Dr. E. Michael Jones critiques the "Judeo-Christian" myth as a WWII-era fiction now collapsing due to Jewish support for abortion and Israeli policies clashing with Catholic life. He argues Protestantism's "Sola Scriptura" doctrine fractured America into a degraded franchise model, enabling racial constructs and violent Puritan history, whereas Catholic hierarchy offers necessary checks. Jones predicts the end of the white evangelical-Zionist alliance, foreseeing a future where Catholic or Anglican influence supersedes the WASP foundation, fundamentally reshaping American identity away from fragmented Protestantism toward a unified, lineage-based spiritual authority. [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 Dr. E. Michael Jones00:03:57
In today's episode, I will have the privilege of interviewing Dr. E. Michael Jones.
He is a best selling author of multiple different publications, and he is a Catholic.
And as you will find in this episode, if you're not familiar with him already, there are Catholics and then there are super duper duper Catholics.
He is of the latter variety.
Dr. E. Michael Jones is not a fan of Protestantism, and he is especially not a fan of Calvinist Protestants, of which, for those of you who don't know, I happen to be one.
So, In this interview, there are multiple points where I push back in a respectful manner.
But I had him on the show for one reason and one reason only not to disagree, not to push back, although I do some of that, but because in multiple other arenas that are vitally important, he and I agree entirely.
In this episode, we're going to talk about Catholicism, Protestants, how this shaped America.
We talk about race, we talk about Jews, we talk about Calvinism and how that shaped America, some of the pros and in his perspective.
Many of the cons.
And most importantly, what we discuss in this particular interview is how all these pieces historically play together and set the stage for what he predicts will be the future of these United States.
This is a fantastic and vitally important interview.
I hope that you enjoy.
We'll get right to it after a brief message from one of our sponsors.
This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Paleo Valley and Nicknack.
Breaking news you're fat.
And so am I. Let's just be honest.
I'm sitting here recording a commercial, practically spilling out of my chair.
We're not energetic.
We're not masculine.
We're not as healthy as we should be.
We're men, right?
You're a husband, you're a father.
We should be hard to kill.
And let's be honest, we're making it easy on our enemies.
So, what's the problem?
The problem is you're fat because you're hungry.
And when you're hungry, you're eating snacks that's a bunch of goy slop.
There's not a lot of good things in snack form in between meals.
As a man, we need raw milk, eggs.
Beef.
Those are the things, but it's hard to find them at 9 30 in the morning when I feel like I'm ready, like a hobbit, for a second breakfast.
So here's the deal.
After long searching, I have found, I'm serious, I've found a solution.
Go to paleovalley.com.
Paleovalley.com.
I'll be honest, it's the most feminine coded website I've ever seen in my life.
Tell your wife about it.
She'll love it.
But just skip through all the stuff, get to the beef sticks.
Guys, I'm telling you, these beef sticks are wild.
It actually makes you feel full, but it's also healthy and it doesn't turn you into an overweight woman.
That's not the goal.
All right.
So check out the beef sticks, paleovalley.com.
Use my promo code.
It's not just five or 10%, it's 15% off, guys.
It's a deep discount and it lets the sponsor know that we sent you.
It helps keep us in business.
paleovalley.com.
Here's the promo it's NXR26.
Think like 2026.
NXR26 for 15% off.
Radical Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I want to talk about Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin is an excellent.
I am joined today by a special guest.
I have Dr. E. Michael Jones on the show.
The Kinsey Report Controversy00:14:43
Dr. Jones, thanks for coming.
Thank you for having me, Joel.
So, for our listeners, many of them are already aware of you, but for those who maybe aren't, what is it that you currently do?
What are the things that you have been known for, some of your writing, et cetera?
Okay, I started out to be a professor of American literature, got a PhD from Temple University in 1979.
Got a job at St. Mary's College across the street from Notre Dame in the same year, a tenure track position.
And I thought I was going to be an academe for the rest of my life, but I got fired one year after I got there because I was against abortion.
So I kept trying to tell people, well, I got fired because of my position on abortion from a Catholic college.
And they say, well, you should have known.
I said, no, I was against abortion.
I got fired for being against abortion.
So what I realized was that the feminists had taken over St. Mary's College.
It was Catholic in name only.
And then I decided I better get out of academe while the getting is good.
And I became really interested in sexual topics because it became clear to me that there was a sexual subversion that had taken place at Notre Dame, beginning at Notre Dame in 1965, when Father Hesberg was collaborating with the Rockefellers to overturn the church's teaching on contraception.
Then it blossomed into feminism, then it was abortion.
And I thought this is an important topic.
Yes.
And it's all downstream.
The fountainhead is the sexual revolution, it is unbridled perversion and sex without consequence.
Sex is God.
It's not so much that killing babies is God, killing babies is a sacrament of worshiping the God, which is sex.
Would you agree with that?
Right.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
And I think it's especially important for Americans because we had no established religion here.
But we had an established morality.
We had a moral consensus.
And the man who articulated that was John Adams, who said, We have no constitution that functions in the absence of a moral people.
So by the middle of the 19th century, you have a guy like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who is a Satanist when it comes to his thought.
There's no question about it.
If you read Self Reliance, he says, Nothing matters but the integrity of your own mind.
And he said, And so, and he got that from Milton's Paradise Lost, where Satan says the mind is its own place.
Okay.
And then someone in self reliance says, Well, what if that's from below?
And he says, Well, if that's from the devil, then I am of the devil's party.
But on the other hand, he remained faithful to his wife.
And then when it went over to England, he met with Carlyle and Dickens at Carlyle's farm up in Scotland.
And they were complaining about the subversion of sexual morality.
And they assumed it was universal.
And he said to them, if you don't understand that American men go to their marriage beds as virgins, you don't understand anything.
So, this was a really significant moment in American history.
And I'm talking about the period after World War II, where we had the systematic undermining of sexual morality as a form of social engineering.
That.
So, that is what I would like to talk about because I think that you are masterful on that particular topic.
And I think you're right that.
You know, the sexual revolution and unbridled sexual satisfaction and perversion, all these kinds of things, that's the God.
You have feminism and abortion and this, that, and the other that are sacraments to this new religion.
But if you think of what is the purpose of this religion, why was it instituted?
It seems as though it was instituted for cultural and political control.
That it's what I've told people several times is you know, we always say that, you know, culture, politics is downstream of culture.
And there's a truth to that.
But the reality is that it's true in both directions.
Politics is downstream of the culture, but also culture can be downstream of politics.
It's not as though, this is the analogy that I use.
It's not as though in the 1950s, 1959, I think, Leave It to Beaver was black and white television and a hit show.
It's not as though all these housewives got together and were like, we love this television show, but the only thing it's missing is just butt sex.
And then they put pressure and wrote letters, and Hollywood just relented and said, well, we have outstanding morals, but the customer's always right.
And so I guess we'll go ahead and put in some immoral slop.
No, it wasn't that the masses put pressure.
This was engineered from the elites.
The elites were the ones who were pushing immorality down our throats until everybody coalesced.
And so, can you talk about that sexual idolatry and confusion and addiction as a mechanism, not just as its own religion, but a religion that was set up as a mechanism by our elites in order to control the populace?
How does that work?
Who are some of these elites?
What was their purpose?
And what are they trying to attempt?
Okay, if you're talking about the religion, the name of the religion is science.
Okay, go ahead.
And I just wrote my autobiography.
When I was in my mother's womb, the Kinsey Report came out.
Now, this had a tremendous effect on sexual morality in the United States of America because it basically decertified sexual morality as some type of irrational taboo.
And this was portrayed by the, this was a total top down operation.
Kinsey was being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation because the Rockefeller Foundation wanted to promote birth control because they were obsessed with population control.
And so they gave Kinsey a credibility that he should not have had.
He was an entomologist, he studied gall wasps.
Why did that make him an expert on human sexuality?
Okay, but he was a scientist.
And once you say scientist, that's the end of the discussion.
And so he was portrayed as such on the cover of Time Magazine.
That was when I was five years old.
That was when the.
One female version of the Skinzie Report came out.
And he had a crew cut, he had a bow tie, and he had birds and bees flying around him.
And he was basically a Boy Scout.
That's the way they portrayed him.
Kenzie was a homosexual.
That's right.
I was one of the first people that understood that and said it.
I said it because, so 41 years after I'm born, 41 years after the bad, I was born under a bad sign.
I was under a bad sign ever since I could crawl.
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all.
Okay?
41 years later, I'm sitting in the home of Paul Gebhardt, who is the co author of the Kinsey Report, the first co author.
And I said to him, Well, I just read in the John Barber, the AP reporter, said that Kinsey had the second largest pornography collection in the world, but the largest pornography collection was in the Vatican.
I said, Is that true?
And he burst out laughing.
He said, No, that's a joke.
Kinsey made up that joke because he liked to get a rise out of the people, the audience.
He made it up.
Wow.
Well, wait a minute.
You wrecked my life.
You don't wreck my life.
God, by the grace of God, I have had a good life.
But you influenced an entire generation with your inside joke.
Okay?
Well, that's not the way it was portrayed in the world of Time magazine.
And so what I began to realize is something happened here.
Something really seriously happened.
How can I get fired from a Catholic college for being against abortion?
Something serious happened.
So I started doing the research.
Over a period of time, and eventually came out with the book, uh, Libido Dominandi Sexual Liberation and Political Control.
I think I'm the first guy who said it now.
Obviously, it's implicit, it's implicit in the Bible with the story of Samson and Delilah.
Yes, okay.
Now, uh, Aquinas Thomas Aquinas said, Lust makes you blind, and Samson was undefeatable in battle.
But when he fell under the wiles of Delilah, uh, what she did to him, she gouged out his eyes.
He's blind.
And look, where is your hero now, as Milton said?
Grinding at the mill with slaves.
So I wrote that book.
It came out in 2003.
And then one year later, the event happened that proved that I was right.
2004, the Israelis invade Ramallah.
We're getting used to this now.
Okay.
And they go in, and the first thing they do is take over the TV stations and they start broadcasting pornography over the TV stations.
Now, why did they do that?
If you go to the American explanation of pornography in movies like People vs. Larry Flint or Boogie Nights, which came out right around the time of the Communications Decency Act, Larry Flint says it pornography means freedom.
You're not free unless you can buy a one handed magazine like Hustler.
Okay?
Well, if that's the case, the Israelis wanted to bring freedom to the Palestinians.
That doesn't make any sense.
It's a form of control.
Yes.
That proved the thesis of my piece.
And then to get back to Kinsey, I'm doing research in the Rockefeller archives, and they show me the file.
Wardell Pomeroy, the other author of the Kinsey Report, they show me his letter sent to Alan Gregg, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation at that time.
War breaks out, I think it's 1942, something like that.
And Alan Gregg writes a letter to the draft board at South Bend, Indiana, and says, please do not draft.
Wardell Pomeroy.
He's engaged in research which will lead to a control of large populations of people.
So there you had it right out of Alan Gregg's mouth.
It's a form of control.
I couldn't help but think, Dr. Jones, as you were talking about Kinsey and his comments about the Vatican and the world's largest pornography collection, and then him saying, Oh, I'm joking.
I couldn't help but think of the Proverbs that says, Cursed is the man who harms his neighbor, and after doing so says, I was only joking.
Like, there's literally a Bible verse about this, you know?
Like, oh, it was just.
And people still do this, you know, to be honest, even guys that I might agree with on a host of topics, you know, saying things tongue in cheek in order to maintain plausible deniability so that they can do incredible harm and yet do it with impunity.
By the way, by the way, Nick Fuentes is notorious for that type of behavior.
He sometimes gets away with some of that.
I appreciate Nick and I would consider him, in many regards, a friend.
And I think he's one of the sharpest guys his age.
On a host of issues, but as a Christian minister, there are some rhetoric and jokes that he says that I simply can't get behind.
No, I agree.
Have you ever spoken with him?
I'm curious.
Yeah, I did an interview with him.
I met him first, went to Chicago.
Actually, we were both at a conference by Rouge.
We don't hear much about Rouge anymore, but he was talking at that point about how to pick up chicks.
And so I met him and I said, Well, let's go out to a bar.
And he said, Well, I'm only 18.
So we couldn't go to a bar.
He was that young at that time, but still had that presence.
And so we went and sat down and we didn't have a meeting in the mines because I didn't know enough about him and he didn't know anything about me.
So it just never happened.
But he did interview me, but again, it wasn't really a meeting of the minds because there was no substance.
We couldn't find a common denominator at that point.
I would think, yeah.
So I think at this point you'd have a lot more to talk about.
I think the common denominator in many regards would be Catholicism for the two of you, but also to Nick's credit, his joking, his rhetoric, certainly there's things to disagree with.
But you got to give him props.
He's 27 years old, he's not a womanizer.
He's not a drunkard.
We're so many of these young guys on the right wing.
I might agree with some of their political takes, but a lot of the guys are these up and coming guys.
It's really discouraging because it's like I think they're right politically in many regards, but morally, a lot of them are degenerate.
The new right, the ascendant right, whatever you want to call it, it's a lot of degeneracy.
And Nick is kind of like one of the only guys in that scene who, at least at a personal level, seems to have some discipline.
Which is good.
Have you kept up at all with, you know, maybe not in a friendship or speaking with him directly, but have you watched any of his live shows?
Which Nick Fuentes are you talking about?
I'm talking about the one and only.
Go ahead.
No, there are many Nick Fuentes.
I see.
This is the issue.
So it depends on which Nick Fuentes shows up.
So one Nick Fuentes says Christ is king.
And then the other Nick Fuentes invites Jared Taylor to his conference to talk about race.
And I reached out to him.
I said, Nick, this is incompatible.
These are two incompatible operating systems.
The race narrative and the Catholic narrative are incompatible.
I'd like to come to your conference and help you sort this out.
Well, he kind of, it was uppity of me to talk that way.
So, okay, all right, you don't have to invite me to your conference.
That blew up anyway.
Gary Taylor blew up his conference by making this inflammatory racial speech at a nightclub in Detroit.
Bad idea.
Bad idea.
But anyway, he blew it up.
Let's talk about that for a moment because I am curious.
Probably the only two things, major things, that you and I would disagree on is you're Catholic, I'm a Protestant, and then race would be another.
Race Realism vs Social Construct00:03:59
I would not describe myself.
I told you, you know, before we were recording, I'm not a race essentialist.
I think that Christianity is much higher and much more important.
I'm also not a racial determinist.
I actually think that peoples and groups of peoples and tribes can change slowly, not in 15 minutes, but over the course of generations.
And I think that we can point back and see how this has occurred and how it could occur in the future.
But at the same time, I would say that I.
That I prescribe to a certain form of race realism.
I think that race is not everything, but I also don't think it's nothing.
I'm curious about your thoughts about race, because I know that you emphasize Christianity, and so do I.
I think that I would describe myself as a Christian nationalist and not a white nationalist.
However, I'm comfortable saying in the case of these United States that I would like to see this country remain predominantly white.
I don't think it has to be exclusively white, but predominantly white because it's our history, it's our heritage.
And the replacement of a native citizenship, I think, is gravely immoral.
I'm curious your thoughts on race, because you say diametrically opposed with Catholicism.
To Catholicism, yes.
Could you flesh that out some?
Yeah, I'd say race is a Protestant invention.
And I'll be specific it's a social construct that was created in Virginia to divide the slave class.
You had slaves.
Celtic slaves and you had African slaves.
And at the time of Bacon's rebellion, they united and almost overthrew the planter aristocracy.
And so they decided to divide and conquer and they created the term white.
If you go, I mean, white as applied to people.
So if you go to the New Oxford Dictionary on Historical Terms, you'll find that the first use of white to describe people is in the 17th century and it is a play about a plantation in Virginia.
So it's a social construct that was created.
For political purposes and economic purposes.
What do I mean by a social construct?
Okay.
Phenotype is real, okay, a category of reality.
So I look, I am not white, but I'm biracial.
I am Irish and German.
And people who come from that area tend to have a certain look, and I look like one of them, and I don't look like someone who grew up in Africa.
That's real.
I'm not denying that.
The grift comes in when you have a guy like Jared Taylor.
Posting pictures of the absolute ugliest Negro you can find.
This guy's been beaten by an ugly stick for days on end.
And then you find the most gorgeous blonde from Sweden you can find.
You put them together and that inflames some type of feeling.
Okay, that's not what I'm talking about here.
When you go from, when you shift from appearance to behavior, this goes from being a category of reality to a category of the mind.
And the main shift that takes place here is generally IQ, which is science, which means you can't disagree with it.
And so you'll see memes on the internet, on X, something like that.
The average IQ in Haiti is 75.
This is preposterous.
Wow.
When did they ever give an IQ test in Haiti?
And secondly, what language was it given in?
Creole?
Do they have a Creole IQ test?
This exposes.
When you shift from one to the other, you're shifting away from a phenotype which is real to a social construct which was created for political purposes to privilege one group and disadvantage another.
So that is what I have been told in regards to your view.
So there's nothing that you said that has surprised me or shocked me.
Protestantism Disappearing As We Speak00:15:20
I would disagree, but I'm aware.
I'm curious though, what do you think?
If America, I think Christianity in the macro, In the ultimate is absolutely the answer.
We need revival.
But at the same time, that even if revival came to America, if we had, if America was re Christianized in many ways, I feel like we are a Christian nation, but currently in many ways in the process of apostasy and there needs to be repentance and a return to the Lord Jesus Christ.
But even if those things happen, there is a truth to the fact that Jesus breaks down the walls of hostility between different tribes and tongues and languages.
But I feel like there's also something to be said for a homogenous society that's high trust.
How do you?
I feel like right now we're not much of a nation at all.
We're an empire, a geographic empire with multiple nations.
And part of that is not just religion or ideology.
There's certainly that.
But I think it also is different peoples, biologically, different tribes and tongues and people.
We don't even speak the same language in America anymore.
But it sounds like you give little credence to that.
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin gifted Jerry Falwell a luxurious Learjet 25, worth millions of dollars.
Officially, it was a token of gratitude for his support.
But the truth?
It was a transaction.
Falwell was now Israel's valuable ally, flying high as a lobbyist in the skies.
And from that moment on, Falwell's allegiance soared.
His moral majority made backing Israel a core platform, preaching American prosperity hinged upon blessing the Jewish state, or else face God's wrath.
Genesis 12 3 was twisted into foreign policy.
Now explore the full account in the hyphenated heresy, Judeo Christianity.
Learn how the faith was hijacked and rediscover Christianity on its own historic terms.
Pick up your copy today at Amazon.com.
Well, I think that Samuel Huntington dealt with this in 2001, right around the time of 9 11.
And he wrote a book called Who Are We?
Samuel Huntington is the man who wrote The Clash of Civilizations.
He's the go to guy for the American Empire to understand itself.
Okay.
And he wrote basically that an American is an Anglo Protestant.
Okay.
There's a sense in which I agree to that.
Right.
Okay.
But how do we contextualize this?
We contextualize this by going to the colonies.
North of the United States and south of the United States.
The northern part we're talking about is Quebec, and Quebec was a Catholic colony.
And Catholic colonies had a different operating system.
And this is memorialized in the Fort Michimilli Mackinac Park at the northern tip of the lower peninsula of Michigan.
And they have a video that explains the history there.
And it begins with a voyageur, the French fur trader.
And marrying an Indian maiden, and there's the Catholic priest blessing the marriage.
So, in a Catholic culture, intermarriage is the hidden grammar here, okay?
But it goes on there.
The English take over, they conquer.
Wolf conquers Quebec, last day of the year.
Now we have a new operating system, it's called the English Protestant operating system, and that's different.
That's another word for capitalism, which is state sponsored usury.
And so they bring a Jew in.
To run the trading post.
This is not me.
It's in the video, official video, state of Michigan.
And again, Michigan's saying this the Jew starts cheating the Indians.
And at that point, the Indians get upset.
They throw the high lie ball over the stockade.
Can we come in and get the ball?
They open the gates and they slaughter everyone.
And then they say, We want to have an allegiance to the King of France.
We're sick of this English stuff.
Now, the Presbyterians, after the conquest, show up in Nova Scotia.
Okay, they announced that they are bringing Christ to Nova Scotia and the people there, and they refused not only to speak Mi'kmaq, which is a native language, they refused to speak French, which they should know.
And they forced everyone to speak English and they announced, you have to become a Presbyterian because that is Christianity.
And the natives say, well, sorry, we've been Catholics, Christians for 200 years now.
We're not going to change now.
So, what was the English solution to this?
They put bounties on scalps.
You could go up there and make money scalping the French Mi'kmaq.
And then that didn't work.
And so what did they do?
They shipped them off to Louisiana, where they became Cajuns.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a great poem called Evangeline about this tragedy, hoping they would all die in the fever swamps of Louisiana.
That's different.
That's different.
We have two fundamentally different operating systems.
And what you had in America was a What we call a triple melting pot, where ethnic identity, no matter where you come from, after three generations, your ethnic identity in America derives from religion.
And so we have three ethnic groups in America Protestant, Catholic, Jew.
That is America.
Obviously, the Protestants were the dominant part for centuries, but now that's changing.
We're at the end of America's Third Republic, which began in 1945, it lasts 80 years.
Things that we considered eternal are going to pass out of existence now.
We're all watching it happen.
Like the United Nations, the fundamental council, the fundamental organization of the Third Republic.
Trump just told him, We're not following you anymore.
We're not funding you.
It's over.
I'm saying also that Protestantism is disappearing as we speak.
And Protestants were in many ways a buffer between the Catholics and the Jews.
And now we have open conflict.
And I'm referring specifically to what happened last week when Carrie Prejean Bowler. Was on the committee, the Trump's Religious Freedom Committee, and she started talking to the Jews in a way that Jews had never heard before from an American.
She's a beauty queen.
She knew Donald Trump, blah, blah, blah.
And she starts saying, well, wait a minute.
I'm not a Zionist.
You have no right to impose your Zionist ideology on me because I'm a Catholic.
Now, this is new.
But what I'm saying here, this is the now fundamental conflict at the beginning of America's Fourth Republic.
It's going to be between Catholics and Jews.
And the question is is there a universal moral law that is binding on the conscience of all men because all men were created by God with free will?
Or is there a group that has special DNA?
You get back to the race issue, which is what the Jews told Jesus Christ in John 8 when they said, We are the seed of Abraham.
Right.
Yeah, we are the children of Abraham, which Jesus responds and ultimately says, No, your father is the devil.
So, with that, I think that that's actually quite fascinating because I'm willing to admit, even as a Protestant, that historically speaking, it seems as though the Jews of history, the Jews of today, their greatest fear is the Catholic monarchs.
They're the ones who ultimately wouldn't tolerate any degree of subversion or usury or these kinds of practices.
And Eventually, they would throw them out.
And yet, they certainly, I have to admit, even though I don't particularly like it, that Protestants have largely been much more susceptible to a lot of Jewish lies.
And it's not all Jews, but the lies that have come.
Go ahead.
Let's be more specific.
Let's talk specifically about America.
Let's talk specifically about Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was colonized by the Puritans.
Okay, go ahead.
This is a violent, Judaizing Protestant sect that broke away from the kind of staid Anglicanism that was the beginning of the Reformation.
Okay, these were people who, let's say, Oliver Cromwell, who's the head of this operation, really took Protestant principles seriously, specifically sola scriptura.
So he picks up the Bible, they immediately go to the Old Testament, don't like the New Testament, go to the Old Testament, and he immediately says, I'm Gideon.
And that, as soon as he becomes Gideon, anybody he doesn't like becomes Amalek.
So, the first time around, it was the Irish Catholics in Drachoda who took refuge in the cathedral there, thinking there was sanctuary in a church.
And Cromwell and his thugs went in there and slaughtered them all man, woman, and child.
Second time around, it's the King Philip's War, where they apply the same principle of Amalek to the Native Americans.
Third time around, I'm skipping a higher head.
It's Bibi Netanyahu who also believes in sola scriptura.
He's saying, I am Gideon and the Palestinians are Amalek.
I'm saying there is a consistency here of this behavior that is rooted in fundamental Protestant principles like sola scriptura.
For my sake, can you define?
Because I've had this conversation with many people, both Protestants and Catholics alike, and I've found that it's imperative.
That whoever you happen to be speaking to in the moment who does not like Sola Scriptura, and I'm picking up that you don't like it, it's very helpful to have them define Sola Scriptura.
So I'm curious, how would you define that particular doctrine?
By Scripture alone.
So the three solas are Sola Fide by grace alone, Sola Fide by faith alone, Sola Grazia by grace alone, and Sola Scriptura by grace alone.
Scripture alone.
Okay, now, what are we saying here?
I've said this before.
You've got a constitution, but you've got no Supreme Court.
How do you?
I asked a Protestant lady this.
She starts telling me Sola Scriptura, all that.
I said, Well, I just told you about Bibi Netanyahu justifying the extermination of Palestinians by calling them Amalek.
I said, What controls do you put on Sola Scriptura?
What parameters are that control your interpretations?
Well, there is none.
Sola Scriptura is an ultimate principle.
Well, how do you prevent this from spiraling out of control and ending up justifying genocide, as it did with Cromwell, with the Puritans in Massachusetts, and with B.B. Netanyahu?
How do you prevent that?
Can I give you an answer?
Sure.
And you can disagree with it.
Yeah.
So, first, the way that I would define Sola Scriptura, in my understanding from the Reformed tradition, which I happen to be a part of, Is Sola Scriptura not that Scripture is the only authority, but it's the only infallible authority.
And Scripture itself testifies to many other authorities.
Parents are authorities.
You know, you have civil magistrates that are authorities, ecclesiastical, spiritual authorities, apostles and elders, presbyters, ministers.
So there are other authorities that Scripture itself testifies to.
So Sola Scriptura is not that Scripture is the only authority.
It's the only authority that does not ever err, the only perfect infallible authority.
And then, secondly, Sola Scriptura is also the highest authority.
So there are other authorities subjected to Scripture as the highest authority.
And those other authorities, while being valid real authorities, they're both errant authorities.
They're authorities that can fault and err, and they're also subjugated.
They're lesser authorities.
And so, all that being said, to answer your question, what I would say is that even if you deny Sola Scriptura, ultimately the problem in my purview is not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but the doctrine of simply human authority, in this case, civil, that does not have checks and balances.
Because I I, if you have, you could have a Catholic king who's subjected to the Pope, but if the Pope speaks, you know, infallibly in that moment, which is very rare, I acknowledge, but if he determines and says, these guys over here, the Palestinians, are Amaleks, then you're going to have the same problem.
In my view, the big problem is not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as much as it is not having a civil magistrate who is held in check by other godly civil magistrates and also the church, for that matter.
I think the church.
Should have some authority to be able to speak to the state.
So, all that being said, what I constantly teach others in this Protestant vein is, you know, oh, we don't like the Pope.
But what Protestantism has ultimately achieved is now we just have, you know, millions of little popes.
And I see that as a Protestant.
It's a huge problem, a huge problem.
Everybody becomes their own little Pope.
Like, right.
What I realized was this it was, you know, probably about eight years ago or so.
I realized that personally, and it was convicting for me, you know, and humbling, embarrassing, to be honest.
It was somewhat shameful.
But I realized that.
You know, I would say, Well, I don't like this tradition in church history, or I don't agree with this particular creed or this particular council or this particular confession.
It's just the Bible.
And then I finally realized as I got older how stupid that was.
Not because the Bible's stupid, the Bible's incredible.
I love the Bible.
Right.
But what I was presuming, which was so foolish, was I was creating a false dichotomy that said it's the Bible on this side over here, you have the Bible through some other lens and interpretation.
But over here, Me being so pious and so superior, I've opted for the Bible alone.
But the Bible alone actually is not, it's not that it's not the best option, it's a non existent option.
Evangelical Synthesis on the Frontier00:15:31
There is no such thing as the scripture not being interpreted.
Whenever someone is using the Bible, they are by default.
So, really, what I realized is it's 2,000 years of the Bible through this lens of church tradition and councils and creeds, or it's the Bible through Pastor Fred.
Or it's the Bible through Sister Sally, or it's the Bible, but it's always a Bible through.
And so then it's not a matter of whether, but simply a matter of which.
Someone is interpreting, someone is exegeting, you know, and applying.
And I don't think that when I came to that realization, and of course I could be wrong, but when I came to that, I didn't feel as though I had to throw out Sola Scripture wholesale, but I certainly needed to get more particular and precise in the way that I understood it.
I agree.
So, what is new is not true, and what is true is not new.
That's the story of Protestantism.
So, I agree with you.
You're right.
We're talking about interpretations.
So, to give another example, John Milton, a very important figure in American history, married this woman, and she came from a big family, and they had good times together.
And suddenly, she's off with this lonely poet, and she's unhappy, so she leaves him.
I'm not going to take that, you know.
I want a wife.
If this lady leaves me, what am I going to do?
And so he goes to the Bible and looks for a justification for divorce.
Well, you go to the Old Testament, and I'm sorry, you go to the New Testament, Jesus Christ has very specific things to say about divorce.
And it's not what he's looking for.
So what's he do?
Well, go to the Old Testament then.
Moses permitted divorce.
I'm saying what you're really talking about here, and I think Nietzsche was the man who understood this, is will.
Sola voluntate.
What you're doing is imposing your will on God's word, and you're coming up with what you want.
That's the problem here.
What is there to prevent this?
Right.
And what you're describing is eisegesis to read into the text the preferences and opinions of men, your own will, versus reading out of the text what God actually intends.
And to read out of the text what God intends is, according to the reformers, the only infallible interpretation or interpreter of Scripture is more Scripture, reading Scripture in the larger context of Scripture.
But then fallible, albeit fallible interpreters, but that doesn't mean that they're petty or should be lightly dismissed, is church authorities.
Church authority actually matters.
So, you know, I even, you know, so I've spent my whole life as a Baptist.
And I think that's part of the problem in America, is that America, it wasn't just Protestantism, but ultimately the Presbyterians, you know, they kind of had the lion's share to begin with, but they ultimately lost out to the Methodist, to the Baptist.
And aside from just some of the doctrinal things, one of the big contributing factors within Baptist and Methodist, which was the lion's share of America and still is in many regards, is not so much their theology, but their ecclesiastical polity.
It's isolated, it's independent, it's autonomous.
There's no episcopal hierarchy of authority in the way that things work.
And so I've thought about this quite a bit.
And I thought, you know what?
It's probably not a coincidence that England, for instance, it shifted back and forth at various times, Catholic or Protestant.
But even when it was Protestant, it's probably not a coincidence that within the Protestant moments of England's history, it was Anglican and not Baptist or Methodist.
There's still a A hierarchical polity that's built into that structure.
It may not have a pope, but there's still a clear ladder, degrees of support.
And what destroyed that?
The frontier.
The frontier.
That's true.
This is my thesis of walking with a Bible on the gun, basically, the trajectory of American identity goes from east to west.
And so I took this idea from Aquinas existence calls forth essence into being.
That's a total reversal of what Plato thought, which is basically essence gets imposed on existence, which is totally meaningless.
Essence is abstract form.
Existence is totally meaningless.
You have to impose it on there the way you build like a Greek temple out of stone.
He didn't know about God creating the world.
God creation means that there is a logos in the universe, and you can discover this.
Okay, so existence is now very important.
So the Puritans arrive in Massachusetts Bay with.
Their Calvinist redaction of the Bible, and they start going west, and they're immediately confronted with existence, and it changes almost immediately.
Like overnight, you not overnight, but within, let's say, less than 100 years, you got Solomon Stoddard, who's on the frontier now in the middle of Massachusetts, got to come up with the halfway covenant.
Man, I'm surprised.
I did not know you knew about Solomon Stoddard.
You're talking about Jonathan Edwards' father in law, correct?
No, no, grandfather, grandfather, grandfather, yeah.
That's interesting.
Yeah, I've read about that.
That's really cool that you, yeah, but you're right.
That was, you know, and it was, that was eisegesis, right?
So he's dealing with a contextual problem.
This is not some macro, clear, you know, inherent thing to the scripture.
He's in a context, a local context, and he's got all these older parishioners and their adult children now.
They've grown, they've all apostatized and have left the faith.
But the grandparents, in typical grandparent fashion, they really want those grandbabies baptized.
And so they have to come up with a new doctrine.
Something's got to give.
Something's got to give.
You're absolutely right.
And so what happens is we have to, well, is election, in other words, to be a Puritan, you have election, you have to be a member of the visible elect in order to be a member of the church.
Well, is election transferable genetically?
The way the Jews say it, you know, through your mother?
Is it DNA?
Is your election in your DNA?
Well, they couldn't say that.
And so they have to come up with some, the halfway covenant to deal with reality.
Okay, it's not working.
The Calvinist principles are not working on the frontier.
The society is disintegrating because you have inadequate premises.
This continued.
The farther west you went, the more the modification changed.
So you have someone like Lyman Beecher, who is probably the last Calvinist.
He sends his son Henry Ward Beecher off to the wilderness of Indiana.
By the time he reaches there, he's a Methodist.
That was the modification that existence imposed on Protestantism.
But I mean, this is the cauldron, or this is the cauldron out of which American identity emerges.
I think some of it.
That's what I'm saying.
And I hear you.
And I think there's a lot of good points that you raise.
I think some of it was inevitable.
And underneath the sovereignty of God, not just inevitable, but I do think, well, you're talking to a Calvinist, for better or for worse.
And so I do think that these things ultimately have been used, good and bad, to bring about God's glory in the long run and the good of those who are called according to his purposes and who love him.
And I think God is working all these things for good.
But I look at it and I think, okay, you have this huge landmass.
There's not really a way to have a constructed, it's just, it's the wild, wild west.
You're going to have a lot of independence, autonomy, and people going out.
There's no way to really hold them accountable.
You've got circuit preachers, you know, where going to this town, to that town, to that town, they haven't even had time to build a building, much less, you know, ordain a minister and these kinds of things.
And so it's kind of a race to the bottom, the lowest common denominator, the theological, you know, academic standards, you know, go down.
You know, standards for ordination go down, all these kinds of things.
And what it allows for, think of it like a franchise.
It was like the Protestant franchise in many ways.
It's like Burger King, you know, and we want to get as many Burger Kings as possible.
And so, you know, it helps that it's a cheap burger and not a five star, you know, steak, filet mignon.
You know, that's hard to reproduce with consistency, but you can reproduce slop with consistency.
It's a much easier thing to do.
And so I look at like the American Project, and it actually makes a lot of sense to me.
That things kind of degraded and erased to the lowest common denominator because you're just settling a continent in many regards.
But now that things are settled and have been for quite some time, it really makes logical sense.
Like if I was predicting, I'm not prescribing here, I am Protestant and I love my tradition for better or worse.
But if I'm predicting, not prescribing, I do think that it makes sense that now that America has been.
Settled and civilized and established for some time that things would begin in the ecclesiastical arena within the church, that the million different splinters and fracturing would not be viable long term, and that things would synthesize eventually, inevitably, in the other direction.
And what was an asset, or at least perceived as an asset, like, hey, it's just a little bit of water, a little bit of wine, a little bit of bread, and a Bible on horseback, and we can do church.
Right.
And America at a certain time, that was, you know, that was an asset, a simple church and an isolated, fragmented, and we could just ride out West and worship the Lord and baptize in the creek, you know, and these kinds of things.
But that's not the America that we have now.
And we have a fractured America, racially, culturally, religiously, ideologically, but a settled America.
We don't have the Wild, Wild West.
And it makes sense that, um, That eventually, on the religious side of the aisle, things would synthesize.
Somebody's going to win out, and things will, there's going to be a push for things being organized.
Right.
Called Catholicism.
Catholicism is a viable candidate, no doubt.
I think that what's happening is.
Or Anglicanism could maybe win out, but it probably won't be Baptist.
Look, let's take a state of the art Tucker Carlson's debate with Ted Cruz.
Okay.
That shows the fracture in Protestantism right now.
Tucker Carlson is an Episcopalian.
His denomination has been taken over by homosexuals.
He regards it ironically.
The mainstream, three mainstream churches in South Bend, Indiana, the one thing they have in common, mainstream Protestant churches, they all fly the gay flag outside their churches.
And they're all competing for the 37 homosexuals who live in South Bend, Indiana.
Okay, on the other side of the equation, coming from your background, you have Ted Cruz and that group, the Baptist.
Southern Baptists being taken over, the evangelicals being taken over by Christians.
And so I will not claim Tel Aviv Ted, just for the record, but I hear your point.
Okay.
You're right.
You have the mainline denominations within the Protestant world that are flaming gay.
And then you have the evangelicals, and I am an evangelical, and so I hear your point, and it's fair.
And then the evangelicals, they've held the line on some of the moral issues, but they are about as Zionist as it can get.
That's what you're saying?
Absolutely.
Yeah, that's true.
So you have, like Oklahoma, I have children in Oklahoma.
And my son introduced me to this guy, and Oklahoma is 100% pro life and 100% pro Israel.
And so I said to this guy, Do you know that abortion is a fundamental Jewish value?
That came out after Roe versus Wade was overturned.
400 Jewish organizations announced that abortion is a fundamental Jewish value.
How do you reconcile that?
They said it was a Jewish sacrament, is what they said.
Yes.
Okay.
I said, how do you reconcile that?
Well, next time I saw him, he reconciled it by becoming a Catholic.
That's what happened.
You cannot reconcile this.
It's over.
It is over.
Like Life Site News begins a Canadian operation.
Our organization is based on the Judeo Christian position on abortion.
Well, guess what?
There is no Judeo Christian position on abortion.
The Jews think it's.
A fundamental Jewish value, and the Catholic thinks it's an abomination and a crime.
It's not going to come together.
What we're going to have is a fight.
The conflict is inevitable between the Catholics and the Jews over whether there is a universal moral law.
You're absolutely right.
Dr. Jones, I wish we had had this conversation earlier because I would have pleaded with you to endorse this book.
I don't know if you can see it through the camera, but we published this in the beginning of January this year, myself and a co author, Jordan Hall.
But it's called the hyphenated heresy, Judeo Christianity.
I think you would actually like it.
Good for you.
I think you would like it.
Good for you.
So I'm one of the few.
By the way, send me the book.
I'll send you my email address.
Send me the book and I'll review it.
I will.
Thank you.
But my point is to say that I'm with you on this Judeo Christian misnomer.
What fellowship does light have with darkness?
Jesus says.
I mean, it's a jumbo shrimp, it's an oxymoron.
And not one military intelligence, yeah, yeah, exactly.
So it's a huge problem, but I'm with you, even though it grieves me because it's my people.
It grieves me, but I have to admit, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that within evangelicals, on the one hand, white evangelicals, you can just look at the voting charts, they are the ones who are holding back the tide when it comes to some of the moral issues, the moral insanity, the LGBT mafia, the abortion all the way up to nine months.
Yeah, all those kinds of things.
White evangelicals here in America.
Have voted more conservative than the Catholics, more conservative than anybody else.
And yet at the same time, the white evangelicals are the ones holding open the doors to Toledo and letting those who are engineering these very problems into the highest places of our government.
And I see that.
I know that I can't.
I agree.
I'm glad you see it.
We need to have this discussion.
It's an important thing.
I think you're absolutely right to say this whole Judeo Christian thing is a myth.
Judeo Christian Alliance Shifts00:06:05
It's over.
You can chart it.
The time, the frequency this word was used, it goes, soars up.
Maybe it's in your book around 1942.
It just starts skyrocketing.
Well, guess what that is?
We want the Jews to support the war against fascism.
So we're going to have this united front.
We'll call it Judeo Christian.
It starts soaring into the stratosphere at that point.
You have National Review.
You have the rabbi, what was his name?
The guy that was the rabbi for National Review, the religion editor for National Review, wrote a book called Protestant Catholic Jew, which is true.
The rabbi's name was National Review.
I think his name was Buckley, right?
Is that correct?
No, It was a Jew.
This was a Jew.
What was his name?
I don't know.
I'm blanking out.
Protestant Catholic Jew is the real ethnic identity of America.
I agree with that.
But Judeo Christian is a fiction that was created.
By the conservative movement to unite groups in support of our foreign policy, specifically during the war.
And now, as I said, once Roe versus Wade got overturned, the Jews let the cat out of the bag, and now it's a fiction that nobody can accept it anymore.
Well, and you see in real time, Netanyahu just a few days ago came out in a speech, and guys have written articles.
We actually, NXR Studios, the media company that I.
That I'm a part of, we published an article on our Substack about it, where in a portion of a recent speech from Netanyahu, he said that Jews are going to have to fight back in America.
Jews in America are going to have to fight back against the rise of anti Semitism and the far right, and all this kind of stuff.
And that the roadmap and the coalition that they need to be looking to the exemplars, and he named three groups specifically.
He was like, these three groups Blacks, gays, and there was one other, I can't remember, but Three different groups in America's history that were all minorities that were discriminated against and picked on, you know, and it was terribly unfair.
But they, you know, they coalesced and they united and they fought back with courage and they won.
And so too now in the year of our Lord 20, well, he wouldn't say the year of our Lord, but 2026, you know, Jews, it's just the same as blacks.
It's just the same as the gays.
It's just the same as, and then he even called for a coalition.
Let's follow their example, follow their political roadmap and how they achieved success.
But let's also unite with them as a part of our contingency.
And I say that just to bring up that the Judeo Christian, I really think by the grace of God, if God would be so kind, and I think he will, and it really is a kindness on his part, if he does this, and I believe he will, I think that God is going to lay that to rest once and for all, that it'll just become completely untenable in everyone's eyes.
I mean, from the Epstein files, the Goya, the Gaza, the genocide.
You're absolutely right.
There's so many things.
It's untenable.
And it's at the point where your sweet dispensational Zionist grandma, who would go to like Hagee's church or something like that.
Even she's like Googling Goyam?
What is it?
You know, even she's like, oh my goodness, this is ridiculous.
And so I think the Judeo Christian is ending.
And my prediction is I think what it'll become is they'll come up with something that has a little bit more of a ring to it.
But instead of the Christian Jewish alliance, it's going to be the Black Jewish alliance, the Gay Jewish alliance.
It's going to be that, I think, here in America, because melding with Christianity, I think, is.
That psyop is becoming so visible that it's just impossible to continue at this point.
Yeah.
The high point of.
Gives me hope for Protestants a little bit.
I know that you're.
The high point of Protestant influence in the 20th century was the civil rights movement, which was the Black Jewish Alliance.
It was.
That's what it was.
Okay.
And the Protestants found, were reinvigorated by this new social movement to basically bring the Negro up to equality and so on and so forth.
They've already done it.
The Jews were most successful when they were perceived as not their own protagonists, but the group that was helping some other group find liberation.
And at that point, it was the blacks.
And there is still nostalgia for this.
I think Yahweh's statement is probably nostalgia for that.
But it blew up.
I'm sorry, but it blew up in 1967.
And don't take my word for it, take Murray Friedman's word for it.
He wrote a book, he was the head of the AJC, American Jewish Committee in Philadelphia.
And he wrote a book called What Went Wrong about the collapse of the Black Jewish Alliance.
And it was expressed as '67.
It was the Arab Israeli war.
The Jews got tired of these uppity blacks that were kind of kicking them out of their own movement.
The Ocean Hill Brownsville teacher strike, when the blacks took over that school district, they kicked out every Jewish teacher.
And also a book by Howard Cruz called The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual.
He ended up being the chairman of the Black Studies program at the University of Michigan.
But in the 30s, he was in the Communist Party in Harlem.
And he said, everything that we did as Blacks was to benefit the Jews.
And he said, it's over.
We're not going to do it anymore.
So it's not as if it hasn't come about.
It had its high point, it's dead now.
It's dead now.
And what Netanyahu is going to have to face up to is the fact that the Jews have lost control of the Democratic Party.
The left collapsed in their support.
And now you have somebody like Zorhan Mamdani, who is the new leader de facto of the Democratic Party.
And he's a Muslim.
God Working in Human History00:04:16
Right.
This is what they.
And he got elected in spite of the tooth and nail opposition of the ADL, which supposedly runs New York.
This is a change, a tectonic shift of enormous importance.
And I think it's.
Exactly, what is happening at the beginning of the Fourth Republic?
All those things are changing.
It's a new world.
We're sailing into uncharted waters.
Yes, we are.
So, here at the end, what do you think?
I'd love to hear solutions if you got any, but I'd also love to hear predictions.
Are you hopeful at all?
Because I, despite our hope is in the Lord.
Amen.
All right.
The battle is in the Lord.
Our hope is in the Lord.
He can win by many or by few.
And so, yes, our hope is in the Lord.
But I have a hope not just in the Lord in the 17th dimension or the bottom of the ninth in his final physical return, but I really do believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, through his body, the church here on earth, progressively within the gospel age, That he would gradually gain victory, that the mustard seed would in fact grow into a victory.
Absolutely.
This is absolutely certain that Jesus Christ will triumph in the end, that human history will have a positive outcome because God is the Lord of human history.
Okay, how's it going to happen?
And I'll give you a Protestant guy who came up with the theory.
His name is Hegel, he's a German philosopher.
He was a serious, he was studying Lutheran theology.
At the time of the French Revolution, 19 years old at the time of the French Revolution, swept away, pulled in two opposite directions.
Is it a revolution?
Is there a common denominator between the gospel and the revolution?
Is there a meaning to history?
Can I explain this in terms that the Enlightenment will understand?
This is what Hegel is going through Hegel's mind, and he comes up with this idea of the list of Vernunft, the cunning of reason.
How does God act in human history?
The first problem when you say God is Lord of human history is well, what about evil?
Right.
Is God the source of evil?
Well, no, no.
Well, then he's not all powerful.
Then he's not in charge.
Which is it?
You got it.
Well, this is the Bible deals with this in the story of Joseph.
Joseph was sold into slavery.
That's evil.
But God had a bigger plan, and he had to accept that evil in order to bring about the bigger plan, which is that Joseph would eventually become head of the granaries and save.
Israel from starvation.
Many nations.
Yeah, no, you're right.
Joseph says to his own brothers, What you mean by starvation?
And when he says at the end of Genesis, he says to his brothers, The evil that you intended to do to me has been turned by God's power into good.
That's the cunning of reason.
That's the way God works in human history.
And what we're seeing here is the Jews have all the money in the world.
If they got a problem with TikTok, no problem.
We'll buy TikTok.
And what they're doing is bringing about the exact opposite of what they intend.
The more the Jew talks, the more you have listened to Mark Levine or Rabbi Shmuley, the more you're creating animus against Jews and they can't understand what's going on.
More money.
Throw more money at it.
Buy up whatever it is.
Kick off, deplatform people.
And every time they do this, it gets worse and worse and worse.
And the classic example is Jonathan Greenblatt.
All powerful ADL, and he has to admit.
Publicly, that under his administration, he has seen the biggest rise in anti Semitism since the ADL's foundation, and that they have completely lost the younger generation.
That is the cunning of reason.
Yeah, that's a great point.
So, you're saying, I mean, this is shocking, breaking news, but so you're saying, like, certain behaviors such as roughing up Tucker Carlson a little bit the moment his plane lands in Israel, that those kinds of things give Jews a bad reputation?
Are you kidding me?
Catholic Globalism and Liability00:15:16
Of course it does.
Of course it does.
Look, if I were Adolf Hitler, I'd put Rabbi Shmuley on the internet 24 7.
And the only alternative to Rabbi Shmuley would be Mark Levine.
And you will bring about the exact opposite of what you intend.
The meek will inherit the earth.
Yeah, that's well said.
That's hopeful.
That's encouraging.
The meek will inherit the earth.
In the long run, faithfulness always pays off.
So thank you so much, Dr. Jones, for coming on the show.
Appreciate your time.
How can my listeners follow you, your books, keep up with what you're doing?
Yes, go to the books.
My most recent book, Walking with a Bible and a Gun, The Rise, Fall, and Return of American Identity, is available at fidelitypress.org.
Go to fidelitypress.org.
If you want to subscribe to Culture Wars magazine, go to culturewars.com.
These are the only places where these books are available.
Well, thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
God bless.
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 NickNacks at NickNack.com.
Again, that's NickNack.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.
Knickknack.
Crush your vice.
All right.
I hope that you guys benefited from that interview with Dr. E. Michael Jones.
It was fascinating.
He is, man, especially for his age, he is high energy.
That guy, like.
He's in it to win it, and he feels very strongly about the things that he believes.
I would say that a great deal of the things that he believes that we would agree with, also.
Obviously, we don't agree necessarily with some of his palpable disdain for Protestants.
But notice during the interview, he never personally insulted you.
This is something he's really to learn when disagreeing.
That's right.
You can disagree with someone and disagree strongly.
Say, I really think this view has a lot of detriment, it's really destructive.
But I'm also not going to personally insult someone sitting across from me.
I'm going to show them Christian charity.
I'm going to be respectful of them.
And you can still hold that view, but also be respectful.
And hold it strongly.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We're talking about the public sphere, right?
So it's like, I have to, to some extent, I have to demonstrate that I have a distinction from you.
I have to, like, stand on my conviction and say, this is what I think.
But also, like, when we talk in public, right, we're talking about ideas writ large.
Like, we're obviously not saying something specific about the person that we're sitting in front of when we make a criticism of a denomination or whatever the case is.
We're just talking about.
Generalities, right?
And if you want to win in politics, you have to learn this skill.
To build a coalition, there are going to be people you disagree with, and you're going to have to learn how to keep them together, to hold your differences in tension, to leave them aside and work towards a common goal to ultimately win in the end.
Right.
There's a few things that I did kind of think were enlightening, things that he would list as a con, which I think we would kind of refer to as a pro.
So let me break it down real quick.
I'll say it as simply as possible.
I think that Protestantism has a Zionist problem.
We have said that multiple times, and he's saying that.
He feels very strongly about that.
I think he's right.
Protestantism has a Zionist problem.
I think that Catholicism has a globalist problem.
When it comes to Protestants, it's like, well, if Protestants are in charge, you know, how many billions are we going to be giving to Israel?
You know, who are we going to be bombing in the Middle East for Israel?
If Catholics are in charge, and what I want to point out is I don't think that this is a coincidence.
Dr. Michael Jones, who is very, very Catholic, he recognizes some of the problems with Zionism, a lot of those problems, feels very strongly about that.
But he doesn't like, for instance, Nick Fuentes.
He appreciates things about Nick, but the things that he doesn't like are in regards to race.
And, you know, I think for someone like E. Michael Jones, he's much more comfortable than we would be with certain things, such as the Great Replacement.
I think that for him, so long as they're Catholics and they're devout and they're not Zionist, then okay, well, if America changes, You know, over the next few decades, in the way that it already has in the past few decades since the Hart Seller Act, I think that he would be bothered by that, maybe some, but far less than we would in terms of serious demographic change throughout countries.
And I think that that is kind of just the nature.
I think that's true to Catholicism.
So I'll make this statement.
I think that E. Michael Jones is a better, and when I say better, I mean a more consistent Catholic than, for instance, Nick Fuentes.
I actually do think that that's inherent to the Catholic position.
That there's this element, and we appreciate our Catholic friends very much, but I think there is an element of Catholicism being universal, being global, and the way that it's set up with a geographic locale for its top leadership in terms of the papacy being in Rome and that, you know, that pontiff, that pope speaking for not just Rome, right, not just Italy, but speaking for all the nations.
I think that it gears towards, it has a built in bias towards globalism where.
It's difficult, I think, for some of our Catholic friends to be able to hold the position of no, nations are sacred, right?
They're established in God's sovereignty.
They have borders, they have times, and a nation is people and place.
It's not just language and love and tradition and laws.
Those things are also integral to nationhood, but you can't define a nation just by a set of propositions or even laws or the Constitution or these kinds of things.
A nation fundamentally must include at its root, its foundation, people and place, lineage and land.
And I think that that is something more difficult for the Catholic to defend.
So he even said, he said, you know, basically Protestants are the inventors of racism.
He said that race was merely a social construct, right?
That sure, there are different phenotypes, you know, different skin color on the surface in terms of appearance, but any biological difference between races that goes.
Any deeper than just the outward physical appearance of a person is a myth and a social construct that was ultimately engineered by Protestants, in which case I would have to say, you know, it's a classic Protestant W.
I don't think that that's true.
I don't think that Protestants invented the idea or the concept of race, which is, I don't think, an invention in the first place.
I think that that would be a discovery, not an invention.
So I think that that's really where the crux of our disagreement would lie.
Is simply in regards to our religious differences and distinctions of convictions, Protestant versus Catholic, and then on the issue of race.
I think that we would simply see race differently.
But in what he was articulating and kind of laying race at the feet of Protestants as though it was a liability and an invention of Protestants and therefore a failure, and the fact that he is Catholic, and this, I think, an inherent bent within the Catholic structure towards globalism.
And less of an emphasis on lineage and land, Protestantism, I think, is geared towards nationalism.
Catholicism, I think, is geared towards globalism.
And so I appreciated him articulating that, although I disagree, because I think that that kind of lifts the veil a little bit and gives a much more accurate picture of some of the political implications and national implications that stem from the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism.
I think that Catholicism really does have.
A globalist globalism problem, and I think that, um, I think that Nick Fuentes, who I agree with much more in regards to nationalism and race and those kinds of issues, um, if I'm being honest, I think that Nick is actually taking a detour from the universal Catholic position.
Whereas E. Michael Jones, I think his position of race merely being a social construct is a bad idea, Protestants are at fault for inventing it, and those.
I think that that actually is very conducive with the Catholic position.
I found that probably the most interesting portion of the interview.
What do you guys think?
A 1302 papal bull from Pope Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctum, one God, one faith, one spiritual authority.
It explicitly lays out that the Catholic spiritual authority, the church, reigns over temporal matters.
So, one of the advantages, and it is an advantage, is that there is a type of unity in Catholicism that Protestantism doesn't have.
Now, however, that unity applied to the natural sphere and to natural institutions, to your point, it can kind of subsume.
Trample over flatten nature.
So the unity in the spiritual sense has some advantages.
However, if you're going to then take peoples and all these temporal things and flatten them under this one unified spiritual banner, you get exactly what you've talked about.
The national distinctions begin to erode.
Now, Protestantism, spiritually splintered, but better because of its fragmented nature at keeping the natural categories together of people, of nation, of race.
And so both sides need to say, hey, if I'm Catholic, here's going to be the risk.
We just kind of let people in as long as they claim to be Catholic.
Right.
As long as they're Catholic.
Right.
If you're a white Western country, it's like, hey, we had 50 million people come into the country in the last five years.
Are they Western?
No.
Are they white?
No.
Are they Catholic?
Yes.
When?
I mean, Dr. Taylor Marshall, on an interview last year, you said that to him, and he would say, yeah, if they came, I would be happy they're Catholic.
That is his words.
We're not putting them in his mouth.
He wasn't under duress.
He said, I would be happy because they're Catholic.
Whereas it's funny, like in England, what did you have?
People wise, nation wise, they still maintained being English.
And also a sect called the Puritans said, We're sailing to the new land to do it ourselves.
Spiritual fracturing that would be the Catholicism corollary of the natural fracturing.
So both sides have to recognize hey, there is a real ditch here that we have to avoid because of our ecclesiastical structure.
I've said it so many times, and I don't think that people have quite picked it up yet.
I understand that I'm risking an oversimplification saying it this way, but I think that it's true and it needs to be investigated, and people need to be aware of this.
If you are Catholic, the liability is, I think, globalism and not giving proper credence.
To distinct peoples.
If you are Protestant, the liability, I think, is Zionism and ultimately interpreting biblical texts that give priority to the Jewish people and the nation state of Israel over all of the peoples on earth.
I think that those are two liabilities.
Now, the last thing that I'll say though now, granted, take this with a grain of salt because I am a Protestant after all, so maybe I'm not being fair.
If I'm not being fair, just give me the benefit that it's out of ignorance.
Because I'm not as well versed in Catholicism as I am in my own tradition of Protestantism.
But as I see it on the surface, both positions have a liability.
They have an inclination, a propensity.
Catholicism towards globalism, not valuing distinct peoples, right?
Missing some of these natural categories.
Protestants valuing nationalism, lineage, land, peoples, distinctions, but Zionism.
However, I do think that.
Globalism is inherent to Catholicism, or at least could be, in a way that Zionism is not inherent to Protestantism.
Are Protestants, on the whole, currently raging insufferable Zionists?
Yes and amen, 100%.
We know that's true.
I wish it wasn't, but that's undeniable.
But the question then, in terms of is it inherent, is okay, is there something about the Protestant position?
And E. Michael Jones got to this in our interview.
That makes Protestants or forces, right?
It's by necessity, forces Protestants to be Zionists.
And the answer there is no, because the best explanation that Dr. Jones was able to present is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
But all Sola Scriptura does, and we wrestled a little bit on how that should actually be defined, because I see the dangers of Sola Scriptura as well, although I think it's true.
But all that we were really able to settle on, and by his own admission, Sola Scriptura does not force you into a Zionist exegesis.
All it does is it allows the layman independently to interpret Scripture and come up with his own opinions.
But that could go either way.
Martin Luther, the first Protestant, the first protester, the first reformed Protestant individual, he held to Sola Scriptura and coined the phrase.
And he also wrote a book called The Jews and Their Lies.
So if we want to get real traditional and go back to our roots as Protestants, We've got Martin Luther saying, hey, watch out for those guys, the Jews.
Novel Zionistic Tendencies Arise00:02:40
Okay, so I don't think that a Zionist worshiping of Jewish people in Israel is an inherent by necessity position of Protestantism.
Whereas I do think that there's both positions have a problem Catholic globalism, Protestant Zionism.
On the Catholic side, though, I see that problem of globalism being more inherent to the Catholic position, more of a necessary logical outflow.
Whereas Protestantism, you can look at it in its history and recognize that this Zionistic tendency is a novel, recent development.
The fact that people get to read the Bible for themselves, certain challenges that that presents, albeit, but the fact that people get to read the scripture for themselves and interpret the scripture for themselves does not necessarily mean that it's baked into the equation that every Protestant is.
Is going to have to wind up being a dispensational Zionist.
I think that that's a particular era that we are in currently.
It stems from Darby, it stems from Schofield, it stems from millions and millions of dollars from Israel, the firm organization that actually pays pastors and church leaders here in America to develop, even for children, certain Sunday school curriculum that influences them to be pro Israel, thinking that that somehow will be pleasing to the Lord.
So, I don't see that as an inherent problem.
It is a problem.
Protestants, they love them some Zionism.
But I don't think that those two things go hand in hand, two pieces in a pod by necessity.
I think that that's a current moment that we're in.
The ship needs to be righted.
But one of my concerns is that if the Catholics win, and I love our Catholic friends, but if they win and the WASP that built America, everybody historically acknowledges that, including Dr. Jones, but if the WASP Loses, you will fundamentally see the nation changed in such a way that will never be able to go back again.
Because the Catholic does not really care about the wasp.
He does not really care about America's history.
He cares very much about history 2,000 years ago, not so much about history in the 16th and 17th century here in America.
That's not really a priority for the Catholic in the way that it is for a Protestant.
Building Audience on Rumble00:01:08
And I found that.
To be a fascinating piece of the discussion.
That's it for our show today.
It is Friday, and so we will not see you again until Monday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
Again, right here at the end, if you will, make sure to subscribe on YouTube and click the bell so you'll be notified as we come out with new content.
Do the same thing on Rumble.
We just started our Rumble channel this year.
So we just started at the beginning of January.
It's only been a couple months, but it's growing, and we want to try to build that up.
We think that Rumble is a great platform.
And we would like to build an audience there.
And then lastly, again, at Joel Webbin.
That's my handle on X. All of our video content is broadcasted there live, right when it's happening, as well as a host of other commentary and tweets.
And we also post our articles from Substack.
And so if you want to keep up with NXR's publications with our Substack, you'll be able to follow all that on X.
So X might be the most important platform in many regards.
Again, the handle is at Joel Webbin.
Thanks for tuning in.
And we will see you guys again on Monday, Lord willing.