Pastor Joel Webbin asserts that denying IQ disparities is a sin, citing Richard Lynn's 2019 study showing African averages range from 53 to 90 and a Lagos street test averaging 73. He critiques the Hart-Celler Act for prioritizing egalitarianism over assimilation, arguing this immigration policy lowers Western intelligence while capitalism exports Africa's brightest minds. Webbin endorses Bantu City Diaries' call for internal reform, education, and staying in Africa, yet concludes that without Christ, these cultural adjustments remain insufficient to reverse civilizational decline or ensure future-oriented success. [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
Acknowledging Reality vs Hating People00:07:06
Christian ministers who are looking you in the eye right now and saying these disparities don't exist, every young man in the world can pick up their phone and in 15 seconds can see that the average IQ in Haiti is 67.
Right.
And any Christian minister who denies that will not have any credibility.
They won't.
Credibility, but it is a sin to God as a manifested reality.
You're a liar.
It's not true.
You cannot be a minister of the gospel and be a public liar.
Right.
You're disqualified from ministry, from lying.
You can't be a liar and be a minister of the gospel.
All right, here we are back for another live episode with NXR Studios.
I am your host, Pastor Joel Webbin.
What you just watched was a quick little clip from, I don't know, about a year and a half, maybe two years ago, where we were discussing the topic that we'll be discussing today in light of the new research that has come out of Nigeria, the topic being IQ.
And the differences and disparities in IQ across different nations and different peoples.
And I remember that little clip right there, the place that we pulled it from this morning as we were preparing for this episode.
We didn't pull it from our own channel or our own sources, we pulled it from our detractors, our opponents.
I was slandered and smeared.
People lost their ever loving minds with that little clip right there about a year and a half ago when we said, If you're going to pretend as though disparities in IQ across different peoples, nationalities, and ethnicities, races, that it does not exist, then you're going to lose credibility.
You are going to lose the trust of young men, young Western men, because they're going to be able to readily find this information, especially as suppression of free speech and these kinds of things has been mitigated.
It's not completely gone, but been mitigated over the last couple of years.
There are less.
Restrictions on social media.
There are less restrictions when it comes to publishing certain information.
You can find it more readily.
It's more readily available than perhaps ever before, at least in recent times.
And so the whole point of that was to say look, disparities in IQ, they are undeniable.
They exist.
The research has been done.
And when it comes to the particular country that we were talking about in that episode, which was Haiti, we know what the IQ is.
And again, it was.
Christians.
Christians were the ones who, for like a month straight, were just doing, you know, response videos and retweeting and sharing that clip as though it was some huge gotcha.
Like, oh, we got Joel this time, you know, he's a racist or he made this number up or it doesn't come from anywhere.
So, what we want to do in this episode is first, of course, I want to be magnanimous.
So, the first thing that I'll say is, I told you so, I was right, and you were all wrong.
Okay, so I think that's how it works, right?
You do something like that.
No, nanny, nanny, boo, boo, you were absolutely wrong, and I was absolutely right, and you should feel bad about yourself.
So that's first.
Now that that's out of the way, continuing, let's do a punch list.
Wesley has some stats up that he's going to share with us because this actually matters.
Why does this matter?
Why are you just disparaging people?
We're not trying to disparage people, right?
There's a difference in acknowledging realities versus hating people.
So, this is not fueled by hatred.
But we do need to acknowledge these realities.
And the reason why is because we live in a world that is dominated by a secular, and I would argue in many ways satanic, worldview that goes against the natural order that God established, known as egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is not a biblical principle, egalitarianism is not a biblical worldview.
The idea that people are just fungible widgets, that they can be interchanged at whim, the idea that this blank slate ism, as you've probably heard, The phrase coined blank slateism that ultimately the only difference between people is just resources.
Did they have a father in their home?
Did they have a good family life?
Did they get good nutrition?
Did they get good education?
And the reality is that these things make a difference.
Of course they do.
Of course they do.
But right now, if you were to set up the same level of schools that we have here in the West, in America, or certain European countries, and you were to set that up in Nigeria, And every Nigerian boy and girl went to those schools for the next five years, it would improve their IQ.
IQ is malleable, it can be improved, but not whole deviations, right?
It's not going to take someone who has a 60 IQ and all of a sudden give them 120 five years later.
That's just simply not the way that the science works.
And I was told ad nauseum for years, maybe you guys have forgotten, but 2020, 2021, I was told to trust the science, right?
I mean, that's what was.
You know, forced down my throat every single day for a few years.
Trust the science, trust the science.
Well, we have science on IQ.
And the reason why it matters is because egalitarianism is a lie that has been fed to the West.
And truth always matters, no matter how discomforting it might be.
Truth matters because we're Christians and Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
We love the truth, right?
1 Corinthians chapter 13 love rejoices in the truth.
So, we love the truth and we want to be honest about it, especially when something has been lied about, when it has been profusely lied about, when it has been suppressed.
So, part of it is just getting to the truth and the way that God actually made the world, that there are some servants who have five talents, some that are given two, some that are given one.
We have a hierarchical world, we have a world of distinctions and differences, and distinctions necessarily create disparities.
Then, the Christian question, first, a Christian, Acknowledges this as reality because Christians embrace reality.
We don't suppress it or try to pretend as though it doesn't exist.
Then, what makes us Christians first, embracing reality, and then, two, living in light of reality, living with courage, living with compassion, living with wisdom.
So, that's part of what we're going to talk about in the latter half of this episode what do we do?
How then should we live, right?
How shall we live in light of the reality that the world that God actually made is a world that Includes distinctions and distinctions necessarily create disparities.
Living With Divine Distinctions00:15:30
What do we do with the fact that there are several nations in our world today where the average IQ is 67 or perhaps 70 or 73.4, as you'll see from a study that we're going to be sharing today?
But before we get into all that, just as a punch list, let's go ahead and just go over some of the statistics.
Let's look at some different nations in the world and the average IQ.
For each of those countries.
Wesley, would you oblige us?
Well, the gold standard for IQ testing is a book, The Intelligence of Nations, published by Richard Lin and David Becker in 2019.
They went to a number of different countries all over, over 200 of them, using the program for international assessment, trends in mathematics, science study, and progress in international reading literacy studies.
And so this is not just somebody who had an idea that I'm going to give someone an SAT test, I'm going to just transcribe and translate it, so it should be perfectly applicable.
Tests like these psychometric evaluations, I have my degree in neuroscience and psychology, they're tested again and again and again to make sure you're measuring the underlying structure.
So from that study, the intelligence of nations, here's some of the intelligences of specifically.
The continent of Africa.
The highest country by IQ is Libya.
Libya is in the northernmost part of Africa, nearest to the equator, with an average IQ of 90.
You have a couple different smaller countries.
One of them is an island, even farther off to the east of Madagascar.
The third one is Sudan, where you're getting to the level of 78.
We'll talk a little bit later about the IQ ranges, what it means to be 80, what it means to be 70.
But the average IQ, as I measured it in Sudan, was 78.
Tanzania, 79.
Madagascar, 76.
Uganda, 76.
Kenya 75, Tanzania 74, Zimbabwe 74, Rwanda 69, Botswana 69, Zambia 68, Nigeria 67.8.
Keep that in mind, we're going to play a video later.
67.8.
Somalia, and we've heard a lot about Somalian immigrants.
I think it's something like 10% of Somalia, like Somalia, the nationality, now live here in the United States.
Wow.
Average IQ as measured in this 2019 study 67, Morocco 67, Mali 59.
South Sudan, 58.
Ghana, 58.
Guinea, 53.
Liberia, this was by slaves that were sent back, Protestant slaves that were sent back to Africa to form a colony.
45.
Sierra Leone, 45.
Yeah.
Another thing that's worth noting, real quick, from the outset of this episode is that here in the West, it was held as just an absolute universal belief that below the IQ of 85 was defined as mental retardation.
And that was the standard that was held for a very long time until I believe it was not until the 70s or it might have been the 90s.
1992, the American Association on Mental Deficiency changed the definition.
Right.
And part of the reasoning, when you look into that and see what was the motive and incentive that inspired this, part of it was how that threshold would affect people's perception of blacks in America.
Was a big part of it, and how it would affect their perception of immigrants who are coming from different nations.
Like, what do you do as a country if you're saying that by your own medical standards and the standards that you've set, you're essentially saying that anybody who immigrates into the United States from a non Western country is mentally retarded, right?
Not now, again, not universally each and every individual, but generally, right?
We understand how generalities work.
There are always exceptions, but we're saying it's generally, meaning more often than not, the reality.
True.
How do you push mass immigration from non white Western countries onto America if America, in terms of its medical science, is saying that the average person coming from these non Western countries is mentally retarded by our own standards, by our own definition?
Well, that's going to be a pretty difficult task.
That's going to be a tall order to get Americans to support.
Mass immigration from non white Western countries.
Like, how do you do that?
How do you say, hey, fellow Americans, we should import in mass mentally retarded people?
Well, it comes to a problem of immigration.
There comes a certain threshold of intelligence where you can't even teach someone how to meaningfully contribute to society.
Now, IQ as a number in and of itself doesn't necessarily tell you they won't be able to do anything, but the military for the longest time has given IQ tests because, I mean, it's the military.
It matters who you're putting a gun into the hands of.
And they've determined a threshold where they say, even in the military, where we have guys that their only job is basically to be cannon fodder, maybe it's engineering to move a sandbag from point A to point B. There comes a point where they're so unreliable, they're so unable to contribute meaningfully that we don't, it's not worth it to actually enlist them.
And there was a long time where you could use IQ tests in employment until a landmark case, 1971, Griggs versus Duke Power Company, in which the court determined the disparate impact clause.
The disparate impact clause shifts focus from the motives to the effects of the policy.
So, this decision, Griggs versus Duke Power Company, the decision required employers to prove that tests or educational requirements are valid measures.
Of job ability.
The precedent broadened civil rights enforcement and employment and influenced later expansions of impact based discrimination law.
So it was basically twofold.
The test has to be relevant to the job.
So you're testing them in the realm of engineering, you're testing them in the job of administration, and it can't have disparate impact.
In fact, the court actually said the court emphasized that the goal was to achieve equality of employment opportunity.
But we just don't live in that world.
We do not live in a world of equal employment opportunity.
I will never have the opportunity to be an engineer at Apple.
I'm not smart enough to be an engineer.
And there's no test or no lowering of the standard that makes it so that I should work there.
And so when you take these tests and say you can't administer this because you're really not technically testing what they're doing their job for, and you can't administer this test because it disproportionately impacts people.
Well, if it disproportionately impacts people, I would want to know hey, these people aren't cut out for this job.
They're not cut out for engineering.
They're not cut out for this.
A five foot two woman in the military is not cut out to be on the front lines with 80 pounds of gear.
And it's not hateful and it's not discriminatory to say so.
It's reality.
Right.
Yeah.
And I would think that.
I don't know much about that case, but I would think the Duke Power Company could probably just design a test that people wouldn't pass.
That is germane to the work.
But I think to your point about equal opportunity, it all comes back down to this concept of egalitarianism.
Like that's at the root of it.
And we've talked about this before, but it's just this notion that God made the world in a particular way.
And we actually, as people who hate God, we actually don't like that.
We want to reverse that to some extent.
Not only do we want equal opportunity, But we want to socially construct the equal opportunity.
So, all of the environmental factors that actually might contribute to someone's disproportionate performance maybe it's a stable home, they have two parents in the home, maybe they have a high income.
So, we say, okay, what if we gave universal basic income?
Or actually, if we can't do that, we should just punish people who have high income.
Let's make it negative points on any given evaluation if you come from a family with quote unquote privileges.
And so, at every turn, it's particular here in America, I think the equal.
Opportunity argument has always just been an argument for equal outcome.
And so the communists have had their way, despite actually not winning the Cold War, they've had their way philosophically and ideologically in the West.
And we're still suffering from it.
It's an absolute plague.
I would say it's a plague, certainly on the left, but even on the right, I think there's some implicit presumptions or assumptions about what we should be striving for, whether it be related to male and female.
That's probably the most pressing on the right is this question of, well, should females be pastors?
Because my My liberal inclination, even though I'm quote unquote conservative, is that they should be able to be pastors because the distinctions aren't that important.
And so the list goes on and on.
Even if they're not able in terms of permissibility allowance, we still need to insist that they are able in terms of capability.
Sure.
So, even your based conservative, you know, theological minister, right?
Male minister, he's going to insist look, the reason why we don't have female pastors at this church is because God's word says it and that settles it.
And I have the bumper sticker on my car right out there in the parking lot.
So, God's word says it, that settles it.
And so, we're not going to have female pastors because we want to be obedient to the word of God.
Yes, and amen.
I appreciate that.
And God simply doesn't allow it.
And this is a rule that He has, and we're going to follow it because we're conservative and we're based.
But I want to assure every woman sitting in the sanctuary today this does not mean that we don't think that you could, in terms of capacity, be pastors.
In fact, let me give so many disclaimers.
So I made the point, but now I'm going to give 45 minutes of disclaimers so that the point is completely dismantled by the time I'm done with this sermon.
In fact, I actually think personally, you know, again, we follow God's rules, but I think not only could women be, are they capable of being pastors, they shouldn't be, and we won't do it because we're going to obey the Bible, but they could be in terms of capacity and capability, they could be pastors.
In fact, I think they could even be better pastors, right?
Because women are, you know, innately more nurturing and compassionate and caring, you know, and let me show you all these verses.
Jesus himself describes himself as not a rooster, but a mother, female, mother hen that longs to gather Jerusalem, all the chicks under his wings, and And that's a maternal instinct.
And what is that?
I mean, he's the chief shepherd, after all, 1 Peter chapter 5.
And so every under shepherd, a male pastor, is seeking to emulate his example.
And what is his example?
Well, it's very feminine in many ways.
And so not only could women be pastors in terms of, again, capability, but they could probably be even better pastors than men.
But we won't do it because we're based.
Yeah, yeah.
It becomes this apologizing for God.
It's for what God has commanded in the way that God made the world.
It's like, I don't really like it.
But yes, the Bible does say it.
But think about that.
What are you doing ultimately?
You're impugning the character of God.
Because what you're then saying is that God has some rule about women not being pastors, but it's capricious.
It's arbitrary.
It's random.
It's baseless.
That was another thing that I went viral for.
Allie Beth Stuckey lost her mind.
Because I made an argument.
I said, look, it's not just that God doesn't allow women to preach and that he doesn't allow women to serve as elders in the church.
The reason for the rule, right?
We cannot completely divorce and sever.
Role from design.
It's not male and female roles he assigned them in Genesis.
It's male and female natures he designed them.
It's not mere assignment, it's designment.
I know that's not a word, but I'm a preacher, so I'm going to try to rhyme.
But it's God's design.
So, in other words, the role, the duties, the prescriptions and precepts stem from the design, the nature, right?
It's actually ontological.
And so, when God says that a woman cannot be a pastor, I believe that it's not capricious.
I believe that it's not.
Arbitrary, but that God actually has loving reasons behind this, and it stems from his design.
So I made the argument I said, it's not just a woman may not be a pastor in terms of permissibility, but she cannot be a pastor in terms of capability.
Meaning, I must believe, and I do believe, that from the whole biblical theology, there is something innate to the role of pastoral ministry that is by nature masculine.
And so a woman is not just not permitted to do it, but she's actually incapable of doing it, or at least incapable of doing it well.
And same thing.
Like, just like the IQ Haiti thing, like, same thing went super viral.
Everyone was like, oh my gosh, I can't believe he said this.
And he's calling women stupid.
Well, back to our topic at hand IQ, there are different facets and sectors or realms of IQ, right?
There's high verbal IQ, emotional IQ, spatial IQ, mathematical IQ.
Like there are different forms of intelligence, and we recognize that.
So we're not trying to truncate and just narrow everything down to you're smart or you're dumb, right?
Or use it as a cudgel, right?
Which is always the underlying perception is that it's why we're apologizing because you will assume.
Your liberal sensibilities will assume that by bringing up the distinctions or the disparity, we're necessarily using it as a cudgel to devalue someone.
Which, to be clear, I am, but not a cudgel against Africa.
But I do want to use this episode as a cudgel to absolutely rub it in the faces, not of Africans, but of white Christians who disparaged me for saying that the average IQ.
I actually do want to use it against them.
Inclusion feels really good.
It's a really feminine trait, and inclusion feels so self righteous.
It feels really good to include someone.
And I mean, like, well, You think about recess, you know, on the playground, like, well, he's in a wheelchair, but we're going to include him.
And I actually do think it's a virtue.
It's a virtue to help the little child that's a little shorter participate with the other kids.
It's a virtue when it's recess interpersonally, where it's not a virtue.
It's a scale issue interpersonally.
Where it's not a virtue to be inclusive is to say, we need more pilots that are blind.
We need more engineers that don't know math.
There's a point of inclusion where it's really good and right to welcome people, but the minute you scale it up and the minute you go to actual serious tasks, recess is not serious.
Coloring and making crafts is not serious.
They're good and they're helpful for kids, but they're not serious.
The minute you get to serious tasks and you take that same idea of inclusion and welcoming and you apply it there, it's disastrous.
And that's the irony.
Or go ahead, finish.
I was just going to say, and this ties in, it ties in really to the world order since World War II.
I'm going to read a quote here from a Catholic bishop, Richard Williamson.
He said this Since World War II.
That's right, Wesley.
You get in there.
You get in there and you make it about the Holocaust.
You make it about the Holocaust.
You make it about the post war consensus.
You make this about America.
Here's the deal.
We're talking about Germany.
Now, is the African IQ also Israel ruined the world?
Let's go ahead.
All right.
Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson, he said this the new religion, and that would be the religion we've called it before, Holocaustianity, is very seductive.
It's very soft and sweet and sticky.
And it's easy to go with it and lose the Christian faith.
You have a new and different faith, a happy, clappy faith where everybody's nice and everybody's sweet.
The only sin that's still left is Nazi sin.
Hitler is the devil.
The six million are the redeemer.
And that's deadly.
It's got nothing to do with the Christian faith except that it's a clever imitation because you get off switch.
Instead of Golgotha and the gas chamber, instead of the cross.
So, what he's saying is since World War II, we've had this idea that anybody who draws a hard line, anyone who sticks a flag in the sand, anyone who says, no, actually, these people don't belong.
The Deadly Nazi Sin Imitation00:09:34
These people aren't capable.
They're not ready to do this job.
Anyone who holds hard lines like that is a Nazi.
And that's the only sin left.
And so, we need to be welcoming.
We need to be happy.
We need to be inclusive.
It's one big party.
Right.
And even more specifically than that, it's that any hierarchy is necessarily rigid, that it can't recognize nuance.
Right.
And so it's very ironic.
You think about the origin of the IQ test.
It actually was given to children, I believe, in France when it emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, or the 20th century, that's right, the early 1900s.
And they're using it to test kids who are gifted, and conversely to children who need more support.
So the irony is by getting rid of the standard altogether, it's actually you're doing a disservice to the kids who are struggling because there are certain, certainly with IQ, there are certain environmental factors.
I'm thinking of vocabulary portions.
These children who struggle with the vocabulary portions of any given IQ test.
Maybe they don't read that much.
Maybe they need to be taught.
They needed to be taught specifically.
They need a school for children who don't read good or who want to read good and do other things good too.
Yeah.
No, it's, I feel like, what was I going to say?
Oh, okay.
So IQ has gone down recently in the last 20 years or so in the West.
Are you guys familiar with that?
Yep.
Yep.
All right, let's just say it.
How much of that do we think is due to immigration?
Every IQ test I see of America, it's like, What kind of American are you talking about?
Right.
What kind of American?
Hey, Americans' IQ has gone down.
And it's not correlated whatsoever.
But we also did just import a bunch of people.
We just read out Haiti and Somalia.
Right.
How many millions of people have come in there?
Think about that 10% of the nation, the whole country of Somalia, is here in the United States.
And we're also supporting Guatemala, Haiti, tons of their GDP, something like 25% of it.
We looked at this in the last episode, is just even our exports to them.
So it's.
Dozens percentage wise coming in, and then all of our money going out to them.
And what a surprise, our intelligence has gone down.
Yeah, it's funny.
I'm thinking like our average intelligence is actually probably going down as we immigrate from these countries, and their average is actually probably going up.
Yep.
And that's the thing with communism or, you know, or the soft communism, aka liberalism.
Ultimately, what it does is it does actually ironically achieve, not totally, because nature remains undefeated, but.
Some semblance of equality.
But the way that it's done is exactly what you are articulating, Antonio.
It's not by raising people up, but it's by suppressing all those who are gifted and talented.
It's taking the brightest and the best and pushing them down because now they don't get attention.
They don't get challenged.
They're neglected.
And that's ultimately what we've done we've just said because exceptions exist, and they do, there are exceptions.
Because exceptions exist, because of the existence of exceptions, There's no such thing as a rule.
That's what we've done.
Because of the existence of exceptions, there's no such thing as a rule.
You gave like a great, you know, analogy a while back, a few weeks ago, but just saying, like, do we believe that rainforest exists?
Yeah, we do.
Can we draw an exact line of where the rainforest begins and where it stops?
Like, to where, like, you know, if I step one inch to the left, every characteristic of the rainforest.
I will be immersed in, completely immersed.
And if I step one inch to the right, I won't find a single species or tree or animal or anything indicative of the rainforest.
And we'd say, no, it's a line of blur.
Yeah, it's gradients.
Yeah, it's gradients.
But the fact that I could be outside, right, I could go 20 miles outside of the rainforest, but still find this particular tree that is indigenous to this rainforest 20 miles outside of where the lines have been drawn on a map doesn't mean, and therefore, There's no rainforest.
That's stupid.
That is, well, in the theme of our episode today, retarded.
That is mentally retarded.
Let's get to this video here that we promised you guys.
This is, his name is Bantu Diaries.
And he actually, he seems, you'll listen to him talk, he's actually really smart and really wants to help the black community.
I love it.
A black nationalist helping his people.
And so he set out some of that research I mentioned earlier.
He said, I'm going to go on this street and I'm going to see if these IQ numbers actually hold up.
Are the people in Nigeria, he's in the capital, The biggest city of Nigeria.
Do these numbers hold up on the ground with testing?
Let's go ahead and play this video.
It's four minutes long.
It's all about the IQ.
They have the lowest IQ in the world.
Well, what can you do with an IQ of under 60?
The average IQ is 75.
That's what those who watch my channel, especially Westerners, often comment is their IQ.
So we decided to go to the streets of Nigeria to conduct our own IQ test.
I raised the budget and dispatched my team.
Well, the findings were very disappointing.
Welcome to Bantu Page.
It has been reported that Africa has the lowest IQ in the world today.
On the streets of Nigeria, we have come to confirm that.
We will conduct IQ tests and bring you the numbers.
You see, there's something about black people.
Whenever a white person comes up with a report that's negative towards black people, they complain about racism.
Well, lately, I think they hate me more than the white now.
I raised the budget and dispatched my team.
Well, the findings were very disappointing.
So we conducted our own report.
We're Nigerians.
We went to the street of Nigeria and conducted an IQ test.
It was so disappointing that.
I had to take one myself to make sure this thing wasn't that difficult.
And I'm not bragging here, I did pretty well.
Our findings did not deviate from the report you find on Google.
Welcome to the IQ experience.
When you search online, you'd find studies claiming that sub-Saharan Africans have the lowest IQ in the world.
I've seen this report for a long time now.
However, my Western audience and the commentators often insist that IQ is the reason why black Africa is backward.
True to form, my team did not fail.
They delivered a thorough result, and we have the video evidence to prove it.
IQ testing has two formats.
William Stern developed the original classical formula based on Alfred Binet's work.
The modern version, which no longer uses the term mental age.
Instead, it applies statistical normalization, where scores are distributed around a mean with a standard deviation.
This method was influenced by the statistical work of David Vexler.
I have never wanted black Africa to be better than when I was going through the result.
Let me explain how we conducted the test and who our candidates were.
We set up to the streets of Lagos and we place our tables, computers at mall, high street and popular areas and at random anyone who wants to come, we offer them one thousand naira to sit down and complete the test.
In Nigeria, financial incentives are often necessary to encourage participation.
It's hard to determine whether the monetary reward had a negative or positive effect on the participants, which may have invalidated the result.
Nevertheless, the candidates appeared to enjoy the experience.
Our candidate included a mix of young and old participants, male and female, as well as A-level students.
Everyone who participated was above sixteen.
Only three percent of the participants scored one hundred and two.
And another 3% scored over 80 and over 90, respectively.
The highest group, 26%, scored 69, followed by the second highest group, 20%, scored 76.
Disappointingly, 52% of participants scored below 70, accounting for half of a candidate.
Overall, the average score was 73, while the median was 69.
This raises some pertinent questions.
How does IQ affect a population's ability to invent, produce, develop, or run a country?
Is the IQ test really useful?
IQ testing can be useful, but its value depends on how and why it is used.
He just gets into there some of the different dimensions of intelligence that we've already covered.
We play this video not to pick on him and not to pick on the people, but to say, here is an objective reality.
And he seems great.
He seems great.
He had a great comment that said, as long as black Africans continue to not take responsibility to prioritize a lifestyle that involves partying, that involves all these behaviors that are not learning, they're going to be looked down on by the rest of the world.
He's trying to encourage black Africans and say, man up.
Go learn, go study, go improve yourself.
And what's great about objective metrics, too, is that even if it's bad news, quote unquote, it's good that you actually have something to look at and say, we need to do better.
Is IQ Testing Truly Useful00:05:04
Rewrite my cancer test.
I want it to be negative.
Sir, it's positive.
No, I want to see that it's negative.
No, you get the diagnosis.
And when it comes to, well, how does this flow out?
What are the downstream results of this?
IQ at its core is pattern recognition.
It's pattern recognition in art as far as shapes and symmetry.
It's pattern recognition in music.
What makes good music?
It's pattern recognition.
Recognition in mathematics.
It's pattern recognition in language.
It's recognizing patterns.
And when you're unable to recognize patterns, you're not going to be able to live as well in the world.
You can imagine someone that got sick every time they ate wheat.
They recognize the pattern and say, hey, I might have an allergy here.
I might have celiac disease.
They recognize the pattern and say, I should do something about it.
I should improve my state.
And all of these countries, and we'll get into a minute what some of that would come from, and it's benign things like geography and weather.
But you think about European countries.
Well, they recognize patterns of living.
They recognize foods that help people to grow better.
They recognize Hey, these different things.
By teaching our children this, they do better.
By instructing in the Bible, we have less criminals that turn out in the streets.
They recognize the patterns and made adjustments to it.
But if you simply live a life where here's what happens, happens, what comes to me, comes to me, there's nothing I can do about it, then you're not going to improve your state.
You're going to have higher degrees of criminality.
And the first step is saying, no, actually, there's a lot of people here that need to learn, that need to be instructed, that need to be helped, and they can make the world better for them if they're willing to accept there's a systematic problem here.
Yeah.
Real quick, I want to talk about voting and then I want to talk about accounting for IQ.
In terms of, I've said this multiple times, but I'll say it again.
What I would do if I was in charge, which I'm not, but if I ever was, I want to see in America, if we have to keep voting, which it seems like we're going to, then I simply want to see the right people voting.
So I would have strict requirements.
I would want it to be a house.
Household vote, representative government, all the way down even to the family, molecular, not atomistic.
So, not raw individualism, but collectives of families.
So, it would be a male vote.
A head of household vote would be fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles voting on behalf of their family.
And those individuals, those males, would need to be adult males.
They would also need to be married, right?
They have a stake in the past.
They would need to be third generation Americans, not someone who's been here for 15 minutes, not an anchor baby like Vivek Ramaswamy, but somebody who's.
Third generation American on both sides, or fifth generation, at least on one side of the family.
So they have a stake in the past.
They also are married.
They have a stake in the future because marriage doesn't always mean children, but it ordinarily does.
So there's a stake in the future, stake in the past.
They don't have a criminal record.
That would be important.
They're a net positive tax paying citizen.
There will be some exceptions for that, like a veteran or somebody who served the country and has taken benefits, but they serve the country at great price, great cost to themselves.
So they're net positive.
Tax paying citizen.
They don't have a criminal record.
They're an adult.
They are a male.
They're a third generation American on both sides of the family, a fifth generation on one, and they're married.
In addition, there would maybe be one addition in light of today's episode.
I think an IQ test, a simple IQ test, not setting the standard at 120 or something like that, but that you need to have an IQ of at least 85 or 90.
If you're going to have a say in the future of the country that everybody is going to be subjected to, you should have just at least a basic benchmark of intelligence.
You don't get to drive the car if you are mentally retarded.
And so, having a basic IQ test and setting the benchmark at maybe I would prefer it to be a little bit higher, 90, but reasonable, not setting it too high.
And here's the deal if we did that, and the reason why we likely won't is because it would affect all people across the board.
It'd be a universal rule, but it would affect people disproportionately.
We know this, everybody knows this.
But what we're doing is, in the name of equality, we're ultimately putting our worst foot forward.
What we're doing is we're subjugating everyone to the lowest common denominator.
And this is absolute foolishness.
And it's actually unjust.
It's actually injustice.
So, in the spirit of fairness, we've foregone justice.
In the spirit of fairness, we've foregone justice.
And this is actually not just impractical, illogical, but I believe it's actually immoral.
It is immoral to subject mass amounts of your country, especially its native citizens.
To bad policies, bad politicians, exorbitant taxes and welfare system, and all these kinds of things in the name of equality.
Now, in terms of accounting for IQ, there's a lot of things to this.
Foregone Justice and Immorality00:14:42
There are some biblical reasons that we've covered in the past and we don't have time to get into today.
But just one practical reason why would sub Saharan Africa have lower IQ than the rest of the world?
Well, part of it is due to climate.
The fact that That we are Christians.
This is important for Christians to hear.
The fact that we are Christians does not mean that we don't believe in adaptation.
It doesn't mean that we don't believe in microevolution.
I don't really particularly like the word evolution because, not because it's inherently a bad word, but because it's usually used to convey macroevolution.
Not that species adapt and create some disparity, but it's used to try to convince you that people came from monkeys and that monkeys came from this, that came from fish, and the primordial.
Soup in the beginning of the world.
It ultimately replaces God with time.
It says, you know, what God did by his power, nature did by millions and millions of years.
And so I don't like any ideology that ultimately is trying to replace God.
I reject that outright.
So I am a Christian and I'm a Christian who believes the Bible.
So I believe in a relatively young earth, thousands of years rather than millions and millions of years.
I believe in a literal six day creation, 24 hour days.
I believe.
These things because the Bible teaches it.
But it's ironic to me that so many Christians, like myself, Bible believing traditional Christians who have an aversion towards evolution, just like I do, macro evolution, they would look at someone like Ken Ham.
If you're not familiar, he's a creation scientist.
So he's somebody who holds the same view about the Bible and young earth and those things that I've just articulated.
But he's a scientist and he has a couple PhDs and is.
Well versed in these kinds of conversations.
And many evangelical Christians, such as myself, look up to him and appreciate him.
He has garnered a lot of respect among, you know, biblical, Bible believing, traditional Christians.
And one of the things that he says is, you know, because if you believe the Bible, then you believe in a worldwide flood, that it was not just a localized flood, but it was worldwide.
As the Bible teaches, everything that had breath in its lungs perished in this flood.
And Noah was only able to bring so many animals with him onto the ark.
And so that's kind of the big question that the secular scientists would ask.
They'd say the Bible can't be true because it talks about this worldwide flood and an ark.
And the biblical timeline would say that this happened, I believe it'd be about, Noah, I think it's 3,500 years before Jesus, so 5,500 years ago.
So in 5,500 years, you're telling me 5,500 years ago, every living thing with breath in its lungs was wiped off from the face of the The earth and Noah with an ark, because the Bible gives the dimensions, an ark of this size and these metrics that can only fit this many animals was preserved through the flood.
And that from this many species of animals, reasonably what Noah could contain on the ark, we have all the species, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of species that we have today in only a very relatively short period of time 5,500 years.
And the evangelical, Bible believing Christian, again, such as myself, would say, yes.
And how do we account for that?
Well, Kin Ham has done a lot of work and said, well, Noah didn't bring on every species of dog onto the ark.
He brought two canines, one male, one female.
And from those two dogs, canines, we got all the way to chihuahuas and poodles, to wolves and Great Danes.
And the evangelical, traditional Bible believing Christian cheers and says, yeah, yeah, you tell them, Kin Ham, yes, the Bible is true.
Every evangelical Christian was sitting on the edge of their seat with bated breath watching the infamous debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, the science guy.
And they're all rooting for Ken Ham.
And so am I.
So am I.
I appreciate Ken Ham.
Here's what I'm getting at why do you think all of that adaptation and distinctions occurred with dogs, occurred with cats, occurred with birds, occurred with all these different animal species?
And yet, You know, 5,500 years now removed from the ark, the eight human beings Noah, his wife, three sons, and their wives that no disparities were created with them.
Well, dogs are a great example.
Like, there are real measurable differences in impulse control, ability, social cognition.
Like, obviously, dogs don't speak, that they're not to that level of intelligence, but there's a wide variety.
And there are certain dogs that are very equipped for certain tasks, and other dogs that are really dangerous, just as an objective statement of fact.
And to your point, Both humans and dogs had a, they're called bottleneck effects.
So when all of a population is shrunk down and there's new kind of founders that then pass on only a select number of adaptations, dogs and humans both had that same event, the flood of Noah, the same amount of time ago.
Right.
And so we believe, as Bible believing Christians, that distinctions can emerge over time, not 15 minutes, but also not millions and millions of years, a relatively short period of time, 5,000 years, give or take.
And we believe that these distinctions can emerge in every single creature.
But for some reason, we're saying that it doesn't happen with people.
It does.
It does happen with people.
Now, accounting for that, why would some people develop in certain ways and other people not, you know, or develop in other ways?
Well, part of it is high time preference versus low time preference.
The idea to the mere concept of the future, the mere concept of preparation and planning ahead.
People who lived in more cold environments that had, you know, a season for growing and harvesting and a season where everything dies in the winter and there is no food or it's very scarce.
You have to.
Every year, plan ahead for the future.
You know that this event is coming in which food will be scarce, and you need to be prepared for that event, or you and your family line will die.
The ones who prepare for it, they survive and pass down their genes to their descendants.
The ones who are ill prepared, they die off, right?
Well, what do you think the result would be over generations and generations and generations and generations of people who lived in that kind of environment?
Versus people who live in an environment where literally every day is like the last, right?
Where every day is the same.
It's hot.
It's going to be hot today.
It's going to be hot tomorrow.
It'll be hot the day after.
It's going to rain sometimes, but not every day.
And sometimes it won't.
There's no concept of the future.
It's just the now.
Well, when I was in university, I took a high level African philosophy course.
And there's a Kenyan philosopher, John Mimbidi.
And he talked about how in Africa, and this is Columbia University, so these are as politically correct as you get.
And he articulated, and we talked about in the class, there's two modes of African time.
Sasa and Zamani.
Sasa is the present to maybe very near future, like dinner.
You have the present, the moment that you're living in.
It's here now.
Then you have Zamani.
That's the past time.
Those are the two modes of time.
There isn't really a way to speak of a month ago this happened, a year ago this did happen.
For most of Africa, it was there's the past and everything that happened happened in the past.
And then there's the now.
These are the two modes of time that we think in.
This is well documented, it's well understood.
Nobody denies this, but that has implications for those people going to try to participate in Western societies.
Can you briefly discuss?
I know that it's not politically correct, but you're a big boy and you can do it with nuance and, you know, with grace in your speech.
But the concept of the 32nd African.
There's a famous, it's a short writing from someone who claims to have done work for a long time in Africa.
And what he articulated, and whether you take it as true or not, it is certainly true philosophically, too.
There's simply the present.
But there's this idea of the 32nd African.
And the 32nd African is basically.
When you get to a certain level where you're not thinking about the future and you have low impulse control, all you think about is right here in the moment.
So imagine you did a terrible crime.
You hurt someone, you killed someone, you sexually assaulted someone, and you didn't possess the cognitive ability to think back a month from then when you're in the courthouse, a year later when you're in jail.
You simply have the ability to think now.
There's a real sense in which your defense and the defense of others that are around you in the community could be well, he didn't do it.
He's not there at the scene of the crime.
I didn't just witness him do it with my own eyes.
That was in the past.
Why are we blaming him?
For something that he didn't do.
And so, if you only have a very temporary outlook on time, which can be brought about by a lack of impulse control, by a lack of time preference, understanding, planning for the future, if you don't have those things, you're going to live so in the moment that you're not going to think about, hey, I could end up in jail for the rest of my life.
I could be facing the death penalty.
And I mean, even to give an example, this isn't just race specific.
There's a family, I believe it's in West Virginia, and it's white folks, and they're so inbred that they're to the point where they communicate in clicks.
And grunts.
They've lost the ability to speak through so many years of inbreeding.
How do you explain the gospel to someone who has no concept of the future?
How do you say that place faith in Jesus now, here, and then in the future, you'll have eternal life?
This is actually really difficult.
Same thing for African missionaries.
They're trying to explain to them, Jesus died for you in the past, you believe in him now, so in the future, you have eternal life.
How do you do that?
How do you do that to a family that only communicates in grunts and clicks?
And the point is, this all matters.
And so we want laws that say, you can't sleep with your sister because you could produce terrible things.
That could happen.
These people are still made in the image of God, but there's severe implications for society, implications for salvation.
And then the same thing for countries like Nigeria.
What is it that needs to be done to help these people, to educate these people, to get them on good nutrition that's going to promote good development?
It's not hateful, it's actually really, really loving.
Yes, absolutely.
And as it pertains to us in the West, if there is a group of people that, again, generally speaking, not universally, not each and every individual, but generally speaking, on average, this group of people.
Is not thinking about future consequences or future effects.
They sever themselves in the present from themselves and whatever actions they might have committed in the past as though it was done by another person, that it's not even them.
If you have a people that can be described generally in this way, what would possess a country's leadership to say we should in mass import this people to live?
Here.
How would that be a benefit to the country?
I remember hearing a female politician, of course, it was a woman, and she said that deporting Haitians was a death sentence.
She said, sending them back to Haiti is a death sentence.
You're sending them back to a place, to a country, to a people where there's no hope, there's no future, it's riddled with violence, there's no opportunity, the people there are barbaric.
If sending Haitians back to Haiti is a death sentence, then what is it to America to import them here but a death sentence?
So we're saying, well, in the name of compassion, we don't want to sentence these individual Haitians to death by making them go back to their own native country.
So we're going to sentence our own people here in the West to death by importing them en masse here to our country.
How is that just?
How is that morally responsible to your own native citizens, the people that you have been tasked to serve and to protect?
So these things matter.
They matter for Western policy when it comes to immigration, who we allow in, what countries.
And the reality is that we had this way of thinking, we had these policies.
That's what Hart Seller, the Hart Seller Act, destroyed.
It was the one two punch that came on the heels of World War II.
Never again mentality.
Hitler was really, really bad and really, really mean.
And we need inclusivism.
We need equity.
We need diversity.
We need compassion.
And so, you know, one of the decisions that was made in the aftermath of World War II was both civil rights and Hartzeller.
Hartzeller undid the policies regarding immigration that we had previously had as a country that said, when it comes to receiving immigrants, we're going to receive them predominantly from these countries.
Countries, countries that are Western, countries that are majority white, countries that we believe are compatible with our country and with our way of life, people that will be able to come here and be a net positive to our country, our nation, and that are compatible and able to assimilate.
Those were the policies that we once had.
And in every single time situation in that fashion, it was a Jewish individual.
And that was because Jews mostly resided in Eastern Europe and they did not like.
That immigration policy specifically discluded them.
They were not as welcomed as Western Europeans.
And so they actively, and race science was a big part of it.
So a big part of this was well, hey, listen, people are not biologically or racially inclined to certain patterns of behavior.
That's all pseudoscience.
Race is not a good determinant for picking people to immigrate.
We should go by family.
We should go by vocation.
Race Science and Immigration Policy00:07:43
We should do all of these other metrics aside from is this person going to meaningfully contribute to society?
And the result of it has been I mean, we've seen it.
Heart cellar happens.
The percent of America that's Christian, not even just white, Christian, goes down because you're bringing in people that aren't Christian.
All of the things that you despise right now, whether it be abortion, whether it be multiculturalism, whether it be false religions sending out their calls to prayer on United States soil, all of those things were downstream of saying, all peoples are equal.
Everything's flat.
He's just as qualified as that person.
It's all downstream of this very egalitarian, flattening impulse.
Whereas we say, no, there's a hierarchy that's God made.
Some people are more compatible, some people are more assimilable than others.
And it's not hateful to say so.
Yep.
And I would argue largely, I think in the mid, like heart cellars, the mid 20th century, a lot of the immigration of the time was a part of the capitalistic economic engine.
It wasn't, I think by that time, I'm thinking now post war consensus, Americans had lost the concept of, or were losing, slowly losing the concept of civilization as more robust than, I guess, peaceful living amongst each other.
It was like, it was, to your point, Joel, like, I truly think lowest common denominators.
Like, does this person come?
Will they have a job?
Can I not kill them and can they not kill me?
And that became sort of the bedrock of, okay, well, then maybe we can get along.
And obviously, it's gotten to the point where we've sort of lost touch with anything that really makes any kind of homogenous, cohesive civilization.
But I also wanted to bring up something going back to the concept of, okay, where does IQ emerge and thinking about it biblically?
I think I want to make two separate points.
So I think at the individual level, IQ is certainly something that can be divorced from virtue, personal virtue.
So you can have someone who's 160 IQ and actually, Actually, it falls for all sorts of lies because they have this warped, twisted, unbiblical form of thinking.
And then vice versa.
I think you can have someone who has a low IQ but is actually more wise, right?
More prudent, if you will.
But I do think that there's a connection now moving away from the individual level.
I do think there's a really close connection between civilizational virtue that is, what does our society embody?
What do we cherish?
What do we hold sacred?
What do we inculcate into children and the performance of IQ?
And so this gets into all the concepts about nutrition.
Concepts about reading and learning and education and what goes into those things.
Going back even to the concept of the gospel, I think we often say that the law is a teacher, but I actually think the law is also a teacher in a very practical way, in a way that you wouldn't think in terms of obviously moral virtue, but also in the ways of we talk about time preference, right?
So when I'm taught to meditate, when I'm taught to repent, when I'm taught to consider my own salvation, Those things actually do require some of these practical tools that we're talking about that obviously play into IQ.
So it's like pattern recognition.
Can I recognize a pattern of sin in my own life and address it?
Can I see it throughout time?
Can I visualize it in the abstract and say, okay, I'm going to make these very practical decisions?
Like these are obviously Christian.
There's a pattern.
I go out for a beer and one beer turns into three beers.
And then I end up at 3 a.m. doing cocaine.
It's a pattern there.
Can you recognize it?
Yeah.
And so that thing, I do believe that biblically speaking, it's just ingrained in the nature and the nature of the world that God made.
That through time, the practice of those things actually does become native, if you will, to your own biology, to your more than just the civilization, but also just genetically.
And so.
And we've talked about that before.
But I actually wanted to bring up something else just to say, okay, I've talked about this concept at the individual level.
Virtue, IQ, they're not the same.
They can be certainly inversely related.
There was a study, I think, at the beginning of the 20s, this would have been about 1920s, so actually, as the concept of IQ emerged, this man, his name is Louis Terman, he was a psychologist at Stanford University.
And he actually conducted probably one of the best longitudinal studies of IQ that we have, which is to say he found the top 1% IQ children.
And followed them through decades, measuring outcomes not only in career, but also personally, their personal life.
Are they married?
Are they not married?
How many children they have?
And in this study, actually, it produces results that I think some of us wouldn't expect.
So you take the top 1% IQ, children from the age of, let's say, 10 to 16, before IQ is relatively fixed, and you say, okay, they're top 1%.
These are like 135 IQ plus children.
You would expect proportionally that those 1% IQ children.
Would be in the 1% of outcomes.
And that's actually not what happened.
So I think it was about 75 to 85% of children who were in the top 1% of IQ underperformed relative to their IQ rank.
And then another 25%, I think it's 15 to 25%, actually underperformed their own peer rank.
And basically, the reason I'm bringing up the study is to say that IQ isn't the end all be all.
This is obviously an encouragement for guys like us because we're not geniuses.
It's to say that there are other factors at work, persistence being the biggest one, discipline, habits.
All of these things are just as important as IQ.
It's not only the way that you're gifted, talking about the parable of talents, but actually what you do with the talent.
And this study is a great example of this.
Of course, of the top 1% of these children in this high income, upper middle class area of California, some went on to be Nobel Peace Prize winners.
Some went on to be the best doctors in their fields.
Others were relatively average.
They became teachers.
And that was just, they had no drive.
Another big one that we haven't talked about is risk.
That's a really big one in terms of outcomes.
Some of these children, We were just anchored to low risk preference.
They didn't want to take risk.
And so they took various turns in their life, just the easier path.
And the easier path often doesn't lead to disproportionate incomes.
You can be a 110 IQ person versus a 130 IQ person.
And that person has a way higher risk tolerance and sees disproportionate outcomes.
And so, all this to say, you bring in all of these different elements.
This is where the nuance comes.
It's relevant for obviously our public policies as it relates to immigration and those sorts of things.
Recognize these realities, but also at the individual level, we can recognize that there's some fluidity in our intelligence.
There's certainly crystallized intelligence that's knowledge and things that you acquire.
There's some fluid intelligence that through your childhood you can develop with the right environment, if you will stable home, two parents in your home, parents who actually care about your education, so on and so forth.
Yeah, nowhere is, you can imagine in your childhood, maybe you were tested and it came back low.
You have to distinguish between the individual and the group, private and public.
So many things they're about.
How does this apply differently to the individual?
Like we talked about compassion and inclusion.
Good on the individual scale, bad on the broader scale.
When it comes down to IQ, a number for an individual is never a predictor of their outcome, unless we're talking extremes.
It's just never a predictor of their outcomes.
There's so much variance, like risk and everything.
And yet, even with saying as an individual, it does not necessarily matter what that number on paper is, we can still say, on average, people from countries with lower will not be as much of a benefit to the United States.
You can do it, you can distinguish and say, individually, this should never be viewed as a death sentence or the other side of things.
You're going to be a genius.
It's just not that.
It's just not able to take all of those factors into account and put them into a number.
And yet, we can still say, look at the bell curve of Haiti, look at the bell curve of Nigeria, and say, these people will not be able to navigate.
Driving here.
They'll not be able to navigate laws.
They won't be able to reliably learn a second language.
They won't be reliably able to integrate into jobs like engineering.
They're not compatible.
They shouldn't come here.
You can do both, and they're not contradictory.
Variance in Individual Outcomes00:04:00
And you must do both, actually.
I think about public policy.
You can't, I mean, we take immigration, for example, and everyone's like, oh, I've got my immigrant friend in my life that I really love and cherish, and they are great contributors to our community.
Great example.
It's like, absolutely.
But at the public level, we can't literally go to every single person.
I mean, I suppose at one point, Ellis Island, you could have, but you can't go to every person who desires to immigrate into the nation and ask them a million questions and evaluate their life.
At some point, public policy has to be at the level of generalities.
And that is just the way that the world is.
Yep, yep.
Well said.
All right, let's go to a commercial break.
Message from our sponsors.
We'll be back.
We're going to deal with some of the super chats.
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.
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 beefsteaks, 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.
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 knickknack.com and use code Joel20! to get 20% off or use the store locator to find knickknacks near you.
Raise the standard.
Reject the slop.
Rejecting Slop for Real Flavor00:05:23
Join the pursuit of the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Nickknack.
Crush your vice.
All right, we're back.
We've got some super chats.
I'm going to go ahead and deal with the first couple of them.
We've got a super chat from Max.
Horsewood7743.
He wrote in and said, Good article.
440 hertz may be bad, but even worse is the death of the baritone.
The music industry rarely promotes male singers that women cannot imitate.
He is referencing an article that we recently published on our NXR Studio Substack in regards to the frequencies of music being changed.
This is all due to a comment that was made by one of our contributors that we appreciate very much, Calvin Robinson.
We had him and Dale Partridge live in the studio with us last week.
And when he was on the show, we were talking about music and aesthetics.
And everybody wants to try to make these things merely, exclusively subjective.
And we acknowledge that there are subjective aspects to the arts.
But at the same time, beauty is not merely, not entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Same thing that we were speaking about in terms of IQ, patterns.
We can speak of groups and generalities.
In general, people will find one particular type of woman more attractive than another type of woman, one form of art more aesthetically pleasing than another form of art.
And so too with music.
There are certain frequencies that are more pleasant, and there are certain frequencies that are more disruptive and agitating.
The point that I made was just talking about church bells being pleasant as opposed to Islamic calls to prayer, prayer sirens that are meant.
To disorient and promote discomfort.
They're meant to jolt you to the ground.
Muhammad hated music.
So you don't have something beautiful like music that can ring out even a Middle Eastern type of music.
You just have.
Yep.
So Muhammad hated music.
And we would say that music, especially the more pleasant forms of music, is belonging to the true and the good and the beautiful.
And so naturally, Muhammad, he hated music because he hated the true, the good, and the beautiful.
And that checks out.
You know, especially in light of the fact that he is the founder of a false religion that goes against that which is true and good and beautiful.
So, that's the point that I was raising in regards to church bells and Islamic calls to prayer, prayer sirens.
And then Calvin Robinson, he made the point about the hertz and frequencies of music being changed and what some of the motives and incentives might be behind that.
And so, anyways, we ended up publishing an article.
You know, I had somebody reach out to me.
Personally, there's nothing to hide.
It was Ruslan.
And so some of you guys may be familiar with Ruslan.
He is a social media influencer, Christian.
And he also is a Christian rapper.
And so he saw that clip going semi viral this last week and obviously disagrees.
He's a Christian rapper.
And so he was like, I'm going to be talking.
Just wanted to give you a heads up.
I'm going to be publicly addressing the The 440 hertz, you know, 232 hertz up to 440, that whole, you know, controversy changing the frequencies of music.
And I said, okay, well, that's fine.
You know, he's saying, I'm going to oppose you.
And I said, that's fine.
But to be fair, Calvin Robinson, make sure to name him personally.
He's the one who made that point.
I didn't really have a dog in the fight.
I wasn't actually aware of that.
I said, my position, if you're going to use my name, I'm a simple man.
I just think that rap sucks.
I think that, oh, well, this is Christian rap.
Okay, well, then it's, you know, it's Christian music that sucks.
But yeah, I think that rap in general, apart from the degenerate substance and the lyrics, just the music itself, I think is a clear deviation and, you know, step down from music that we have had in the past.
I think that it doles your senses.
I think that it's not lifting you up towards things, the higher things, things that are heavenly.
And yeah, so I think that.
Rap is just, you know, it's degrading.
Rap is to music what Jackson Pollock is to painting, right?
You know, there was a time that we had the Sistine Chapel, and then there was a time that we threw blotches of paint against the wall and called it art.
You know, there was a time that we had Beethoven, and there was a time that we called rap music.
And I would simply ask the listener to think of those two time periods and ask the question which one was better?
That's my position.
I'm a simple man, I don't know about all these hertz and frequencies and things like that.
I'm just a simple man who knows that rap is terrible.
So, anyways, it was a great article.
Check it out on our Substack and XR Studio Substack.
Jesus Was Not a Jew00:15:09
The next one, you want to go with this one, Antonio?
Yeah.
Matthew Scappura sent $5 and says making women uncomfortable is required when leading them to Christ, and discipline's required.
This proves these churches haven't led a woman to Christ.
Yeah.
Lots of good things are uncomfortable.
We talked about the cancer diagnosis, also working out.
Denying yourself food, coming to Christ and repenting of sin, they're all uncomfortable.
That's part of growing, is going through the discomfort in order to reap the reward after.
Right.
All right.
The next super chat comes from someone who does not listen to our show, apparently.
B. Hunter, 2004.
He said, Please address the question, is Jesus a Jew?
Thank you.
So we have addressed this question, I believe, in the last two, maybe even three episodes.
So I'll try to keep it brief.
Was Jesus, is Jesus the promised seed of Abraham?
Yes.
Is he the descendant of Ishmael or Isaac?
Isaac.
Is he ultimately of the lineage of all three of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Yes, absolutely.
Is he of the line of the tribe of Judah?
Yes, he comes from Judah.
Is he a Judean?
Jew, if we're narrowly interpreting it to mean one from Judea, Judean.
No, he was a Galilean.
Is he a Jew in the sense of Jew later in its broader definition being synonymous with Hebrews, all Hebrews, or all Israelites?
Then, yes.
Is Jesus a true Israelite in whom there is no guile?
Yes.
The scripture says that plainly.
So he is a Hebrew, an Israelite.
He is the descendant of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, of the line of the tribe of Judah, Galilean, but still Israelite, Hebrew.
And so, in all those senses, yes.
The reason why the question, I don't like the question, is because when most people are saying, well, Jesus was a Jew, What they're trying to do is carve out some halfway house for modern Talmudic Jews today.
So they're trying to say, yeah, Jews today, modern Jews, they reject Christianity.
They reject Christ as the Son of God.
They reject Him as the Messiah.
But they're still His people, they're His kin, and that's got to count for something, doesn't it?
And so Christians should have a soft spot in their heart for modern Jews today.
And so I don't like it because it's clearly.
Used as propaganda.
It's clearly used to continue to get evangelical Christians, especially dispensational Zionist Christians here in the West, predominantly in America, to feel some sense of moral obligation to remain the greatest ally of Israel.
So is Jesus a Jew?
The simple answer is yes.
But in which case, this is all I would add to that.
I think the better question is not, is Jesus a Jew?
I think the better question would be, is Benjamin Netanyahu a Jew?
Is Ben Shapiro a Jew?
Is Mark Levin a Jew?
Because I would maintain, I would insist that if Mark Levin has a monopoly on Jewishness, then Jesus is not a Jew.
That said, in the technical sense, I would again reiterate Jesus is a Jew, in which case Mark Levin is not.
And what I mean by that is, religiously, Jesus was not a Talmudic Jew.
You have to keep in mind people, they act as though Christianity is Judaism just with extra steps, right?
Or to say it in the reverse, that Judaism is Christianity just minus the New Testament.
That's not true.
Talmudic Judaism didn't come into play until like the third and fourth. Century, a couple of hundred years removed from the earthly ministry of Christ.
The Mosaic law that Jesus was following, right?
He said, I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
But this Mosaic law, the old covenant that God had established with Israel, that Jesus didn't come to abolish but fulfill, was very starkly different from Talmudic Judaism that we have today.
These are not the same religions.
We have Mosaic.
Judaism, Mosaic covenantalism that Jesus did adhere to versus Talmudic Judaism.
Mosaic Judaism, the Judaism of the Bible that was a type and shadow for Christian faith, always meant to be a sign pointing towards the fulfillment, the substance, right?
We had the shadow, Mosaic Judaism, now the substance, Christian faith, Christ.
Talmudic Judaism is not the old minus the new, it is an abject.
Total perversion and detour from both the new and the old.
It's entirely novel.
It's entirely separate.
So, for the Orthodox Jew today, I would say that in the religious category, because we have to speak in categories, religiously speaking, they are not Jewish.
Or, if we're going to say that that is Jewish, then I would have to say that Abraham was not a Jew, Isaac was not a Jew, Jacob was not a Jew, Judah was not a Jew.
So, if they are religiously Jewish, then all the Jews of the Old Testament were not Jewish, religiously speaking.
If We want to say, well, no, we're just talking about ethnicity, we're just talking about biology.
Well, if that's the case, then I think that there is some sufficient evidence that Ashkenazi Jews today are not necessarily the direct with an untarnished lineage, perfect descendants of biblical Jews from the Bible, but that they do have a lot of the DNA.
So they are descendants, not perfect without any intermarriage whatsoever.
But that they do actually have genetically a decent amount of that DNA.
But what I would say is that if that is the case, and I think that it's arguable that it is, I find it suspect that Ashkenazi Jews would have a monopoly on that ethnic lineage.
In other words, from the little bit that I've read into the subject, it seems as though there's a fairly scientific.
Robust case to be made that certain sects of Palestinians, ironically, I don't think it's ironic at all, actually, it makes perfect sense.
Certain Christian sects of Palestinians have been genetically tested and their DNA compared with the swabbing of catacombs under Jerusalem that are predated to be approximately 2,000 years old or older and had just as high, and in some cases, an even higher match than Ashkenazi Jews.
So My point is, if we're talking religiously and the religious category, if Jesus is a Jew, then Ben Shapiro is not.
Or if we want to say that Ben Shapiro is a Jew, then Jesus was not.
But you can't have both.
And if we're talking ethnically, if we're talking biologically, blood, well, then Jews today, I think, have Ashkenazi Jews have a reasonable degree of biological claim, of lineage with the biblical Jews of 2,000 years ago.
But I don't believe that they have a monopoly.
On that claim.
I believe that there are other people that would have that claim as well, but for whatever reason, they have been discarded and kept outside of the deal.
So that's my answer on whether or not Jesus was a Jew.
Could you give it to us one more time?
Just quickly.
Just quickly.
That's all I got.
All right.
I'll keep going.
So Lena McCulloch's North Starfish sent $5 and says Combining the conversations of miscegenation and IQ, what is your recommendation for biracial individuals when it comes to marriage?
My recommendation to biracial individuals would be that they have to pick a lane.
I think that at the end of the day, like Calvin, you know, we were talking about it with Calvin Robinson and Antonio, you're in a similar boat as him, but both of you are half black and half white.
And, you know, I was talking to Calvin, do you think you'll ever marry, you know, and having that conversation.
And he was, you know, he's open to it.
He's not on principle, you know, by conviction, again, you know.
Celibate or against marriage for life.
And so that's something that he's open to.
And I asked him, you know, who do you think you would marry?
Would you marry a black woman or would you marry a white woman?
He said, I identify with the Anglo Saxon, you know, British lineage, British heritage.
It was my white mother who actually raised me and was attentive to me and caring and loving and nurturing.
And I love my country and I love my people.
And so that's what I want to continue.
And so I would be looking ideally for a Christian.
White British woman, knowing that our children would, in that case, be 75% white Anglo Saxon British, and their children 87.5%, and so on and so forth.
And I would be kind of, in the big scheme, I would be kind of just a blip in that lineage because of the decision that my mother made.
But I would be kind of a brief detour and then getting back in line.
And so, race.
It's not nothing, but it's also not everything.
And I do want to say that the reason why we talk about it at all is because of providence.
It's time and place, right?
There are timely truths, and we're on the heels of decades of nefarious, egalitarian, secular individuals suppressing conversations about race and insisting that it's merely a social construct and that it really doesn't exist at all.
So, on that backdrop, Context because we are Christians and truth matters, and the reality of the world that God actually made matters.
We're talking about it.
If it was the 1850s, we probably wouldn't be talking about it, you know, because it would just kind of be something that's assumed.
It would be common knowledge.
It's because of where we are in God's providence, and because this particular conversation and these particular details have been, you know, swiped and removed from the entire corpus of literature or suppressed or very hard to find books that have been entirely.
And so, in that context, we feel like it's a worthwhile conversation because there are many, many Christians who have been taught to believe that race is the same as the tooth fairy.
That is to say, it's non existent, it's merely a social construct, it really doesn't exist at all.
There's only one race, the human race.
Yes, we believe we're biblical Christians.
We believe that all people have descended from Adam, and then the second time, all people have descended from Noah.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't distinctions.
And it's not just phenotypes.
It's not just physical appearance.
It's not just the frame of someone's nose, you know, or the melanin in their skin and the color.
But we're saying, no, there actually are distinctions and differences among people.
These necessarily create disparities.
We should be aware of these differences.
And so that's why we've had the conversation.
But that being said, I'm glad that the question was raised because it's a worthy disclaimer or caveat to add that when it comes to those who are the product of biracial.
Marriages who are half black, half white, or half Latino and half white, or whatever it may be.
It has never been our position and never will be our position that these people are somehow excluded from the beauty and the gift of marriage.
But what we are saying is that heritage matters, lineage matters, your fathers matter, and your children's children matter.
And so all those things should be prayerfully taken into consideration.
Not as essential, we're not race essentialists, not as the highest thing.
The highest thing would be as I'm looking for a wife, is this a woman who fears the Lord?
Is she a Christian?
Does she love the things of the Lord?
That would be first.
But then, secondarily, after that box has been sufficiently checked, to then consider prayerfully and with wisdom, to seek counsel of would marrying this woman and the godly offspring that Lord willing, that God would provide us with, would this further our heritage?
And would this continue a lineage that I, in God's providence, have been placed into, or would it disrupt that lineage?
And those are actually pertinent questions.
That's not racist to say, I descend from so and I'm proud.
Of the heritage that the Lord has given to me.
I want to preserve that.
I want to see that continue in my children and my grandchildren.
And this question of who I will marry has a major effect on whether or not that happens.
And that's going to be one piece, not the exhaustive question, but that's going to be one question that I consider when looking for a spouse.
So, yes, if you are the product of an interracial marriage, you are not barred from marriage.
Of course not.
The Bible.
Explicitly condemns those who would forbid marriage.
And so, marriage is something that if the Lord has that for you, then that's a wonderful gift and it's for you.
Who you marry, the only counsel that I would give outside of, of course, marry in the Lord and find someone who's a Christian, that's first.
Compatibility Over Racial Components00:03:46
But then, secondly, I would be looking for someone who is culturally compatible, who shares some of the same traditions and loves and values, those kinds of things that you share.
And then, having determined that, then I would also consider the racial component.
Does this person come from, do they have the same heritage, biological heritage, and lineage that I'm wanting to preserve, or that I see as good, that I celebrate, and that I want to promulgate with whatever future children and grandchildren and great grandchildren that the Lord might give to me?
So, again, using Calvin Robinson, not trying to.
But just, you know, I just had the conversation with him recently.
He would say, I love the British tradition.
I see that as my heritage.
So I would want to marry a white British woman who first and foremost fears the Lord, who's a Christian, and see our children do the same.
And knowing that by the time it gets to my great grandchildren, that they will be, you know, really just even grandchildren in his case, being already, you know, half white.
By the time it gets to the second and third generation, They'll be indistinguishable from any person of British descent.
And I love that culture.
I love that heritage.
And so that's what I would be seeking to preserve.
I think that's how you answer the question.
One more time.
One more time for us.
I don't think it wasn't clear.
I'm just kidding.
That was a good answer.
I would just say a little bit more specifically, because I think the question asked about IQ and being biracial.
And I would just encourage you, and I guess all people who are in your boat, don't be autistic about it.
You don't need to ask a potential spouse or potential partner what their IQ test is or anything.
I think we have God given inclinations that indicate what we're more or less compatible with.
I mean, if you marry a woman who has 150 IQ and you're like 110, you're not going to be very compatible with her.
And so I think it works when the man is highly more intelligent than the woman.
But if you're kind of like a simple, like work with your hands, good godly man, and you marry someone who just, even if she didn't go to university, you can tell she's really smart.
That's when it's difficult because she'll outpace the man as far as understanding.
So I think 150 to 100, you could even.
Have those numbers available.
I think that one's fine.
More intelligent and big gap between the wife and the husband.
It can still work, but she would need to recognize hey, he's going to get things a little bit slower than me and I have to submit to him.
And that will be harder than it would be on average.
Right.
And just to be more clear about what I mean by autistic, I mean simply just to say like the realities of intelligence disparities, they bear themselves out in just normal interpersonal relationships.
So it's not like you need to be pressing on this question.
Like this is the single best metric to determine whether or not she is a fit spouse and that we'll have children who are intelligent and successful.
It's like you'll know that you guys are compatible in that, oh, you get along.
That when you guys talk about something, you're talking at the same level in a way that there's mutual understanding, so on and so forth.
So I would just say, don't overthink it.
Going back to Joel's point, you're marrying in the Lord, you're marrying a Christian woman, you have liberty here.
Make a wise decision.
We couldn't tell you specifically what that would look like at the individual level.
Maybe it's a black woman, you already have a pre inclination to a black woman, you're half black, and she's actually intelligent.
She's someone who you have a mutual understanding with, and you can communicate on that level.
Don't overthink it.
Be prayerful about it, but don't be autistic.
Yeah, well said.
All right, last two super chats here.
We've got Phil Org1.
Don't Be Autistic About Prayer00:10:10
He said, America should have an IQ test mandatory for any elected official.
I'd like to go further than that for anyone who is going to be electing officials, aka.
It's retarded.
Yeah, and yeah, retarded that you don't have IQ tests.
It really is.
For elected officials.
Yeah, so elected officials, definitely, but also I think voters, there should be a basic.
You know, IQ tests to make sure that they are not, you know, mentally retarded to be able to vote.
So he said America should have an IQ test mandatory for any elected official.
I'm thinking of Jasmine Crockett, right?
So, Jasmine Crockett, from what I can tell, I don't know for sure, but the little things that I've seen, she is not fit to serve as an elected official.
And in the America, by God's grace, that I hope to see restored, she also would not be qualified to vote.
On a number of bases.
One, because she's a woman.
Two, because she's retarded.
And that's probably enough.
So he said, Jasmine Crockett, you know, or Al Green was another example.
And then he said, both of them are from Texas.
Sorry, guys.
Yeah, Texas.
There's a core of Texas that is deeply red, conservative, dyed in the wool, blue collar.
That is awesome.
Awesome.
It's just the stable foundation.
They've been in Texas for generations upon generations.
I just got done hanging out in Wimberly.
Wimberly is an awesome place.
Oh, yeah.
Dude, it's beautiful.
A lot of the people there are, you know, salt of the earth, the locals.
Outside of Calcutta, I mean, Plano, Dallas, Austin, outside of those eras, Houston, you're fine.
Right.
And that's where those representatives come from.
Right.
Yep.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Last super chat.
This one was a doozy.
Look at this massive super chat, $250 from LR Nichols.
And they said, God bless you all.
I pray.
United Arab Emirates.
It is still a lot to be fair.
It's about fourth.
Oh, all right.
It's like before the war.
I thought it would have been half.
Since the war, now it's about half.
Okay.
I didn't see the AED there.
Uh, still, nonetheless, it's great, very great, very generous.
We appreciate that.
Um, we hope you're safe.
I'm glad it's not Rufy's.
I know, stay safe over there, man.
It's dangerous times.
This is he's at the top of whatever it would be, and he's like, It's going down.
Send it into right, send it into NXR.
He's like, Netanyahu's about to nuke us from orbit.
It's like James Bond at the end of the last movie where he's watching the missiles come at him.
He's, I'm surprised, the super chat.
I'm surprised it wasn't like his entire savings account.
He's like, I can see the nuke coming from Netanyahu.
Take my life and make it about the Jews.
My last wish, nuke Israel.
My last wish, make it about Israel.
All right.
Well, we appreciate you guys.
Thanks so much.
We got one more super chat over here for Rumble.
Great.
Rumble.
Rumble's coming to play.
This is Devin083, $10 super chat.
Said, It took me a while to come around, but I've come to enjoy most of you guys' takes, even as a black man.
God bless you.
He said, Also, what is the name of the guy who did the IQ test?
What was the name?
Bantu?
City's Diaries is on YouTube.
Bantu, B A N T U. All right, Bantu.
But please, sir, tell me.
It's a tribe.
What is your Christian name?
It's an African tribe, the Bantu tribe?
It could be.
I was thinking of the Dendu tribe.
The Dendu tribe?
Ah, the Dendus.
Dendu nothing.
Bantu City's Diaries.
Is he a Christian?
I don't think so.
Okay.
And I was correct.
There are a large, diverse grouping of over 400 African ethnic groups in Sub Saharan Africa who speak the Bantu language.
Okay, great.
So.
Seems like a great guy, though.
Like, I'll just brag on it.
And I mean that genuinely to brag on this guy, Bantu, for a moment.
Here you have an African man who is saying, My people are suffering, and I want to see them lifted up out of degeneracy, poverty, stupidity.
I want to see my people thrive.
Here's a guy, instead of just taking a ticket to a Western country, And living for himself.
You know, like I'm gonna move to, I'm gonna leave, you know, Kenya or, you know, hypothetically Ghana, and I'm gonna move to a Western nation and play off of the sympathies of Christians who are overly compassionate, marry a white, you know, American woman and enjoy the luxuries of a Western life.
Here's a guy who's not doing that.
Here's a guy who's saying, my people are my people.
And I'm with them for better or worse, and I'm going to stay and work.
Instead of leave, like one of the reasons there's a lot of you know, we already talked about a lot of it, but part of it is the high time preference, low time preference, you know, the climate and all these kinds of things.
But part of it also that I really do feel a sense of grief for nations that have suffered immensely is that whenever they do have someone who breaks out of the pattern, you know, who is uniquely gifted and intelligent, the West is like an IQ shredder.
For the third world, we extract the best and brightest from every single one of these impoverished nations and take them away.
We take, oh, you've got somebody over there that's promising in Kenya and he could stay and make Kenya better.
No, we'll take him.
We'll take him.
We'll take, like, every single one of the people who are in the highest bracket for their African country get extracted.
And take it like, think about that for a moment.
If you were somebody who was living in Tanzania and you know, and it's like we have an up and coming, you know, promising young man who's you know, he's uh blessed our village with this you know innovation or that,
and um, oh, and he's on a plane heading for America, oh, but there's this young girl who really shows and she's heading to America, oh, and like how how wicked is that, you know, like that's that's just so wrong.
God bless capitalism.
Get that man a job offer in the San Francisco Bay Area and get him making $230,000 a year.
Right.
And keep Africa poor and also replace white people in San Francisco.
Right.
We can screw over two entire people groups.
How awesome is that?
The best of both worlds.
You know, like we can destroy the West and.
Normally we'd have to pick one, but there might be a way.
There might be a way.
Capitalism might actually be a way to hurt every nation all at once.
It's amazing.
Truly amazing.
So, anyways, props to this guy.
Say his full name again Bantu City Diaries.
That's his YouTube channel.
I see his YouTube.
Okay.
So, Bantu City Diaries.
Go and check out his stuff.
But props to him for loving his people, acknowledging the problems where they exist, and saying, we need to fix it.
Didn't you have one quote from him?
Because I would love to just, we don't have to pull it up, but just read that tweet.
I got it right here.
It was so good.
He said, Yeah, quote him real quick.
I'm gonna have to find it.
We're finding it.
Don't worry, Wes is the fastest autist ever.
He's like, It's on the internet?
I'll get it.
It's on the internet.
First of all, I've seen it.
Now I've just got to pull it up.
He said this Until black Africans begin to tolerate dissent, accept responsibility, and critically examine aspects of their culture that include violence, boisterousness, individualism, partying, and braggadocio, we will continue, we will struggle to progress.
We must prioritize education, refrain from migrating to Europe, North America, or elsewhere, and manage our birth rates.
Otherwise, We risk remaining the subject of ridicule on the global stage.
Wow.
Think about that.
I mean, this is a guy who is clearly talented and intelligent and could get a one way ticket to some Western country.
Some white country would take him, for sure.
And he literally, not only did he say we need to take responsibility for our faults, stop being boisterous, right?
Silence a black woman is speaking, but could we at least wait till the movie's over?
Never mind.
Never mind.
That's a good one.
Stop being boisterous.
Stop being partying was one of the things that he listed.
All these braggadocious was one of the things.
So, stop being arrogant, stop being loud, stop being degenerate, partying all the time, these kinds of things.
But he could have just said that.
He was like, so we need to acknowledge the problem, acknowledge the cause of the problems.
Notice how he doesn't say white oppression and colonizing from the British Empire that set us back five million years or whatever.
Like he says, it's our problem.
We need to own it.
We need to strive to be better.
But then he went one step further and said, one of the things we also need to do is stop leaving, stop looking to abandon our home and to go somewhere better, but like actually stay and work and build and develop.
So, again, nothing but positive things to say about Bantu City's Diaries.
Check him out on YouTube.
He seems like he's doing great work.
If he's not a Christian, I pray that the Lord would save him, that someone would preach the gospel to him.
Everything he listed is exactly what his people need.
But the one thing that he's missing is Christ.
It's got to be Christ doing all of that.
So, anyways, thanks for tuning in.
We love and appreciate you guys.
Thank you for your support, your encouragement.
And it's Friday, so Lord willing, we'll see you on Monday.
Christ Must Do All Good Work00:00:28
We broadcast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
We do so live on X and YouTube and Rumble.
You can follow me where all of our videos are posted on X.
The handle is at Joel Webbin.
At Joel Webbin.
And just search NXR Studios on Rumble and YouTube.
You'll find us and make sure that you subscribe and click the bell so that you'll be notified with all of our content.
Thanks so much for tuning in.
And again, we'll see you next week on Monday at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.