, rehabilitate or punitive?
Yes.
That's a great question.
Yes.
Also, oh, even, I don't know, I know that the Quakers believe that a Christian nation shouldn't even have an army, that we love our neighbors as ourselves, turn the other cheek.
Do not like the Quakers.
Not a fan of the Quakers.
I'm not.
Were they not Christians, would Quakers be deprived of the vote in your polity?
So, what I would do is these are great questions, and I'm going to answer.
And I know you're asking somewhat facetiously, but I'm going to give you an honest answer.
Only half facetiously, because the Bible is so full of different things that can and have been interpreted in so many different ways.
It just seems it's a difficult thing.
I mean, people will say, this is the only guide we need.
And I understand that conviction that's based on faith, but there's so many difficult things in that guidebook to interpret to apply to the world we live in today.
100%.
So I would say that I'm a Bible guy.
I love the Bible.
Biblicism, however, continues to prove to be.
Extraordinarily problematic, and what I mean by biblicism is the insistence of chapter and verse, chapter and verse, right?
So, I just recently, you know, and I got a lot of flack from this.
Um, I just recently had a debate with two individuals who both have a lot of followers in the Christian kind of sphere online.
Uh, both of them are YouTubers, one of them was a young black man named Avery, one of them is a white man named Ruslan who is in an interracial marriage.
His wife is black, and I've met her, she's a sweet lady.
Uh, but they were arguing.
For interracial marriage, and I was arguing against.
And I wasn't arguing against in the sense that I don't believe that it should be legislated.
I don't believe that there should be laws against it.
But I was, the thesis, I came up with a thesis, and they agreed.
So we both agreed on the prompt for the debate.
I was the affirmative.
And the thesis that I wrote was interracial marriage, while being biblically permissive or permissible, interracial marriage, while biblically permissible, Generally goes against God's ordinary slash normative plan for peoples, cultures, and nations.
So that was the prompt.
I was affirming that and they were denying.
And I got a lot of backlash, you know, probably in the comments and people watching the debate.
Probably nine out of 10 were saying, I can't believe Joel said that.
But my point in bringing that up is that so?
Is that so?
Nine out of 10 of your viewers and listeners thought that.
No, not so much my viewers and listeners.
I see.
It's because these two individuals.
Who I love.
I think they're Christians.
I disagree with them on this issue, but they're nice enough men.
Their following is combined collectively, the two of them is probably 10 times the size of my following.
So it wasn't just my listeners, it was a lot of their listeners coming to play.
But my point is, what the crux of the debate kept coming down to was biblicism, not bible.
I like bible.
I'm a Christian.
But biblicism, in other words, what they kept saying was, well, Joel, you're.
Effectively losing the debate, losing the argument, because you have yet to prove from chapter and verse explicitly from the Bible that this isn't God's normative plan.
And, you know, my point, I even said at one point in the debate, I said, there's not a chapter and verse in the Bible that says, thou shalt not drink water out of the toilet.
But we don't do it.
We don't need that.
Like God made us as rational beings.
There's natural law.
There's all these different things.
And so, all this back to your questions, I would say that what a lot of Christians, it actually, it betrays, I think, a distasteful motivation.
A lot of Christians, perhaps subconsciously, they don't even realize it, but there's a, there's a, And apathy and laziness.
That part of the reason why they just, you know, what I would call low IQ Christian nationalism is that they want the Bible to be the handbook because they don't want to do the hard work of prudence and wisdom and thinking about how things work.
So I want the Bible to be the foundation, but I don't believe that the Bible somehow removes the necessity for prudence and wisdom and application.
Of the scripture.
So, all that being said, back to the Christian thing, Quakers, would they be a part of this deal or this and that and the other?
What I would say in simple terms is the Christian nationalism that I want to see take place would be creedal, not confessional.
Creedal meaning I would want to see the Constitution as is.
I would like to revisit some of the latter amendments after the first 10.
But other than that, the first 10 amendments I like, the latter amendments I would want to revisit.
The rest of the Constitution is beautiful.
And then I would want to adopt a preamble to the Constitution, not a confession, Westminster Confession, that's 90 pages and very specific and would say, well, this Christian's in and this Christian's out, but something creedal that would include Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, like the Apostles' Creed, that does what I see as a failure of the founders, because you're right, Jared, they did not explicitly name the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rehabilitating Ancestors00:15:22
And I think they should have.
I could be wrong about that, but that's my perception.
And then when it comes to laws and these things, like you said, a woman being stoned, just to answer that question for the listener, I would look at all these specific moral laws in the Old Testament, and some of them being civic laws, civil codes.
And I would say that the ones that specify the death penalty, according to the Noahic covenant in Genesis chapter 9, there's actually only one crime, not only a sin, but it's also a crime, that merits or mandates even capital punishment, and that is the taking of someone's life.
In the case of adultery or the case of breaking blue laws, which we had on the books here in America for quite a long time, Sabbath laws, Or blasphemy laws, or these kinds of things, wherever the death penalty is mentioned, I would see that as that would be a maximum penalty.
So in the state of Texas, you know, you see signs, don't mess with Texas, littering, you know, $2,000 fine or five years in jail.
And I don't know about you, but I don't have any, I don't know anyone who's doing a hard time in prison right now.
It's like, man, I've been here three and a half years, 18 more months to go.
I threw a Coke bottle out the window.
And so what I would say is for repeat, incessant offenders, homosexuality, for instance, Not police going into private homes, but if someone is trying to indoctrinate children, they're writing paraphernalia, they're leading parades that are grotesque, egregious, where people are nude, they've done it again and again and again and again.
They've received certain fines, certain penalties, they've been told to cease and desist.
It's been years, they continue.
Then, yes, it could raise all the way up as a maximum penalty to that point.
So, that's how I look at the Old Testament.
I know you would disagree, but just to answer the question.
So, for the same, the same would be for blasphemy and adultery, for example.
Repeat offenders could theoretically face the death penalty.
Theoretically, a repeat offender could.
Well, the fact of the matter is, I am a great fan of the death penalty.
And there was a time when a number of states passed three strikes in your outlaws.
And the idea was after three penalties, your third felony conviction, you were going to have life in jail.
Well, that certainly cut down the crime rate, but it also made the jails overcrowded.
So they released, they stopped doing that.
And now you hear about these people who have committed murder or some other harm.
Hainous crime.
Career criminals.
What an oxymoron.
Yes, yes.
With 40 convictions, 40 arrests.
What in heaven's name is that?
I would bring back three strikes and you're out, but I would say give them the death penalty.
I am not stingy with the death penalty.
I think the idea we've got to feed and house and medicate and clothe these people until they're 80, 90 years old, put them on dialysis when they're sick, this is nuts.
I want them not just out of society, I just want them off the planet.
Now, that may sound harsh.
That may sound brutal.
But I'm not opposed to the death penalty.
But I don't base it on biblical grounds.
I base it on practical grounds.
Why want these people out of the society, out of the gene pool, never to be heard of again?
And for me, I would base it on both because I agree.
It's painfully practical, very much based on reason.
There was a guy, R.J. Rushdunay.
Oh, yes.
I've heard of him.
Yes.
Yeah, he was a theonomist.
And I would be in that camp with some distinctions, but I would describe myself as a general equity theonomist.
So again, Not a wholesale one to one ratio of civil codes, you know, in 2026 America.
All the distinctions that I've already laid out.
But I appreciate him very much.
I think he was courageous and he did a lot of good things.
And he was, as the kids say, he was based, you know, he spoke about interracial marriage.
He, you know, he got the charge of being a kinest and those kinds of things.
He also got the charge of being a Holocaust denier, you know, and he was just, he was of an older mindset and not so.
Indoctrinated by the modern post war consensus and those things.
And so I really respect that individual.
And he, in biblical terms or really spiritual terms, Christian terms, he said, very much like what you just said, Jared, in terms of the death penalty, he said that there's a certain person who's at a certain point has committed so many crimes and of such a heinous nature that in order to do true justice, it's beyond our human capacity.
And so therefore, we should immediately transfer them to a higher court.
I like that.
That's how he said it, yeah.
Yes, send them to the Supreme Court.
That's right.
No, I like that.
I'm going to have to trib that line.
That's a good one.
Yes, that's very good.
But, well, I suppose our real fundamental disagreement, yours and mine, is the idea that in this otherwise quite healthy society, in which you would have only a very small number of non whites, that a white person who does not profess the Christian faith would not be a full citizen.
Again, I think that's unnecessarily divisive.
Now, I find it interesting that, in your view, Catholics are okay.
Are Mormons okay?
Are they Christians too?
Are you the Eastern Church?
That's fine.
Right.
So, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant would all be able to affirm the historical creeds, whereas Mormons and Jehovah's Witness, if you could ask them to their face, and they would be honest and say, no, we deny the Apostles' Creed.
They believe that Jesus is the first created of all beings.
Likened to the Archangel Michael, but they do not believe that he is.
All the historic creeds believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
Yes, not of similar substance, but the same substance, and that he is eternally begotten, not made.
And so that would set them apart outside of the historic Christian tradition.
Okay, well, I guess I'd just have to club with the Mormons then.
The fact is, I've known a number of Mormons, and I've never found them to be these weird people.
Oh, they're sweet people.
Yeah, they're sweet people.
If we're talking about who's in my church, Mormons couldn't be in my church.
But if you're talking about, well, Joel, which neighborhood would you like your family to live in?
A Mormon neighborhood would be a very safe, happy neighborhood.
Yes, it would.
Of course, you know, Mormons have a kind of clannishness too.
They don't go on welfare because if you come on rough times, then the Mormon community reaches into its pocket and makes sure to tide you over.
But the Mormon community is also very careful to make sure that you're not a freeloader.
I think it's very much that kind of community approach.
Approach to the difficulties that some people inevitably run into, that's much, much, much healthier than getting the government involved.
You said earlier something that I didn't take the opportunity to applaud as much as I should have at the time, but you criticized Americans for their excessive individuality.
I think that really is a terrible thing.
People get cocooned off in their little world and they care about me, me, me, me, and maybe my girlfriend.
And every now and then, oh, I might have children too.
But this kind of individualism, that's just a dead end.
We are all part of. things much larger than ourselves.
And that's another thing that I try to emphasize to my fellow white people, Christian or not.
And that is that you're not in this all by yourself.
You're not in this just with your own family.
You're in this with millions of people, not just here today, but all the millions who went before and built this wonderful, wonderful civilization of which we are a part.
But I just wanted to approve of your emphasis that we are not atomized individuals and that this is a real stumbling block to any kind of success for our people.
Amen.
Well said.
Well, Jared Taylor, thank you so much for coming on the show.
It's been a pleasure talking to you.
And I know that you have thought about these things for many years, much longer than I have.
I've become, again, not racist.
I don't hate anybody, but I've become racially conscious, I would say, probably in the last year and a half or so.
Oh, well, good.
It's a more modern development for me.
And so I want to say thank you for your work.
Although we have disagreements, I appreciate your courage, your willingness to talk about these things.
And maybe as a last thing, one, let our listeners know where to follow you.
But also, like I said, my development is recent.
I'm really curious for someone who's been in this world as long as you have, you would know, and I would not be aware, but you would know can you, with your fingers on the pulse, can you detect a change?
Would you say that America, that white people are becoming more racially conscious?
Do you think that there's a shift happening?
Unquestionably, unquestionably.
I've been doing this for 35 years.
And as I've said many times before, Oh, up until perhaps 10 years ago, for the first 20, 25 years, it seemed as though I was really a voice crying in the wilderness, that if anything, I was just making a record so that if some future historian wanted to piece back what happened to the white man, gosh, he was doing pretty well for a while, and then he disappeared, what happened?
That somebody might find evidence that not every one of us was a fool or a coward.
That's the way I felt.
I'm just making a record for future historians.
Now, I don't feel that way at all.
I think it is part of a project.
Young people in particular, they see what's happening.
They realize that if their generation doesn't take certain steps, then we're finished.
We're finished.
The white man and everything he created, all of his culture, all of his civilization is just going to go down the tubes and it'll be over.
So, no, I'm much, much more confident, much, much more optimistic than I've ever been since I started this business.
But if I may ask you, if we've got enough time to do this, What is it over the last year and a half that did change your mind?
What gave you a racial consciousness?
Yeah, so a number of things.
One, reading history and being posed with the very real decision that I would either have to condemn all my Christian fathers as terrible men.
And so, as I became, ironically, as I became more theonomic and more feeling more of a moral obligation to abide by the law of God.
The fifth commandment specifically to honor thy father.
I always thought, you know, children should obey their parents, and the Bible says this.
But as I started reading, you know, some of the older reformers, for instance, and all their many applications of the fifth commandment, you know, Matthew Henry, for instance, or Thomas Watson, rather, he argued the fifth commandment has several applications.
There's the familial father, there's the civil father, there are spiritual fathers, there are ancient fathers.
And he uses, when he says ancient fathers, he uses as an example, he says, Without equivocation, without apology, you know, this was before, you know, the 1960s as he's writing.
And so there was no need for the political correctness.
But he's in the case of ancient fathers and what it means to honor them.
What an honorable man, that Constantine.
He was very zealous for the things of God, the way that he defended the Christian church.
And should we not honor him, you know?
And so as I became more inclined with the law of God, also with looking at history, European history, American history, and particularly the history of Christendom, and go all the way back to King Alfred and even.
Constantine, I started, it became a moral issue for me.
I started to feel a real sense of guilt that I had inadvertently perhaps, but that I had sinned against my fathers, that I had subtly, in so many ways, by just drinking the Kool Aid and going along to get along, I had indicted and accused and ridiculed all my Christian fathers and realizing and seeing what they had done in the past and looking at where we are now.
And I finally came to the terms, I realized I'm the lesser son.
Of former sires.
And I should probably, the Bible speaks to, you know, let no man think of himself more highly than he ought, but each man should view himself with sober judgment.
And we don't want to be overly self depreciating, but, you know, don't view yourself lower than you actually are, but also not higher.
And I started to put myself in proper place in history and looking at my former fathers and realizing these are, in every regard, they're my superiors.
And so then what am I logically going to do?
Am I going to say, Well, they were better on protecting the life of the unborn.
They were better, more humane.
They were more compassionate.
They were more zealous.
None of them were going to brothels and they didn't have pornography and they didn't have all these.
They were better in every regard.
And what I would have thought, I didn't really think about it much at all, but subconsciously, what I was essentially assuming is that prior generations were morally superior to me and my generation in every single arena except.
Except one.
Except one.
And then I thought, well, what's more logical?
Like, what's more likely?
Could it be perhaps that they were just better all the way around, and that in this one arena, I've also been hoodwinked, you know, like just all the other ones?
So that was a big change for me.
I've never, ever heard anyone who described his arrival at racial consciousness in that fashion.
It's almost as if it was a logical consequence of rehabilitating your ancestors.
What an interesting, interesting idea.
And if I may chew in a little bit more to your time, more than no doubt was allocated to me.
I would say that my justification for opposing interracial marriage, I would not forbid it because I do believe in complete freedom of association, but to me, a healthy, self-affirming person wants to continue what is best and even merely essential in himself.
And if I, as a white man, have a child that is not white, I've turned my back on generation after generation after generation that married their own kind.
I think it's entirely natural, normal, and healthy to want one's grandchildren to look like one's grandparents.
That this is a kind of a loyalty to a tradition, not just a social tradition, but in fact to a biological condition, a biological tradition.
And those who are positive about themselves will want what is essential to themselves to be reflected in their descendants and their descendants' descendants.
So that's my view on interracial marriage.
Yeah.
Exclusive NXR Series00:03:21
But anyway, well, thank you for allowing me to go over the allotted time.
No, this was great.
Thank you for being generous with your time.
Last thing so, where can my listeners, if they want to read something or follow something, where do they go?
The website that I've been running for decades now is American Renaissance, and it is reachable at amren.com.
Also, I have gotten myself back on to X.
I was booted from Twitter in 2017.
And never let back on.
And so, for the first time, I'm in violation of the terms of service because once you've been booted, you're not allowed back on unless you're invited back on.
But I just barged back on.
And if people are interested in my daily musings, I'm at RealJarTaylor on X.
So, thank you very much for this invitation.
I enjoyed our conversation very much.
You're very welcome.
God bless you.
We appreciate it.
Up to date, NXR Studios is the only right wing media company to produce a 10 part in depth series with Nicholas J. Fuentes.
And within a week and a half of uploading this series to Patreon for early access members and accruing almost 3,500 people interested in watching the series, Patreon completely deactivated our account without giving us a single warning.
Now, this is the part of the show.
Where most content creators would come out and beg for support.
They direct you to their GoFundMe or Gumroad or something like that, saying, We need you, the listener, to rally behind us and give your charitable donations to keep us in the fight.
But that's not what we're here for.
See, NXR Studios, our purpose for existence is not to be sheltered and protected by our listeners, but rather to shelter and protect you.
Our job is to be the frontline infantry that provides cover fire.
For you, the churchmen, the fathers, the blue collar worker.
See, we can afford to take the hit, but you shouldn't have to.
The real tragedy in all this is that some of you gave your hard earned money to watch this series in advance and it was taken down before you got to see all the content.
You were robbed by Patreon.
So, what are we going to do about it?
We're not only going to double down by making the series available on another platform, we're doing that, but we're actually going to triple down by making the full 10 part series absolutely free.
We're starting our own platform, NXR, where we'll be regularly providing valuable content exclusive for our members, including right now this 10 part series with Nicholas J. Fuentes.
And in light of Patreon's recent Jewish behavior, The first month for everyone who signs up is on us.
So go and binge watch the full 10 part series with Nick Fuentes and myself absolutely free first month by going to members.nxrstudios.com.
Again, that's members.nxrstudios.com.
Unity According To Flesh00:16:01
All right.
We hope that you enjoyed that, I think, incredibly fascinating.
Discussion between myself and Jared Taylor.
I was talking to him about his conception of white nationhood, white peoplehood, viewing ourselves as a collective.
And he, in preparing for that interview, he was probably equally fascinated and interested in my views.
He wanted to understand a little bit more me being racially conscious, but putting the primary emphasis in Christian nationalism rather than merely white.
Nationalism.
He wanted to see how that would work and where we might overlap and what the similarities might be and what the distinctions might be.
And I've said several times, I'll say again, in that regard, I would not be comfortable describing myself as a race essentialist.
I believe what's essential and what I'm using, the way I'm using the phrase there, is because I believe that religion is more important than race.
So I see Christian first, Christ first.
But I would feel comfortable, you know, even though a lot of people will slander and twist and pervert what I'm about to say and make it, you know, some kind of form of hatred and say that I'm a racist.
I would reject race essentialism, but I would accept race realism, an acknowledgement that race is a real category, that race is a biblical category, that it can be squared with scripture.
That there are distinctions among the races, and distinctions necessarily create disparities.
Nobody has to be happy about that, but that is inevitable and true.
And that there is a sense in which God's ordinary normative plan for peoples, cultures, and nations includes races, not just creeds, not just propositions, not just ideologies, but race as an extension of the family.
And that races ordinarily.
According to God's normative plan, we would live together.
And so I believe that the diversity we all as Christians should long for in the eternal state of heaven, every tribe, tongue, and nation, does not actually occur without some kind of racial preservation in the temporal realm here on earth.
If we blend all the races and all peoples here on earth, if diversity stops here, then diversity does not actually.
Occur in heaven.
So, I think that this is a perfectly permissible view, that it's not an immoral view or a view that includes some kind of sinful, unjustifiable hatred for whole swaths of other people.
I think it's undeniable.
It is, I admit, currently still outside of the Overton window.
And so, most people who are NPCs and simply have the chip in the back of their head are programmed in a certain way.
They can't help but hear these kinds of things and immediately indict.
The person who's espousing them as being sinful, as being hateful.
But that's simply not true.
So that's the main difference, I think, between Jared and I is that I simply am going to put a lot more emphasis on the Christian piece because at the end of the day, I am a Christian after all and a Christian minister.
But I think that one of the great problems and dangers is that.
Right now, this isn't the way that Christians have always thought, but currently, many Christians who share my emphasis of Christ first have been hoodwinked into thinking that in order to be truly pure in the Christian side of the equation, they must disclude any racial component at all, that they have to believe that race doesn't even exist.
We're one race, the human race.
We've all descended from Adam and Eve.
And that is true.
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
And then the second time with the flood, all descendants of Noah.
But we know that although we all share the same ancestral head with Adam and Eve and then Noah and his wife, I still, at the end of the day, when writing my personal will, when it comes to inheritance that will be given, I'm not writing every child in the world into my will.
I'm writing my biological children.
And so we still understand that although we share a common ancestry with Adam and Eve, there are still distinctions.
We think that when it comes to our inheritance that we give, we're not going to give them to everyone's children, we're going to give them to our children.
And so when we think of a nation, I think there's a component of a nation being in the extended family.
And that is more than simply blood and soil or people and place, lineage and land.
But it's not less.
It includes liturgy, religion, laws, loves, traditions, language.
These things are included when we think of nationhood.
But if we only include those things as a substitute and don't include at all lineage and land, people and place, then we're thinking about nations and peoples in a way that no one has ever thought about it before, including our Christian ancestors.
And we're thinking about nationhood in a way that the Bible.
Doesn't describe nationhood.
And so, in that regard, there was plenty of overlap between myself and Jared, and the main distinction was simply emphasis.
We both agree in a racial realism, and we both agree that Christianity is a positive influence in the world and that it matters.
The main distinction between our two views is simply what gets the greater emphasis.
For him, it would be white first, Christian second.
For me, it would be Christian first.
And that's the main difference.
Wes and Antonio, what do you think about the discussion?
I think it was a great interview.
Jared's obviously been doing decades worth of research and to commend him looking at crime statistics.
This is something he's written extensively about, knowing everything he knows, and in many ways feeling as though he was shouting into the void.
He used those very words himself to describe it.
He hasn't become bitter or jaded or angry or hateful.
He's really a cheerful old man.
And he said multiple times this isn't about hate, this isn't about just indiscriminate kicking people out or anything like that.
He's saying, I just, I love my people.
It's overflowed into, I want to care for these people that are quickly becoming.
A global minority.
And I think everyone should aspire to that, that as much as you know about the things that are wrong in the world, also aspire to be a jolly warrior.
And there's some senses in which Jared Taylor, long in the fight, decades in the fight, that he embodies that, a cheerful warrior who's trudged on and said, This is the one thing that I've made my mission.
And to your point, Joel, the emphasis, the race versus the Christian, what I want people to come away with this, because there's lots of people that tuned in for Jared and they've really never heard the Christian side of things, or they've never heard a Christian come out and defend the existence of nations, the reality of borders, the necessity of caring for your own race.
The beautiful thing, and you saw it as you guys agreed, probably about 80% agreement, is that Christianity is never opposed to natural duties.
The gospel never comes in conflict with your duty to your family.
There is no Christian ever that has said, well, I can obey God and my family starves, or I can feed my family and disobey God.
The duties laid out for us in the Christian religion are never to the detriment and the destruction Of our natural affections.
They're never to the destruction of our family.
And so very often you'll see there's not a dichotomy.
Well, I could care for religion, but I have to see my people destroyed.
Or I could care for my people, but religion wouldn't matter.
The two, grace and nature, come together and they elevate each other.
We have all these examples.
I think of Moses, Pharaoh, let my people go.
My people, the people descended from Abraham that have been given promises.
Paul in Romans, he says, I would be happy to go to hell.
For the sake of my kinsmen, that they would know Christ.
And he literally says, the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh.
So, Paul, I mean, think about that.
Like, if you over spiritualize that, it doesn't even make logical sense, right?
If the Apostle Paul was speaking in a spiritual category, my people according to Christ, according to faith, I'd be willing to go to hell for people who already are saved from hell.
That doesn't make any sense.
He's saying, I would be willing to go to hell if there was an allowance that I could take.
The place of my kinsmen according to the flesh, who currently are going to hell because of their unbelief and rejection of Christ.
Paul doesn't say that about Indians.
He doesn't say that about Ugandans.
He doesn't say that about Americans, for that matter.
He's saying that about his people according to the flesh, naturally speaking.
Let my people go like Moses.
I'm sure at that point that there were probably, it would have been the minority, but there were probably some Egyptians that had put faith after 10 plagues in Egypt and seen the power manifest of Yahweh that he was.
The true God, there were probably some that had actually, in a spiritual capacity, put faith in the God of Israel and made that spiritual conversion.
But Moses is not talking about letting them go because they're not in bondage.
He's talking about his people according to the flesh.
Let my people go.
Not spiritual Israelites, but natural Israelites.
And that was a good instinct guided by the Lord, nothing to apologize for.
And in fact, if it was missing, right, when does Moses begin to care in the first place?
He begins to care when he realizes his ancestry.
It's when Moses realizes that he himself is a Hebrew, right?
That he actually is not an Egyptian, but rather a Hebrew.
And he realizes that he comes from Hebrew parents, that that's the point where everything begins to change.
Moses was walking around watching Egyptians whip and beat their Hebrew slaves for years, for decades.
And he was watching it with ultimately a calloused heart, didn't really care one way or the other.
Then all of a sudden he finds out that he himself is a Hebrew.
Then he sees an Egyptian.
Beating a slave and he kills him.
He kills the Egyptian and then has to run away out of fear for his life.
Well, what was the change?
This is before the burning bush.
This is before he heard the audible voice of God.
This is before any of those things occurred, before any miracles had taken place, any manifest signs of the power of God.
This is simply Moses coming into just the knowledge of who his people were.
And all of a sudden, his affections change.
And that's a very natural, good, right, and ordered change.
Change of affection.
And he's commended in Hebrews for letting the prince, being a prince, go.
He lays aside all the riches of Egypt that could have been his.
He could have worshiped the true God as prince and lived a pretty luxurious life.
But he's commended as a father, as one who had faith for letting that go and being bound to his natural people.
And so the two are never at conflict.
Well, I could care about my people, I could care about my nation, I could care about my fathers, or I could care about the spiritual.
Come together, grace and nature.
And we recognize this so recently.
I think of Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings and the final scene in the Fellowship where Aragorn is comforting Boromir and he says, I do not know what strength is within my blood.
Already scary right there.
He says, But I will not let the white city fall or my people fail.
And at the very end, what makes him such an incredible king is that he actually brings together these two groups of people that don't really like each other.
And you could liken the race of men, the race of dwarves, the race of elves, not to be a little bit too nerdy, to different people sharing a common lineage that have their own sets of interests.
And what Aragorn does at the final end is they make their stand as he says, band together, not just Gondor, not just Rohan, but men of the West.
You people that I'm related to, that we share this common fate, let's come together and make our stand.
Everybody knew this.
I mean, that movie was filmed 26 years ago.
The Return of the King came out in 2001.
Just 25 years ago, everyone understood yeah, you can talk about the blood that runs through the line of kings, you can talk about caring for your people.
Now, nowhere in there was Aragorn like, I will not let our people fail, but the dwarves can suck it.
No, but I'm king of my people and I'm going to bring us together.
And that's what makes him such a good king.
And so I really liked what Jared had to say.
Great discussion.
Joel, as well, the pushback.
Thank you.
And, you know, 1 Corinthians 15, it does say the natural comes first and then the spiritual.
The spiritual is the highest and it is the ultimate.
And it is ultimately our final eternal state.
It is what we aim for being resurrected, not just with a new physical body, but a spiritual body like unto the Lord.
So the natural does matter.
But the spiritual is ultimate.
The spiritual is of infinite value, and it's what we will enjoy for eternity.
Right.
It's interesting, as you were talking about Moses being willing to give up his inheritance as a prince of Egypt in order to unite himself and identify with his people as a collective and say, These are my people and I speak for them.
Hebrews is using that as indicative even of Christ.
Christ is the better Moses.
Feels scandalous to say, so I need to say it carefully so that I don't cross over any theological boundaries here.
But God, the Godhead, the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who has loved his people before the foundations of the world were even laid, knowing who would belong to him, knowing whom Christ would die for, who would believe in him and trust in him and inherit eternal life, God has always perfectly loved us.
So it's not as though there was a lack of love on the part of God until the incarnation and Christ took on flesh.
So I'm not saying that.
However, Hebrews also, elsewhere in that letter, Speaks about Christ and his ability to be a merciful high priest on the basis of him taking upon himself a second nature, namely the human nature, and therefore being able to associate with humanity, being able to be an understanding high priest, being able to relate to us in our weaknesses, in our humanity.
So, even God, in other words, the second member, second person rather, of the Trinity, the Son, upon his incarnation, when he took on a human nature and shared flesh with us.
Shared the natural, the human nature, shared a nature with us.
Even the scripture speaks of that incredible miracle of the incarnation as one of the reasons why Christ is particularly merciful.
And so, even in the case of God, there's a sense in which the natural bond in the incarnation is what the author to the Hebrews, inspired by the Holy Spirit, cites as one of the reasons for his immense mercy.
Nations And Distinct Peoples00:10:18
Compassion and kindness towards us.
Yeah, and I would just say Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection fundamentally and preeminently eliminates the hostility between man and God, the creation and the creator.
But also, as a consequence of that, you can imagine these distinct peoples.
The consequence is also the elimination of hostility between the peoples, not a dissolution of them altogether.
It's still a real physical created category, but they can actually recognize their differences.
I think going back to the Lord of the Rings example, The dwarves and the elves and the men working together, though distinct, but also having eliminated the hostility in the face of a common enemy.
And that's sort of what we can recognize in Christ, both at the spiritual level, what he's done, but also at the physical level.
And this goes back to this idea because you'll get these accusations of, okay, when you're racially conscious, that makes you necessarily racist, or that means that your recognition of race as a category is generated by some antipathy.
And I think the only reason you'd ever use this word is to set yourself above someone or opposition or subjugate.
That's the only possible use we would have for this idea.
Yeah.
And I think in the Christian frame, you actually can reject that altogether and say, no, we can recognize the categories and not be motivated by antipathy, but actually motivated by a desire to be hospitable toward one another, to care for one another in the ways that we can, though we're distinct and in different geographies.
But that's the hope of the gospel.
And so it doesn't negate what Christ has done.
It actually is just simply another expression and a more obvious sort of physical expression.
Of what Christ has done for men.
Right.
Isaiah even speaks of, to your point, that there is a day that is coming where the nations will no longer know war.
What is not said is that the world will no longer know nations, but that the nations would no longer know war, that they would beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks, meaning that there would be an emphasis and a shifting to productivity rather than defense and fighting because the nations would be at peace.
But what the Bible never speaks of is a time where the nations would not exist.
They're still nations, they're still distinct, but what has ultimately, by the power of the gospel, dissipated is not nationhood itself, not distinct peoples themselves, but hostility among those peoples towards one another.
That's what the gospel does.
And we know that the gospel unites us in love for our fellow man, and it also unites people when it comes to the universal invisible church, the lowercase c, you know, holy Catholic church.
So that in the sense of the church, spiritually speaking, there really is neither Jew nor Greek.
But that does not say that every nation, therefore, has to be made up of its metrics, you know, an even percentage of 3% of these people and 3% of these people and three.
That's not what Galatians is speaking of.
That's not what Ephesians is speaking of.
It's speaking of that hostility among the nations towards one another to be broken down because we see one another as Christian brothers.
And it's speaking of the church collective no longer having.
A dividing wall, but rather being able to say that all people who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are spiritually speaking my brother.
But none of that, none of that says that nations in this temporal age would somehow dissolve and that therefore we shouldn't have borders and everyone should be able to live anywhere they want and be a part of any country that they want.
That's perverting the text.
Yeah, and you would also say that in Galatians, there's neither Jew nor Greek, the connotative meaning is obviously.
Spiritual because the metaphysical category wasn't destroyed.
Like there were obviously still Jews and Greeks in the early church.
They were still, you recognize the differences, you recognize the origin of nationality, but we can also say scripture is inerrant and infallible, and that is still true.
So, how is it true?
It can only be true in the spiritual sense.
Right.
Babel, you know, people say, well, Pentecost, right?
When all of a sudden these tongues of fire are resting above the 72 gathered in the upper room above their heads, and they are.
Supernaturally empowered by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel in different tongues from all the different people that were gathered in that region for that particular event, so that different peoples of different nations and different languages might hear the gospel in their own native tongue and comprehend and then be able to take the gospel back with them to kickstart the New Testament church.
People will look at that event in Acts chapter 2, Pentecost, and say, See, this is the reversal of Babel, right?
And Babel is where we have, you know, the table of nations, you know, with Genesis 10 and Genesis 11.
But, but, One of the things that's so practical and yet so quickly overlooked, but it's right there glaring you in the face God's confusion, original confusing and dividing of the languages at Babel was permanent, whereas Pentecost was temporary.
Notice that at Pentecost, this supernatural work of the Holy Spirit did not cause everyone to speak the same language, it caused a few to be able to speak different languages of the people who were represented.
Represented there at that time, and only able to speak those different languages for a very short period of time in order to accomplish the task at hand, which was to give those people in their languages to bring back to their nations and their kinsmen the truth of the gospel.
But everyone after Pentecost continued to speak different languages, and so too, 2,000 years now removed, that's still the case.
We have multiple nations and multiple different languages.
So it's the gospel going forth into the nations, it's not all the nations becoming one.
And coming into the gospel.
And so Pentecost is not a reversal of Babel.
Babel is a judgment from God wrapped in mercy to expedite what seems to be, by way of implication, God's plan all along that peoples would be fruitful, multiply, that they would spread out and fill the world.
And over time, in separating, peoples would differentiate based off of climates and different places, and different dialects would emerge that would devolve into different languages.
There would have been different.
People.
Some would live closer to the equator and some would live further.
People would have different appearances over time as the centuries and thousands of years went by.
Babel simply worked as a catalyst to get mankind to do what God had implicitly already written into the cultural mandate from the very beginning.
And what was happening at Babel before God came down and confused their languages is that man was rebelling against God both in pride, trying to make a name for himself, but also in just.
Blatant disobedience.
They literally said, Let us build a tower that stretches to the heavens that we might be as God and make a great name for ourselves so that we will not be separated, scattered among the earth.
But the cultural mandate from the very beginning was be fruitful and multiply and take dominion, go and spread out and cover the face of the earth.
So God intended for there to be different peoples and nations.
It would have happened naturally because man rebelled.
God caused it in an expedited fashion to happen supernaturally at Babel.
Pentecost was also a supernatural event, but it was a temporary supernatural event for spiritual purposes of disseminating the gospel and not a permanent reversal as Babel was.
Babel was a permanent confusing of the languages, whereas Pentecost was a temporary aligning of the languages, but where the distinctions very quickly came back into play.
That's how we should understand the script.
These are basic things.
And at a certain point, you have to realize when you're talking to someone, when something is so clear and so basic, You eventually have to ask the question.
It's not that you can't understand this, it's very clear that you won't.
There's actually a moral inhibitor.
This is not simply, oh, well, this person doesn't have the intellect to grasp the concept.
Because, again, people, including Christians, have never thought the way that we think today.
Never.
So that's where it begins to beg the question.
It's not as though we finally, for the first time in human history, have a moral generation.
I find that very hard to believe.
Considering that this is also the generation that in America alone murders a million babies in their mother's womb annually.
So that doesn't seem to fit as an explanation.
Well, you know, this is the first time people thought this way, but it's also the first time that we've ever had a moral upstanding generation, you know.
But everybody's a whore and everyone murders their babies and, you know, and people are strung out on substance abuse and, you know, but yeah, this is the first moral generation that's, no, that doesn't, that dog won't hunt.
So then the question is, like, well, maybe it's the dumbest generation that's ever existed and because everybody is, Is literally in a literal sense, you know, stupid.
Nobody can grasp the concept, but that's not true.
We have rocket scientists and surgeons and, you know, and this, that, and the other.
So then it really comes down to, oh, we're deceived.
This generation is particularly deceived.
There's some kind of incentive, whether it's just going along to get along, right?
Just being accepted in the current consensus, you know.
So whether it's the fear of man or whether it's this or whether it's that, there's some moral reason.
Some inhibiting moral reason for why people refuse to think clearly about this issue and instinctively will condemn anyone who's articulating the things that we are as though we're somehow wicked.
Contemplating Our Future00:02:59
And that is worth your contemplation.
That's worth giving some thought to.
Why?
What are the reasons?
Okay.
Yeah.
I just wanted to add one quick thing as it relates to the discussion, and just one other way you can kind of conceive of.
The distinctions between you, Joel, and Jared is the work of looking back into history and actually interpreting history, and in this particular case, American history.
It's difficult work to be able to discern okay, what made so we're going through this enterprise of the new Christian right, which is all about regaining something that was lost in Western civilization.
And you look back in Western civilization and you see it was predominantly white, but you also see it was predominantly Christian.
And there are so many other variables as well that you could argue led to.
To the greatness of the West.
And this is the work of looking back and saying, what was it exactly?
What was it per se?
What was it necessarily that made the West great?
And there's going to be people with altering perspectives on that.
Some people might say it was specifically the fact that it was a white civilization.
Some people will say it was only because it was a Christian civilization.
And you have to achieve at some point, as you look back in history, and no man is, we really are just men and we're not omniscient, you have to achieve some form of synthesis.
That you can project forward and say, this is what we need to achieve.
We learn from history.
We synthesize history and all of its variables in the West.
And we have to create some path forward, a positive vision for where we go.
And that's the work that's being done in discussions like this.
Yep, agreed.
Okay, do us a favor.
And right now, please subscribe on YouTube.
If you are watching us on YouTube, you need to subscribe and click the bell so you'll be notified with all of our content.
Same thing over on Rumble.
We take our super chats from YouTube and Rumble.
We have a super chat from Rumble today.
We're going to get to it in just a moment.
But subscribe on Rumble and click the bell so you'll be notified with all of our future content.
Last thing, make sure to follow us on X.
We broadcast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time simultaneously on YouTube, Rumble, and X.
So if you're following us on any of those three platforms, you will be able, if you subscribe and click the bell, to be notified to watch our episodes live as they are debuting.
On X, my handle is where all the video content comes out.
Again, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
My handle is at Joel Webbin.
At Joel Webbin.
So make sure to follow us on Twitter on X and click the bell there as well so that you are notified.
Here are our super chats for the day.
Let's go ahead and start with the first one.
Wes, I'll let you take it.
All right.
Let's hit our Rumble one first.
We know we're going to hit them at the end, but OSBoss52 sent $10 and said, I've been familiar with the guest for years.
Glad to see him on NXR.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Cool.
Awesome.
Go ahead, Antonio.
Phil Org, jumping now over to YouTube super chats.
Legal Liabilities For Marriage00:13:54
Phil Org sent $10 and is asking, how can we, whites, win over mixed race people to our side to sear through this left Democrat Party tactic of dividing America?
Perfect question for you.
Perfect question for me.
I would say mixed race people have no role.
No, I think going back to what you talked about, Joel, this.
These realities, I'm thinking specifically on race and nationality, these realities that are so evident or should be so evident that people, I think, mostly publicly refuse to deny.
I would argue that is mostly a social consensus.
I think in private, you'll be surprised to find people acknowledge distinctions between peoples and races and those sorts of things.
There's just a lot of pressure that precludes people from willing to be outspoken about those things publicly.
And that said, if we think about mixed race people specifically, it's been my experience, and some people could say, I'm mixed race, I disagree with you.
But it's been my experience, not only in my own life, but knowing other mixed race people, that it is something that is particularly felt the realities of race, the realities of ethnicity.
When you're drawn between two Two distinct cultures, you feel that.
You feel that imminently when you relate to one people and how you relate to another people on either side of your family, perhaps.
And so I think for them in particular, this liberal or postmodern conception, or really just the dissolution of distinctions between people, is an absurd thought to them on its face.
And I think even in that specific realm, you're going to have mixed race people predominantly siding with.
This is the more right wing conception of race, and so I think that that is an easy win.
I would say, more largely, though, it's really it becomes really difficult, I think, to win over just this mixed race specific people, specifically, they tend to like identify with one more than the other, and that's a product of you know how they grew up, whether they were more around their parents' family or their mom's family or dad's family.
So, it's I think it's really difficult outside of that to actually win people, if you want to call them white adjacent, whatever you want to call them, when people, I think, out you know.
By separating them from their sort of culture identification.
So it's a good question.
It's a tough question.
I think the jury's still out a little bit.
I would add, too, I mean, if 90% of the world is non white, so then you have a minority, this goes for anyone, mixed race, non white, there is a sense of common humanity that you can appeal to.
I mean, we just saw over the last five years, many American whites were very much so, they felt it when they heard that blacks were being hunted down by police and shot and killed in police shootings by the thousands, that just for being black, they were discriminated at their jobs and they were paid less.
And if those things had all been true, when we looked at the statistics, actually cops weren't shooting unarmed black men.
When we look at the statistics, it was white men that were being discriminated against.
But imagine it was true that these things were happening, and many people believed it was.
They very much so felt, even not being black themselves, there's an injustice going on.
And so part of it is just education.
Even if you're not white, you can look and say, hey, there's a group of people that are being killed just for being white.
There's a group of people, white women, that are uniquely vulnerable to attacks from other people and have been systematically exploited and groomed and assaulted.
There's a group of people that are not hired just for being male and being white.
And on that angle alone, you can say, it doesn't matter who these people are, but this is their identity.
And they have become a global minority.
They're being discriminated against.
People hate them literally just for the color of their skin, not the content of their character or anything like that.
There really is something that you can appeal to a reasonable person and they can say, yeah, even though that's not me, I'm not in that boat.
That's terrible.
I feel for that.
That sucks.
And I want to be someone who stands up and says, no, anti white discrimination is a terrible thing.
Well said.
All right.
The next super chat comes from Sarah Vincent.
And she says, Can you ask Jared, can you ask him his opinion on the gospel and race?
I know that his parents were missionaries and that he must have his own opinion.
Thanks so much.
I spoke to Jared Taylor at length on the phone before actually hosting this interview.
And those were some of the questions that I had for him.
To know behind the scenes before interviewing him exactly where he was on Christianity.
And yeah, he shared that with me that he has parents that were missionaries and grandparents as well.
And within his personal family tree, multiple Christian ministers.
And so he certainly comes from that line, that lineage of strong Christians in his family background.
And from what he expressed to me, he cares very much about Christianity.
It's kind of like what he said in the interview.
I think he is hesitant.
Now, obviously, this is one of the areas where I profoundly disagree, but I understand his position, although I disagree with it.
For his purposes, He wants to see white people not eventually go extinct.
And so he is trying to, because that's his main mission, he's trying to ultimately focus his attention on that common denominator.
And trying to, you know, he knows that if he's particularly known for Christianity or particularly known for a guy who wants to repeal the 19th Amendment, then, you know, then he might be able to win over whites who are Christians, but not.
Whites who are non Christians or whites who are male, but not whites who are female.
And so, because he has a broad focus, narrow in the sense that there's one hill that he's willing to die on, but broad in the sense of his intended audience wanting to be able to compel and persuade and win over as many white people as possible, he's trying not to narrow it any further than that.
In terms of personally, I don't think that that means.
At a personal level, in terms of his actual salvation, whether or not he is a Christian, whether or not he loves the Lord Jesus Christ, I don't think that that strategy that he's taken necessitates that he is not a Christian or that he doesn't love the Lord.
I think he's simply looking at his professional, public facing career, and it would be similar to, you know, there could be a strong Christian scientist, you know, or a strong Christian engineer.
Or a strong Christian, X, Y, and Z, fill in the blank, who, you know, in his public career, in his meetings with fellow colleagues, as he's doing, you know, certain lectures or presentations, he presents, you know, a bunch of different formulas for his engineering theory and doesn't include within his lecture half of it being a gospel presentation.
That's Okay, and that doesn't call into question whether or not that individual is a Christian.
So I think that the strategy that he's deployed in his public facing career, his public person, is one issue.
He wants to see white people and the global white population stabilized, and he wants to see white people thrive and not disappear.
And so he's trying beyond that to keep his message as broad as possible.
But personally, that's publicly, personally, there was nothing in my conversations with him that would give me any definitive sense that Jared Taylor is not a Christian.
Now, that may be the case, but nothing to my knowledge.
I interpreted the question more as asking how he feels as though the gospel interfaces with race and would potentially change or modify races.
We did an episode last year.
People loved it.
The gospel changes genetics.
Super simple title.
Who could disagree with that thesis?
But one of the arguments we made was that not in 15 minutes, not quickly, But over time, the Christian lifestyle, the gospel coming to a people, the lifestyle it brings with it, the care for the natural order, the way of living that doesn't include promiscuity and drug abuse and alcoholism.
Dietary restrictions.
Dietary restrictions.
All of those things, if race just means a common shared lineage, that there would get to a point that a people embracing the gospel wholesale would make them smarter.
It would make them healthier.
It would make them more peaceful.
It would make them more commodious.
And so that's how I interpreted the question.
We didn't get into that.
I will say, within the range of just race realism, there's guys, and I would think Jared Taylor, I don't think it would be unfair to him.
I think he would answer this as well.
There are some on the far end that they would say, I think it's actually pretty fixed.
So we know that IQ, for example, It's about 50 to 70% inheritable.
That means 50 to 70% of it, the bounds of it, generally on average, have been set.
But we would also say, hey, there's 30 to 50% that's influenced.
It's influenced by if you breastfeed.
It's influenced by if you're a victim of domestic abuse.
It's influenced by early education.
It's influenced by the quality of the nutrition that you get.
So we would say, hey, there's a good amount that's inherited and you can change by lifestyle.
Slowly.
Slowly over time.
I think guys like Jared would say, I would maybe place it more like 90%, 95% inheritable.
You can make small improvements by all these different things.
But broadly speaking, the bucket is relatively permanent.
That's a term I've used, some guys say, but he didn't get into it on the show.
I think that would be something similar to his view.
But yeah, I think you're right.
Okay, the next question comes from Beat, and he says For more people to be married, would you also advocate for dissolving spousal alimony, child support, courts favoring mothers over fathers with lies?
This is the real way for marriage to come back, as well as dismantling the courts of feminist ideology.
Yeah, we think that all that is absolutely vital.
I agree with you 100%.
Really appreciate the generous super chat, it means a lot.
But yes, we think that right now there are very little incentives.
And in fact, there are many liabilities, legal liabilities, towards those who choose marriage.
And so a healthy society would.
Incentivize marriage.
They would, you know, for instance, this is just hypothetical, but they might say that with each child, we're going to shave off a percentage of your property taxes.
You know, and if you reach a certain threshold, you wouldn't pay certain taxes at all because you have this many children, or the mother of, you know, six children, or maybe it's eight children, that she would be honored even publicly.
There would be some kind of celebration once a year where we honor the mothers within our society who have opted for having several children, and we give that a A place of deference and esteem.
And so there are things that can be done and must be done.
And if they're not, then yes, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't marry and now that you have an excuse.
But it does mean that there's a very clear, not excuse, but explanation for why young men are not eager to get married.
So these things have to be fixed.
I don't think it's only that, but it's certainly not less than that.
He left a second comment as well, another $10 super chat, just continued it and said, also, no fault divorce is the largest, the most important of all, is making covenant marriage normal and not having marriages dictated by the government.
And what I would add to that, so he mentioned spousal alimony, child supports, and courts favoring mothers.
I think all of those are downstream of no fault divorces.
So those are ways to partition money, partition support for the child, visitation after a divorce has already happened.
So the biggest thing to get rid of, I don't think it's child support or alimony or these things, the biggest thing to get rid of.
Is you being able to go to the courthouse and say, I want a divorce from this person, and I don't have to give a reason.
There should be clear, strict reasons.
We used to have them in this land.
I am requesting a divorce because my husband has been unfaithful and broken his marriage vows.
I am requesting a divorce because he is an alcoholic that beats me and the children.
If the majority of divorces were for those reasons, and then in the majority of those cases, the woman got custody because the man was a deadbeat, that's actually not a problem.
I would be okay with that as long as the reasons for divorce were themselves biblical.
So it's all downstream of it being easy to divorce.
And then we have these messy situations.
Well, how do I deal with child support?
How do I deal with the fact that he was the main breadwinner and she has no career?
How do I deal with alimony?
Who has visitation?
Those are real questions that should be answered.
But it's a lot easier to answer them when 98% of cases are taken away.
And the court looks at someone that says, We want to get divorced because we have irreconcilable differences.
And the court says, Pound sand and take a hike.
You took a vow to one another in front of God and in front of the civil magistrate.
Figure it out.
Unless there's something valid, we're not going to get involved in this.
We're not going to partition.
We're not going to take his money.
We're not going to give the kids away.
Stick in the house until you can afford to buy your own houses.
Yep.
It's this economic principle that the government taxes what it wants to deny and it subsidizes the things it wants to promote.
And you can see how these different policy prescriptions and the government being involved in this way has led through time, through the decades, so many scenarios, and we can all probably think of some in our personal life of just acrimonious divorces, acrimonious fights, battles over children.
Defining Kinism Strongly00:15:24
And not only that, but then in Hollywood too, you can look at sort of cultural projection of these things.
It becomes the norm and it destroys this ideal of marriage, in that the collective psyche's conception of marriage is one that.
Ultimately leads to this decay and ultimately leads to this acrimony.
Yep.
Okay.
The next question comes from the Edge Row Whistle.
Says, please distinguish or define race, biblical social order versus non religious nationalism and kinism in order to answer supremacy charges from people like Owen and Denning.
It's a good question.
We can do our best to do that.
Wes, why don't you start with this?
I have some thoughts, but I want to hear what you think, and maybe especially, I'd like to hear you define kinism.
Sure.
The way I would break down that difference so they asked race, biblical social order, one category, over and against non religious nationalism and kinism.
The two, if I was to actually steal man and honestly portray, I think the difference is that there were people that would say what makes a commodious society is race plus religion, people descended from a common ancestor sharing a religious order.
That's what makes a commodious society.
It's not just about I'm literally biologically related.
That would be, and there's guys like that.
And Jared Taylor himself said, neighbor could be a pagan white person.
My neighbor could be a Jewish white person.
My neighbor could be a Christian white person.
I just want to live next to a white person.
Whereas we would add to that and say, yeah, sharing a common lineage, sharing a history, those things matter.
But if you just literally have that and you're divided on morality and you're divided on religion, it's not enough to necessarily make a high trust society that we want.
So the one side, it's race, which matters.
Plus, religion, which ultimately matters.
The other side, some of them would just say, and it's just race.
And the religion could be this, it could be that, it could be shared, it could not be shared.
And that would be the definition.
Kinnism, as far as the definition that you asked for, Joel, the best way I would think of it would be to take our position, for example, on interracial marriage and go a little bit stronger and harder on it and just go as far as to say, it could be, or it would be in most cases, for example, a sin to marry someone outside of your race.
A lot of kinnists still do maintain the orthodox Christian confession.
So they would say, I would confess to Westminster, for example.
And they are very few and far between of people that actually call themselves that.
But for the most part, they would place a stronger emphasis on race than we would.
So that would be kinism.
And then what's the difference between someone like us and them?
Race plus religion, people, lineage plus God and Christianity versus all I've got is we share a common ancestor.
Yeah.
And I think also for answering this question, one thing that's important is understanding the way that guys like Owen and Denny would define kinism.
For them, when they're levying the charge of kinism, what they're asserting in their minds is that you are someone who is asserting that you cannot ever marry outside of your race.
You're somebody who believes that interracial marriage is actually.
In moral categories, inherently sinful, right?
In each and every situation.
And some of those guys would probably even assume further.
They would say that you're a kinist, and the fine print is AKA, not only do you believe it's inherently sinful or immoral, but you also probably believe that segregation should be legislated, that it should be law, that interracial marriage is not only a sin, but should be treated by the civil magistrate as a crime.
Right, not just a sin, but a crime, and it should receive certain penalties.
Um, the bad faith actors in this conversation, um, those are the things that they're really trying to convey.
Um, they're when they say you're a kinest, um, what they're really doing, a guy like Owen, to be honest, is what he really wants to say is you're a racist, but he just knows that that word has lost 2018 anymore, exactly.
Yeah, he just knows like if I call Joel Webbin a racist, then I'm gonna be you know, I'm gonna get dragged, I'm gonna be you know, made fun of because.
Uh, because the left has overplayed its hand, and you know, and Owen wants to maintain that he's a conservative.
You know, I'm not woke, and really, the only people who use the word racist are people who are woke.
You know, they're not just well meaning Christians who are conservative, no, like the people who levy that charge and use that term, you're a racist.
These aren't Christians, we all know these are radical, progressive, Marxist communists, right?
These that's that's who uses that kind of language, and so I think part of it is just a tactic.
Owen knows.
You can't really say racist anymore and still have your audience believe that you're meaningfully conservative in any way.
So, we had to come up with a new word that's not really.
Had to go fishing, find something from the past.
So, I'm going to say, you know, kinest.
But again, what guys like that mean when they say, well, he's a kinest, what they're saying is simply not what my position actually is.
They're saying this guy believes that interracial marriage is inherently sinful in each and every case.
He probably thinks that it should be a crime.
He probably thinks that segregation should be legislated, and it's just not true.
My position, I think that freedom of association should be restored.
I don't believe that segregation should be legislated, that it should be mandated.
But I do think that people, if they wish, should be permitted to segregate, even in the realm of sex, take race out of it.
Right now, you can't even have a male only gym without receiving certain legal penalties.
So think about that.
If you're a man and you want to get in shape, you either have to.
Save up, you know, a thousand to twelve hundred bucks to build a home gym in your garage and sweat to death during the summer as you're trying to exercise, or you have to go to a co ed gym because it's all that exists and see women who are dressed in thongs as you try to avoid temptation and be faithful to your wife.
Those are your two options.
I think that's atrocious.
I think that's ridiculous.
I think at the level of school, I just agree with common moderates like C.S. Lewis, who even argued, you know, in the silver chair in his Narnia series, he, you know, he opens up the book and talks about the school that Jill Pohl and Eustace Scrub were attending at that.
Time.
It's the very first page.
And he says that the school, in a derogatory way, he calls it the experiment house.
And he's making fun of this school for being progressive.
And he says, you know, that they were a nonsensical, you know, idiotic school that tried to educate boys and girls and insisted that they should be in the same school rather than having an all boys school and an all girls school.
So this is, guys, C.S. Luce is, he's not even that old.
Guys, not that long ago, good Christian, moderate, C.S. Luce was not a radical, they would have said that it's absurd that you can't educate boys and girls separately because they're, They're distinct, they're different.
And so, all that being said, you know, my position, I've articulated it several times, but once more, I've officiated interracial marriages.
What I would do pastorally is I would simply say, hey, you know, let's talk about in laws, let's talk about money, let's talk about children, let's talk about all the things that you would typically do in marriage counseling.
And I would simply add one more topic to the discussion.
I would say, let's also talk about the fact that you are two different people, different races, and different cultures.
And there are going to be added challenges.
You need to be aware of this.
If you really feel called to get married, then it is biblically permissible.
It is not a sin, and I will officiate the wedding.
And it's a valid marriage in the sight of God.
And you can love your wife as Christ loves the church, and submit to your husband as the church submits to Christ, and model the eternal wedding that exists between Christ and his bride, the church, through your interracial marriage.
But.
There are some reasons why you should perhaps slow down and prayerfully consider it.
That's, you know, I don't believe that interracial marriage is normative.
And so, a guy like Owen, a guy like Denny, that's ultimately what they're doing they're being dishonest and they're levying, you know, they're trying to sneak past certain accusations that just simply aren't true.
These guys believe that interracial marriage is inherently sinful in each and every case.
They probably believe that it should be a Crime and penalized by the state.
They probably also believe that segregation should be mandated and legislated by the state.
And those things just aren't true.
If they were honest and said, well, Joel thinks X, Y, and Z, and they articulated my position correctly, it would deflate everything immediately because then it's like, what are you going to call me?
Like, well, you know, you can't call me a kinest.
You can't call me a racist.
So you would have to say, Joel Webbin is a wolf in sheep's clothing and a very, very, very dangerous man.
Why?
Because Joel Webbin.
He's a guy like C.S. Lewis.
He's a guy like Machen.
He's a guy like Rush Dooney.
He's a guy like R.L. Dabney.
Like Joel Webbin holds the pretty much exact same views as every single Christian that we lead tours for and go to Europe to show you where these honorable men's tombs are, you know, and Joel believes what they believe.
Well, that just doesn't land, you know, if that's your actual.
You got a lot of tickets to sell on there.
Exactly.
Like that's really hard if you're trying to build an audience and you're trying to drum up fear, you know, and dismay.
Like there are.
Dangerous characters right now rising up within the Reformed Church, and you got to be really careful.
Really, what are they like?
What do they believe?
Like, tell me.
I want to be on guard against the poison.
There are guys today that would probably sit down and have dinner with George Washington.
These guys, believe what Machen.
Yeah, there are guys today that would probably be pretty good friends with Jonathan Edwards.
You know, there are guys today that.
That in their heart of hearts, they don't hate George Whitefield.
Like, that doesn't sell.
That just doesn't work.
So, you have to be dishonest and you have to try to make it sound as though my view, our view, is something sinister and really unique and novel.
So, you need a new word because racism has lost its power because the boy can only cry wolf so many times.
And so, it's like, well, there's this thing, kinism.
Kinism.
Just to back up, too, for some context, the reason that accusation is also leveled is because it's never been clearly defined.
So, there's a number of authors that would identify themselves as that.
But there's no well accepted work.
There's no well accepted definition.
There's lots of pamphlets or small books.
But it kind of relates it to Jared Taylor.
When you just form a movement around the only thing, the only thing that sets us apart is our emphasis on race, being against interracial marriage, being for the preservation of Americans, of Europeans, when that's all your identity is, it actually turns out like most people want more than that.
So there's, I mean, as far as like churches, there are not thousands of Kinnest churches.
There are not Kinnest dominations.
There are individual.
Some of them ministers, most of them laymen, probably a couple thousand over the last 20 to 30 years that have called themselves that with no core set of defining beliefs.
So it's easy because it's nebulous to slap it on someone that you don't want.
But practically, it kind of illustrates as a movement, it's not enough to just emphasize kin and race ad nauseum to the detriment of every other topic that you could cover.
And so it's a movement that also hasn't really gained traction.
Well said.
Okay.
Last two super chats.
We'll hit them quick.
One.
Is from, it's hard for me to read, but it looks like Hal Nink.
And he just gave us five bucks, just being generous and saying, Thanks, guys, for having Jared Taylor on.
God bless you.
We appreciate that.
God bless you.
And then the last super chat is from Big Super Chat.
Yeah, Nate Knott or Nader Knott.
Nader Knott.
He gave us $50.
Very generous.
Thank you so much.
That's very kind.
And he just said, Keep up the great work, gentlemen.
Lord willing, we will.
Here at the very end, just want to remind you again, If you want to support us and help us, here are some things that you may not be thinking of, but it's vitally important.
Of course, you can go over to NXR Plus.
It's just members.nxrstudios.com.
Members.nxrstudios.com and support us by becoming a member, getting early access and ad free content.
We're striving to make that valuable.
There's going to be a lot of things that we're going to be rolling out in the very near future.
So you can stay tuned for that.
That's one way to support us for just a little bit each month.
And it makes a difference.
Another way is to make sure to get the book.
If you haven't already, we have The Hyphenated Heresy, Judeo Christianity.
It's written by myself and Jordan Hall as co authors, 250 pages long.
It's got footnotes and receipts and lots of great information.
So make sure to check out the book.
But the last way that you can support us, again, is just subscribing on YouTube, subscribing on X, following us rather on X. My handle is at Joel Webbin, and subscribing in XR Studios on Rumble.
And it seems like it doesn't correlate, but it does quite directly.
If you are listening to the show and you appreciate what we're doing, and maybe you don't have the money to support us directly, but one of our sponsors piques your interest, you're listening, and one of our sponsors is advertising something that you already use, a product you already use, but you're using some other company.
If you are willing to switch over and spend the money that you were already going to spend, but with our sponsor instead, Every single time, if we run the commercials and we get views on our shows, but nobody patrons the sponsors, then the sponsors will leave.
That's just how it works.
That's the industry.
But you guys can help us tremendously by being a patron of our sponsors.
If you were thinking about investing in gold and we have a gold sponsor, use them.
If you were thinking about buying nicotine pouches and we have a nicotine sponsor, then use them.
And if you're willing to do that, and enough of you do that consistently, then you're not actually spending any extra money in that regard.
You're doing the things you were already going to do, you're just selecting a specific company rather than some other company.
Because that specific company is supporting us.
So every time you do that, then whatever these sponsors are paying us, you're actually paying us.
I support NXR Studios with a significant amount, keeping them in the game, making payroll so that they can continue to exist as an organization without even being an NXR Plus member, without even purchasing a book.
I do it simply by buying nicotine pouches over here, but I started buying them over there, and I used the QR code, which literally made your purchase cheaper, gave you a discount, but also.
Supporting Us Through Ads00:00:49
Told that sponsor, oh, you know what?
Our advertising with NXR is profitable so that they would advertise with us again.
And it literally keeps us in the fight.
If all of you just did that, if you just patron our sponsors and put in the promo code that you found our sponsors through us, then we could be probably about 50% of our budget covered just by our sponsors.
So please consider that.
And we appreciate you.
And again, our.
Broadcasting schedule three times a week, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
So, this is it for the week.
We pray that you would have a blessed weekend, especially a blessed Lord's Day.
Go to church, go to church on the Lord's Day, and we will see you, Lord willing, on Monday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.