Radical Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbin and Calvin Robinson critique the church, alleging Jewish infiltration and secularism as dominant religions driving America's judgment. They advocate deporting Muslims, restricting women's voting rights, and restoring a white, monocultural nationhood via monarchy or classical Protestantism, rejecting interracial marriage as non-normative for states. The speakers argue modern multiculturalism requires new theological frameworks absent in history, contrasting 1924 immigration quotas with current policies while promoting specific Christian products and challenging traditional views on race and assimilation. [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
Fighting Real Dragons00:08:50
You want to go and fight a real, live, breathing dragon, then talk about Judaism and talk about feminism.
They don't want to fight a dragon, though, Joel.
They don't want to.
They don't want to.
They don't want to appear like they've already fought a dragon.
They don't want to fight a dragon.
Correct.
Most people are sheep.
Very few people are called to be shepherds, but they want to hold the staff.
That's the issue we have in the church today.
I mean, it happens to us all the time.
People call us a misogynist or they're worried about misogyny.
And I go, I don't know.
In all of my years of pastoring, I've met one, maybe two misogynists, but I've met.
Countless overbearing feministic women.
Radical Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I'm going to talk about Joel Webbin.
What are we going to do about these Muslims?
Easy.
Deport them.
It's so easy.
Denaturalize and deport.
And if we need like a placeholder, like an example, you know, a case study that can be set forward to emulate, you know, for many happy decades to come, Ilhan Omar is who I would like to throw out as an example.
She's an easy example.
Why has she not been deported?
It's insane.
Like, marrying your own brother to get him into the country seems to me like a good enough reason to kick someone out.
Yes.
Yeah.
You entered on the basis of fraud.
You shouldn't even be.
In the country, much less ruling over the country.
Right.
Right.
And right.
I mean, you think of like Isaiah, you know, says it.
It's actually a judgment.
Like I would say that America, and people will be like, well, make up your mind, pick a lane.
You'll be ruled by foreigners.
Exactly.
Ruled by foreigners, also ruled by women, also ruled by children.
All these are listed as judgments from the Lord.
They're not something to brag about.
It's not a point of pride of diversity or being how progressive we are that we're ruled by boss babes.
It's a sign of God's judgment.
And And people say, you know, well, make up your mind.
Is America a Christian nation?
You know, or is it a nation under judgment?
And I would say it's both.
And that's why the judgment is, in fact, so severe because I believe that America began with a Christian covenant and that America is held to a higher standard by the Lord than other nations are.
We have been in the process of apostasy for several decades now.
And so we're underneath God's judgment.
And people say, man, you used to.
Conservative evangelical Christians used to focus on LGBT and used to focus on abortion and these kinds of things.
And just for the record, to hold on to my credentials, I despise abortion.
It has to be abolished, not just suppressed or mitigated.
It has to be utterly abolished.
It's the gravest evil of our time, for sure.
It is.
And so what I would say, it's like, we'll pick a lane.
No, it all is cohesive, it all goes together.
I believe that we are under judgment currently with mass immigration and being ruled over by foreigners and women and all these things precisely because.
Because of the grave sin, two main ones, sodomy and abortion.
And so, but then the question is okay, so then just focus on abortion and sodomy.
You're never going to get rid of abortion.
This is hard for evangelicals to hear, but you're never going to get rid of abortion unless you get rid of the women's vote and unless you get rid of immigration, which both need to happen.
I want to go back to this point of the Christian nation and that we're under judgment because of our identity as a Christian nation.
So we have.
We know that we were established by a Christian people.
We know the Mayflower Compact.
We also know Washington's 1789 address for Thanksgiving, thanking God for our victory over the British Empire.
But yeah, we have a clear identity as a Christian people.
And I think the conversation around Islam is that people think that we can have this myth of the secular nation or that we can be some sort of united nations of nations.
But the reality is, if we don't have a Christian nation, We're going to have an Islamic nation.
If we don't have a Christian nation, we're going to have a Hindu nation.
If we don't have a Christian nation, we're going to have a liberal nation, whatever it is.
That was a vacuum.
But even if it was secular, that's not a good thing.
The options are Christ or Antichrist.
There's no magic middle ground where everyone's happy.
And secularism is a religion.
And I would say it's been the dominant one in the West for quite some time.
Liberalism.
But liberalism, yeah.
But I always say liberalism is the car, the engine that makes it run is egalitarianism.
And that's been ruling the day for quite some time.
But my prediction, and I think you guys will agree, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts, is I think that the secular ship has sailed, that there is a global return to nature.
There is a return to nature.
Yes.
So there's a return to nature.
And with that, this return to nature, there's a return to religion, deity.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be Christ, that it's going to be the triune God.
Many people will leave secularism.
Atheism is a joke, James Lindsay is a joke.
These days, like people are like, I mean, there's a ton of people trying to scrub, you know, their past events that they held with, you know, like, there's.
I'm not convinced James Lindsay is an atheist, but your point stands.
Say it again.
I'm not convinced he's an atheist.
Oh, you're not convinced that he's an atheist?
When I see him praying at the Western Wall, I'm like, okay, there's something going on there.
Well, yeah, but you're absolutely right.
But I, I mean, let's be honest, I've always been under the impression that atheism is just Judaism.
Believing anything, yeah.
Atheism is Judaism.
Like in many ways, I think that it's a denial of Christ for sure.
It's a denial of Christ, but um, atheism is it's a Jewish project and in many ways, like you could argue that Protestantism is too.
Yeah, no, we got layers.
I enjoy a good joke, okay.
This isn't a joke, we'll determine that many reasons.
One is that the canon of the Bible, okay.
So, the Catholic canon of the Bible, right?
You have some extra books in there, right?
Because the Protestants said, let's look at what the The Hebrews have in their canon.
Let's take the Jewish canon.
Rather than the Catholic, the Christian canon, they took the Jewish canon.
Likewise, Protestantism is a Jewish breakdown of the order of God.
So it's more like you can believe that, but not that.
You can believe that, but not that.
It's the picking and choosing of bits of Christianity in order to lead people away from Christianity.
Whereas rather than having the fullness of the truth, you can have that bit of the truth and reject that bit and still be in good stead with God.
That's like the Jewish loopholes of we can.
We can turn the lights off automatically and not break the rules.
That's not true.
We know that not to be true.
I hear you.
I think Protestantism is the inevitable and tragically, and don't miss that word tragically, tragically necessary reaction to the abuses of Rome.
I think that if Rome would have cut the crap, then I don't think any of this would have happened.
But it's a two pronged approach.
So the Jews have been infiltrating the Roman church for a long time.
Yes.
Most of Vatican II was Jewish.
Andor Protestant, you know, Nostra Etate, which people often say is the one that is the document that makes it sound like Jews have salvation outside of Christian truth, which is not true.
That document was drafted by a Jew.
Like there's lots of infiltration within the church, but also Satan wants people to leave the church.
And so I think both fronts were an attack of the enemy.
It's us, it's our fallen nature, it's sin, of course it is, but he's driving it.
The enemy is driving it to drive us away from the one true living God.
Yeah, I agree.
Sadly, there's a lot of Catholic charities that you look at the board.
Of trustees that make it up, that they're all pushing for immigration and getting millions and millions of dollars to bring more foreigners in.
And you'll look at the makeup of like the top six board members of massive Catholic immigrant charities, and five out of six of them will be Jewish.
Yeah.
You know, it's like, how did that happen?
How do we keep our defenses up against Judaism infiltrating our Christian faith?
That's the question.
Yeah.
So this is, you know, when I wrote my book, The Israel Delusion, I thought, Where is the Achilles heel of America's obsession with Judaism or with Israel?
Jewish Infiltration of Faith00:02:53
And I think we all know that it's dispensationalism.
I think that we have a theological relationship with Israel.
We saw that with Ted Cruz.
We saw that with Mike Huckabee.
We saw that with a variety of commentators that have been communicating.
I think if you cut the dispensational line, if you can debunk that biblically, I think it eliminates the vast majority of people in their connection to Israel.
And so I think there's certainly an argument for just pointing out the flaws, pointing out the realities, pointing out the patterns of Israel's connection to so many things that are evil.
But I think we have a deep theological connection as a nation through, you know, John Nelson Darby and the whole dispensational framework that was, yeah, Schofield Bible.
And so I think that most Christians who have this very religious devotion to Israel, it's because it's theological.
And so if you aim at this politically, I think you still don't persuade people, at least Christians.
And so I think we need to actually.
Focus heavily on debunking dispensationalism as a theological system.
And I think that really eliminates the vast majority of relational ties.
Here's the truth when it comes to skincare, cosmetics, pretty much everything is geared towards women.
Women of both sexes, to be sure, but women nonetheless.
But if you're actually a biological man, you're actually masculine, then most of what you're putting on your body is not made for you.
But the tallow from Van Man is dynamically different because it's not foreign to your body.
The fatty acids in their tallow are nearly identical to your own skin.
So instead of sitting on top of your skin like a puddle of lotion from a bottle, it's actually absorbing.
It produces smoother skin without irritation.
And a little bit actually goes a very long way.
It's not something that you have to reapply hour after hour.
This is what happens if you get back to real ingredients, which Van Man does.
It works the way that you would expect, and it doesn't slowly kill you in the process.
So, if you're ready to ditch the corporate chemicals, then go to vanman.shop forward slash NXR and use our code, all caps, NXR for 15% off of your first order.
Again, that's vanman.shop forward slash NXR.
Use our code NXR for 15% off.
Vanman.
Real ingredients, no exceptions.
And so, you're right, it's not just Scofield and Derby, it's Netanyahu.
Purposefully manipulating the Christian faith in order to get evangelicals to support their cause.
But they're manipulating, they're easy to manipulate because they believe that Israel is God's chosen people.
Applying Theology to Slain Dragons00:02:27
Right.
So it's easy to manipulate.
Yes, because of that, but also to throw Calvin a bone, because he's right, but also because there's no governing authority of who gets to interpret the scripture.
Correct.
Yeah.
So there's that one.
Throw that in there.
But go ahead.
Yeah, the confessions are essentially the Protestant solution to interpretation.
They are.
But maybe they're out of date.
They're not inerrant.
Go ahead.
Well, they address many church issues of the time, correct?
Do they address the church issue of today?
Exactly.
I agree.
So, yeah, we've talked about putting together a Reformed Catholic confession or some sort of classical Protestant confession, which would have to have declarations or memorials or whatever you want to call them around a variety of issues.
Like, again, the confessions don't talk about transgenderism because it wasn't an issue when the confessions were written.
But here we are, and we need to actually have statements around, again, Female leadership in church.
But do we need a new confession written by ChatGPT?
I don't think we do.
We need a genuine ecumenical council.
We need Christian leaders from across denominations to meet together.
It's not just abortion, transgenderism.
The Catholic Church is struggling right now on how to address frozen embryos, for example.
What happens to these souls that are just in limbo?
They're not living, they're not dying, they're just there.
All these questions need to be addressed by the whole of the Big C church.
Yes, I agree.
Yeah, and we need adaptations more than innovation, meaning that the vast majority of theology has been accomplished at this point.
In terms of we've defined who God is, we've defined the fundamentals of the gospel, we understand the basics of religion.
Yes, correct, right?
But it's like we've seen it, we've revealed it, we've codified it.
I don't think that we need to write new confessions in the same way that the church fathers or did the creeds or even the reformational heritage has produced its confessions.
I think most of it's written.
We need to adapt and we need to add, we need to adjust, which I think would be a little bit easier.
But I think it's still worth a council for sure.
It's all about application.
How do you apply it?
That's the problem right now within the church, both Catholicism and Protestantism.
How do we apply our theology to present dragons?
Everybody wants to apply theology to the dragon that's already been slain, right?
So you've got all these LARPing ministers walking around, swinging their swords and kicking the dead carcass of a dragon that's already been killed.
Silence on Islam00:07:05
So they're like, well, I stand against racism.
It's like, dude, the only racism that currently exists is against white people.
We know this.
We know this.
So, like, when you're LARPing and fighting racism against black people, you're literally swinging your sword at a dragon that was already killed.
By somebody who actually had real courage once upon a time, but that beast has been slain for 60 years at this point.
Like, you want to go and fight a real, live, breathing dragon?
Then talk about Judaism and talk about feminism and say that race is not just merely a social construct, but it's actually a biological reality.
They don't want to fight a dragon, they're drawn.
They don't want to.
They don't want to appear like they've already fought a dragon.
They don't want to fight a dragon.
Correct.
Most people are sheep.
Very few people are called to be shepherds, but they want to hold the staff.
That's the issue we have in the church today.
Yeah.
So, I mean, it happens to us all the time.
People call us a misogynist or they're worried about misogyny.
And I go, I don't know.
In all of my years of pastoring, I've met one, maybe two misogynists, but I've met countless aggressive, intense, overbearing, feministic women.
Right.
And so, the dragon of the day for that particular category is I've never met a misogynist pastor.
I've met a few, a handful of just blessed, sanctified sexists.
God bless them.
And I like to, you know, by the grace of God, put myself in that category.
People, you're a misogynist.
It's like, no, no, I don't hate women.
I have four daughters and a wife.
My mother is sitting on the front row in our church.
I adore my mother.
I am not a misogynist.
I don't hate women.
I'm absolutely a sexist.
I believe that there are two sexes and that they're dynamically different all the way down to their bone marrow, like soul and spirit, body, mind.
It's like, Oh, well, the only difference is just physical.
So, you know, men, you know, have broader shoulders.
And we, you know, like, I'm not a feminist.
We should only have men in combat, you know, and women should stay out of that.
And it's like, of course.
But that's like, that's just the starting point.
If it's just a physical difference, then how come women can't beat men in chess?
Well, that's transgenderism.
They can't lift the pieces.
So say it's only physical, it's transgenderism.
Right.
Exactly.
It's Gnosticism.
It's ontological.
It's biological.
It's theological.
We are different.
It's Gnostic transgenderism.
Yeah.
So it's, yeah, exactly.
You're exactly right.
There's a spiritual difference.
There's a mental difference.
There is, And that's not to say women aren't smart, but there are mental capacities in different realms, right?
Different strengths.
The way that a woman thinks is not dumb, but it's not the same as the way that a man thinks.
So that we think differently, we move differently.
It's an advantage.
They're designed to be more empathetic, to be more nurturing, and so they can relate to the children that they're supposed to be raised for.
If there was a game that required compassionate dimensions of IQ, we would lose.
But when we have a game that's on logical IQ, such as elections, we win.
And so, yeah, applying.
And the Overton is really shifting on this.
I mean, even Rob Snyder, like, now granted, he had plausible deniability because he's a comedian.
Comedians can say whatever they want, you know.
I was joking.
Oh, I was joking.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But I mean, still, like, on a massive platform to a ton of people, you know, he says, and he never clarifies, he just makes a joke and lets it lie.
But he's like, you know, women, you know, they can vote on certain things, you know, like the color of the carpet, you know, but not elections, you know.
Like the first lady.
What, Sadie?
Like the first lady.
She can choose the carpet.
There you go.
Right.
She can decorate the White House.
But this answers your first question.
What do we do about the Mohammedans?
Well, we take away women's votes and then they stop voting for mass infanticide through abortion.
They stop voting for the suicidal empathy of importing everyone because everyone should be included.
And then we can reclaim our society as men and say, actually, it's the moderate solution to deport and repatriate.
Oh, yes.
Vlad, the impaler, is the extreme position.
How far do we want to go on that scale?
Right.
And here's the thing about impaling: you only have to impale a few.
It's only a few at the end of the day, it's surprisingly few.
Vlad, you know, he had a decent point.
You know, pun intended, the point was strong.
But Yeah, so feminism is a massive problem, but all these things they do, they're Jewish sacraments.
I mean, abortion, you hear Jews say abortion is a Jewish sacrament.
Feminism is a Jew, like they brag about, you know, teaming up with, you know, with racial minorities in order to get civil rights, you know, across the finish line back in the 60s or the Hart Seller Act, like who was Seller?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, the pattern noticing is, Unbelievable.
I mean, I think once you start to see it everywhere, I mean, just a couple of days ago, I posted out, you know, I forgot the lady's name, Zoe something.
She wrote a new book called The Good Slut.
More.
And what?
The Good Slut.
And it was the idea of how money, sex, and power are a way to, you know, women dominion or something like that.
It's a stunning book.
It's incredible.
But I see this post.
I look at how gross this book is.
It's got like a sexual kind of innuendo on the front cover.
I click on her profile, Jewish in the bio.
And Have you seen the meme?
Every single time.
Yeah.
When Morpheus and Neo's like, you know, from the Matrix, he's like talking to Morpheus.
He's like, You're telling me that I can just click the early life section and find out if somebody's Jewish?
And Morpheus responds and says, No, I'm telling you, Neo, when you're ready, you won't have to.
It makes such a difference.
I mean, it's just, we saw this a few days ago before that.
I saw another court case that was released by a judge after a multiple, you know, murder, violent crime situation with a black gentleman, not a gentleman, black guy.
And The caseworker, the psychological caseworker that vindicated his ability to be let free, again, Jewish and bio.
And so it's just an incredible pattern that you start to see.
And I think a lot of people struggle to go, is it really.
But what about people that don't want to see the pattern or can't see the pattern?
To them, we are all anti Semitic, we're all racist.
How do we open people's eyes?
Because once you start noticing, you can't stop.
I think that's why so many people are scared to start because they know that once they go down that rabbi hole, there's no getting to the bottom of it.
The tea is silent.
The tea is silent.
Yeah.
No, you're absolutely right.
But the reason why it matters, you know, we started the conversation with Islam.
The reason why it matters is because the gates of Toledo have to be closed.
So, like, you actually have to do something about the Mohammedans.
But at the same time, you also have to be able to cut it off at the head and ensure that the problem doesn't persist.
If you, you know, denaturalize and deport as many people as necessary, but the doors are still left open, then it happens again and again and again.
And This is the problem.
Closing Gates of Toledo00:03:03
It's like you have right wing, you know, like, okay, so you get the GOP, great.
Then you have who's in power?
You have war Jews, right?
Oh, no, we lost the Democrat.
All right, now you have gay Jews, you know, but like, but it works in tandem.
So it's like, okay, so we're going to go and fight against Iran, you know, or we're going to go and bomb this person in the Middle East or that person in the Middle East.
And you do that for four years and displace, you know, create a ton of Islamic refugees.
And then you lose the next election.
And then all those Muslims come to the states that were displaced, you know, because now you have a Democrat, you know.
And so.
But here's the question, Joel, because I love this country.
This is a fantastic country.
But 97% of your elected officials are backed or funded by an Israeli lobby.
So it doesn't matter where you vote, you get the gay Jews or the war Jews.
How do you break that cycle?
Warning this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
All right, I'm going to keep this simple.
Look, I know that you know that I know that you know you're using nicotine.
Half of the people listening to this show, you're using some kind of nicotine product.
I know this.
I'm in group chats with you.
You have told me to my face.
I know you're using it.
So I'm not asking you to start a new habit.
I'm not asking you to add something to your budget.
I'm not asking you to spend money that you're not already spending.
I'm simply asking for you to transition to a based Christian America First company.
Right there on the cover, you have a foot crushing the head of the serpent.
It's not subtle.
These guys are based, they're Christian, they're America First.
They make their product in America.
Go to knickknack.com.
use their product and you will be supporting NXR Studios.
You'll be supporting a Christian company.
You will be saving 20% on your nicotine purchases.
Use my promo code.
It's all caps, J O E L, that's Joel 20!
Joel 20!
Save 20%.
Go to knickknack.com.
So I look at this and I go, again, we have multiple layers and it's easy to go all the way upstream and you go all the way upstream and you go, okay, well, there's this group of people, Who hates Christ and has had a long historical biography and pattern of these types of behaviors have been eliminated or kicked out of over 100 countries.
You have this reality, and that's upstream.
But then downstream, you have all these effects, right?
You have the Islamification of nations, you have mass immigrations, you have feminism, you have homosexuality and transgenderism, and it's this incredibly complex issue.
That has to be hit on multiple dimensions.
And yes, you need to constantly go upstream and you need to hit upstream at the very top, which I think really has to do with the theology for America specifically.
We're not just letting into benign people because we're ignorant.
We actually have false beliefs around Israel.
Authority Issues in Protestantism00:15:48
And they're held with extreme devotion.
And so we don't do that for any other religion or any other group of people.
And that, in my opinion, is one of the higher upstream things that needs to be eliminated.
It's this we need to break that theological tie.
The category of Christian adjacent shouldn't exist.
Like, there shouldn't exist.
It's the whole Judeo Christian myth, right?
The hyphenated heresy.
We have a book right there on the shelf.
Myself and Jordan Hall, we wrote The Hyphenated Heresy, Judeo Christianity.
And it's sold like hotcakes.
We self published, and it's within the first two months, close to 4,000 copies, because it is one of the premier issues of the day.
And so a lot of people are learning from that.
But what I was going to say, let's go back to Catholic and Protestant for just a moment.
But as it pertains to this issue of dispensationalism, Judeo Christianity, all these kinds of things, one.
I had a fascinating conversation with E. Michael Jones, Dr. E. Michael Jones, I should say.
He's earned it.
And it was a great conversation.
And Jones, if you're not familiar with him, he is not shy at all.
Like, he hates Protestants.
Like, I didn't know that.
Like, he despises, to be fair, he hates Protestantism.
Right.
But he knew that I'm a Protestant minister and was perfectly cordial, very respectful, very kind.
He's really kind.
He's just high energy.
It says what he thinks, which I appreciate.
But he does not like Calvinists.
He does not like Protestants.
He also really doesn't like conversations about race.
So, like, he's very J-pilled, as the kids would say, on the Jewish issue, but believes that race is a social construct.
He believes that race, he was like, race is a social construct that was simply invented by Calvinist Protestants.
I was like, base.
I was like, all right.
I mean, you're kind of talking me into stain, you know, like I feel more convinced.
But here's the deal.
And he semi agreed, not entirely, but semi agreed.
I said, here's the deal Protestants have a Zionist problem.
I think that Catholics have a globalist problem.
But here's the difference Protestants, if we get rid of the Zionist problem, and I think that we can, there are still problems that are inherent to Protestantism, like who gets to be in charge.
It's all about authority.
Right.
It's a problem of authority.
So I recognize that.
And I know that that's a big thing.
And so I don't want to minimize that.
But for the sake of discussion, for just a moment, Zionism is not inherent to Protestantism.
Zionism has a stranglehold currently on Protestantism.
That's undeniable.
But it's not inherent.
What I mean is the very core problem of Protestantism, the problem of authority, the very core problem that opened the door for a guy like Darby and Schofield to walk in and convince every single Protestant that we owe our undying allegiance to Israel, that the greatest dream of every evangelical boomer is that.
That their grandson would die in the dirt, in the sand, and that they would have an American flag and an Israel flag draping over the coffin.
That, like, abhorrent, disgusting problem that we currently have, it makes me angry.
That problem is Protestant in a way that it's not Catholic.
There are Catholics who are Zionists, but by comparison, it's not even close.
Protestants are the bigger Zionists by a landslide.
But to be fair, the core problem with Protestantism, who gets to be in charge?
That problem opened the door to Schofield and Darby and Zionism, but that can just as easily change because anybody can be in charge.
Anybody can interpret the scripture.
Anybody can come up with a meaning.
And so I actually think that the more perpetual problem that eventually will have to be solved is the core problem within Protestantism of authority.
Absolutely.
But that's the timeless challenge for Protestants.
The timely challenge of Zionism.
I think that Protestants will actually fix that.
That problem will be fixed just as quickly and easily as it began.
Because all it takes within the Protestant framework, right, is.
In teaching, better theology.
Yeah, exactly.
Is just a couple people to win the day.
So you're right in that the problem is authority.
Right.
It's not just Zionism, it's all kinds of things.
Look at the Church of England, try to continue its Catholic faith, reform it a little outside of the authority of Rome.
Fast forward to today, there's a female Archbishop of Canterbury.
Right.
Because there's no authority that says you cannot ordain women.
They want to play up to the world, which is egalitarian, that says men and women are the same, the things you laid out earlier.
Without an authority to say you can't do that, why can't they?
So they just do it.
And so all of these problems, whether it's Zionism, feminism, doesn't matter what they are, they all come from that same root of who is the universal authority?
What is the universal authority?
And so it doesn't matter if Zionism gets fixed in Protestantism because next week it might be transgenderism.
The week after that it might be something else.
We've got to go to the root.
And the problem is we all need to be together.
We need to find a way to reunite the church, to reform the church, but to reunite the church rather than.
Creating lots of different churches.
But my point I was trying to get to is that when has a denomination that's gone liberal ever come back to orthodoxy?
Ever?
The closest would be probably the SBC.
The SBC became incredibly liberal in its seminaries back in the 90s.
They actually had seminary professors in all six of the flagship Southern Baptist seminaries that on the first day of class, as they're giving out the curriculum and the syllabus, some of the professors even took a Bible and threw it in the trash.
They said that Mary.
That Jesus was the bastard son of a whore, like atrocious.
And they actually came back, which is nearly impossible.
And the reason why they actually came back, they're not conservative, but conservative ish.
But the reason that they actually did move back to the right and more of a traditionalist view of scripture and errantcy and all those kinds of things is because of the ecclesiastical polity of the SBC.
Now, don't miss what I'm saying.
I think that again, the polity, ecclesiastical polity, governance, who's in charge when it comes to Southern Baptist, still poses a timeless problem.
But in a timely moment, it can work to your advantage.
So, for instance, what is the polity?
It's democracy, right?
So, Southern Baptist, it's American.
And so, Southern Baptist, they sat there with their Bible and in a vacuum, Without being biased or influenced by any outside arguments whatsoever.
And they objectively, on the basis of just objective reasoning from the scripture, they just so happened to decide that Christ's chosen polity for the church was exactly the same as the American political civil polity.
Obviously, I'm being facetious, but that's what they did.
And of course, they're going to say it's right here in the Bible.
But they isolated.
There's no democracy in the Bible.
Yeah, right.
There is.
It's fake.
Well, there is.
They got Barabbas instead of Jesus.
Yeah, they got democracy, crucified Christ, democracy did lots of things in the Bible.
Yeah, none of them were good.
I think, in terms of what's happening to the church around these issues, we have everybody that's younger, below 30, is shifting and seeing the chaos of Protestantism.
And I think we just have to admit there is a lot of chaos there.
It's never ending, multiplied fractures.
And so, again, when you go back into what I would call classical Protestantism, which is, you know, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and you have, you know, confessional statements of beliefs and structures.
I think that, yes, the church needs to become one.
I think that we will become one.
I'm post millennial.
I believe that Christ is coming back for a true, purified, holy church.
And triumphant.
And triumphant, yes, in history.
Not just pure, but small.
Yeah.
Because you can have a real pure church.
Pure and huge.
You can have a pure church.
And this is what a lot of churches right now are doing we're going to have a pure church and it's going to be meeting 14 people.
Yeah.
And they're all bishops.
We know that the Great Commission is essentially going to be fulfilled and that the nations are Christ's.
And we will continue to, by the grace of the gospel, by the grace of God, Add more people to the kingdom of Christ through the proclamation of the gospel.
I mean, Christ is conquering his enemies through conversion, and he is going to continue to win.
So, how does this look?
Again, we talked about this a little bit last night, but he is also conquering his enemies through the sword.
He is, sure, because Christ is head of the church, but not exclusively.
Yes.
I've always argued that Christ is uniquely head of the church in the sense that the church is the only institution for which he died.
But Ephesians chapter 1, I believe it's verse 21 or 22, says that.
God the Father has appointed him head of all things.
And so Christ is head of the state, whether the state acknowledges him or not.
And so the state, Romans 13, as a diakonos, a deacon, a servant of Christ, is God's avenger.
And so God crushes his enemies in one instance through the church, which Christ is head of, uniquely, not exclusively head of, through conversion, word and sacrament.
But Christ is also crushing his enemies that will not convert through the state and the sword.
Yeah, he's the head of the church, he's the king of kings.
So, you have both dimensions there.
But I do think that we're going to see Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome at some point merge together.
I think also that if there's any shot for Rome and what I would call high church Protestantism, which is classical Protestantism of Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Lutherans, they have to unite first.
And then I think there's conversations to be had.
But I think these conciliar councils that should gather for the creedal discussions around Judaism, around Islam, around globalism, around feminism.
We're a divided body.
Yes.
And we're weak because we're divided.
And there needs to be discussion.
I do believe, like, we, again, we were talking about this is that the wars right now, it's hard to go and fight one another while we are being overtaken by every possible evil in the world.
And so it's fighting with it, infighting is of a privileged society or a victorious society.
And we're not in a victorious state right now.
We are in moral misery.
In terms of the church being divided, I can tell you right now, I can predict with 100% accuracy, not because I'm smart, but because I've read a couple of history books.
I can tell you what will unite the church.
And I do believe the church will be united.
Suffering.
Yes.
But in addition to that, the clergy will never unite.
They won't.
They will unite when dad comes in the room and makes them.
And what I mean is that it will be the Christian prince.
Monarchy, yeah.
It will be.
A Constantine.
It will be a Christian state when Christ is recognized once again as not only head of the church, but head of the state.
And the state subjugates himself to Christ as Lord.
And then he looks at the church and says, That's enough.
Stop that bickering.
Cut it out.
I'm going to put you in a room.
If you try to leave, I'll cut off your head.
I'm going to put you in a room until you solve this and get on the same page.
I mean, imagine.
Imagine a state that would fund two or three years of pastors from different.
Traditions of Christianity to get together and have to work through a variety of issues, it would be incredible.
I think you're right in that it won't be the clergy.
And I think maybe the Christian prince will have something to do with it, but I think it's the laity that will come back together.
I think across traditions now, people are fighting each other in Christ in a way we haven't seen in a long time.
That's true.
Those dividing lines are being blurred because we are seeing a common enemy, whether it's Islam or Israel, we're seeing a common enemy of Christ.
Which Islam and Israel, it really is.
It's just the problem.
It goes hand in hand.
It's just, it's the left and right hand of, you know.
Well, the Catholicity element, you know, you and I, we've been friends for.
We've all been friends for years, but we've been friends for a few years now.
And we've had constant phone calls about Catholicity.
And we have different views on significant doctrines, but we are here fighting together, working together.
And I think that we even saw, you know, we were eating dinner last night and we saw a young gentleman who's probably under 30.
And he mentioned that he was young, white, and had a cross on his neck.
In good shape and had a cross.
So I immediately said, One of us.
Yeah, exactly.
I was like, He's one of us.
So I, you know, I decided to break the ice, you know, I treaded softly and just said, Hey, random question communism or fascism?
If you had to choose one, which so that's how we broke the ice.
But turns out he's Catholic, uh, he's a Christian, and um, and he liked the idea of the Lord that young people were willing to have conversations that previous generations were not, right?
Like he said, He's gonna, you know, I invited him to come to our church, and I understand that our church is different.
Calvin, you know, is like, yeah, go to mass first, and then you can visit Webbins Church.
Um, and I said, You know, you may.
We may not be a good fit for you to be a member, but you should come and visit once.
And he was like running after me as we were walking out the door to insist, right?
Because I mean, he's our server.
I'm going to leave a tip.
He's going to be polite.
But he didn't like the last part was pretty convincing, like chasing me out the door and saying, like, me and this other server that he introduced, he's like, this is my one right wing friend here at the restaurant, and we're both going to come.
And they're both like young dads, like in their early 20s, and both have at least one child.
Not together, praise God, but with wives.
But yes, the lay of the land is changing.
I want to ask you something, though, Calvin.
So I think that Protestantism has an inherent authority problem.
Zionism is just the current 150 year long symptom of that.
So I think the authority issue is inherent to Protestantism, and Zionism, I think, can be overturned.
But there'll be something else.
I understand that.
However, Zionism is to Protestantism, in my view, I could be wrong, but it's my view.
Zionism is inherent to Protestantism in a comparable way that globalism appears to me to be inherent to Catholicism.
And I use the inherent, I don't think, I misspoke, I don't think that Zionism is inherent to Protestantism.
The authority issue is.
But globalism does seem, that's my concern, is that globalism does seem inherent to Rome simply by virtue of.
Of there being a global geographic locale, headquarters that speaks for, like, how do you have Catholic, Roman Catholic?
I understand how you can do Catholic without, but how do you have Roman Catholic nationalism?
Okay, so I'm going to take some fleck from the Roman Catholics for this one, but I've already insulted the Protestants, so let's.
You sure have.
Yeah, thanks for that.
Defining Christian Nationalism00:15:29
The undivided church of the first millennium understood that the Pope is sitting in the seat of St. Peter.
His role as the primus inter pares, the first among equals, is to settle disputes.
So, all the bishops have equal authority handed down from Christ through the apostles, apostolic succession.
They are all Christian princes, right?
And they can all have authority in their diocese, in their realm.
Whenever they have disputes amongst themselves, they go to Peter, sent Peter to settle that dispute.
Now, we've shifted 2,000 years later into ultramontanism, where it's seen that the Pope is the king of the church.
He is a monarch of the church.
That wasn't the intention.
So he does have universal authority to a degree, but not as a ruler, more as a settler of disputes.
And that distinction is important because.
The other of the patriarchs all had, you know, if you go to Constantinople, which was at one point the new Rome, the Bishop of Rome would not dare go there and interfere in how he was running his church.
And it's the same across the board.
If you went to Jerusalem, you'd have the same thing.
And so we've reached a point because the church is so broken because of our sin, because we've got all the different Orthodox churches now, and we've got the Roman Catholic Church and we've got Protestantism.
Because of that, the Pope has subsumed more authority than is due.
And to some degree, that's been given to him.
After the Holy Roman Empire fell and some of that authority was granted to the Pope that isn't his.
So it's about going back to what is good, right, and proper, how the church ran for a thousand years, in that, yes, the Pope is important.
He's a significant figure in the church, but all the bishops are, and especially the other patriarchs are.
If we had a patriarch of America or a cardinal of America or a bishop of America who had authority over the church in America, that may answer some of the questions that you were raising up.
Right.
A Christian prince.
We used to call the bishops princes in England.
And that's, yes.
And that's my point, is that.
Like, as a Protestant, a Reformed Protestant who loves the Reformers, I love guys that you despise.
I love Luther.
I love Calvin.
I love these guys.
And yet, as much as I've read of them and gone through my cage stage and all these kinds of things, where, you know, every time there's a mention in the scripture of the synagogue of Satan, I'm like, that's the Roman Catholics.
Where it's like, well, it is a synagogue.
It is a synagogue, actually.
You know, so I've grown up, I've, you know, evolved and matured a little bit over the years.
And so I no longer have.
The cage stage aversion to Catholics that I once did.
I view Catholics as co belligerents and we're working together in many, many regards.
And honestly, it's been the Catholics that have been in many ways kinder to me than Protestants as I've exercised courage on some of these issues like Judaism and even world Jewry.
It's one thing to say the Zionist.
It's one thing to say the nation state of Israel.
It's one thing to say Netanyahu.
It's one thing to say Judaism.
It's one thing to.
But it's another thing to say world Jewry and to get a little bit broader and to not say it universally.
I think that it's a general reality.
Generalities always have exceptions.
But to recognize okay, what do I do with this Jewish billionaire who's not an Israeli citizen?
He's not holding any political office.
He's secular.
He thinks that Judaism as a religion is a joke.
And he still can't help himself but do just as much damage by being the owner of OnlyFans.
Just, you know, this is a hypothetical.
What an example.
Well, Jeffrey Epstein, they didn't rape and abuse any Jewish girls, did they?
Right.
Right.
You know, same as Mohammedans, the Pakistani Muslims in Britain, they're not raping and abusing Pakistani Muslim girls, are they?
Right.
So, my point in all that is to say, I don't have the aversion towards the Roman Catholics that I once did.
Right.
But my desire now is I don't want to see Rome removed, but I do want to see Rome reformed.
I want to see Rome repent, which is what the reformers were, right?
There were Catholics who wanted to reform the church.
And now we have, fast forward 500 years later, people that wouldn't recognize themselves as Catholics think that's the bad word.
And actually, they're more against Catholicism than they are against the errors of the church.
And more against Catholicism than they are against Judaism, which is reverted.
That's what the enemy wants.
Yeah.
Yeah.
As I've continued to reform over the years, as an American, you find yourself often in a lower church format where you're down in megachurch, charismatic Christianity in Southern California.
And you have to work your way back up to the historic faith.
And, you know, I became Presbyterian, then moved, you know, even a little bit shift towards more Anglicanism and understanding some of the historic classical Protestantism.
And I think we need to see that that trend is happening in the church.
It's a good thing.
And I think it's worth it.
I want to talk about this relationship between Rome and Protestantism and nationalism.
Because I think that the dilemma you have, And the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, is that, yeah, because of its universality element, is that it understands the Christian side of Christian nationalism, but it doesn't understand the nationalism side of Christian nationalism.
I'll talk to Catholics who are good guys, they're traditional, they're conservative theologically, but I'll talk to them about something like immigration, and they'll say, yeah, immigration is a problem as it pertains to the Muslims.
But then I'll say, yeah, but what about all these people from nations that are incompatible with the West racially?
Culturally, and they'll say, Well, it depends, like whether or not they're for or against.
They'll say, It depends.
Are they Catholic?
And the answer is, nine out of 10 times, it's like, Yeah, a bunch of people from South America who have nothing in common with the West are here, but they're Catholics.
And then I'll talk to this like traditional based Catholic, and he'll be like, Hey, they're Catholics.
These Vatican First Catholics are like the Baptists who opt out of flirting in politics because they're all about God's kingdom, not the kingdom.
Now, it's the same.
From the other end of the spectrum.
That's exactly right.
They despise it.
It's Gnosticism.
It's another form of Gnosticism that denies the physical reality and the importance of nationhood.
And I think that if we can see that we are the first generation that has to deal with theology around multiculturalism, because no previous generation, we can't look to the reformers, we can't look to the patristics, we can't look to any form of church history and find them talking about multiculturalism.
So, why?
Trains and automobiles.
Yes.
Well, it's because we can't find it on transgenderism either, because they were issues.
That did not exist.
And so we are the very first generation who are dealing with multicultural societies, with mass immigration, with planes, trains, and automobiles.
And as a result, we need to develop for the first time theology around race or nationalism or ethnicity.
And that makes people very uncomfortable because it is a sensitive topic and it's very personal.
And so, especially in America.
Especially in America, because we have been told a variety of lies and deception, and we have white guilt, and we have the history of slavery, we have all of these dimensions.
Complexities that are layered upon one another.
But the reality is, the church must be willing to sit down and do the hard scholastic work, the hard theological work, the hard political and statistical work, and looking at these things honestly.
Because right now we have a lot of national dishonesty around conversation around these issues.
And it's going to take a bold few who are willing to start the conversation and I think do it carefully, move the Overton window.
And I think, Lord willing, in the future, there will be councils on discussing these particular topics, bringing minds together.
Creating some sort of statements or drafts of statements about what is a nation.
Well, we know what it is according to the dictionary.
We know what it is according to every other nation, you know, 200 plus nations.
We know what it is in history, but we're unable to say that definition today without being called racist.
So I think that Rome's going to have a problem with the globalism element.
Protestantism has a problem with the kingdom of God element.
As long as we're all Christian, let me keep talking here for a second.
This is what most Christian nationalists mean when they say Christian nationalism.
They mean Christian multiculturalism or they mean Christian globalism.
The idea that, hey, the ethnic slurry that we have here in a.
That's what theonomists mean.
It took me a while, and I would still define myself as a general equity theonomist.
But I lost a lot of theonomous friends when I realized, oh, theonomy is just political libertarians who are fine with globalism so long as there's a conversion on the boat.
Correct.
On the way over.
And this is the dilemma you have, they're okay with Christian multiculturalism.
But then I ask, well, which Christian culture?
Right.
Because there are, I can go and go to Ethiopia and watch the Ethiopians worship Christ and really probably enjoy myself.
Right.
But we have a variety of different cultures, histories, values, foods.
That's important.
Nature, biology, in terms of their climate and demographic.
And so, which Christian culture will take root?
And so, we need to figure out that Christian nationalism means not just Christian, but it also means nationalist.
And what is a nationalist?
And this is the problem because people are going to hit back against this idea of nationalism because they're going to just immediately go Hitler.
Which is fine.
We've got to push through that.
Since the Tower of Babel, we've been separated into tribes for a reason.
In fact, God's always spoken to us through tribes, nations, and peoples.
But this all links into the Zionism problem because people recognize that Israel is a group of people in particular in the Bible that God spoke through and worked through.
And they just misidentify who Israel is now.
We, of course, are Israel as God's chosen people, as the church, as the people that make up his body.
But people are willing to say Israel is a particular group of people that has a particular relationship with God.
So they recognize what a nation is, they recognize a group.
They just don't recognize where on the map it is.
You're right.
I'm a simple man.
I just want for my country what boomers want for Israel.
Yeah.
That's all I want.
Everything that Mark Levin wants for Israel, I just want half of that for America.
I'm a simple guy.
But in getting that, though, because you're a new country.
I think that this is helpful because a lot of people get confused because everybody was gun shy about saying race.
And so they started saying ethnicity as though it was a placeholder synonymous with race, whereas I don't think the two are synonymous.
So I would say that ethnicity is Welsh, Scottish, or all part of the European race, the white European race.
But the ethnicity is partly race, partly culture, partly faith, partly heritage, lineage, ancestry.
It's a collective group that does change over time, but it doesn't change overnight.
And that's important because the English people, you know, my mother's line of the family have been in that part of the world for over a thousand years, right?
Right.
That they are English.
They have a heritage in the blood, a heritage in the soil.
And these, you know, these people these days will say those words are problematic, but it means something because my country means something to me, not just because I live there, not just because I was born there, but because in my genetics, I have a tie to that place.
And so it's spiritual as well.
Well, it's actually, again, we talked about this earlier, but the idea is.
We know even by our skin color alone where God has providentially designed us to be.
We know that if you're on the equator, your skin may be darker to allow a particular level of vitamin D in, which correlates with the type of diet that you might use.
High time preference, low time preference.
Yeah, and so the reality is that when you take God's order for, if you put me in sub Saharan Africa, can I live there?
I probably could live there, but I'd have to use all types of supplementation in order for me to function there.
Or if you take somebody from Uganda and you put them in Norway, and they're going to have to take vitamin D supplementation, their diet might be different.
So I think that there's going to be need to be more study.
Being able to drink milk, all these things add up.
So to be English is to be predominantly white, predominantly Christian, speak the English language.
Now you can be English and not speak the English language.
You can be English and not be Christian.
You can be English, I mean, technically partly English and not be white, but you have all these things together are important.
And people try to strip them out, say, not all English people are this, that, and the other, to mean that Englishness doesn't mean anything.
Right, exactly.
So people make the exception the rule, they make the footnote the headline.
It's not just one component, but it's more, but it's not less.
If England was no longer Christian, it would no longer be England.
Correct.
So it can't be less.
So, like, when I think of ethnicity, so race, biology, it's lineage, it's blood.
Ethnicity is, in my view, broader than simply race, but it contains race as a key component.
It's not minimal, it matters, but it's also not exhaustive.
So it's significant, but it's not the whole enchilada.
So when I think of ethnicity, I think of, and I use L's, the alliteration helps for memory.
So maybe the viewer, this would be a benefit to you.
Land, you might call that soil.
Lineage, you might call that blood, right?
So those are two, and I would say the two first.
Components of ethnicity.
So land, lineage, beyond that would be language.
Then you would have laws.
Then you would have loves.
Those are traditions.
And then I would also include liturgy.
There's the worship aspect.
I would agree with all that, but I would say faith comes first.
England in 927 was founded as a Christian country.
So take that faith out.
All the other stuff doesn't really matter.
Correct.
I agree.
So it's not necessarily an order of priority, but all six of these have to be included.
So we could go liturgy, then.
Lineage, then land, then language, then laws, then loves.
Maybe you feel, but either way you slice it, all six of those components.
So when someone says, well, a nation, when we speak of nationhood, what is a nation?
Well, it's not just land and lineage.
It's not just blood and soil.
It's not just people and place.
And the answer is, in a technical sense, you're right.
It is more than that.
You are absolutely wrong, though, in the intent of why you're saying that.
I know what you're trying to do.
What you're saying is fine.
What you're trying to do with what you're saying is sinister because what you're asserting is technically you're right because it's more.
But what you're asserting or trying to get people to believe is that it's somehow less.
It's not less.
So, that being said, as it pertains to America, because of the uniqueness of our founding, all the way up until it fluctuated, but even as recent as 1910, America was 90% European descent, white.
Regaining American Ethnicity00:14:55
But because of the uniqueness of slavery and these kinds of things, I would say that.
That America should not be monocultural and therefore should not be mono ethnic.
Or I'm sorry, should not be multicultural and should not be multi ethnic.
America, every nation for that matter, should have one culture, monoculture, and one ethnicity, meaning one language that we speak, one religion, national religion, one common descent.
That doesn't mean, though, in many nations' case, it will also be monoracial.
It will be mono racial.
In the 21st century, you can't avoid that.
But in the 21st century, there will be some exception.
So, I'm what I'm working for when I think of Christian nationalism is monocultural America, mono ethnic America, and the liturgy piece going back to those six L's being Christian, of course, and that being there being a public national declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord of these United States, adopting the preamble to the Constitution formally, National Day of Repentance, everywhere where the founders failed to be explicit.
Because they said religion instead of Christianity, right?
And here's the deal I'm oh, so you hate the founders.
No, um, the founders are not omniscient, they could not conceive of the issues that we're facing today.
They could not conceive of millions and millions of Muslims, they could not conceive of a Jewish stranglehold over our government.
Um, they and so they didn't prepare for things that they did not think would ever be threats.
So, yes, I think the founders were glorious in many regards, some of them I don't like, but but.
Benjamin Franklin was a bit of a degenerate, you know.
Thomas Jefferson, not much of a fan, but Adams was great.
Washington was great.
Jackson was great.
These are wonderful, wonderful people.
I thank God for our founding.
I thank God for our heritage.
But they are men, right?
The best of men are men at best.
And they missed some things, not even because of a moral failure, not because of their fallenness, but because of their finitude.
They couldn't look through the quarter of time and know all the things that would transpire over the centuries to come.
So I think there needs to be a.
We need to set the record straight.
So, there needs to be an explicit declaration made to the Lord Jesus Christ.
It needs to be on paper, it needs to be legislative in some capacity.
These kinds of things get the Christian piece, but then you also have to get the nation piece.
You're right, Christian nationalism, there's two big ingredients in that equation, and it's Christian, it's also nation.
And with a nation, it must be monocultural, it must be mono ethnic.
In America's case, it will not be mono racial.
Correct.
Although, that said, it should still be predominantly white.
Because that's our heritage, our history, our founding, and even currently to this day, America is 59% white, which means if it's not predominantly white, majority white, it means if something happens in the future where it's no longer majority white, it means that a particular people that were the bedrock, right, the WASP, white Anglo Saxon Protestants, the bedrock of America's foundation have been replaced.
And to be able to account for that and not see it as some form of tragedy.
Is immoral.
That sounds like common sense to me.
Yeah, and it's a form of national theft.
And the sins that are being committed through immigration are the sins of envy, they're the sins of stealing.
If you want to put a sin on top of what's happening, they're taking your children's inheritance.
We know that the Constitution was written and the benefits were for us and our posterity.
And you need to define what the posterity was.
Well, we know that it was of European descent.
But again, when we had the 1789 Congressional Act, the Naturalization Act, that we would import white men of good moral character, that stood basically until 1965, until the Hart Cellar Act, even in 1921, 824,000 people immigrated in 1921.
It was after World War I. There was a bunch of displacement, there were people all over the place.
They needed to look at their current national origin quotas that they were operating off of.
That year, they allowed a certain number of immigrants to come in that was unnatural compared to previous years.
In 1924, they actually tightened it down more.
But let me give you an example.
I think they allowed, I could be wrong, but around 100 people from Africa to come out of that 824,000 people.
Meaning that we were highly, highly restrictive, allowing anybody to come from primarily Western European nations.
And then you'd have more quotas for Eastern European nations.
It didn't mean that they couldn't have somebody come from Africa or from another Asian country.
Usually it was related to maybe a family member was here.
There was a unique exception.
But When you don't have a monoculture, you have nothing to assimilate to.
And so assimilation demands and requires that you have a majority of all of those categories that you listed, Joel.
And so it's not that we're against immigration completely.
I think right now I'm against immigration completely until we have an actual nation again.
But if we had a nation as we did, I'm okay with having some form of immigration that can be managed with actual measurable assimilation.
And assimilation isn't instantaneous, it's not, it's multi generational.
So, my father will never be, he was born in England, but he'll never be English because he doesn't have the lineage.
Like, his parents were all Jamaican.
Correct.
And so, I mean, we have a difference in our language.
So, we can say he's a British citizen, but he's not English.
In America, that's more difficult because what does it mean to be an American?
Absolutely nothing.
Here's the thing I just, it should mean something.
We, Teddy Roosevelt said that there was an American ethnicity and that it was the eclectic of the Celts, the Germanics, of course, the Anglos, Saxons, you know.
This group of European descendants, and then coming to America over time.
By the time you're Teddy Roosevelt, you already have a few hundred years.
So it was time.
I've used this analogy before.
Time is like the furnace.
The heat, the coals of the furnace is adversity, it's providence, right?
So there has to be a sovereign work of God.
There's something to overcome, like, I don't know, a giant landmass that needs to be settled, for instance.
Whereas today, people are not coming with the coals, the fire, the adversity.
They're coming for a handout.
Right.
Right.
So now what we have is we have a furnace, but instead of taking what happened in God's providence with America that forged an ethnicity, American ethnicity, I would say it is actually, it's like, well, there's no such thing.
No, it really did exist.
And one of our presidents said so.
It's been breaking down ever since over the last hundred years.
But there was a moment that it was achieved.
And, but what it was, it's like fashioning a blacksmith, fashioning a sword.
You have the furnace, that's the land.
You have time, right?
That's a key component.
You have the heat, that's providence, adversity.
And then you have the metals.
And in the case of America at its founding, you had distinct yet closely related metals.
And you didn't have a thousand of them.
You had like six or seven or a dozen.
So you have like a dozen ingredients that all came together, all closely related, right?
All cousins.
So you have like alloy and iron and some silver, you know.
But now what we're doing is we turned the furnace off.
There's no more heat anymore.
And instead of sitting the metals to weld together over hours, We put them in there for five seconds with no coals turned on.
And instead of it being different metals, it's some metal, but also some straw and some dirt and some dung.
I'll let you guess which country with H 1B visas, you know, all of it coming in and saying, yeah, this will be fine.
It's not fine.
So America did have an ethnicity.
England, it's much easier to answer that question.
But I would advocate as an American that we did have an ethnicity, that it could be regained.
But at the end of the day, it is going to require that millions go back.
Mass deportations.
And I just think that the neocons need to make up their mind.
If America is not, if our nationhood is not people in place, but it's simply a proposition, I still want my mass deportations.
That's what I voted for.
So you're either going to ultimately deport millions of Democrats, Joe Biden, right?
If it's a proposition, American ideals, then Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi need to be deported.
And I want everyone that they represent to be deported too.
Or it's going to be, oh, wait, wait, wait.
No, a nation actually is a people and a place.
Great.
So then I want millions of immigrants deported.
But one way or another, by God, we'll have our home again.
And I would like to get my millions of deportations.
You also need the language to articulate it.
So, what is an American?
Is it a heritage?
Is it a people?
Because if you two went to live in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, you could live there as a citizen.
You couldn't vote.
You wouldn't be considered an Arab, but you could live there.
Is there a degree of that in America?
Can you come and live in America without being described as an American?
Yes, you should.
I think that that should be a category where somebody is living here and has not full citizenship, but some kind of degree of.
Of ownership, but they're not able to vote in elections.
They're not.
So you can't change the country, you can't mold it.
Right.
Yeah.
I think that you mentioned, Joel, you know, it's been falling apart for the last 100 years.
I think actually it's really been falling apart really for about 50 years because even when the Hart Seller Act passed, you didn't start to see the taking advantage of that immigration policy shift until about 1974.
True.
So you're talking, we have 50 years, and that's important because it is important because it makes it.
It's so recent.
I mean, my parents were alive before.
So if you think 100 years, you go, oh man, maybe that train's too far down the tracks.
That's a good point.
But you go, no, right now it's really only 50 years.
And when people get frustrated at, again, white Christian Americans who are saying, I've been here for 400 years with my family, we are having mass immigration that is reducing the ethnicity of America on a mass scale.
And it's taking my children's inheritance.
It's changing the land I once knew.
I'm the kind of guy that has pictures of my fifth great grandparents on my wall that are born in 1799.
I mean, I have a deep, rich history in this place and I care about it.
If we just change the discussion for a second, we went to Japan and we say, hey, for Japan, Japan's been around for so many thousands of years.
And then all of a sudden, over the last 50 years, it was immigrated through mass numbers of foreigners that came in.
The Kanchen.
And a group of Japanese nationals got together.
And said, no, we are going to take back what is ours.
Nobody would say that that is wrong or that is racist or that is wicked.
But here we are in America doing the same thing.
And again, there's not a racist bone in my body.
The reality is that I want what we had as a Christian identity, a Christian nation, an American identity.
And again, the conversations around what that looks like specifically as it pertains to race.
Again, we all say often there's heritage American blacks.
We bought half of the country from Mexico.
I want to get to that problem because in group preference is a good thing, right?
You're protecting your own tribe.
That's good.
However, if you deported all the Somalis tomorrow, all the Arabs tomorrow, and you got your country back to what it was, you've still got the problem of you've got a great African American contingent that is not fully assimilated, not integrated into American culture or the ethnicity.
How do you solve that?
Let's round out the episode, but I've talked, Me and Dale have talked more.
Let's give it to you.
What do you think?
You give some final thoughts on that because that is the question.
And maybe you could just at least begin to tease it, don't answer it entirely because it's really difficult, but begin to tease it, give some thoughts, and maybe that's our next episode.
Okay.
So, I think use me as an example, right?
Afro Caribbean father, white British mother.
How am I integrated?
Well, through their marriage, through the fact that I took on board the British culture, the English language, the Christian faith, but I was two cultures that came together through marriage.
And if they lived separately, one of them would be ghettoized.
So, I don't know if the African American culture can continue as its own subculture in America without getting more and more degenerate and deteriorating.
That should be that's going to be our next episode.
Um, because we've talked about this, Dale, we've talked about this, Calvin.
How should assimilation be taken?
What direction should it go?
Speaking, well, Ruth is a Moabite, yeah, she assimilates to uh Israel, yeah, through marriage, yeah, it's always marriage.
And and I'm going to get crap for this because it's gonna be like, but didn't you just do a debate?
Doesn't mean it's not an ideal, doesn't mean it's not exactly.
And and I would say, yes, I did do that debate.
Um, which my thesis was the most moderate centrist position of all time.
My thesis was interracial marriage.
While being biblically permissible, it's not a sin.
None of church history or accounts or anything has ever demonized, and I'm not going to go against the church for 2,000 years.
So interracial marriage, while biblically permissible, not a sin, ordinarily, or I'm sorry, generally, so even general means not in every single case, but in the macro, generally goes against God's ordinary slash normative plan for peoples, nations, and cultures.
Banger, stand by it 100%.
Everyone can cope and seethe.
But that said, here's my point.
In 1910, when Teddy Roosevelt was saying we had an American ethnicity and he was not including blacks in that, at that point, when it was 90% white and only 10% black, my thesis with interracial marriage could have still stood because 90% white, the math is simple here 80% of the white people would have married other white people.
10% of them would have, over time, if we had held the borders, married blacks.
And then eventually, what that would look like over the course of not thousands of years, it doesn't even take that long, but 100 to 250 years, what it would look like is one American race.
True Immigration Requires Assimilation00:01:33
Yeah.
Okay.
It would have happened.
So, again, your statement on interracial marriage, you could actually even change that out for immigration.
You could say immigration, while biblically permissible, is not normative.