Joel Webbin critiques the America First United event, arguing that broad coalitions fail when built solely on opposition to Israel. He proposes replacing MAGA with four pillars: Christian nationalism, patriarchy, race realism, and anti-Zionism, rejecting secularism and Jewish supremacy while demanding male leadership. Webbin contends that Democrats, Muslims, and white-hating individuals cannot unite without compromising core values like the sanctity of life. Ultimately, he asserts that universal suffrage is wicked and that breaking the current political descending channel requires mass deportations, strict voting restrictions, or a genuine spiritual revival to establish a new positive vision of duty and virtue. [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
Inside America First United00:06:11
And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your country.
I spoke at an event over this past weekend called America First United.
The event has been dragged, as the kids would say, on the interwebs for the last 48 hours or so.
I hopped into a space on X yesterday briefly to talk with some who were criticizing the event.
A lot of the criticism, I think, was actually valid.
I wanted to give you guys an inside perspective.
I was actually there on the ground, I was one of the speakers.
I got to meet the other speakers and some of the guests.
So that's what we're going to cover in today's episode.
What was the America First United event all about?
How did it actually go down?
Where was it good and where did it go wrong?
That'll be our episode today.
Tune in now.
Warning this product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
All right, guys, I'm going to skip straight to the chase.
You know that I know that you know that I know you're using nicotine.
Half of the people that listen to the show, you use nicotine.
I know this because you've told me literally to my face.
You've come to our conferences, you've walked up to me and said, hey, I'm using nicotine.
It's boosting my testosterone levels.
It's making me lock in with the projects that I'm working on.
And that's great, right?
I'm in group chats with a lot of you guys.
And about, I don't know, 20, 25% of the group chat is talking about what nicotine product we happen to be using at any given moment.
So I'm not telling you to start a new habit.
And I'm not telling you to spend money that you don't have.
I'm telling you, with the money you already spend on the product you're already using, why don't you use a better company, a company that actually helps keep NXR Studios in the fight?
I'm talking about Knick Knack.
Knick Knack is Christ pilled.
They literally have the foot of our savior crushing the head of the serpent.
On their logo, and they are America first.
They're actually manufactured in America, which is more than I can say for most nicotine companies.
So go to knickknack.com.
Nickknack.com.
Use my promo code for 20% off.
It's Joel20!
All caps, Joel20!
Radical Christian nationalist pastor, Joel Webbin.
Joel Webbin.
I'm going to talk about Joel Webbin today.
Joel Webbin is an excellent.
So, I wanted in this episode to show some clips from my speech at the America First United event that took place on Saturday.
Unfortunately, as our tech team was trying to accumulate some of the clips from my speech and maybe even a clip or two from some of the other speakers, we were unable to do so.
That was one of the problems with the event.
Whether or not it was their fault or whether or not something went wrong with Rumble, I don't know.
I'm not a tech guy.
I can't tell you the source of the problem, but I can tell you the result.
The recording is terrible.
We try to go back to the live stream on Rumble and it's bad.
It's just all over the place.
You're listening and hearing my audio, but seeing the speaker in the visual who came directly before me.
It's not synced up, the audio and the visual cut out at certain places, multiple places.
So we were unable to show you actual clips from the speech.
The best recording that's at least intact and not interrupted.
Was actually just from somebody's cell phone.
Somebody posted it on Twitter, a recording of my speech.
So I took that and reposted it myself.
I made it my pinned tweet.
I'll leave it there pinned on my profile, at least for the next few days, maybe this week, for anybody who is curious, who wants to hear what I spoke about, what I had to say at this event.
You can go to my handle on X at Joel Webbin, at Joel Webbin.
Look for my pinned tweet under my profile.
And that's my speech.
It's 39 minutes in length, which was longer than I was supposed to go.
Everybody, it was kind of the idea, I guess.
I didn't organize the event, but the idea from those who did was a full blitz of having multiple speakers and just one after another, after another, after another.
Some people slated to speak for five minutes, some people slated to speak for 15 or 20 or 25.
I was slated for 25 minutes.
The individual who went right before me, who I actually really appreciated, he was one of the better speakers.
He was slated for 25 minutes as well.
And he went over his time, and I sat there and watched.
He did 25 minutes, an hour and 25 minutes, I think.
He went well over his time.
It wasn't an hour and 25, but he went well over his time, and I watched him.
I thought, I don't know.
It just invigorated me, inspired me.
I saw an older man speaking longer than he was supposed to speak, and I thought, I should do that too.
So, anyway, so my speech is 39 minutes.
You can check it out.
It has subcaptions.
Whoever uploaded the video from their phone put subcaps on subtitles, and They don't actually link up with what I'm saying.
So you have to listen to the audio, but it's coming from somebody's iPhone.
So the audio is not great, but you can make it out.
It's good enough.
Hear what I'm saying, but the subtitles don't exactly mix.
But basically, let me give you a little bit of a summary of what I said, and then we'll kind of break down the event.
And Wesley was there with me, so he'll have things to add as well.
But what I said was, in essence, within like the first two, three minutes of my speech, I started by saying that.
MAGA 2.0 Priorities Explained00:10:40
Every organization, every movement, whether it be religious or cultural or political, is going to have hundreds, not just dozens, but hundreds of different values because there's a lot of valuable things in the world.
We're not just one trick ponies.
And so I talked about how, you know, I, as a Christian pastor, I value the life of the unborn, the sanctity of life.
I value traditional marriage.
I value children.
I value education.
I value, you know, there's lots of things that we value.
But what ultimately distinguishes a movement one from another is not their values but their priorities.
So, you can value a thousand different things and do so genuinely, but you cannot prioritize a thousand different things.
If you prioritize everything, you prioritize nothing.
So, when it comes to emphasis, that's where you have to be selective.
That's where you have to narrow it down.
That said, if you narrow it down to a single issue, then you may be able to have a broad coalition that has the numbers and the momentum in order to win when it comes to the realm of.
Politics and elections.
However, if all you have, all you share is one priority, then you could win, but you will not have the unity required to do any good upon winning.
And so, kind of one of the big statements that I made in my speech was this I said, It's ironic and a bit hypocritical if we do the very thing that our current administration did.
MAGA.
At least MAGA 2.0 in its most current rendition is a one priority movement.
It championed all these different things mass deportations and a strong golden age economy for the average American worker.
It championed that we were going to have no more wars.
That was one of the big things.
Lots of different things that they were saying they were going to emphasize and prioritize.
But the reason that so many of us are disenchanted here about a year and a half into Trump's second administration is because they turned out to really only prioritize one thing.
We're not getting the mass deportations.
We're certainly not getting new wars.
We got a new war.
That's what a lot of people are upset about.
We're not getting a great economy for the average American worker.
The average American worker is being replaced by infinity H 1B visas.
No regulations when it comes to AI and data centers and all these kinds of things.
And because of the war and the Strait of Hermos and all these different things with trade, the average American worker, even if he is employed, he can't afford to get to the office because gas is outrageously expensive with no signs of going down in the near term future.
So, what did MAGA actually become?
Well, it became a one priority movement, the one priority being pro Zionism.
Mark Levin, and I said this in my speech, was not lying when he put his arm around Donald Trump and said, This guy right here, he's our first Jewish president.
To which Trump responds by saying, It's true.
It's true.
It is true.
It is true.
MAGA for the present these days is what does it mean to be MAGA?
It means to be Mark Levin.
It means to be Lindsey Graham.
It means to be Laura Loomer.
What does it mean to be MAGA?
Well, it means being Jewish.
MAGA was truncated into really one issue, right?
They could compromise and bend on everything.
Trump, in his rhetoric when it comes to defense of the unborn, he backpedaled immensely.
And he did so in his campaign, not just after being elected, but in his campaign.
And people such as myself were willing to look over that thinking, well, you know, Kamala would be worse.
And for the record, I think Kamala would be worse.
But the point is, Trump compromised both in his campaign and certainly now in his administration.
On issue after issue after issue, all these different things that they said would be priorities, he was willing to backpedal and compromise, except for one.
The MAGA, current iteration of MAGA that we have today, is a one issue political movement, and it's a pro Zionism, pro Israel movement.
So for anyone to say, hey, we've had enough.
And we're going to counter this by doing the exact same thing, except our one issue will be anti Zionism, anti Israel.
That will fail.
It might win.
I mean, there really are millions and millions of people across the whole world, but here in these United States who are, they've soured on Israel.
That's undeniable.
Israel is viewed as less favorable than it has been in a very, very long time.
And so, One priority movement that makes everything about just being anti Israel and anti Zionism.
That would actually accumulate a broad coalition and maybe have the numbers to win.
But like MAGA, it won't be doing any good.
And so I don't have any interest in being a part of something like that.
So this is what I said in my speech I said, I have no interest in that.
So hundreds of values.
We need to narrow that down in terms of focus to a handful of priorities, but it has to be more than one.
And so I offered four pillars Christian nationalism, whatever this new political movement is, that ultimately its goal would be to unseat MAGA.
You have MAGA in the last 10 years that replaced the neocons, and then in typical animal farm fashion became the neocons.
And so, whatever does to MAGA.
What MAGA did to the Bush dynasty, it's going to need to be explicitly Christian.
It's going to have to be pro Christian at a national level.
That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone in the United States has to be a genuine born again Christian.
I know that that's not going to happen, but it needs to be unapologetic, explicit, public, and saying, no, we're not doing the principle of pluralism anymore.
And we're not doing secularism anymore.
Secularism is not viable.
It's simply.
A placeholder.
Every single nation has a religious ethos.
There's some kind of spiritual component.
People are not robots.
We have souls.
So there's going to be some kind of reigning dogma or orthodoxy that every nation embodies, and you have to choose.
It's not whether, but which.
If it's not Christian nationalism, then it'll be Islamic nationalism, Hindu nationalism, Jewish nationalism, some religious.
Element will be seated in a national embodiment.
And so it should be unapologetically Christian.
That was number one.
Number two was patriarchy.
And I talked about, you know, for me personally, I don't think that women should hold civil office.
I personally think that the 19th Amendment was a massive mistake.
I understand that although there are more people who are open to that rhetoric than there have been previously, that's still a minority report.
And I understand that that's not going to be the official position of whatever political movement replaces MAGA in the future.
So I try to draw a spectrum, a sliding scale.
So, patriarchy.
You're probably not going to be as far as I am on that particular topic, but there should at least be a general consensus that we believe that when all things are equal, men should lead.
That we've done enough of the boss babe feminism.
We have disparaged and looked over men, especially young men, young white men, and we are going to be prioritizing men.
So, we may not draw a hard line.
When it comes to women and their participation in politics, but we're at least going to say that all things being equal, we're going to give men a shot at leadership.
We believe that men have been called by God to be leaders leaders in their homes, leaders in the church, and leaders when it comes to the nation.
So that was number two.
Number three was race realism.
That one's probably the least palatable for Americans in 2026.
But I again tried to draw a bit of a spectrum.
I'm maybe over here further to the right.
But there should at least be an understanding that people are not fungible widgets, that you cannot merely replace a certain demographic of people and think that just because people have adopted certain ideals or propositions, they're going to behave the same way.
People are unique and peoples are distinct.
Race is not merely a social construct.
It's not just culture.
It's not just the hippity hoppity music influencing people to behave a certain way.
There's a lot of white trailer park kids who listen to rap that glorifies murder.
And yet, per capita, they do not go out and murder other white kids at the same rate as other biological races do.
So there is something to race as a physical category, not just cultural.
Acknowledging that.
And then looking at our heritage here in America, who built the country, who they built it for, for us and our posterity.
Race Is Genetic Not Cultural00:05:05
And there should be a general deference, a general consensus we are not going to disparage white people.
We are not going to allow in the government or corporations or Ivy League schools for white people to be disparaged, to be overlooked, to be discriminated against.
America is predominantly a white country, not by much, but it still is.
And it certainly, in its heritage and history, was built and founded by white Christian Europeans.
And so that will be respected and that will be honored.
So, a general understanding of race, it's not just culture, but there's also a racial component.
And in that, I talked about the genetic side of the equation, but I also introduced a spiritual side, the doctrine of traducianism.
That's something that a lot of Christians are not familiar with.
But it's the idea that in the same way, the mother and father, when it comes to new life, conception, both the mother and father being used physically to forge a new person, the question is how does God create the soul?
We know that God creates people, but he does it through certain mechanisms, means.
God actually physically knits, Jeremiah says this knits each baby in their mother's womb, but he does it through the human means of a mother and father coming together.
And so, God is creating a new life, but he's doing it through natural means.
The question is in regards to the soul.
Does a husband and wife come together and form a new child physically, but then God creates ex nihilo out of nothing, a soul in the 17th dimension, and then implants it into this fertilized egg, this human being, this zygote?
Or does God actually form the soul, the spiritual side of the equation, in a similar way to how he forms a human being physically through the mother and father?
In other words, we are.
Embodied souls, that's what a human being is, an embodied soul, and we are both physically and spiritually the descendants of our fathers, of our ancestors.
And this is how people used to think.
I mean, you read even novels like Tolkien, not that long ago.
We're not talking about a thousand years ago, but even just a century ago, really even more recent than that.
And you'll see that people instinctively thought and just assumed.
That if somebody came from a noble line of people, that they would be able to embody a certain degree of nobility themselves.
And there was a physical component to this.
And there was also something that was beyond just the mere physical.
There was a spiritual element to this.
This is so and so, son of so and so, son of so and so.
He comes from a line of virtuous people who have displayed courage for centuries.
And therefore, we have expectations upon him that he will be a courageous leader.
He will serve his people well in this regard and that regard because there's a certain genetic composition, but also there is a spiritual composition.
That's the idea of traducianism, that it's not just the soul made ex nihilo off to the side and then placed into this baby in the womb, but rather that the mother and father, in the same way that God creates the person physically, but through the means of husband and father, he does that in a spiritual sense as well.
And so peoples are different.
They're distinct genetically, not just culturally.
That's part of it.
But there's a religious distinction, cultural distinction, but also genetic and even spiritual distinction in the formation of a people.
And those things do not disappear or alter overnight.
Those are things that, if they are to change, they would change slowly over the course of multiple generations.
So you can't just take somebody who's Indian or Haitian or Somalian.
And have them come onto the magic soil and repeat the magic words and adopt a set of propositions and all of a sudden be like everyone else.
That's not the way the world works.
That's not the world that God actually created.
We can't go against the grain.
We can do, people can do incredible things innovation, invention, discovery but all of it is with the grain.
People do incredible things when we are working hard with the grain.
That is, In the direction with the world that God actually made, when we are operating within the natural order, when we're going against that, saying boys can be girls and girls can be boys, a Haitian can be an American within 15 minutes.
Superiority Complexes Abroad00:16:03
And you need to see it like that.
I know I just kind of said that nonchalantly, but I'm going to back up for a moment.
A boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy is just as scandalous as a Haitian can be an American.
You need to feel that in your soul.
I'm not saying that somebody can't immigrate here from a non European country and generations down the line have an embodiment of what it means to be American.
So I'm not saying that it can never change, right?
So it's not exactly the same as a boy becoming a girl and a girl becoming a boy.
But to say that that could happen automatically, that we can simply, it's just a matter of information, education, that we can simply give somebody from the other side of the world a few classes.
About the Declaration of Independence and our founding fathers, and then sprinkle some evangelism on top and get them to say the sinner's prayer and become a Christian.
So they converted religiously and they've been indoctrinated politically in terms of American values, and boom, they're just American as anyone else.
That's national transgenderism.
It's just not a thing, it is preposterous.
And so then the fourth pillar, right?
So Christian nationalism.
Masculinity, patriarchy, race realism, and an appreciation for the posterity of those who built the country.
And then the fourth one being anti, not just Zionism.
It's not just, oh, it's the Marxists, it's the Bolsheviks, it's the communists.
Oh, it's the nation state of Israel.
Oh, it's the IDF, it's Mossad, it's Bibi Netanyahu.
No, it's a little bit more specific than any of those things.
It is a problem that has been going on for centuries and centuries.
It's Jewish supremacy.
We can't just say Zionism.
It's Jewish supremacy.
It is world Jewry.
It's not every single Stein, but it is every single time.
And we need to recognize that.
So it's not every single Jew.
But there is a problem with some Jews embodying and even saying out loud with glee, glib, laughing about the goy, the cattle, this.
Embodiment of Jewish supremacy.
And here's the reality this is why words matter and accuracy matters.
A random Mossad agent or a random IDF soldier, I will probably have some massive disagreements with.
And there are multiple problems that I could point out and criticize, and that could be virtuous for me to say those things out loud.
But that random IDF soldier is not a threat to my five children over here on the other side of the world.
They're not.
But the Jewish billionaire in my country, who's not an Israeli citizen, he's an American citizen, he's never even visited Israel, but he controls mass amounts of wealth, has his hands in our politics, he is influencing media and entertainment, he is a threat to my children.
So it's not just Israel or Israelis or the Israel government, it's Jewish supremacy.
I don't want to just say it's all Jews.
No, it's Jewish supremacy.
And to illustrate that, I talked about how if I was in Uganda and I said, you know what, Uganda should be pro white.
Well, Uganda's black.
That's not their heritage.
That's not their current reality.
That's simply an inappropriate sentiment for that context.
In the same way, if I went to Uganda and said, I understand you're not pro white, but I am a white supremacist and I think that I'm better than everyone else.
That's probably not going to be well received in the context of Uganda.
In other words, to make it even more particular, Jewish supremacy in non Jewish countries.
If you think that your people, if you have a sense of national pride, ethnic pride even, for your people, I'm proud of my people, I'm proud of my ancestors.
Not just it's okay to be white, but it's good to be white.
I'm proud of people.
Of European descent who were Christian people, moral people who have done immense good in the world.
I'm proud of my heritage.
I'm proud of my ancestors.
That's actually not a sin.
It's not.
I know everybody tries to say that that's this terrible, sinful thing, but it's really not a sin.
Uganda should probably have Ugandan pride, a sense of pride about their people.
But if I'm in Uganda, And I think that me and my people are better than them and all their people, I should probably go home.
I probably shouldn't be in Uganda because there's a place for me somewhere else.
If I'm so proud of my people and I think that my people are superior to the people that I'm living amongst, I should go be with my people.
So the irony is that in that sense, I'm not really an anti Zionist.
I actually kind of believe, at least in some, depends how you define it, but some of the tenets of Zionism.
I actually believe that the Jewish people.
Whether all this should have happened the way that it did or not, without trying to get into some of the history, the fact still remains that currently the Jewish people do have a place that is their home.
There is actually a geographic region, a place, a nation state, where if you are a Jew who embodies and holds to Jewish supremacy, there's a place where you can go, there's a place where you can live.
So even the essence of Jewish supremacy.
If it's Jewish supremacy in Israel, we love our people and we think our people are the best people and we're really proud of our people here in Israel.
Fine.
But to live in another country and think that you're better than those people and actually exploit those people with degenerate media, exorbitant forms of usury, and financing burritos.
Infiltrating their political system so that it doesn't do good for their native citizens, but instead serves, it kind of transforms their citizens into a tax farm to do good for your people on the other side of the world.
You see the problem.
That's a problem.
And that's not actually anti Semitic.
That's not, oh, I hate all Jews by virtue of them just being Jewish.
No, what I hate is I hate Jewish supremacy in non Jewish countries.
I hate Jewish supremacy in America because America is not a Jewish nation.
Jews can live here if they live here peacefully and they're not trying to subvert, they're not trying to infiltrate, they're not trying to destroy, they're not trying to exploit, then fine.
But living in another country while thinking that your country is superior and your people are superior and the people That you live among are inferior and simply exist to serve you and your special chosen race.
That's an ideology that is really, really demonic and it shouldn't be tolerated.
So, anti Jewish supremacy in non Jewish countries.
And in our context, that would be being against Jewish supremacy here in America.
So, I offer those as four pillars.
It's got to be Christian.
It's got to be Christian, even at a national level, Christian nationalism.
It's got to be masculine.
It's got to be male led.
It's got to be patriarchal.
Can't just be the boss babes.
Um, You know, just this gynocracy that we've been living under for quite some time.
It's got to be an understanding of race, not hating people, not disparaging people or taking advantage, exploiting people, but a recognition that it's not just culture, it's not just the rap music, you know, or a matter of education or this or that.
No, people at both the physical and then the traditionism, a spiritual level.
Are actually distinct.
God created a world of distinctions.
Not everyone is the same.
And this basic understanding should be believed and it should be employed in the way that we govern the nation.
That should influence our immigration policies, that should influence our elections, who should serve office, all these different things.
We should have a basic understanding that race is real.
Okay.
And then lastly, being anti, not just anti Zionism or anti Israel, but anti Jewish supremacy.
Here in America, because it's not, or at least it's not supposed to be, a Jewish nation.
I said these four priorities, not one, not just one priority, anti Israel, but these four priorities seated among a host of different values that has the fortitude for a movement that can have a broad coalition, right?
Because there's a sliding scale, as I said, with each of those four priorities.
You're not saying you have to be this tall to ride the ride.
You're boiling it down to what's the lowest common denominator?
What's the minimum requirement for people to be a part of this movement?
They may not be as patriarchal as I am, as hardcore on Christian nationalism as I am, this, that, and the other, but there's a basic acknowledgement, a minimum buy in with each of these four pillars.
And with that, it's low enough, the bar, for a broad coalition, but it's also particular enough that it's not just the We Hate the Jews Club.
So, that the coalition that actually is derived from these pillars, these principles, priorities, is something that could actually accomplish good, not just win an election and then do nothing, but win an election and actually do good for these United States of America.
So, that was my talk.
I was willing to go to this event on that basis.
I asked the host, they were very gracious.
I said, Can I talk about.
Whatever I want to talk about, they gave me liberty to do so.
And so, with that understanding that, you know, this is supposed to be a broader coalition than I think is healthy or right, I'm going to go and essentially say the opposite.
I'm going to say, this won't work.
This is not enough.
You have problems with Israel, but you're a Democrat and your speech.
I mean, one of the guys at the event, his speech was.
Just talking about white people historically being bad and committing genocide in Congo and committing genocide in India.
And his whole speech was the genocide in Gaza is bad because genocide is always bad.
And let me remind you of how bad white people have been.
Jose Varga was his name.
Varga, you know, so not that shocking.
But yeah, so for me to go to an event and link arms with these kinds of individuals, they had a Muslim woman directly after my speech.
That's the one negative thing I'll say in regards to.
Organizing the event.
They were gracious.
They were hospitable.
I disagree with the philosophy.
I went to voice my disagreement and I did.
Other than that, though, they were very kind.
The only thing that I did not appreciate is they scheduled this Muslim woman who offered a Muslim prayer to a false God directly.
They could have scheduled her at any point throughout the day.
They scheduled her directly after my speech.
So you have on video me stepping down, giving the microphone to the host.
And the host immediately welcoming this woman wearing a hijab and then offering a prayer to demons.
And I, you know, as a Christian pastor, I find that highly, highly offensive.
I knew that she was going to be there.
I found out, you know, a few days before that she was going to be there.
But the fact that she was scheduled directly after me, I find that I was offended by that.
So, That was one thing that I think was kind of a low blow.
I don't know if it was intentional.
I'm not saying that it was, but it did seem like more than just a coincidence.
We're going to have the Christian pastor, and then we're going to get this cool optic of a Christian pastor immediately followed by this Muslim woman praying a Muslim prayer.
It felt intentional.
And if it was, then I take very great offense at that.
I think that that was wrong.
But, anyways, that was the event.
So, a lot of the criticisms.
That the event has garnered over the last couple of days, I agree with.
Because what fellowship, the scripture says, what fellowship does light have with darkness?
Does Christ have with Baal or Beelzebub?
The answer is none.
There are certain people that you cannot link arms with.
It has to be Christian, it has to be pro white, not anti white.
The first speaker that they kicked it off with, Jose Garcia.
His whole speech was an anti white speech.
Imagine that.
Like, we're going to partner with this guy because he's against Israel.
But his entire speech, other than the things that were against Israel, the whole rest of it was against white people.
And white people make up the majority of the country that he wants to hold office in.
How is that going to work?
It doesn't work.
One of the individuals, another woman who was there, I didn't know about this until I was at the event, but she, Allegedly, it was selling at least at some point, maybe a few weeks ago or months ago.
But it was selling t shirts that say dox ice.
Dox ice, you can't partner with that.
So, you can't partner with the female libtard who wants to see ice agents doxed and their families killed.
You can't partner with the hijab Muslim girl praying to sand demons, and you can't partner with the uh.
The Mexican guy who's giving you a history of all the genocides committed by white people and why white people are terrible.
Meanwhile, he's wanting to hold office in a predominantly white country that was founded by white people.
Escaping The Old Paradigm00:15:01
So there can be no unity.
So America first united.
I'm glad that it happened because it needed to, you know, a lot of people said this doesn't work, but it needed to be proven.
And I would say that the verdict has officially come back in.
Everyone now sees, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, everybody, I think, agrees.
Ironically, we are now united.
We're united in our belief, our core belief, that we cannot unite.
There's not going to be a broad coalition with a bunch of different, like, yes, there could be some Bill Clinton type Democrats who are really probably more like independents who could come out and vote in our favor.
But your core Democrats, who, you know, their main priorities are flood the country with immigration, abort babies, feminism, white people are terrible.
There can be no unity with that kind of sentiment.
So, no unity with Muslims, no unity with libtard, you know, girls who are saying we should dox ICE agents, and no liberty with Mexican.
Congressmen who think white people are the worst people who have ever lived.
So that was pretty much what I learned from the event.
I was willing to go because there were some great people.
There really were.
There were some great people that I knew were going to be at the event who had reached out to me, said, Hey, I heard that you're going to be speaking.
I'd love to meet you.
And so there were some great networking opportunities, great connections.
The event had, you know, it was only maybe 50, 60 people, half of them were speakers.
And just for the record, there's a reason for that.
This was not an event where they were selling tickets and inviting people to come.
It was supposed to be an event that was for primarily just a media event where everybody got in and we, you know, live streamed it on Rumble, but then that failed terribly because all the tech went wrong.
And, you know, the video, the stream wasn't working.
And so nobody was watching.
It got very few views.
I think it would have gotten, I think they, you know, they said like 5 million.
It wouldn't, it would, there's no way it was ever going to get that.
But, I think it would have gotten a lot more views if the stream had actually been working.
But the purpose of the event was not to sell out an auditorium.
They weren't selling tickets, they weren't trying to.
It was for OPSEC reasons.
It was supposed to be a very protected, private, small event where it's basically just the speakers and some of their personal friends and a live stream to be consumed digitally that the tech failed.
So, anyways, I went because I wanted to make the connections with some of these people.
And that was very fruitful, very privileged that I got to meet some of these great people.
And I also wanted to go to voice my point of view to essentially say a one issue party that's united on nothing other than we don't like Israel is never going to work.
And that was my speech.
And the last thing I'll say is that was my speech at America First United.
My speech was basically this doesn't work.
And I got, you know, half of the room was applauding louder than for any other speech.
So most of the people there, or at least half of them, agreed.
And so I feel like it was valuable.
I'm glad that I went.
But the criticism in the aftermath, I think, unfortunately, is merited.
It was an idea that was just not a good idea.
It's not going to work.
And if it did work, even if it did work, that raging Democrats and these people and these people, Muslims and Christians can all get together and win an election just on being anti Israel.
Even if the idea worked in terms of having the numbers to win, it wouldn't do anything else.
We would win and maybe cut off APAC, but then do what?
Flood the country with a ton of foreigners, murder a bunch more babies, dox ICE agents, and put people like me in jail.
So it was a bad idea.
I understand the train of thought.
I understand how it came about, but it ultimately was a bad idea.
But I'm still glad that I went.
I don't regret going.
I think it was worth going.
I think what I had to say was worth hearing.
And the people that I met were worth meeting.
Go to shop.newchristianright.com.
We have all of our new books available for pre order, but we also have our shirts and our mugs and our hats, et cetera.
This is my favorite Diversity for Israel.
Here's the reality.
Anti Semitism is unquestionably on the rise, especially here in America.
And we have been told by our leaders, and our leaders, of course, we can trust, they would never betray us.
They have insisted for decades now that diversity is our greatest strength, but also that Israel is our greatest ally.
And if you want to put a stop to anti Semitism, and here at NXR Studios, we certainly do, we want to see anti Semitism stopped dead in its tracks.
And so we think that one of the ways to combat it is to push for Americans to share our greatest strength.
With our greatest ally.
We have been so enriched by diversity here in the United States.
And so we want that for our friends over in Israel as well.
This is Diversity for Israel.
Go to shop.newchristianright.com.
Check it out.
Pragmatism is very alluring.
There's an old business paradigm it's fast, good, cheap.
And it's really tempting to be like, I can push all three of these levers, right?
I can have a fast product, I can get it out quickly, it can be good quality, and I can pay bottom price.
But there's a little widget where once you select two and try to do the third one, oh, you want to do it cheap?
Will you lose the quality that you're going to get?
It's very tempting to take pragmatic shortcuts, pragmatic shortcuts in business, pragmatic shortcuts in the church, pragmatic shortcuts with your workout plan and in politics in the same way.
What if I just expanded my coalition, kind of downplay this?
We take the cultural differences on abortion, on the sanctity of marriage, take these things and downplay them.
Well, we've just expanded our voter base.
But just like that problem in business, it doesn't work.
What I like what Joel did too, though, is he didn't say, okay, so the Big Ten doesn't work.
So let's go down and let's get this criteria.
Let's make it 300 items.
We're going to be perfectly aligned on every single one of them.
You made great concessions.
You said, hey, as far as a political movement goes, and this isn't the church, there's a distinction between them.
They are two separate kingdoms.
Politically, you must be this tall to ride the ride.
You have to defer to Christianity as the true religion, for one, but also as the American religion.
I mean, America first united.
America, from the very beginning, has been a Christian nation.
In 1900, it was 97%, not even white.
Christian and predominantly a Protestant nation.
So, I mean, if we're doing America First United and there's no mention of the religion that forged the core, that forged the stock of America, what are we even doing?
But, Joel, you said it well.
You said, even if you're not a Christian, and I hope you do become one, because I'm a pastor and I love you, I want to save your soul, you at the very least need to defer to Christianity.
Rupert Lowe is a great example of this in Britain.
He'll hopefully run to be prime minister and do incredible work against mass migration.
Now, he himself does not personally call himself a Christian, but he says Christianity is a religion that built the United Kingdom, and Christian it should remain.
It should be Christian in its culture, Christian in its heritage, Christian in its public facing.
So, even if Politically, again, not in the church, but politically, we have guys that are great on the cultural issues.
They're great on marriage.
They're great on abortion.
And they personally wouldn't call themselves a Christian, but they would say, I recognize that Christianity built America.
I recognize that Christianity is good for the culture.
It's good for men and women, mothers and fathers, and they defer to it.
We can maybe work with that person.
This is not a you must be perfectly aligned.
That's basically the foundation of the country.
You had several deist founding fathers who were just like, I mean, at the individual level, I'm probably not observing this with any degree of piety, but.
But nationally, this is what our people is.
This is what our nation is.
And so you're able to distinguish, I think, in the political realm, like the individual themselves versus their public policy.
So we distinguish.
We're not broad tent enough.
We don't all fit under this banner.
Anna Kasparian is one of the examples.
She was invited to the event.
She didn't come.
But her comments, talking, cheering that white people have become a minority in the United States, she was cheering it on in a clip from just a couple years ago.
I can't unite under a banner with that type of person.
They hate me.
They hate my children.
So we can't do that.
Also, we have to win.
The stakes are real.
The consequences are real.
And so the four pillars you must be this tall to ride the ride Christianity, male led, race realism, and anti Zionism.
We get these four.
That's the minimum.
We can actually make something work.
Yeah, I like the business example of fast, good, and fast, high quality, and cheap.
And the fact that we've talked about this before, but politics is the art of the possible.
There's always inherent trade offs in any political movement, there's always give and take, push and pull.
This is as old as time in terms of just the compromises that have to happen.
But the difference is the foundation upon which those negotiations are actually happening.
And so I like to think of the four pillars as like, what do we have to, like, to the point of what do we have to be true?
What has to be true for our political movement?
But then there's all of these negotiations that happen on top of that, which is to say, we believe our nation should be Christian.
Now, to what degree should we legislate that?
What should our policy be?
We agree that men should be predominantly in politics and in the public sphere, those sorts of things.
Now, to what degree do we legislate it?
So it's like the reason that.
In America, 100 years ago, you could have a Christian nation, predominantly white, but still have vehement disagreement over things, is because there's degrees of things.
There's degrees of to which your country will be socialist.
What should the tax rate be?
What should our policy or immigration policy be?
But all of these things are happening on the bedrock of hegemony, on the bedrock of, yes, but we're the same people.
We have the same interests.
Some type of foundation.
But that's when it breaks apart.
Pillars, maybe, kind of.
Exactly.
But it breaks apart when the foundation is wobbly, it's cracked, it's.
Disjointed.
And that's what you have when you have different worldviews, different people.
They literally can't build a foundation together because their interests, the foundation is to serve the interests of the house that's built.
But their interests of what kind of house is built?
Is it a mud hut?
Or is it a stately mansion?
Is it a colonial?
Like when the interest of the house is different, the foundation cracks.
It doesn't work.
And so this is why that fundamental worldview what is it that we believe that we must believe in order to even serve the same interest for one another?
That's what the four pillars represent.
And if you're only known by your opposition to something, Hegel talks about this, Heidegger.
If you're only known by your opposition, what happens is that you're locked in a tension where you're defined by the other party.
So instead of defining yourself and actually overcoming this tension that you're locked in, all you do is you continue to engender it.
So it's then 20 years back and forth Zionism, anti Zionism, Zionism, anti Zionism.
It's this struggle that you never escape.
It has to be escaped by saying those things matter, but we're going outside of this paradigm.
We're not playing in the 10% tax or 12% tax.
That's a paradigm that you're locked into to keep you from.
Zooming out and saying, There's a lot more things that we could be focused on.
So you have to get out of that paradigm.
Yes, that matters Zionism versus anti Zionism, but positively set forward.
What are you for?
This is my positive vision.
And that establishes a new paradigm that you get to eventually establish, set forward, define the terms of before something else inevitably comes along and opposes you.
And by the way, this is what's happening, I think, and it's happening along demographic lines, but with respect to the paradigm shift, it's like paradigms are helpful.
Like paradigms are helpful in the sense that.
ADIQ person can understand how to think inside of a system that's coherent and logically centered.
But the problem is, shifting out of paradigms is really painful.
You have boomers today, 60 years and older, who think in a paradigm that it's almost like if I'm 60 years old, it's communism versus capitalism.
Right.
That's a paradigm where everything bad is communism, everything good is capitalism.
There's a whole other world outside of those two.
You give them a study, you give them a policy prescription.
They take the information and pass it through.
That paradigm.
They say, okay, well, how does this make sense with respect to?
Okay.
And, but the problem is you have a demographic, 25 and younger in America today, predominantly white, that is trying to, is like, has thrown the paradigm out altogether.
And so it's like, you can't even go to a CPAC conference and expect to be able to communicate with because they're thinking in one way and we've broken out of the paradigm.
And so we're in this period of shifting paradigms that's really painful.
There's a lot of like, well, I don't know exactly where do you stand?
You know, are you on my team?
Are you not on my team?
And all of these things are being presently figured out.
But ultimately, to the end of your point, which is we have this new frame of communicating about politics and what we're for and what we should do in the public sphere.
Yeah.
And that's why, yeah, so breaking out of the paradigm, you know, the thesis, antithesis, synthesis, because that's some of the criticism that I would get is, well, this is too novel.
It's too extreme.
It's never going to win.
But You know, but what I'm trying to do is break out of some of these pre existing paradigms and set forward a new positive vision, knowing that its first iteration is probably not going to work.
But you throw something on the board and you get labeled a far right extremist, and this is preposterous.
And you know, you're a radical Christian nationalist, Pastor Joel Weaven, you know, like far right extremist, you know.
But then over time, You do multiple reiterations.
And one of the more novel developments, even in my own thinking and the positive vision I'm trying to set forward, is adding to these four pillars a spectrum for each of them.
So it's four pillars.
It is distinct.
Religious Neutrality Is A Myth00:03:06
It actually has substance, it actually has a positive vision.
There's real ideology and convictions there, something to prescribe to, but giving a sliding scale to each of them.
So, Christian nationalist.
Legislating all 10 of the commandments from Exodus 20.
Well, you know, if that's it, it'll be you and your contingency of, you know, 14 people.
But saying, okay, what's the minimum bottom line here for the Christian nationalism piece?
It's acknowledging that every nation has a religious element, that religious neutrality was always a lie.
Neutrality, religious neutrality, even for a nation at a national level, is a myth.
It doesn't exist.
Every nation will be religious.
And religious pluralism is really just secularism, which is not tenable long term.
It merely serves as a placeholder to dethrone the prior religion in that national conception so that it can be weakened, sidelined, and then replaced by another religion.
Secularism has literally just been the interim zone in between Christianity and something else.
And so, what I'm saying is no.
The something else is coming.
Let's go back to Christianity.
So, how much of a Christian nationalist do you have to be in order to be a part of what we're trying to set forward and others like us are trying to set forward?
Well, you have to be a born again, regenerate Christian in church every Sunday.
Your children are about to.
No, no.
We want that at a personal level.
So, if we're in the category, there are categories.
So, if we're in the spiritual category as a Christian and as a pastor, I would love to see all my fellow Americans be Christians personally, that they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.
But in the political category, what's required, the minimum bottom line, is simply a recognition and an acceptance that religious neutrality is a myth and that every nation will have an orthodoxy, some kind of religious orthodoxy, and that for America, it should be Christian.
What does that look like?
You know, what's a tangible example?
It means you personally may not be a Christian, but you're going to criticize if the White House says happy Diwali, but you're going to say that's good when the White House says happy Easter.
You're going to have that kind of recognition.
You're going to support and defend that officials swear in on the Bible and not the Bogdaviv.
That's.
Tangible Examples Of Orthodoxy00:03:08
That's some tangible example.
Somebody and people can get behind that without being Christian.
And Rupert Lowe is a great example of that.
So, with each of these things, the patriarchy piece, I think the 19th Amendment should be repealed.
I understand that that's probably not going to be happening anytime soon.
So, what's the minimum bottom line?
At least acknowledging that men have been disparaged and disenfranchised for the past 15, 20 years.
And so, an acknowledgement that.
That men, in a general sense, are called to be leaders.
And so, all things being equal, we've got a man who has the right positions and a woman who has the right positions, and both of them have equal charisma and gifting and talent.
They're both good speakers, they're both bright and intelligent, and all these things.
If all things are equal, but we only have one position to fill, we're going to, by default, choose the man.
Can you get behind that?
Because you have a general agreement that when all things are equal, when in doubt, in a general sense, men should lead, right?
And then the race realism thing it's not just culture, different peoples are different, and those differences can shift.
It's not perfectly, it's not concrete set forever.
People can change.
You know, Clarence Thomas.
His ancestors, once upon a time, were living in huts.
But Clarence Thomas has done a world of good.
He's incredibly intelligent and he's probably the best Supreme Court justice that we have.
But Clarence Thomas, although his ancestors were living in the hut once upon a time in Africa, he was not living in a hut.
Meaning that Clarence Thomas came about as a product of multiple generations, not just multiple years, but generations.
So it's not a racial determinism.
That's hard set and concrete, wooden, that doesn't believe any altercation is ever possible.
But it is not racial determinism, but race realism and recognizing that it's not just culture.
Race is a real, not just a social construct, but it's a real biological and spiritual category.
And change can happen.
But in this category, we're talking about.
People's changing and that change happens slowly, not just years, but generations.
And so, that being assumed now, how do we think about immigration?
How do we think about a host of civil policies in our nation as it pertains to people?
Can you agree with that?
Some people are going to be further to the right, right?
But can you at least, that would be the minimum bar.
Avoiding Event Hijacking00:07:20
And then, what does it mean to anti Zionism?
What is The minimum bar that I'm trying to draw there is you don't have to agree that it's every single Stein, but there does need to be an acceptance, an acknowledgement that Jewish supremacy here in America is not American and it doesn't serve our interests.
And it's actually immoral.
In moral categories, it's actually sinful.
It is sinful for someone to go as a minority.
Into another country that their ancestors did not build, and then assert that they're better than everyone else there, and that that country ultimately is to serve them.
That's actually not only is it not American, that's not moral, it's actually wicked.
And so, it's not just anti Israel as a nation state, it's not just anti Netanyahu or anti Zionism, it's anti Jewish supremacy here.
And these United States.
That's the minimum bottom line, and putting some vocabulary, some language that's providing specificity around that.
That's something that is clear enough, specific enough, and robust enough to where those four pillars would do some good in the world.
But also, it's understanding enough by adding the sliding scale to each of them and the minimum bottom line.
It's understanding enough and welcoming enough to where you actually could, I think, get half of the country plus one on board.
I really do.
I think that that could win.
So that's what I set forth at the America First United, and that was formulated by us.
And you guys have seen us come to some of these conclusions in real time.
It's not something that we came out of the womb believing, it's something that's been developed and evolved over time.
The four pillars, a host of values, but over time, narrowing it down to a handful of priorities.
And the most recent development was adding that sliding scale to each of those four pillars.
And so.
I think, obviously, I'm biased, but I think that that is a good, positive vision.
I'm not the only one who's expressed these things.
I'm not going to claim that it's novel to me.
I have some original iterations to that and the way to think about it and voice it.
But I did not come up with the whole enchilada.
A lot of other guys have done great work.
But that's what I presented.
And I think it was.
Fairly warmly received, ironically, by I would say 50% plus one of the people who participated in this conference.
So, if that's a microcosm, you know, of, you know, kind of like a case study of, you know, America in a larger capacity, then I think that that was kind of a proof that this could be a winning movement.
Last thing I'll say is, you know, the final criticism, and it's a big criticism.
Is doing an America First event without Nick, without Nick Fuentes being a part of it.
Obviously, there are plenty of other people who have talked about America First besides just Nick, but Nick has done a ton of work in that regard.
And he was, I don't know if he was the first, I don't know all the lore, but certainly an early adopter.
I mean, his show called America First, he's been doing that for 10 years, has received a ton of persecution, not just criticism, but Genuine persecution, debanked, deplatformed, threats on his life, assassination attempts, you know, all these different things.
And so I think that was part of the criticism is you're hijacking something that doesn't belong to you.
Nick is the rightful, you know, leader of this America First coalition.
And the only thing I'll say with that, I agree that Nick deserves immense credit for the work that he's done.
There's just no denying that.
And I, everybody knows it's not a secret that I, Appreciate Nick and consider him a friend.
I don't know all the behind the scenes stuff with the hosts, but I asked them when they asked me to speak, I said, Well, you know, that was one of my first questions.
Is Nick going to be there?
And I was told that he was invited, that they reached out to him and invited him.
And they told me that it was inconclusive, is the way that they presented it to me, he might be there.
So all the way up to the actual event, I, you know, me, you know, getting arriving there Friday night.
So I knew by Saturday.
But Friday night, when I showed up, I was still under the impression not that Nick would be there, but that it was a maybe that he might be show up as a surprise guest or or like come in, you know, remotely through Zoom or something like like some other guys did.
Dan Blazarian did.
I think, I think Buckley Carlson did a few guys.
So, just for the record, I don't know if there was anybody trying to hijack something from Nick.
I certainly wasn't.
I was under the impression that he was invited and might show up, at least remotely.
And then, you know, in terms of the host, I think they did want him to be there.
So I don't think that they were trying to hijack it, you know, or do something dubious.
I think that they wanted to involve Nick.
And so the criticism of, you know, this is Nick's thing and you're trying to hijack it.
I don't think the host, at least, I don't know about everybody in attendance, but I don't think the host were trying to hijack it.
But if you're able to, if you're willing to alter that criticism and say, okay, you know, your intention was not to hijack it, but you just, you shouldn't have done this without, I don't know, some kind of input from Nick, like, does this actually serve the America First movement?
You know, like, you know, even if he didn't come, You should have got his permission and his counsel, his input in the event, because the event that you actually held muddies the waters and actually presents something that is not what Nick and others have been trying to build.
If that's the criticism, I think that that's probably fair.
So, any other thoughts for this episode?
Defining The Positive Vision00:14:02
I'll throw in a random one.
So, there were speakers from the left side of the aisle and the right.
And a big difference you could see between the two was that those that were speaking from the left, you mentioned Jose earlier and others, the entire disposition, the way they talk, their appeals, it's totally different.
Guys, the right is the winning side, and they're winning for a number of reasons truth, but also you see it in the posture, the confidence, and the masculine nature of this new Christian right wing movement that's growing.
What did the left appeal to?
What did the speakers that were candidates for Congress on the Democrat side of the IL appeal to?
Guilt.
Genocide.
Guilt.
Give me stuff.
What did the right come in and say?
Hey, we have a positive vision.
Monty Fritz, candidate for governor in Tennessee, God bless him, salt of the earth, a heritage American.
God has a calling for you.
You have a mission.
Men be strong, women be keepers at home.
A positive, assertive, muscular vision for here's what this nation should look like.
Here's what this movement should be defined by.
What did the left have?
The Muslim woman who got up after you said, Well, it's going to be kind of hard to follow that.
Weakness, guilt.
Passivity, blame, that's the best of the left.
That's at best what they have to offer.
The best of the right is a compelling vision that millions of young men are hopping on board with.
Yeah, that's well said.
The left, it was palpable.
Night and day.
All they appealed to was equality and perceived rights.
So, like, everyone's equal, and historically, these things have happened allegedly, and it's time for us to get our stuff.
Give me.
You know, so their appeal is, you know, it's the didn't do nothings.
You know, we didn't do nothing, but we have rights to everything.
So, give me your stuff because we need equality.
Whereas the right, what really, you know, to put just a little bit more of a fine point on what you were saying, Wes, What they presented was instead of rights, it's duties.
Virtue.
Virtue.
It's not like this is what you're owed.
It's this is what you owe, actually.
This is what you owe to God, to country, to kin.
This is virtuous instead of just liberty.
Liberty is immensely important.
I don't want to downgrade liberty.
And I understand that liberty is a founding principle for our nation, it's a part of our heritage and our ethos and those kinds of things.
However, when liberty supersedes virtue, There's a problem.
Yeah.
There's a big problem where, if in the name of liberty, when liberty is truncated as merely some perceived right for why you can strip on a camera with OnlyFans or why you, you know, this, that, or the other, then it's just that there's no substance there.
And so, what I saw, not from everyone, but from Guys like Monty, guys like me, and there were others, they were setting forward a positive vision of duty, virtue, instead of just rights and liberty.
It was duties and virtue.
God has called you to this.
This is who you should be.
This is who America should be.
Why?
Because it's true, good, and beautiful.
Because it's right.
Because it honors God.
We have a duty with this great heritage that we're a part of.
We have a duty to sustain it and to build that.
And so, yeah, so that was encouraging and compelling.
But the left will always have a contingency, you know, because when they argue as kind of the foundation of their platform, you know, perceived rights and what they're owed, there's.
There's always going to be a great number of people who will get behind that because there will always be plenty of.
I'll just say it Democrats will always be in business because there will always be losers.
And what you're owed is that's really compelling to losers because losers, that's the only way they survive is someone else giving them something.
So, the only way, there's really only two ways, and I've been saying this, I went viral with Right Wing Watch recently, but I'll say it again.
The only way ultimately that we win, because you're always probably going to have half or more of the country that are attracted more to the you are owed something than the rhetoric of you owe something, duty and virtue.
And so, the only real way long term that we can win.
Is you have to get rid of universal suffrage.
And because, not just because of power and these kinds of things, but because it's wicked.
So, in the name of righteousness and honoring the Lord, it's actually wicked.
It is wicked that a deacon in a church who started his own business and provides a tangible product that does real good in the world and that helps his fellow citizens and who pays.
You know, 10 times as much in taxes and has been a faithful husband and has eight children that he's providing for without subsidies from the United States government and who also served in the military.
And it is absolutely wicked.
You have to see it as immoral.
It's actually immoral that he doesn't get any more say, and he has an equal say in his country to someone else who came from the other side of the world, has been here for five years, attained citizenship, is on welfare, doesn't contribute, doesn't have a family, doesn't have any stake in the country's history.
That's actually, it's not just, oh, we can't win like that, or that doesn't serve our purpose.
Purposes in terms of winning or achieving political power.
No, it's morally wrong.
It's morally wrong.
And so, the only way, the only options that I can conceive of for the right, I think that we have momentum, but it's back to that Hegelian, you know, it's just ping pong back and forth.
So, like, we have momentum right now because the left overplayed their hand and went crazy, you know, started chopping off the genitals of little boys, you know, and so, you know, because of the high watermark of.
Leftism in America and not that far back in our rearview mirror, 2020, 2021, 2022, George Floyd riots and BLM and transgenderism and men and women's sports and, you know, COVID lockdown and all this kind of, because of that, we right now have momentum, but we don't have momentum yet because we need to be honest.
We're not going to win if we can't even be honest.
We don't have momentum because we've actually changed our countrymen.
We have momentum right now because the ping pong ball just got done hitting the other side of the table and is on its way back.
That's all it is.
And we just have to admit that.
That's all we're seeing right now for the past few years, like with Trump's election.
And even at some level, even young men returning to church, all we really see right now is this is like in the stock market where it's like there'll be channels.
So there's like you're in a bear market, there's a descending channel.
And so the stock will still have certain moments for a few days or weeks or even months where it's going up.
But has it actually started a new trend or is it just working its way to the top of this channel?
But the whole channel ultimately is a multi year descending channel.
So it's not going straight down, it's going up and down.
So it's forming lower lows and lower highs, lower lows.
And I would say that that's still where we are.
And we need to shoot ourselves straight, we need to be honest.
We are still in this leftist trajectory that we've been in for decades and just a ping pong swing, you know, up.
But ultimately, to break the trend, for there to be real hope, you have to break out of the channel, the resistance, you know, to use the stock market lingo.
We actually have to break that resistance and start a new trend and break out of this descending channel.
And for that to happen, like, again, just being honest, for that to happen, there have to be some major changes.
It either needed like the people themselves, the people that make up America.
That's why mass deportations were a must.
You have to deport 100 million people.
That would break the trend.
That wouldn't just be the ping pong ball coming.
We're all moving left, but we're moving left like this.
Like that would actually break it.
No, we now have a new macro trend moving right because the people have changed.
So mass deportations would have been one.
Another would be.
I know we're probably not going to get rid of universal suffrage, which is a shame, but some pretty, pretty serious restrictions on voting.
At least a voter ID, like the Save Act.
Yeah, exactly.
The Save Act.
That would have been a potential catalyst for changing the trend, not just the back and forth Hegelian thing, but changing the trend.
So, the Save Act would have been one.
Mass deportations would have been one.
In the spiritual category, there's always a remaining possibility.
We pray that God would do this, but.
Revival that has the possibility to be one.
If God really did a work of his spirit to where men not just returning to church because it's trendy or for tradition, but because they actually are being saved by the Spirit of God.
And that may be happening, but I would say it's still too early to tell.
Like we, on that one, I would say, okay, we're going back up to the top of the wedge, the top of the channel.
Right now, with men returning, but I would not say that we have yet broken out of the channel.
Oh, we broke through resistance.
We're starting a new macro trend.
That could be happening.
But right now, all we know for sure is we're going to the top of the channel.
We'll have to see if we break out.
Is there really a mass move of God's Spirit and actually regenerating hearts?
But that would be a third one.
So it's the mass deportations or something like the Save Act in regards to who can vote and what's required for voting, or in the spiritual category, a serious, like bona fide revival.
Those, Those kinds of things.
Without those things, what we're experiencing, and I don't think it's over, I think we'll experience it for a few more years.
Maybe we got, you know, two, three, maybe all the way up to eight more years to like a 2032 kind of thing.
But all we know for sure right now is we've got anywhere from three to eight more years of just the ping pong going back to the top of the channel, but the channel is still descending.
And we're not going to break out of that unless there's some real serious changes.
And that's why everybody was hopeful with.
With someone like Trump, is he going to cross the Rubicon?
Is he actually going to be the great man who implements one of those real changes, not just 12% versus 10%, you know, and he actually gets us the, you know, the 10% instead of the 12%.
No, like something like abolishing income tax, like all together to use that category.
So, but as of now, we're almost halfway through his second administration.
And as of now, Like, if what we've seen so far is any indication of the remainder of his presidency, then it's a done deal.
We should be able to admit he's not the great man and he's not going to cross the Rubicon.
And so we're still waiting, still waiting for someone to do something great, for a great man to come forward and do something that's outside of the dialectic, outside of this back and forth, back and forth descending channel.
So the positive vision that we're setting forward.
Is something that we think people can get behind, but ultimately, even that doesn't break the channel.
That would be enough to hopefully identify and select a great man who then would have to get into political power and then do something political, something tangible like mass deportations, like the Save Act, those kinds of things.
So we work, we hope, we pray, and ultimately, God's sovereign and he will decide.
We'll see.
New Time For Pre Orders00:03:34
So, thanks for tuning in.
We hope that you've been blessed by this episode, and we will see you this week.
We've got a lot going on.
So, we're going to see you on Tuesday.
We have our debut episode with Dale Partridge on Tuesdays for his show, American Grit.
Then I'll see you on Wednesday for the NXR special.
Then we'll see you on Thursday with a debut episode for a brand new show with Calvin Robinson called The Next Crusade.
And then on Friday, we will see you all five days this week.
Friday will be the debut episode for another brand new show with Harrison Smith from InfoWars, now the Alex Jones Network.
He's going to be coming on and he's leading his new show with NXR.
He's still working with Alex and doing all the things that he's done before, but he's also doing one show a week with us.
And his show is called Off Limits News.
So the new time is 5 p.m. Eastern.
So we've done 12 p.m. Eastern in the past, but as of now, it's 5 p.m. Eastern and it's five days a week, Monday through Friday.
And you will see us on Mondays.
You'll see me and a guest on Wednesdays.
You'll see Dale Partridge on Tuesday, Calvin Robinson on Thursday, and Harrison Smith on Friday.
Go check out the store, newchristianright.com, or you can go to shop.newchristianright.com.
We've got all of our books for this year available for pre order now.
So we have Calvin Robinson's book, The Silent Jihad, dealing with the Islam problem in the West.
We have the book that Jordan Hall and I co wrote that's been available for some time, but if you haven't picked up a copy, we have a new edition with a new design, new cover.
That's The Hyphenated Heresy, Judeo Christianity.
That's available not only for Pre order to order it, but to ship out right now.
And then we have coming up White Genocide by Jordan Hall and myself, and that's available for pre order and will be shipping in July.
So we're waiting a little bit, putting the finishing touches on that and getting it off to the publisher or the printer, rather.
But that'll be coming out in just a couple months White Genocide with myself and Jordan Hall.
But you can pre order it now.
And then the last one is a book.
Called 19 Reasons to Repeal the 19th Amendment.
That one is written by Dale Partridge, and that will be finished, published, and shipping to your front door in September, right before the midterm elections.
But again, pre orders are available now.
So go to our store, newchristianright.com.
Check out the store, check out the books.
You'll also see some of the shirts that we have that I think are hilarious.
My favorite one is the Diversity for Israel one, right?
Diversity is our greatest strength.
That's what we've been told.
And Israel is our greatest ally.
That's also what we've been told.
And I just think that it's simply anti Semitic for us as Americans to not share our greatest strength with our greatest ally.
We should be advocates.
We should be demanding, insisting for Israel to be absolutely inundated with diversity because it's just such a strength.
And they're such an ally that we want their best.
So I want to see Israel.
Overrun with people from all over the earth, right?
That's what we want for them.
So we have our diversity for Israel shirt.
That's my favorite, but there's a lot of great products.
So go and check it out, and we will see you tomorrow with Dale Partridge and American Grid.