Christian Nationalism, Trad Culture, and Interracial Marriage

Well, here with Pastor Dale Partridge. Uh, and we wanted to talk about all things trad culture because you're kind of the the online thought leader when it comes to that. And the the trad culture and the trad vibes and and and I guess we should probably both introduce ourselves cuz it's two totally different audiences. Yeah.

So, for those of you who don't know me, I am Jon Bonic, the Charismatic Calvinist online. Uh, I'm not a feminist. Um, I'm not a Zionist. Just right off the bat. Cuz you know, as soon as you disagree with somebody on the internet, it's either he's a feminist or he's a Zionist or he's a liberal. So, it's like, nope, I am aggressively conservative um and aggressively not um I'm not anti-Israel, but I'm not pro-Israel. And I'm not a feminist. I believe in male headship. I'm not an egalitarian. So, there you go. Check all those boxes. Nope, you can't call me these things.

>> You are wearing Tucker's neocons gay for Israel.

>> Say the name. Just just a podcaster, man.

>> [laughter]

>> Um, yeah, no, that's the hat. I love this, dude. Neocons are gay for Israel. Um, just Google it uh because I'm not endorsing anyone. Um, I'm kidding. I got two compliments on this hat yesterday within 30 minutes. I was at uh Founding Fathers last night and uh completely different people. One guy comes in, he's got a a Solus Christus tattoo on his forearm and just stops me like, "Dude, that's a sick hat." Big old family and then completely different demos. Like a younger gal, same thing. She's like, "I've got She had She had the hat." She's like, "We've got the same hat." So, it seems that's a totally separate conversation, but it seems like the the neocons are gay for Israel is is a pretty unoffensive, you know, undivisive take nowadays. Although depends on who you ask.

And yeah, Jon and I have been friends for some time now.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, this is our second in-person meeting.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> But we both live in Arizona. Um, I live in the better part of Arizona.

>> Yeah. Yes, you do, actually.

>> And I bag on the people that live in Phoenix. But he reached out and said, "Hey, let's do a conversation around trad culture." And so, we're here in my studio and we're having

>> Studio.

>> Yeah, it's not a green screen. A lot of people think it's a green screen. No, this is actually my office. Yeah, I think I'm original with my vibe and I'm like, "Oh, he he did my vibe but way better, way cooler." So, it's very cool in here. I like it. Yeah, I've got I don't know if you see I have the kind of the the tartan wallpaper and all that and then I come in here and I'm like, "Hey, your shelves are way nicer than mine." So, very very cool. Deal Partridge Studio is approved. It's very It's very cool.

But yeah, so on on the trad stuff, so like uh I just put out a reel at the time of recording this that uh I where I say a the little rage bait at the beginning is um stay-at-home moms are not in the Bible. And uh of course, you know, it's the rage bait and all that and and my thesis is essentially uh if you want to be a stay-at-home mom, great, fantastic, good for you. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not sinful. Um, but if you want to work outside of the home and you are not doing so at expense of the home as a as a woman, then great, awesome, no problem with that. And uh it's kind of like where I think Doug Wilson had a video on this forever ago talking about this is like 10 years ago and that was kind of his same take not to appeal to authority here, but that was kind of his same take was that, you know, you can work outside of the home so long as not at the expense of the home. And I think it comes from I think it's Titus. Yeah, Titus 2.

>> Mhm.

>> Where where it says you should be um Keepers of the home. Keepers of the home. Idea being like the mother is the is this the wife the slash mother is the CEO of the home in terms of what's going on while the while the father's out doing whatever he's doing. Um, but that doesn't especially in 2026, that doesn't preclude you from doing things outside the home whether that's digitally outside the home or physically outside of the home. And I think that when you say that and I don't mean to just monologue here, you can jump in whenever. Uh, the the the the point that I would make is I agree with the fact that can can that there's no children maybe uh the children are grown. Uh, I think there are times of of of financial necessity. Um, there are also a reality of uh depends on the work. And so, I don't believe that women are equally equipped for all jobs.

>> Oh, definitely not.

>> Right. So, and I know you agree with that, too. So, if a woman says, "I my kids are grown. I've home-schooled them or or or educated them for 15 years. And now I would like to teach uh kindergarten and second grade at the local Christian private school."

>> Oh, yeah. Uh, I think that's a wonderful thing. And I think it's a very feminine uh aspect.

>> Yes, it's so, you know, or if she wants to do mercy ministries or work that has to do with the care of others or hospice or

>> Yeah. These are more feminine uh expressions of career.

>> [snorts]

>> Yeah. And and so, I think that yes, on point number one, which is is there exceptions to the rule? The rule is yes, if you have children, um especially young children, your job is to keep the home. Your your also your duty as a wife is to be helping your husband. And so, all of your all of your help all of your being and existence should be within the shadow of your husband. And what I mean by that is if your husband might not

>> Cuz you're going to you're going to offend a lot of people by saying I I yeah, in the shadow. So, for example, like um I appreciate uh a lot of what Allie Stuckey says.

>> Yeah.

>> But she is operating outside of the shadow of her husband. In fact, it seems, at least from the outside, that her husband's maybe operating within her shadow. Okay. Um, meaning that is who's helping who here? Right.

>> Now, I don't know their personal lives, so maybe there's some more uh you know, nuance to what's going on there. She's just an easy example, but let me give you like another example is that if you have a concrete company and you have 10 employees, uh your wife should be desiring to help her husband where he is and in his needs. Hey, is there any help that I can do? Can I do the accounting? Can I do the the legal stuff? Can I do you know, managing some of the employees? Whatever it may be, that I think is also a valid expression of that. But if she says, you know, I actually want to go pursue my own individuality. Yeah, sure.

>> I don't think that that is also God's design. I don't think it was like, "Hey, Adam and Eve. Hey, here's this helpmate for you. Hey, Eve, go be an individualist when you can go Yeah, you can go seek your own path, your own career separate from your husband."

>> Yeah.

You said a lot there. I'm glad you you said you made the distinction like before kids, after kids cuz what's you might you may have seen you might not have. What I'm seeing actually a lot of in you know, I'm I turned 31 on Monday and so kind of in the younger millennial, older Gen Z group of people, I'm seeing stay-at-home wives with no kids and that blows my mind and like I I am I don't see how that could be interpreted in any other way other than slothfulness, right? Because it's like if you don't have any kids to take care of and y'all are renting a one-bedroom apartment, it's not like you got a whole lot of home to keep. It just seems like you're you're letting your husband retire you at you know, 19 years old.

Well, and there's a loss there's a loss of the domestic trades.

>> Yes.

>> And there's no domestic training. What should be happening in that period of life would be if she was born of a family that had multiple children, she might be helping her mother uh care for her younger siblings. She might be learning cooking and cleaning and and household management and child-rearing from other people. She also might be helping other women in in babysit and care and and and nurture the little ones. She might be supporting the mercy ministries at her church. Sure. I think all of these things need to be restored rather than, "Hey, let's go back and just go get a marketing job at the local agency."

>> and I think I don't I don't mean to to accuse you of of of straw manning, but I think that is something I hear often. Like, so let's talk about you said a couple things like, you know, it's the home life has changed, right? And now the young married woman is in a one-bedroom apartment, not on the family homestead or whatever. And that's changed and we can't get it back, at least anytime soon. So, there's a couple things. I think that when you say, "Hey, I think women should be allowed to work, you know, moms or wives or whatever outside the home." The immediate kind of gut reaction is, "Oh, you think they should just be boss babes and corporate executives and CEOs." And it's like, well, for starters, no one at 20 is getting a boss babe job. They're they're getting like, you know, a receptionist job or a, you know, low low low level, you know, coordinator role. They're not jumping right into some kind of huge career. Um, but I think that, you know, there's a lot more jobs, roles, careers out there besides like, you know, the executive downtown, you know, the high-rise.

>> I I think you're what you're saying is like, yeah, we we have to live in reality. And the reality is is that we have a completely broken church, family, world, culture. Yeah. And so, how do we operate in that world? Yeah. Because what I've seen and I said this off camera before is what I see a lot of guys doing and I'm not saying it's a sinful thing. I'm not saying it's a wrong thing at all. Um, but we will, you know, pine for this this traditional, you know, American or this traditional Christian America and it's not the 1780s, it's not the 1850s, pick a decade. It's always like the 1950s. And I think that's what confuses me uh cuz I I see it a lot. I mean, I've seen it from your content. I've seen it, God bless him. I love the guy. I'm this isn't an attack, but like Josh Hames, I've seen it a lot from him as well. where it's like um this, you know, women should dress modestly, for example. You see that. And then the examples you see of like modest outfits are not outfits that would be modest in the 1890s or even the 1920s. They're always outfits that would be considered modest in the 1950s. And so my question is, okay, what maybe changing gears here a little bit, are we being a little anachronistic in our application of biblical virtue? And are we looking to a particular decade and saying that was the most Christ-like decade? Let's pursue that. And if it's your personal favorite, all means, like Yeah.

I think that 1950s was the peak external Christian society.

>> [clears throat]

>> Okay. Okay, I don't think that it was the peak internal Christian society. I think 17, you know, 90 was peak internal American society.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, or Christian society. But I think when we look at the 1950s, we see kind of the remnant of the pre-war consensus. So, we're living in the post-war consensus, but we're seeing that pre-war consensus where we have nationalism and patriarchy and we have religion and truth and traditionalism and historical preservation and um, you know, uh strong identity as a country. Yeah. We have uh strong identity in the home. We had an economic hegemony. I mean, the factories of the world were, you know, eviscerated. So, America was booming in terms of our factories were the only ones that weren't flattened in the in, you know, the previous 10 years. So, it's like this uh and I I agree with you. I think it's this this apex of like everything working perfectly together. You have, you know, Christianity is is a as a moral authority in the culture. The economy's booming to the point where, especially like I said, the factory jobs were because Europe was so devastated by the war and our factories were untouched, all of a sudden, now you had unskilled labor, you know, blue-collar work, which was you know, being paid not, you know, a lot higher than what should be paid because our factories could kind of set the prices on a global scale. So, that's why he said, "Yeah, you know, your great grandpa or your grandpa, depending on your age, or your dad, maybe, depending on your age, could go out and buy a house, you know, and the house cost a year's a year's wage, right?" Because he was getting paid a hell of a lot of money for just going to work at the factory. And, you know, same thing with cars. I mean, remember, I'm a big car guy, and the the Datsun 240Z was Datsun/Nissan's. That was kind of their competition to the Jaguar E-Type, and the E-Type is like the most beautiful car ever built in the history of the what it's beautiful beautiful car. But, the E-Type was $4,000 when it came out, and that was like four grand, man. And, then Datsun came out with the 240Z, and it was $2,000. And, I'm looking at this now, I'm like, my first car was $4,000. This is not And, obviously, there's been some inflation, but it's this kind of idea of of pining for this age. So, so let me ask this question then. Talk about That's a totally fair answer. You see the 1950s as kind of the, you know, peak apex Christian America. Um, is it are we being realistic by uh again, pining for that era instead of saying, "Okay, well, understanding that's gone, and we can certainly bring back aspects of that. I don't think blue-collar work is ever going to be paid like it was in the '50s ever again before, you know, some kind of AI revolution. So, are we being realistic in the situation we've been given, or are we trying to, you know, kind of like, "Man, I wish back in my day" kind of kind of thinking?

Yeah, so I think there's a few things that we need to There's three Rs. Reformation, retrieval, recover. And, I think that we are in a society right now where we need to reform back to the scriptures in many ways, as we always have. Yeah. need we are very much a retrievalistic uh society. We're trying to retrieve old ways uh because what we live in the post-war consensus is really an experimental age. No generation in the history of the world has tried to do what we're trying to do right now. We're trying to live in a multicultural, multiethnic Oh, yeah. um, you know, post-religious society that no country, even the vast majority of countries today, don't live that way. And so, uh the other thing is the recovery of a historic Christian America. Mhm. Now, how how do we do that but by going back? In fact, the problem is is that we need to go back to a time that we've never lived and a time in which almost nobody is still alive that has lived in a in a comprehensible way. Right. And so, right now, I think a lot of people are reading old books, they're looking at old movies, they're looking at old videos, they're looking at old photographs. They're trying to understand what the world was. You maybe heard the quote we love the world that they built, but we're not willing to believe what they believed. Absolutely. And and that is a huge issue. I mean, since that was in 1964 when we repealed a 200-year-old um naturalization act or something like that.

>> And somebody I I was having this debate with somebody with this one time uh and they you saying I said America was founded as a white Protestant nation. Um and [clears throat] he said this this nation was once a white country, was a white country. I'm like, well, I mean, yeah, it kind of was. And he said, well, show me something in the founding documents that suggested this nation was always intended to be, you know, a Western European white nation. And I showed him, you know, there's this thing was 1794. 1790, yeah. 79 at naturalization act that list white man. It's like, and see, here's the thing. Um, it's hard it's difficult to talk about that without somebody, you know, accusing you of being a racist or a white supremacist or something like that. But you look at the global stage and for example, right now, the big debate, not to get too far off the main topic but the big debate around Israel, right? And Israel is allowed to be a Jewish ethno-state. It's encouraged. Yeah, Jewish ethno-state. 100% that's that's their natural right. Um, nobody looks at Japan and says how dare Japan be so selective and uh aggressive with their immigration and their naturalization. But then when it comes to America we're told that, you know, we must be diverse cuz diversity is our strength and we're built we're a nation founded by immigrants. We're not a nation founded by immigrants. We're a nation founded by pioneers. And uh those pioneers came to a country that was undeveloped and they developed it. We're not a nation of immigrants. Um, you know, you can go back to like it's the great psyop of the 21st century. You you watch Hamilton the musical and there's this one scene where uh uh Alexander Hamilton is talking to um was not Robespierre. He's talking to uh uh uh uh the French general. I can't I'm blanking on his name. Marquis Marquis de Lafayette. He's talking to Lafayette and there's this line where it says immigrants we get the job done. I'm like Yeah. Hamilton was born in a British colony. Well, [laughter] and again, to immigrate somewhere there has to be something to immigrate to. Correct.

>> And there was no nation here. There was no nation here.

>> Here it was it was wilderness with random tribes Mhm.

>> uh scattered throughout this land. Mhm.

>> And, you know, the vast majority of these tribes were either we either conquered them, we either purchased the land through treaties or war. Yeah. Uh, we had great purchases. Um, I think it's 71% of the United States was purchased or acquired

>> through treaties. There's a great book called Not Stolen that talks about the the defense of that particular argument. And the way we treated them while again in some in some situations yes, there was isolated like un-Christlike behavior on a broad and I don't mean to broad brush sin. But what I do mean to say is is on a on a broad brush scale on a general bird's eye view macro scale, the way they were treated after they were conquered was not even comparable to the way they treated each other when they conquered each other. I mean, for example, like the Comanche tribe, which was the last tribe to finally be uh tamed and conquered, their leader, their chief, spent his youth scalping white settlers and raping women and children. And then, in his elderly age, as the chief of the Comanche, he was on tours in Washington, D.C. and shaking hands with President Roosevelt and marching down the the National Mall on a horse in a parade. And so, it's like we treated them after conquering them far better than the way they treated each other. Cuz when they conquered each other, it was death. It was It was violence.

>> [laughter]

>> what we have to understand is yes, we were uh in the 1620s, we settled this place, uh we colonized it. The reason we colonized it is because we believed that any sort of work of discovery. There's actually a Catholic doctrine at the time in the 14, 1500s called the doctrine of discovery. And it was committed by a few papal bulls that were talking about essentially extending the kingdom of God through [clears throat] the colonization of other lands. And so, when you have Columbus or or Amerigo Vespucci, which America is named after him, you are sending these people, European settlers, who are coming here to discover a land. They're entering in a place of absolute brutality and human sacrifices and witch doctors and paganism. And they are, you know, planting the flag of Christ, praying on the land. They actually had orders from the Spanish leaders and Spanish king and queen of to say that this is now the land of Spain and they're taking dominion. And I would say that this is colonization was good. What did we do? We took a land of nothing, filled with savage and barbaric [clears throat] people, and we turned it into the most incredible country that has ever faced the Earth. We have a place of dignity, a place of value, a place of economic, military strength, of order, of beauty, of architecture, of all of that came from Christian lands colonizing. So, I always take that uh that the Great Commission, you know, uh Baptize the nations.

>> Yeah, baptize the nations and teach them to obey all that Christ commanded.

>> [clears throat]

>> Uh, we know that that to at some degree that uh Satan had some sort of authority over the nations. That's why he was able to offer it uh to Christ in the temptation of the desert. And when the uh the death and resurrection of Christ, there was another there was essentially a shift of power. That's why Jesus says all authority is now been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and and disciple the nations, right?

>> And uh so what we have we can't disconnect the Great Commission from the work of colonization. Sure. Colonization for Christ, done well, is a great, holy, and godly work.

>> And everywhere it's happened, it's been a net positive for the people who have lived there anywhere in the world. I mean, you look at South Africa post and pre-apartheid. It's it's it's falling apart [clears throat] now. Yeah. And but anyway, let's just shift gears a little bit back to So, using that to to shift back to the main kind of topic here, this world of masculine men taking dominion, um that world, and I I talked about this a little bit in in the video uh that I just posted that kind of prompted this conversation was that we have shifted our society and and the family archetype has changed from what once was far closer to the biblical model even into the 19th and 18th Well, 18th century was far closer to the biblical model than it is now in terms of And when I say biblical model, I don't mean what's prescribed in the Bible. I mean historically what that family would have looked like. So, when you talk about reading scripture in context, authorial intent, who are they writing to, what was the situation they were in, and that helps you interpret, as you know, obviously you're a pastor, that helps you interpret what is the command, what's the directive here. So, when you look at things like Titus 2, um people will use that to me and they'll say, "Well, look, the wife is supposed to stay at home because she's supposed to be home-minded. How can you be home-minded if you're outside of the home?" And I'll say yes, that's true. However, that was written to a family that operated the homestead almost like a mini factory, right? Because you would have the livestock, you would have the trade of the house, whether it's a blacksmith or you know, a shoemaker or or you know, they made linens or whatever that case was. And the entire family would work towards that trade, right? And the children would be brought up in that family to work towards that trade. So, maybe you know, the mom's outside milking the cows and the dad's in the smith and he's hammering out, you know, nails or whatever it is. But the whole family operated as a as a unit. And which is biblical. And that's I think what God originally intended is the family stay together and they operate as a unit. The family the kids grew up and they they they didn't move away. They lived there. They found someone to marry. Um And then what shifts in, you know, the late 19th century is the Industrial Revolution. And it pulls the labor off of the family homestead and it puts it in a in an urban factory. Okay, well now my job is no longer here. The money left, the job left. I have to go to the factory now to make that same money. We We both can't go to the factory, mom and dad, because you know, kids can't raise themselves. So then the natural, you know, the answer is well, of course, if the mom has to be home or minded, if we got to pick who's going to stay home, it's got to be the mom. So the dad's got to go to work. And it pulled the man apart from the woman and it put him in a factory and it kept her at home. And that's the very first time in truly in Christian history and human history you see this concept of a stay-at-home mom is post-industrial revolution. And so when I say like, "Hey, let's go back to a biblical model." I don't think 1950s. Not that there's anything wrong with the 1950s. I think well, a truly biblical model will be an agrarian model where we're all sticking around the house and and it's and you know, it's Little House on the Prairie. Practically speaking, that's not possible

>> [laughter]

>> cuz we all live in cities and count- counties and whatever and we can't all live that way.

>> What I would say is that you're you're also considering that the uh the context is amoral. Meaning that I think that the context is actually moral. So, when it So, the agrarian societies, the the working from home, that structure, I don't [clears throat] think that that's immoral. I think that's actually a a positive good. And how do we know that? Well, we go, well, how has society ran for literally thousands of years? That way.

>> So, So, what I'm saying is that we've operated one way for thousands of years.

>> Yeah.

>> And then for the last 70 years,

>> Yeah.

>> we have operated a different way. It's causing an insane amount of chaos, pain, struggles, strife, and issues in our culture. And And my Catholic friends would say, well, there you go, capitalism for you, right? So, [laughter] So, I I would say is that we should actually not just be saying, well, let's adapt to the new context.

>> Sure.

>> No, I'm saying the new context is actually a sinful context.

>> Disagree.

>> So, So, the we should be trying to strive for the ideal. Now, I know we need to live in reality. And the reality is is that you might not be able to afford to live in the ideal. Yeah.

>> Um, and but it doesn't mean that you settle for what you have. Mhm.

>> And so, you go, [clears throat] well, let's work back to the point where we can create an economic a home economy where we can buy a little bit of land,

>> Mhm.

>> where we can buy

>> That's the dream. Yeah, that's the dream. And so, I think that while your reality might force you to be into a city and have two parent income and to make sure that the kids can survive, I get that. That's the exception, but the rule, the the ideal, the thing that we're aiming for is to actually restore not just um, you know, stay-at-home mom, but but a context in which the family operates according to how God designed.

>> Well, I think that's a really fair take, to be honest, and it's one I don't hear from a lot of the And I don't mean to to put you guys all in the same bucket. I'm not naming names, but I don't hear a a lot from the trad guys is that idea of even that one line where you said, sometimes that's just going to be the reality, it's not the end goal. And it's kind of like the difference in the abortion debate between the abolitionists and the incrementalists. As long as the incrementalists end goal is abolition, I don't see why you guys aren't on the same team. The problem with the abolitionists nowadays, again not to get sidetracked, is they will start schisming and saying, "Well, no, no, no, no, it's it's all or nothing." That's not it's not practical. It's not realistic. And I think what I've seen that bothers me and when why I made the content is I see a lot of the trad guys making up these rules that just simply can't they're they're simply not biblical. Uh, and they can't be applied in every circumstance. I I knew this one guy who took it really, really seriously. This is a true story. Um, used to go to church with him. I don't know where he's at now. And you know, a great guy, had four kids, fifth kid was on the way, and he was determined that his wife would not lift a finger. She would just take care of the kids. And he was working like four jobs, man. And he was ubering on the side. And he you know, he wasn't a super highly skilled laborer, so he's not making a lot of money any one of these jobs. The guy's working like 85, 90 hours a week just to put food on the table. And that is extremely admirable. And and the dude's crowning and heaven and it's going to be heavier than I can hold, right? But I think man, you are killing yourself. And do you even get to see your family? Do you get to see the fruit of that labor? I mean, you think you're doing date night with your wife when you're working 90 hours a week? Man, you're not.

>> But see, I would say date night is not in the Bible either.

>> Well, yeah, yeah, but you know but you know what I'm saying?

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> So,

>> Totally. Date night's not in the Bible. I go [laughter] that's an unfortunate circumstance and an extreme circumstance.

>> Yeah. Um, and those extreme circumstances exist, but we don't want to justify the rules off the extremes. And so I go uh the average person needs to have the ideal shifted. They need to realize that what you what you want is you want to get back to the context of a pre-war world. You want to get back to the context where and and it's it's it's hard because the economy's you know, under chaos, the the government's under chaos, the culture's under chaos. Uh Uh, the church is under chaos. There's There's so much disorder and perversion at this point

>> Yeah.

>> that it feels almost impossible to reverse the clock into any sort of structure. I do believe that that's why again I said reform, recover, retrieve.

>> Yeah.

>> These are kind of the works of the current church.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, it's not let's go into the to the future and invent a new context in which we can feel better than No, no, I I just go read books from the past.

>> Yeah.

>> Read their world, apply it in the real world.

>> Yeah. So, working at home might now be different. You might not be uh growing beef uh in every particular situation. You might be running an online Right. uh store. Yeah. But, you can still have the home economy functioning that way.

>> Yeah. Kids packing shirts and mom helping there and homeschooling the children.

>> Yeah. You could still grow your own food in the backyard. You can still have time together. You can apply the the modern reality

>> Mhm.

>> while the principles and the context still sit stay aligned with historic Yeah. biblical truth.

>> Well, I actually exactly on that point. That's kind of the the grand irony I see is is a lot of So, a lot of the folks who were very upset and it's interesting it's mostly men who were upset with me when I said the stay-at-home mom video was I had a lot of women, moms, and and wives are like, "This is and very encouraging. Thank you. You know, I'm a nurse and and it and it is Anyways, the irony is that a lot of people that came to criticize a lot of the women that came to criticize were influencers of of like home setting accounts and things like that. And what they're doing is they're monetizing their home setting lifestyle by creating content. And I'm like, "I actually support that because you are being you're able to contribute to the family income. You're able to contribute and and and be a helper to your husband. Now, he doesn't have to work 90 hours a week. Maybe he only has to work 70 hours a week, you know? And you're helping and you're doing it in a way that doesn't take away from your your your motherhood, right? Cuz you know, edit a real while kids are taking a nap. And then when they're up, you just hit the camera up. Hey, look, we're hanging close together, right? And that's like you guys disagree with me, but you actually are doing exactly what I'm saying is is a is is the solution in the 21st century. Is No, don't go be a a boss babe and put your drop your kids off in daycare, right? Like, you know, I don't I wouldn't prescribe that.

>> I think again, you have to take all these into consideration in your own household is does your husband appreciate that work? Is it helping him? Yes. Um, is the social media world externally good, but internally bad? Yeah. Um

>> [laughter]

>> because my my argument is that generally speaking this is my take on social media.

>> Mhm.

>> Social media, outside of like the desire to say keep up with family Yeah. learn from older women teaching younger women how to love their husbands, love their children, to be great homemakers, there's there's some to learn about Christ, there's some good reasons for women to be on the internet, and I think those exist. But generally speaking, I think that the the plan of the internet for the devil is this. Let's put a bunch of porn on the internet, especially on social media

>> Yeah.

>> to keep the men off. Mhm. Because good men and I not not I'll say that again. Not just to keep the men off, to keep the good men off. I talk to men all the time, and I'm like oh, like Christian men. Hey, why aren't you on social media? Oh, you know, there's too much porn, there's too much risk. Yeah. So all the good men are now off because of the risk of porn. Yeah. And all the women are on. Mhm.

>> Okay. Now, what's happening as a result of that? Well, the the world is shaped by the discourse on social media. The social media is the public square.

>> Yeah.

>> And so now you have all the godly men are not on social media, they're not forming and directing and shepherding and leading Yeah. public conversation, rebuking sin, living out righteousness, Yeah. uh filtering logic, none of that.

>> Yeah.

>> What they're all gone. You have evil men who are looking at porn on there. Yeah. And then you have women that are essentially running society through their discourse and discussions, and so we feminized the public square. So I just go like generally speaking, if you don't have like the social media business and things like that, like ask yourself how many great reasons are there for women to be on social media?

One of the things the the there's a there's a bigger calling men out here. Like I I I know pastors my age who just like you said, they don't go on social media because it's like yeah, it's just brain rot and it's porn. I don't want to be on that. And it and to me it's like, okay, you know, many reach a certain age and you just got more important things to do than scroll all day. I get it. Like I don't think the 60-year-old needs to be scrolling all day. But, you know, if you're in your 20s and your 30s, you're young pastor, it's like I think I I don't think that's an excuse. It's like get over it, dude. Figure it out.

>> this is how I think about it pastorally and as a father. So, your job as a father is to oversee your children. Yeah. Now, when your children get on social media, I expect that father to be on social media to know what they're listening to, who they're following, who they're following, who they're commenting on, who they're because you're responsible for them until they get married, move out of your house, till your daughters are given away to another headship.

>> Right.

>> Um, the same thing goes with the pastor. A pastor that is completely culturally irrelevant from the content of the day because he's not wanting to be on social media. I go, but all of your flock is there. So, it used to be live in a world where you could preach something on Sunday and the next time they heard about God would be you the following Sunday.

>> Yeah.

>> The reality is is that they go home and they are now influenced by 25 different influencers and podcasts and books and articles and media Yep. and then they come back with all of these different discourses and you have no ability to speak to the reality that is the elephant in the room for them.

>> Correct.

>> Uh whether it's Israel, whether it's homosexuality, whether it's feminism, whether it's immigration

>> and because you've been off the internet. And what that does is it it causes these people, because their pastors, because their fathers, because the men in their lives aren't willing to come in and have discourse on them, it sends those people to bad shepherds. It sends them to un-Christian people who don't love the Lord, who are giving commentary on particular topics because the good guys are afraid to be on. Yeah. Yeah, and it's part of it's like, okay, the shepherd will okay, yes, I agree porn is very dangerous and it's very prevalent on social media. And to be honest, there's no way to completely avoid it. You know, you're going to see something and you're going to have to discipline yourself to scroll away, to look away. It's just that's the reality of the world we live in. But here's the thing is the shepherd just got to face the wolves and that was dangerous. And it's so it's like, hey man, you're a shepherd, dude, and we're not in a day and age where, you know, like when the the the the Vikings invaded the coast of England and you would have pre-Catholic priests standing up front saying, my people are saying and they would be burned for that or slaughtered for it. Like, no one's asking you to do that, bro. You know, the hardest part of your day is a 30-minute commute. All I'm asking you to do is get on social media and if it's a little hard and you got to scroll and look away, you got to do it cuz you're the freaking shepherd, man. And like you just said, but you you have no idea what people are going through if you're not there. So so that being let me let me hold let me get a little specific cuz there are some some questions that I've always wanted to kind of ask the the trad group and and and unfortunately all I get is is bad faith actors in my comments. Um, but I'm sure you've never experienced bad faith actors in [laughter] your comments. Um, so couple of things, you talk about this a lot, like dress code or modesty or things like that. There is a a really one of my not one of my favorite quotes that that's a good a great quote from C.S. Lewis is he talks about the difference between virtue and modesty and he says virtue is universal, modesty changes depending on the time, the culture, the the yeah, the culture. And he says that, you know, the Victorian woman would look absolutely pornographic dressed like the Islander girl, but both of them are modest in their cultures and both of them are virtuous. the same virtue, but they have different modesty. So kind of back like to the 50s, the 80s, 90s, the 1920s, how do you say, okay, I think dress women should dress modestly as well. Wholeheartedly, I'm there with you. But how do we we modesty biblically where that seems to be something that culture dictates over over the Bible.

>> again, we need to we've forgotten how to be a nation. Okay, so remember a nation is the broadest extent of a family. Yeah. Okay, so an ethnos is a broad family.

>> Like Steven Wolfe there, right?

>> Yeah. So so the idea is that we are the American people were a European stock generally an English north or western northwestern European stock group. So we we were an extension of one particular family. If we want to go back even further, we're Japhethite, right? Um, and we have that family. Now, when you have nations and you actually have boundaries and borders and you have an identified people, you you can then define culture. Culture's defined by the family, by the faith, by the traditions, by the history, by the language, by the all of those things, right? And when you have that, each nation based off of geography. So yes, I I I I agree with you in the sense that uh modesty is going to be different in Canada than it's going to be in Tahiti. Right.

>> And and so you can have a Christian Tahiti, you can have a Christian Canada, and by geography alone, because of the weather, because of the humidity, because of the where you maybe the vast majority of your food is being caught in water. Mhm. And so yes, I think that there is there is each nation needs to define their own culture according to Christ by looking at the principle, not necessarily the methods.

>> Mhm.

>> And uh applying modesty is this. At what point is a woman in your culture going to cause that man to sin sexually? Mhm. And what point in a culture is a woman dressing in a way that proves that she doesn't understand the value of her body? Okay.

>> Um, and and so uh Can I can I uh ask then a kind of a challenge to that? Then as Christians do we have any uh play using that definition, can you then say like Islamic Sharia with the full takbir hijab or whatever they call it, is that then in their culture completely I'm not saying this is like a gotcha or like a I'm genuine question. Is that completely defensible if they can say, "Well, yeah, an ankle or an eyelash or a fingernail would cause me to stumble." So, women have to be gloved and everything.

>> No, I think there's there's extremes and ditches on each on each side.

>> I don't mean to appeal to an extreme.

>> Yeah, no, but I I think there are there are extremes and ditches on either side. You go it's the same argument of of well, we can't do wine on Sunday because a thimble of wine will make me an alcoholic because I used to drink guys. And I go, "Well, if you have a thimble of wine is causing you to be an alcoholic, we have a deeper problem and it's not the issue of wine on Sunday." The issue really is that you have no self-control. So, now uh where is the boundaries? I think again the the uh the pastors, the patriarchs, the the fathers of those particular lands should define those things, but they should do so in Christian charity, Christian love, Christian uh you know, reasonableness um uh functionality uh of garments of how that that works again. Um, you know, if you're living in a place that's extremely hot and you're expected to wear a black covering or whatever. The Middle East, yeah. Yeah, I would say that I don't think that's charitable. Um, but I also don't think that you need to be wearing you know, mini skirts or thongs Right.

>> uh out in public dressing like you would if you were to strip club. And so so you I think there needs to be something that the purpose of clothing should be to drive people to the woman's face. Interesting.

>> It should be uh modesty is essentially we we guard things that are valuable, right? We put um pieces of valuable art in museums, we put diamonds in safes, we put gates and doors around our houses because those things are valuable. When a woman wears a particular amount of clothing that that reveals everything, Yeah. she's saying I don't actually value my own body. I I don't see the value. In fact, I'm I'm exposing it. Be like it'd be like having diamonds and going, "Hey, look. Yeah. I see that. I think personally, and and I don't mean, you know, this is just the way I kind of have thought of it, is I think, you know, I don't necessarily How do I How do I put this? I

Don't want to sound like a liberal, right? Um, but I think, so, let me use this example. I go to the gym. Um, and what in my gym, it's, it's more of a bodybuilding gym, and I'm the exception to the rule there, obviously, with my tiny frame. But, you look at the the walls, and they're covered with um, like bodybuilding, uh, like the stage photo, right? And where they're all bronzed up, and they're posing, and they got the metal on, or whatever. And, you know, most of them are men, and they're wearing like the little thong thing, or whatever. But, you look at that, and you don't think, "Oh, that's sexual." You think, or at least I don't. I don't, I don't think that's that's a sexual image, or that's pornography. I think, "Oh, like in that context, they're doing a bodybuilding show, and the point of that is to is to to show off like like you would at a livestock show."

Like, or like you would with medieval art. Yes, exactly. Yeah. You, so, the, yeah, you go to the Louvre. I've been to the Louvre a couple of times, and when I look at, you know, any one of these multiple statues, for example, it was the painting I can't remember. It was, it was "Liberty Leading the People," or whatever. It's a painting done for the July, about the July Revolution, uh, in the second, um, Bourbon, the first Bourbon Restoration in France. And you have Liberty, uh, holding a flag, and she's, her like, top's falling down. And as a guy, I'm like, "I just think that's unnecessary." Like, what is, what >> [laughter] >> What does that have to do with art? But, you don't look at that and think, "Oh, yeah, man. Like, I'm, I'm taking that one home and under the covers at night, right?"

So, I, I think the context of what you're looking at, you know, really the, I think when you go to the New Testament trying to land the plan of my thoughts here. When then you go to the New Testament when Christ is talking about what makes something sin. There are some things that are point-blank, like black and white sin. Lying, adultery, stealing, et cetera. And there's a lot of the times where Christ will redirect you to, okay, but what is the, what's the posture of your heart here?

>> Yeah, the conscience. The conscience. What's your conscience doing? So, if a woman is dressing in a certain way to elicit the male gaze to certain parts of her body, whatever. Your, your conscience is, is, is derelict. Now, if a woman's saying, "Hey, I like, you know, not, I'm not going to call anyone out by name, cuz I've, I've seen this argument online, but if a woman's wearing yoga pants, right? To, to the gym or to go do yoga." Um, where the, you know, cuz it's comfortable and it's flexible and all that. And it's not one of those pants that like gives you a wedgie to make your butt look all big. Like, it's just, just yoga pants. I don't see in that context how if somebody's looking at that and thinking that's sexual, to me it's just, "Well, I think you're sexualizing it as a man, and that's where you need to check your heart and and kind of reframe what, where, where is your head at?"

>> A liberal. >> [laughter] >> Okay, um, so, so what I, my 7K is getting deposited tomorrow. So, I, I would say this. I, I would say, um, again, we, we have standards, uh, for Christian women. Um, I think those same standards should be applied to non-Christian women, um, because.

And I, I don't disagree with Christian standards should be applied across the board. I, I, I'm a, I'm a fascist in that way. So, my, my thought is again, you know, we know, uh, there are, uh, the culture we live in. Mhm. A woman, a Christian woman, a virtuous woman, >> Mhm. >> should know that that this particular outfit would be, um, and it's unfortunate. Mhm. But it would be a cause for stumbling in our culture here in America. Okay? And so, we know that 1 Corinthians, uh, what is it? 10, 11, 12. Um, you know, try, try not to cause your, your freedom, your liberty, sacrifice your liberty for the sake of, sure, love for your brother. Mhm. And, and so, there's a variety of applications for that from, you know, drinking and smoking and pornography. Of, you know, if you got a guy that's just got through with pornography addiction, hey, let's not go to the beaches in Southern California this weekend. Yeah. Oh, totally. Uh, so, I think there's applications of prudence. Mhm. That [clears throat] virtuous women Mhm. need to say, "Okay, well, I live in America. Mhm. And I'm not going to just do this thing where my liberty, I'm going to, I have liberty."

>> Totally. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. Totally. So, let me, let me paint a, a scenario, cuz, you know, uh, hypothetical scenarios are so helpful in debate. Um, let's say, uh, you know, again, the yoga pants example, not the big butt scrunchy ones, just normal Lululemon yoga pants, um, not tremendously provocative. The husband doesn't even see an issue with it. He's like, "I don't find those sexy. They're just pants." And we're not going to a sacred space, we're going to a secular space, we're going to the Y to go run on a treadmill. Husband's okay with it, your headship's fine with it. The woman doesn't feel like she's wearing anything to. In that situation, is, can we apply 1 Corinthians? Well, my thought is it doesn't matter if her head's not. Let's just say that her head's okay with it. >> Mhm. But let's just say that her head's, head, Christ, is not okay with it. Gotcha. So, I would go, it's another backwards form of tyranny. You just go, if your, if your husband's okay with you wearing a thong on the beach, doesn't even matter if you're wearing a thong on the beach.

>> See the logical conclusion of that. I do. But I guess where I keep coming back to, and, and I don't mean to to to press you on it. We can, we can switch topics. I think what I keep coming back to is like the logical, as Protestants, I don't know where, so, so you, sorry, I'm thinking out loud here, which is a problem. The logical conclusion, and this is where I think of everything maybe too philosophically. Like R.C. Sproul told me once, we were arguing about Calvinism. He's a, he's a Calvinist, and he, but he's not a five-pointer, he's a four-pointer. He doesn't like the limited atonement. He believes in unlimited limited atonement. And I, my response was, you know, well, God's sovereign over everything, or he's sovereign over nothing. And he said, "You're thinking about it too philosophically." And I still disagree with him, and, and far be it for me, I speak as a fool. He's, he's, you know, he's got the four of my brains put into one. But I do see where I think too philosophically, too logically in areas that perhaps should be more mystical, should be more submissive. Where I go to with that though, like with everything is, okay, let's take this to the logical conclusion, the logical conclusion. And I don't see a logical conclusion outside of Sharia law. And then your response is, well, then we appeal to church authority. But even that, I'm like, okay, but where does the church get their authority to arbitrarily say this is modest, this is not?

>> Yeah. Yeah, so I would say, uh, the Protestant problem is obviously authority. >> Headship. Yeah. Yeah, so, uh, I would say this, solutions to this are, one is monarchy. I agree. I agree with you. Yeah, yeah. Is two is, uh, conciliar authority, which is church councils. That, where you have essentially diversify the vote on a particular topic across a broad spectrum of theologically qualified, um, fruitful, godly, proven men. >> Yeah. >> That are filled with the Holy Spirit bringing a conclusion to a matter for the church on a particular topic. So, a conciliar synod, like synodical structure for, uh, matters like this. What, what should be clarified? So, yes, right now, by the way, previous generations did not struggle with modesty the way that we do. That is true. They didn't struggle with, like, I can't look back to the reformers and the great confessions of the Protestant. Well, well, well, they don't, they don't struggle with modesty, I think at the scale we struggle with it. >> Sure. And I, I think also not just at the scale, but also in the in the actual, like, people would, women would be killed for the modesty that they have today. >> Today, yeah. So, what I'm saying is that just in the same way that I can't go back and ask John Calvin what he thought about multiculturalism. He would go, >> [laughter] >> "I don't know what. There's no multicultural." Or I can't ask Luther about transgenderism. He'd be like, "Is that a, that's a thing?"

>> Like biblically, the difference between prostitutes and non-prostitutes was their hair was down. So, [laughter] >> Yes. Yes. So, >> Wow. So, what I'm saying here is that I think that the confessions, uh, of the Protestant tradition need to be updated. I think we need to have statements around nationalism. We need to have statements around sexuality. We need to have statements around modesty that need to be again, flexible, appl- applicable to different cultures, places, geographies, uh, but principles that interpret the text of scripture that have the minds of of a conciliar authority that can bring wisdom to it, that are broad spectrum, but can be applied equally across multiple cultures would be a great help. Uh, but the problem is right now is we live in a time where the Protestant church is fighting with each other more than fighting with the world.

>> Tertiary issues, too. No one's leaving churches over doctrine right now. Everybody's leaving issues over, uh, secondary, tertiary issues, national- nationalism, Israel's positions, uh, feminism, things like that. And so, we, we, we know we have a problem. Um, we know that the Protestant church hasn't always been this way. Yeah. Um, and, uh.

Well, I mean, and that was, you know, the Protestant church that, that you, you would appeal to, you know, Luther and Calvin, Zwingli, that was where they were. I mean, you want to go back to the Reformation, there were three churches. You were a Lutheran, if you were Protestant, you were Lutheran, you were Reformed, or you were Anglican. Correct. >> And like, look around, and there was no other option. And if you tried to be another option, like the Anabaptists, they would drown you. Like, "Ha ha ha, you're Baptist, let's drown you." And Th- This is my, this is my thought, uh, John, is that I, I, I wrote my book, Reformed vs. Rome, that I want to see the classical Protestants or the historic Protestants, which are again, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran. I want to see them become one. And they are what I would call Reformed Catholics. And I believe the only, the only, um, opposition to a Roman Catholic Church is a Reformed Catholic Church. And I think that that, that is my hope and work over the next, the rest of my life. I want to figure out a way, can we get these groups together? And through one confession. I'm actually planning to work on with a handful of people, the Reformed Catholic Confession. We actually bought reformedcatholic.com. Um, and we want to put together this confession to bring that unity so that we can start having the authority.

>> Buy Rome, Georgia next. >> [laughter] >> So, we can, we can have the authority to to bring answers to these particular questions that are dividing everybody for their own interpretation. Yeah.

Well, and I think that's it. Maybe it's the difference here is between your optimism and my pragmatism. And I think we're to repent of my pragmatism because the way I see kind of the, again, not to divert from the topic too much, but the way I see kind of the church at large right now is within the Protestant world, the people who have most of the influence are the evangelicals, not the Protestants. And evangelicalism is not Protestantism. It's anti-sacramental. It's unfortunately, in some cases, even anti-intellectual. It's, you know, that is the megachurch. Yeah. When you talk to a Catholic and they'll straw man Christian or they'll straw man Protestantism, they're usually using an evangelical straw man. It's like, that's not what a Lutheran church looks like, or my Anglican church looks like. That's what that your average evangelical megachurch looks like. Problem is within the Reformed world, Reformed proper, [clears throat] you don't, you look, look, these issues. So, I am agree with you in that I, I am a, I think constitutional monarchy is the only biblical defensible form of government, cuz that's the only government God ever created. Well, he created a theocracy with Moses and then he's like, "Oh, that doesn't work, so let's do, let's do a constitutional monarchy." Right? And a theocracy would have worked, but the people rebelled. So, I think that is the form of government. However, however, I look at the world we're in and I can't really have a proof of principle to appeal to, cuz when I tell people I think constitutional monarchy is the best, and I think like an Anglican reformed tradition is probably closest to my own personal theology. They're like, "Yeah, well, look at that. England's full of Muslims and all the Anglicans are gay." And the only guys out there who are not the only guys, but the only guys out there who are gun-slinging conservative masculine men, they're evangelicals. And it's like, Yes. And so, correct. And so, this is by God's grace, there are more people moving toward that high church reformed Anglican position. That's where we're where we hold as a, as our church that I pastor. And I think all of this needs to be understood is that the reason the church is the way that it is is because it was crushed under the post-war consensus. Many things were. The family was. Even even a lot of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have been influenced by the post-war consensus. It is an incredibly powerful civilizational culture that has hit the West that we are. There's a great book by R. R. Reno called "The Return of the Strong Gods." In "The Return of the Strong Gods," the idea is that the strong gods are the way that the old world essentially functioned. The convictions and foundational truths and values and virtues of the old world. And there's a great quote. I don't know who originally said it, but, um, a nation digs its grave with the shovel of forgetfulness. And we have forgotten what America was prior to this post-World War I, World War II consensus. Prior to the World War, World Wars, you had truth, you had monarchies, you had religion, you had borders, you had ethno-states, you had nations, nationalism, you had patriarchy. Yeah. >> You had closed societies, you had, um, all of these things. And, um, after the, the war, there was, so, let me, let me back up. >> Sure. >> So, the overextension of those, what R. R. Reno calls strong gods, those old world ways of the functioning of society, which is how all of the world ran since the beginning of time. >> Right. >> Um, the overextension of monarchy is dictatorship, right? The overextension of biblical patriarchy is misogyny. Yeah. The overextension of, um, nationalism, uh, becomes genuine racism. Like, where you actually hate people just because they're not your people. >> Correct. >> Um, okay, so, so what happened is, is they looked at World War I, World War II, and they saw, they said, all of this is a problem because of those strong gods. Let's create a society that is so opposite. The pendulum swung to diversity and multiculturalism and feminism and tolerance and inclusion and homosexuality. And, and so, we, we entered this society, um, and we've, that's all we've known. That's all we, we've grown up in. And what R. R. Reno argues, and I, I believe, is is totally true, is that we are seeing the return of the strong gods because it is the only way that the world works. I often say that, um, nationalism creates wars between other nations. We, we saw that all throughout the world history. But multiculturalism creates wars within nations. And, and that's what we're seeing now. Every group is vying for political power and control in one place that, uh, that outlaws the other groups' values. And like the idea.

>> You see this right now with like the, the, you know, Israel's war in Iran, where you have these, who would have thought this, that, you know, we, there was this, there was this kind of this Western agreement that in war, you don't assassinate the ruler of a country because how are you going to negotiate or end the war if you just went and killed their leader? Now you're left with just chaos, and it's, it's, it's not, it's not kind [clears throat] or considerate to the civilians who are living there, cuz their country's now in chaos. You don't target civilian infrastructure, cuz that just causes abnormal suffering and pain to people who don't deserve it. And then the US goes into Iran for Israel, of course, and we kill their leader, who not only is their national leader and their their figurehead, but he's also basically the Pope of, you know, Shia Islam. So, it's like, okay, you just killed a religious leader and you killed the political leader, the political leader, and then you think the people are going to rally to your cause? Now, what you've just done is you've galvanized them against you. But, but to your point with the multiculturalism and how it's destroying us from the inside, is because you say, what are you talking about? Look at the Iranians in in Los Angeles. They're parading in the streets. Yeah. So, you have these groups of people that left during the revolution and they came here, and what are they doing? They're lobbying for us to go to war against the guy they don't like. And I'm not defending the the Ayatollah. I think Islam's evil, and like, you know, you know, dead Muslims, a good Muslim, right? Woo, converted better. But, you know, if they don't convert, you know, I'm Crusader. So, that being the case, all right, you know, I'm not a fan of the Ayatollah. I'm not defending the Ayatollah, and that's where they always want to straw man you, say, "Oh, you're a Muslim," or, "You're Qatari, you're being paid by Qatar." Okay, whatever. Um, the, the immigrants here, they're lobbying for their for their own country. And what that tells me, okay, your country isn't the United States. If you are lobbying for us to go to war in Iran cuz you don't like the Ayatollah, why are you here? The idea, when, when my parents came here, excuse me, when my mom, like I told you off camera, my mom, like she got here in the '60s, you know, she, she wasn't one of those Anglo-Saxon immigrants in the Industrial Revolution, and, uh, she doesn't, she doesn't hyphenate, uh, her, she's not an Irish-American, she's an American. And she was taught that from my, from my Nana, from her grandma, who grew up in the Blitz in London. Family moves here, we're American. Yeah. And this is why, again, biblical assimilation is needs to be understood. Uh, cuz again, a lot of these problems that we're talking about, you know, at the front level, it's, it's a result of the world that we live in. The church is a mess, that the culture's a mess, all because of this nationalism is messed up. Once, once nationalism's messed up, then everything in the nation is messed up. And that's what we're seeing. You know, and I would tie that also, if things are messed up in the church, then things are messed up in the culture. So, there's connection points there. But biblical assimilation, what we see is, you know, let me use an example that I don't think is a fair parallel, but, uh, you, you see, um, Boaz and, um, Ruth. >> Yeah. >> You know, she says, you know, "Your people will be my people, your God will be my God." >> Assimilation, yeah. She's, she's, she's assimilating. Now, what, what's great about that is that she says, "I'm essentially losing myself in my husband." >> Um, she is becoming one with her husband, she's adopting the, uh, the identity of God's people. And, um, now, this is not an interracial marriage, by the way. Uh, okay? [laughter] Oh boy. You know why it's not, right? Because they look probably exactly the same. They were like 80 miles apart from each other. Sure. So, the, this is not >> Intercultural marriage. >> It's an, it's, yeah, it's an, it's not, it's probably not even intercultural. It's an interreligious marriage. Well, not to not to derail for a second, but that's really fascinating. Is, is, I've always agreed with that take, and that I don't think an intercultural marriage is, it's not sinful, but I don't think it's, it's easy, because it's two cultures colliding. It doesn't matter what the, my opinion, doesn't matter what the races are, because you can have, you know, for example, a Mexican who's been here, not, not a Mexican-American, who was Mexican six generations back, and they're American now, but they're not, you know, your, the same race, but it's the same culture. Yeah. So, I've always been confused, but why does the race matter?

So, the, I, I would say, so, one, everybody should know that my wife is half Italian. >> Mhm. >> Uh, so, half European and then half Hispanic. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um, so, her skin's, you know, a little bit darker than mine. Um, [snorts] but, you know, she's fourth generation. She's been here in America for, you know, her, her grandfather fought in the Korean War and, and, um, uh, she, she's assimilating. I would look at my, my relationship with her is that I'm actually assimilating her further into the American identity. Interesting. >> Okay. And, um, so, she's saying, like Ruth said, you know, "My people will be your people," and she's coming in and saying, "Yeah, so, our, our kids, you know, are lighter skinned or more American than, more European, essentially, than, than she is." Um, now, why does skin matter? Well, skin matters because, uh, skin is, is correlated with geography. Geography is correlated with a variety of things, including, um, biological health. I mean, >> [clears throat] >> why do we have Somalis that are in the hottest part of the world moving to Minnesota? Yeah. >> [laughter] >> You just got to ask yourself, the only reason that that's not natural. Um, their, their bodies are, like, you and I go into sub-Saharan Africa, not only would it be a risk of skin cancer, but we'd have to supplement in order to live there. We're not designed to live there. So, geogra-, skin color actually correlates with, with geography in a very important way. Yeah. Not only that, but you've actually, there's studies that show that food, there are certain foods that grow around the equator, um, and certain foods that grow around the north that are particularly functional for, uh, people that are from those areas. Yeah. And so, like, we shouldn't be in Canada eating watermelon in December. Um, that, that's not, that's a perversion of, of God's natural order as well. But, when you look at that, like, uh, our eyes, God gave us eyes for the purpose of seeing. Now, we know that, um, say you're traveling to Pakistan, um, and you see another American. What are you going to do? There's another American. You're going to walk straight over, and you see him with your eyes, and because skin color, it creates familiarity, it creates trust, it creates bonding, it creates a sense of, of unity. It's why birds of a feather flock together, right?

>> To that, so, I was, I was in Moscow because I'm a paid actor of the Russian state, and I was, I was walking around and they have these hot dog stands, and me and my buddies, the, in, in Russia, the brand is StarDog, but in the Cyrillic text, it looks like it says Porn Dog. So, we call it the Porn Dog stand, and it was hilarious. Let's go get some Porn Dogs. So, we're in, we're in line, and this guy says something behind me to somebody else who's not part of our group, and he's, it's, you know, perfect English, like Los Angeles English. I'm like, "Oh my gosh, it's an American." To the same point, but he was Hispanic. I could, but I could just tell he's American, and it was that same kind of like, "Oh, familiarity, like, you were one of me." And in that moment, I didn't think, "Oh, you're a Mexican," or, "You're, you're a second-generation Mexican." I think, "You're, you're like me." So, that's where it's like, I, I understand where you're coming from. I completely agree in that, you know, you see something who's familiar. If I'm, if we're in sub-Saharan Africa, if we're in like, you know, we woke up in the night in a nightmare, and somehow we're in Somalia, and I see one dude who, you know, who, who looks like Vanilla Cracker, I'm going to go right to that guy. It's like, "Hey, man, you're one of me. I don't care what country you're from."

>> This is why it happens in prisons. Yeah, I see that. Race matters as soon as you go to prison. >> Yeah, but does it matter in marriage? >> No, I, I don't think it's sinful in marriage, but I do think it matters, and here's, here's why it matters. Um, I, I went out, ex-, not, not that long ago, and I said, there, yeah, there were real problems, not just. So, we had, we had intercultural issues for sure, that, that she has again assimilated into my American identity, and, and that, that's wonderful and great, but it wasn't easy. Um, also, there is a reality of when you have, let's just say, let's, let's use an extreme example, cuz extreme examples help in terms of making something clear. To say that Ruth and, and, and Boaz are similar to say a Haitian woman, >> Oh, yeah. >> You know, I get that. >> Minnesota boy, or let's just say this, a Haitian woman, a Korean man that live in America. Okay, what did, what this does, >> Yeah. >> is it creates >> It's anachronistic. >> Well, it creates national orphans. Okay, national, these kids, they go, "I don't know who I am." Mhm. They are first-generation nothings in the sense of, "Am I, Isn't that our own fault as Americans though? Because we've created this kind of weird culture where it's a melting pot, you know? >> Yeah, but again, when you come from, when you come from European stock, we're all the same skin color, we're all the same Western civilizational culture. But again, you, you take the Haitian woman and you take the Korean man, and they're, but they're both Americans now cuz they immigrated 20 years ago and they get married. >> Yeah. >> Uh, and then you create children that go, "I don't know who I identify with. >> Am I? >> Am I a Korean? Am I an American? >> Bananas and rice. >> So, yeah. So, what the, what happens is, is they become spiritual gnostics if they're Christians. So, they go, "You know what? All I do is identify with Christ." Mhm. And, and I go, "Well, okay, yes and amen." But the reality is, is now they can't understand why their white American friends actually care about some sort of national homogeneity. They, they can't comprehend that because in order to agree with that, they would have to recognize or acknowledge that their existence is actually not typical or normal.

>> I, I, and I don't disagree with that, but I would, I would source, I would root the problem not in, in interracial marriage, but in a broken immigration system. >> So, what I'm saying is that are there exceptions? Yes. Is it the ideal? That was my whole point about that point. >> Why I've always appreciated your stance on it because it was far more metered than I think something just closed over here. Uh, I think we're okay. Okay. >> We're good. Yeah, we'll, we'll cut that. That's why I always appreciated your take on that because it was far more charitable and metered and and reasoned than other takes out there that I've heard on the subject. But I actually, I'm really enjoying this cuz we're, we're, we're hitting so many different topics. Um, so let me, let me try to loop back if, if I can, unless you had anything else to say on that. No, I, I, I would just say interracial marriage is one of these things that it's a, there is an ideal, and I think that we can't look at our current culture and say this is ideal. No, it's not ideal. >> I don't think we can say that about anything in our current culture. It's not ideal. And the problem is, is that you could just go back 75 years and it actually was the ideal everywhere. So, you go to Mexico, and Mexicans marry Mexicans because Mexico is 90% an ethno-state. You go to Korea, you go to Japan, you go to Russia, you go to Colombia, you go to Cuba, you go anywhere else essentially besides Western nations. But when you have a culture that's saying this, that's saying we are, um, all the media, all of the ad platforms, all of the marketing from these big companies. I, I was just at the bank and I saw it was, it was a like a red, it was like in a city, and there's like a redhead, and there's like a Japanese guy, and there's like a Muslim woman and a black dude, and they're all eating ice cream. And it's like, dude, that's not real.

>> Yeah. It's like when I was in the army, we went to Ogden, Utah. I'm not kidding. It was actually Ogden, Utah. That's not a >> [laughter] >> That's not a, that's kind of an ironic location for. There's an, there's an army depot there. We're decommissioning or we're, I can't remember what we're doing. And it was me, you know, 6'2" pasty white dude. It was my good friend Ramirez, who is like 6'4" MMA fighter Mexican guy, and it was Duong, who was like a 4' tall Vietnamese lady, and she could barely speak English, but I don't know how the heck she got in the army. And then it was this other guy, I think his name was Cortez, and he was like this almost like Danny DeVito, dark-skinned, chubby Mexican, like 38-year-old guy, right? It was a weird group of people. And we're in Ogden, which is as homogeneous and white as like the freshly fallen snow. And we walk into a movie theater to go see a movie one night, just the four of us, like a Western. It's like when the, you know, in a Western, >> A Bank of America commercial. >> Yeah, we, exactly. And the saloon doors swing open, and everyone stops and looks at who just came in. And that was the moment, cuz we're all eat, when you're in the military, you don't really know how people dress in their civilian clothes until you get off and you go do something with them. So, we all dress completely differently. And it's like, what kind of ad is this right now? And it just reminded me of that. It just, it looked like a Bank of America ad. Yeah. So, so like, what, my thought is this, when the left is pushing something, >> Mhm. >> I'm almost always going to initially go, maybe it's wrong. So, why is the left pushing interracial marriage so hard on people? Well, so, but using your logic, let me, let me ask you then, because, and I see this too. It's, I saw a meme the other day where, you know, Korean families when they get here, and their Korean daughter wants to marry a white guy. They're like, "Why aren't you marrying a Korean boy?" Right? Like, wasn't the point to in, to to assimilate, integrate? Why did you leave your country?

>> I would argue yes. So, this is true, true assimilation. This is, this is why. Let me get through this, cuz this is very important. So, true assimilation, biblical assimilation would be this. Let's just say that you have a Korean family and say, "We want to move to France." Okay, my expectation would be this, that you come to France, you stop speaking Korean, you start speaking English, or start speaking French. >> Yeah. >> And your daughters, and let's just say that the reason that you went is because you want to, you want to ascend to the Christian culture of France. >> Mhm. >> Okay, we're going back in time now. >> Sure. No, I see that. And, and, yeah, back in time. Cuz France today is not that. But, um, my, my thought would be true assimilation requires to lose your ethnicity >> Mhm. >> through generational intermarriage. So, your daughters and sons would need to intermarry. >> Yeah. >> Um, and their daughters and sons would need to intermarry so much so that you lose. Now, now the question comes up is, is this honoring your father and mother? You, you're talking, you've been Korean for, for, for 50 generations. >> Father and mother, not obey your father and mother. Yeah, but let's just say that you're, is it like, you're literally saying you're looking at your skin and you're going, "I don't want to be me." Yeah, well, that, okay, so, so, so what I'm saying is that it's a form of transnationalism. Now, I think there's valid reasons to do that. I think that if there's the valid reason would be ascending into God's people. So, you're ascending into the church. I think if you're a missionary and you're saying, "I'm going to sacrifice myself for the sake of the gospel." Um, I think if you're a prisoner of war, you're caught into a particular place and you're stuck here and God. But what I'm saying is that if, if there's reasons that you look and you go, like, we know President, Vice President Vance said that he, he married an Indian woman specifically to frustrate his parents. Okay, that's not good. No. >> Right? And, and so, so I, I think the conversation is, is it sinful? No, I don't think it's sinful. Is it something more complicated than what we think it is?

>> It's definitely more complicated, and what I don't like about this topic is you're not even allowed to have the conversation because it's racist. >> Clutch their pearls and are like, "How dare you talk about it?" Like, well, no, let's have, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea. I, what I tell everyone, I say two things. I say, "I don't care what you believe, just have a really good argument for it." And if I disagree with your argument, let's have the debate. And two, don't be anti a person, be anti the lies. So, let, let's, let's keep talking on this this road here.

Well, well, well, let me ask, cuz that, that was exactly where I was going to go. So, the issue then, shouldn't you're saying the solution is interracial marriage? >> Okay, I'm saying is that one, few people should be trying to immigrate and lose their nationalism. Okay. Okay, but those that do for valid reasons, I think must intermarry for true assimilation. >> Okay. Now, it's interesting that Ruth and Boaz, how many generations were between their marriage and King David? I couldn't tell you. Not one, it's three. Okay? So, there's something there that God's saying, well, it's not that I think it's Obed, then it's Jesse, then it's David, right? And so, David is this kind of fully assimilated Israelite of Israelites, you know, Israelite of Israelites, right? >> Yeah. Um, he, he does, he's not a Moabite at all. But, but it's been a few generations. So, my thing is that I don't think that if you, the Korean guy moves and he says, well, we're not, we're not actually Korean, Mom and Dad are not. Um, the children, I would even say still are not, even if they intermarry, they're, they're not Korean. The grandkids, I would say are arguably maybe French, and then the great-grandkids are certainly French. >> Mhm. >> And so, there's, there's some sort of assimilation period. Um, and I'm not saying we need to create hard rules on these. I'm just saying is that, uh. >> You Nazi. Yeah. Yeah, right. So, I'm just saying that these are, there is some biblical. Now, we also see Uriah the Hittite. Mhm. So, on the other side, I also think that generally should be women assimilating into the, like, for, for men to take foreign wives is far more biblical than women to take foreign husbands. And for a man to adopt the foreign ethnicity of his wife.

>> Do see that a lot in scripture where a guy's taking a foreign, I mean, Moses, David, Solomon. And now, Solomon's issue is not, you would, well, and then Solomon's issue, he, he allowed the culture to, to, he didn't kill the culture, he kept the culture. >> So, having it would be matriarchal to have a man assimilate your, your wife's an Italian, and you >> That's who's the head. And, and, yeah, and you're, you're going to go, "I'm an, I'm an, our kids are Italian now," and you. No, no, the kids always identify. >> Well, well, and there's a, there's a fascination in America, I've noticed, with genealogy because I don't think, and this is a, this is a fault of this multicultural model, is white Anglo-Saxon Americans have been told that, you know, you're boring, you're mayonnaise, you're vanilla. So, everyone goes grasping and reaching for some kind of interesting gene. It's why Ancestry.com exists, cuz there's like, "I have to make my life, my family, my ancestors somehow spicy or interesting or something because just being a white American isn't interesting enough." It's why, I mean, you can, white guilt, white hate? Oh, it, well, it drives me, even within white culture though. >> That's why. >> It's, yeah, well, we, even within white cultures, there, there's a great SNL skit. Uh, I can't remember when, but this is, you know, American dude walks into an Irish pub and he's like, "Hey guys, my fourth great-grandfather was Irish." And they're like, "Dear God, he was Irish! Call everyone in the whole town." And they're like, "He was Irish!" And it's, and it's like, yeah, cuz that's how Americans think is, but it's, it's like this dissatisfaction with your American, uh, heritage.

>> Yeah, and that's because we have failed to teach how wonderful Western civilization is. I learned about the pyramids. I did not learn about the cathedrals. Yeah, that's true. >> Like the cathedrals, you, when you look at the Cologne Cathedral and you compare it to the pyramids, dude, the pyramids are like, "Oh, great, you got blocks on on." Yeah, wonderful. You look at the intricacy, the 600-year work of, of the cathedrals, and you go, "My goodness." Well, and like you would go to the, you know, like, name a cathedral, name a minster, like the York Minster was one of the biggest buildings in the world, was the biggest building in the world for, for, you know, decades or centuries. And there's like intricate stonework 300, 400 feet in the air. >> Where no one will see it. >> No one's going to see that. You know, there's engravings on the backs of heads of gargoyles. Medieval peasants aren't like binoculars. Like they didn't even own. So, it's like, no one's ever going to see that, but that guy doing that work was doing it unto the glory of God, and he's the only one that ever saw it. When Christ saw it. The truth is this, right? Western civilization is the greatest civilization that's ever existed. Why? Well, because it's Christian. Mhm. So, um, but there's more than that. So, I think there's, if you talk more into this about interracial marriage, it's also inter-IQ marriage. Generally speaking, okay? IQ is stable. Mhm. So, meaning that if you go, um, to the equator, >> Mhm. >> and whatever countries are on the equator, Mhm. >> and the IQ is generally lower on the equator than it is up north. And the reason it's lower is because you have generations of people who, uh, had more of a physical life than an intellectual life. Let me tell you why. >> So, when you have no seasons, >> Um, and you have essentially an easy food supply, there's no food storage. >> Um, you have, you don't have to innovate farming technologies. >> Correct. Okay. Right? Up north, where there's snow, there's four seasons, you have indoor life. What do you do when you're indoor? Well, you have intellectual pursuits. Okay. Music, literature, all those different things. On the equator, what do you do when you're outside all the time? Well, you, you, you have physical pursuits. Mhm. And so, what happens is the equator people produce highly specialized physical people. Now, what are all of our best athletes in the world? Where are they from? Yeah, well, they're from the equator, yeah. >> From the equator. Yeah. And where are the strongest minds? They're not from the equator. The strongest minds are from the north. Whether it's China, whether it's Russia, whether it's Europe, whether it's, uh, North America.

>> The philosophers of ancient history, you're talking, you know, Sun Tzu, you know, or, or whoever. Name. Yeah, you do see that with the, the Arab world as well, and or cultures. So, so there's been studies about this. We know that Somalia's average IQ is around 70, where the United States >> That of a dolphin or something. >> Yeah, it's right here, it's it's 100. Yeah. Uh, parts of Europe. Now, what I'm saying is that you have high IQ, I, IQ is a, a very good indicator of civilizational thriving and success. Mhm. Um, and so, but IQ is stable. You can't change it. It's like your height. Mhm. So, if you took a, a country on the equator, and they only, uh, intermarried with one another, um, the IQ would never change. Now, maybe not never, over like, maybe thousands of years it might adjust. But generally speaking, it would stay the same. And the same thing is, is up north. And so, you take the civilization that has high IQ, and then now you are intermarrying with places of lower IQ, the children are going to have a mid IQ. And so, This is microevolution. >> It's microevolution. And so, European used to have an evolution or had have an IQ of about 115 on average, and now we're at about 100. And is that better for society at large or worse? I think where people, I'm not disagreeing with you on simple, like, yeah, people with 90 IQ marry each other, their kids like will have 90 IQ, like that, that makes, that makes sense. I think where people take, you know, unction with the argument is when you walk it into its logical conclusion, okay, but the solution seems rather righty. And, Yeah, the, the reality is, is I'm just trying to expose to people that there is more complexity at hand.

>> Oh, and I agree with that. And what I, like I said, to repeat myself, what I detest more than anything is an anti-intellectual spirit that says, "We're not even going to step into that field of conversation because it's just so offensive and unproductive." >> That's the thing is that people go, "Oh, you're talking about eugenics here." And I go, "No, no, we're not talking about eugenics." The reality is that I just go, you, you have a family that you're from from your skin determines where you should be on the globe. Okay? So, it's it's very strange to have millions of people from third world nations moving up north to, to first world nations. Because why? Well, third world people want our. Well, yeah, the, the motive is that, but I think what you're also seeing is you can get on a plane and be there in six hours. Whereas before it would take months of journey and someone would die of dysentery, right? >> Yeah, and, and, and I just posted out a couple days ago, we don't have third world places, we have third world people. That is true. Well, that is true, and I've seen that in, I grew up in California, and, and you absolutely do see it in, in, you know, not as, not nearly as bad in California as it is in places like Minnesota or Detroit. I was in Detroit like a month ago, and while Detroit is not as bad as, like, there's parts of California that are worse than Detroit. There were some parts when I was driving around, I'm like, "Holy cow, like, this is, we, I will say the one part of Detroit that is, that does deserve the reputation that is horrific is whatever you want to call a, what's the Muslim district? >> I can't remember the name of that town. >> It's, uh, keep going and I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll >> Yeah, yeah, it's, uh, I can't remember the name of the town. But it's the one part of Detroit that everyone always talks about where the mayor told the council, and the video went viral, like, "You're not welcome in my city." Uh, and it's like, and you walk around that street, and I did, I went, we, me and my buddy were there, and we just wanted to go see it, cuz it's like, "Oh, yeah, everyone talks about it." And it's dystopian. It's all of the street signs are in Arabic. You have these, these buildings that are beautiful and stone-built, cuz Detroit is an older part of the country, cuz it's off of the river. >> [snorts] >> So, you have these industrial age brick buildings that were built by, uh, well, my wife's ancestors, not mine. Um, and they are, you know, big Arabic letters out front. And it's like, "This is, you didn't build the building, uh, but you're using the.

building." >> Yeah. And I'm not saying, you know, ownership can never pass hands, but it's like you guys have not built this culture. Cuz in specifically Detroit, it's a lot of immigration from Somalia and from the third world.

>> Connect. You can't disconnect a place from the people that live there. And what I'm saying is that yes, what we, what, again, the reason it feels so bad to talk about this is because we're egalitarian. We want everybody to be the same. Um, but we're unwilling to have the conversation about that there actually is unequal Jesus in the parable of the talents, right? I gave one five, I gave one three, I gave one one. Um, we know that not everybody is equal.

>> Why isn't everyone get the same amount?

>> Yeah, yeah, and that was the struggle that even back then. Yeah. Why don't we get the same? Um, and God goes, "Well, the, the person who's paying out, uh, he determines. Some people have more faith. Some people have more love. Some people have more strength. Some people have more wisdom. Not everybody's the same." And our egalitarian sensitivities go, "Oh, we have to be willing to look at. We're so afraid of inferiority and superiority." That's true. It's, it's the, the Marxist mindset, for sure.

>> Marxist mindset. And the reality is is that, uh, in terms of strength, are you superior to your wife?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

>> In terms of nurturing ability, is she superior to you?

>> Oh, by, yeah, I can't do that. I can't nurture a plant.

>> Is is Western civilization superior to African culture?

>> Absolutely. Yeah. I got in trouble for saying this two years ago. Yeah.

>> Yeah, and so [clears throat] so we, we know that there is superiority. We're afraid to connect it to the people. So, if, if you have a civilizational superiority, is it because of the people?

>> Yeah. Well, I think so. I mean, there's, there's we are living in a culture and a time and age where I think our perspective of immigration is a modern perspective of immigration. And let me, let me explain that. So, when I would say, "Yeah, you cannot disconnect a person from their geography," sure. But I think there are plenty of examples of of absolutely virtuous immigration that succeeded, right? And I think, you know, America is one example, at least Industrial Revolution.

>> But it's still, it's like Northern Hemisphere to Northern Hemisphere.

>> True. Well, then so let me use France as an example because they had the lion's share of sub-Saharan African colonies. And France historically has had at least as far back as, as you know, the age of colonization, a lot of sub-Saharan African Frenchmen that you didn't see in England or you didn't see in any other like, not in Germany, cuz they just based on where their colonies were. And I think you have even like one of Napoleon's marshals was a dark-skinned sub-Saharan African himself, and he was a Frenchman of Frenchman. And so it's, I think that we are living in the era of mass migration where, you know, assimilation's is not even on the table. It's not even possible at this level. It's not possible at this.

>> Yeah, no, it's, it's what's happening right now is national theft, demographic replacement.

>> Yeah. And they're admitting it now. Yeah. And that's, that's what I'm saying is that we, it's actually sinful. It's the sin of theft. It's the sin of covetousness. It's the sin of envy. It's the sin of murder. All of these things are actually happening when with mass immigration. It's why it's a, a Christian issue.

>> Yeah. >> Telling people like people are asking like, why, why do you think nationalism or Christian is a Christian issue? And I go, anything where anything that causes a significant amount of pain indicates that it's very important. So, so your marriage, a bad marriage causes significant amount of pain, and the church recognizes that and says, you know what? We have scripture to talk about that. Now, losing your home. Now, people that live in apartments and have immigrated here, you know, 30 years ago, they're never going to understand. But if you live on a multi-generational farm, yeah, and you lose that place, yeah. You maybe have seen or read the book, The Grapes of Wrath. The Dust Bowl. And when the grandmother after multi-generations on the farm leaves the farm, the next day she dies.

>> Yeah. That's how people thought about losing their homes. And but we've been again, inculturated to be disconnected from our own heritage, from our own ancestry. I've got conservative podcasters who are saying you don't have a right to grow up where you were to live where you grew up. And that to me is that's that is anti-American because the entire point of of Western society is generational wealth and ancestral heritage. And so like I grew up in in Poway, California, which I always have to to qualify that when I tell people who are from San Diego, cuz I will always say not like the MLB side, cuz that that a side of Poway that's extremely wealthy and it's NFL players and baseball players. And I grew up in like the little suburban, you know, there's a meth lab that was blasted down the street from my house when I was like 15, right? So I grew up in the not, it wasn't a rough part of town. It was very nice, but it was it was a suburban part of town. And now I remember, I mean, my parents bought their house in 1990 for $179,000 and when they moved out, they sold it for a hell of a lot more than that. And it wasn't like some modern McMansion. It was a regular 2,000 square foot suburban house. And I could never, I, I could not, cannot, and I don't know if I ever will be able to purchase a house on the street I grew up on. And I did not grow up in Beverly Hills. And that to me, that's, we have failed our children. Specifically the boomer generation has failed their children, cuz they took what could have, what was, I mean, just a moment of time of wealth of prosperity that will never be seen again in our lifetime.

>> Yeah. Uh, for one generation held all of it and instead they could have stewarded that and they could have set their kids up for something. They hoarded it, they spent their kids' inheritance, they destroyed it.

>> And all the immigration came under that generation.

>> Mhm. And what I say is that like, do you know how much money like right now, you know, we saw the Dave Ramsey thing is like, oh yeah, go, but go buy a $2,000 pressure washer and start a business and pay. And it's like, well, if I do that, then the Hispanic guy is going to go buy the pressure washer and he's going to do the job that I want to do for $500. He's going to do it for $100. And then the Somali daycare people are going to do this and the hospital daycare people are going to do this. And then the people that are in California, well, the Somalis are going to open up the pressure washer and never pressure wash anything but find a government grant that will pay them for opening the pressure washing business. So, yeah, we have all of these problems that are around. Like the church needs to speak to these things. But I, I would say like, kind of coming full circle on the conversation about.

>> Yeah. We, we live in a society right now that needs to be recovered.

>> Um, and how do we recover it? I think that balkanization is the only way to recover it.

>> Mhm. [clears throat] Meaning that we're going to have to shrink the United States.

>> Mhm. And and lose parts that are going to hold on to this post-Christian mindset. And then we're going to have a Balkanization of people that want to go back to recover a historic American identity. And, um, I think that that's going to happen through what I would call Christian colonies.

>> Mhm. And we need. Which we're seeing already.

>> Christian burrows.

>> Yeah. We saw that in Moscow. We're seeing that in Ogden.

>> Yeah. We're trying. And these these burrows and these colonies are going to take generations.

>> Decades to to to centuries to pull off.

>> Yeah. Um, but.

>> But it works. Cuz we're post-mill. So.

>> Wait, cuz we're post-mill, we're optimistic about the future. And that's what I want. I want to see, um, hey, we live in this world. We have people here. It doesn't mean that we're rude to foreigners. It doesn't mean that we're. No, we, we. Now, I do think if you're, if you're not going to assimilate, if you're not going to. I think you should remigrate. I always tell people, I go, I want a Christian Mexico that's Mexican. I want a Christian Nigeria that's Nigerian. I want a Christian Russia that's Russian. I want a Christian Korea that's Korean. Um, what I don't want is a Christian America that's the United Nations of Nations.

>> Yeah. Um, there's a profound quote from from Stephen Wolfe's book where he says, and I'm paraphrasing here, that I have more in common with, uh, an atheist, uh, white guy my age from Poway, California, than I would with a Christian Nigerian. Yes. And it's kind of a scandalous thing, but until you really think about it. Like, well, but I don't, we don't have completely different cultures. And.

>> And there is.

>> Yeah, you can build a house with a guy from California. You can't even build, uh, you can't even pick a restaurant to go eat at with a Nigerian guy. And, and it's this, even it's this very optimistic and God bless him. I, it's a good mindset to have, this optimistic evangelical culture that says, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ. Yeah, that's true. And spiritually, we're of one family, but culturally and practically, we're not. And.

>> Yes. And, and God created nations. God created nations.

>> The globalism of the Tower of Babel, that's what they tried to do. They tried to do multiculturalism.

>> To undo what God had done.

>> And, and, and God said, "No, we're going to put you into nations. We're going to put you into families." And all throughout history, we have lived in much more peaceable, internally peaceable, times with, uh, people who, who are like us, who look like us, who act like us, who have the same history as us, who have the same language as us.

>> Back an hour to where we were talking about the C.S. Lewis quote. I think if, you know, if, if the fall never happened, you know, if lapsarian never lapsed, you would still have seen people spread over the globe. The people who lived in sunnier areas would micro-evolve to have darker skin. People who would who lived in Canada would have thicker clothing. You would still see these differentiations of cultures, different music, different styles, different food. And so you would still see a nationalization happen without sin in the world. In fact, in Revelation, it says that the nations will bring their glory into the new world. And so my thing is that I actually believe that God is not creating some inter-racial mixed brown people. He's actually creating saved a saved mosaic of different nations. So, we, so again, we want nations like Europe and England or continents of Europe and, and the nations of Europe to stay Christian. Well, why? Because they are a form of global evangelization. What, what, when, when Christian nations are strong, they can send out missionaries not to turn the African nations white, but to turn the African nations Christian, that they might be Christian in their own context.

>> A proof of principle that, hey, look, it works.

>> Yes. Yeah. And so, but we also know that Congo is 95% Christian. And it's still a third world nation. So, why is that? It's because the IQ is different. They are different people in the sense that there is a class system in the sense of of intellect. Now, doesn't mean they're not superior in some aspects, aspects than they are over northern nations, over the Chinese, or over the Russians, or over us. No, but the reality is is that there, their nation is not a first world nation, even though they're all Christian.

>> Um, so, so that's to me on a on a side note, that demonstrates that there is no such thing as Christian culture. Because if there was a Christian culture.

>> Exactly. >> It's Congo would have an identical culture to. Most Christian nationalists today want Christian multiculturalism. They want this this what we have here, just Christianized. And they say, we're just going to have a Christian culture. No, culture, Christianity informs culture, but culture is made up of a lot more things than just religion. And so there is no. Yeah, you have an Ethiopian Christian culture, you have a, you have a Nigerian Christian culture, you have a Russian Christian culture.

>> Yeah. Um, and so we don't. If you Christianize what we have here, you're still going to have the black church, the Hispanic church.

>> Correct. >> The Korean church.

>> Yeah. And, and, and again, that produces, it's better than what we got. I mean, I would take that over the, the mess we have now.

>> I think the, not to, not to wind us back into the interracial marriage conversation, but I think where people will take offense and get confused is because, okay, if Congo Christian culture is beautiful in the sense of it's Christian, um, okay, or let's use the Italian example, right? Even though they're kind of white. Um, Italian food, you're married to an a part, you know, your wife's half Italian. Okay, so would you say then that like, you know, we don't make Italian food in this house, we make, you know, British food or whatever Anglo-Saxon food.

>> Yeah, so my. You, you can take these things to private and public.

>> Okay. And I go, in the privacy of your own home, you get to determine what you're going to do in your own home. Doesn't mean that we don't have or have tacos on Tuesday. So, so assimilating the Korean family, assimilating doesn't mean four generations later nobody's eating kimchi. It can mean that. It doesn't have to mean that. But my thing is that we're also not teaching our kids to speak Spanish.

>> Sure. Right?

>> Yeah. Um, we, we also, uh, are educating them about their American heritage and history.

>> Yes. Um, they're, they're, you know, my wife is is essentially joyfully losing herself in her husband the same way that the like they're not. Did Boaz and Ruth make Moabite food?

>> Yeah. You know?

>> Well, that's kind of what I was going to ask is like, did, was Ruth making roll in the the Moabite lumpia or whatever? Like, what did that look like?

>> Right? But certainly their children are not taking on any Moabite practices.

>> No, correct.

>> Yeah.

>> Right? And so, um.

>> So you reject some things and you can redeem other things.

>> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, and I think it's biblical. And I think something you mentioned in in making another point was you said there's methods and principles. This is what I've always told folks. So let's try to land the plane here on on trad and and and the future of America and things like that. Is I think there's biblical principles and there's then there's there's, uh, methods that are applied in a Christian way. And just how these cultures would evolve differently and these things would evolve differently, you can have a Christian woman in the Congo who's not wearing very much clothing, and it's not viewed in a sexual or an immodest context. Whereas if it was in Victorian England, it would. And, and I use that dress code's not everything, but it's, it's the application of biblical principle looks different.

>> Because of nationalism.

>> Correct. Yeah, correct. So I think.

>> Because of where you are, geography, because of the family that you're a part of. And so again, we don't want to divorce. What we want to do is we want to become gnostics where everything spiritual matters and everything on the earth doesn't matter. And that's what's created a world that we just go with this, it's all going to hell in a handbasket.

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> It's exactly, yeah. Um, but we need to have again, the reason that Western civilization was created the way it was is that they believed they were building Christendom. They believed they were building the kingdom of God on earth.

>> Mhm. And that those things like I believe the Cologne Cathedral will be in heaven.

>> Yeah, well, I mean, St. Paul says this. He says, you know, that your work, works can be tested by fire and survive. And maybe it was St. Paul who.

>> Yes. And so if the world's going to be pure, world's going to be purified by fire.

>> Some things will survive.

>> Yes. Amazing grace is going to survive.

>> Oh, bro, I've been on this for for years. I think there's paintings that will be in heaven. There's cathedrals that will be in heaven. And because the king. And here's the thing that people get wrong as well, is the kingdom of God in heaven, the New Jerusalem, it's not on a cloud somewhere. It's here.

>> Correct.

>> It's here. So, this is like what. And this is what I think that heaven's going to be like. You're going to be able to go with. Now, there's no sin, but let's just. I want to be able to go to a to a Ethiopia that's Christian and experience a Christian Ethiopia.

>> And I want to go to a Korea and experience Christian Korea. I think that what we know that we're going to have our same body. So, there's going to be different skin colors and we're going to be on the same Earth. We know that there might, might, might not be oceans. We know that there, there might be a different. Yeah, the, the solar reality is kind of confusing for me, too. We don't know those.

>> [laughter] We don't know those realities. Maybe because it, it almost makes it sound like just Jerusalem won't have darkness, but maybe like, you know, San Diego will have an. I don't know. Yeah, we don't know. So, but, but the reality is I do believe that the nations will still exist.

>> Yeah. Peoples, distinct peoples will still exist.

>> Yes. Cuz God created it. Exactly. So, we, we, we have to stop flattening everything, embrace the distinctions without becoming racist. That's literally like truly racist. Like that is what I'm trying to do as I go, I want a Christian world. And everybody wants to say, it's kind of like whenever you talk about a term, you talk about patriarchy, they go, "Misogynist." You talk about anti-dispensational, "Anti-Semite." You talk about, you know, anything about nationalism, "Nazi." It's like, "No. Like, stop it." That is a, that is a feministic response because you can't deal with an argument.

>> Also an effeminate response. It's, it's just don't be such a girl, dude. Have the conversation. What women do is they want the conflict to go away. So, they, they, the conversation altogether by using a scarecrow term.

>> Just ad hominem. It's, it's. I'm not even a. Or or or appeal to origin or appeal to motive. It's like, I'm not even a. And I see people do this. People who are conservative drives me freaking nuts. It's like, hey, like, you know, with Nick Fuentes, for example. It's like, I disagree with like 99% of his solutions to problems. But I agree with probably like 70-80% of the problems that he points out. And what I always tell people is like, do not just write the guy off because here's the thing. If he's the only one bringing up these problems and talking about them, and you and your anti-intellectual piety, your piety signaling garbage, you know, BS Christianity, if you won't even talk about these problems, they're going to go to him because he's talking about the problems.

>> It's. This is why I said earlier. I said, if the pastors aren't talking about it.

>> Yeah. That's why I'm trying to talk about nationalism. I'm trying to talk about immigration. I'm talking about marriage. And I want to talk about it Christianly. The problem is is I don't have anybody to go back to to look at because the reformers never had these problems. Which again gets us back to this place of, yeah, we need to like, give, give your brothers Stephen Wolfe and Joel Webben and myself and the Ogden guys. We, we need a little bit of grace because there is, we have nobody, no forefathers to look to on these topics. Like we have.

>> Well, Joel, Joel can stop calling everyone who disagrees with him a feminist. That's a little ad hominem. So.

>> [laughter] So, if we, but if we get people, we go, I am developing with a handful of people in the United States and and around the world, the very first real theology against multiculturalism. Right.

>> Because no one ever else had to do that. Same with transgenderism. Anybody that's writing books, no one's ever had to do that.

>> Ever had to do that.

>> You could argue Augustine did, but that's about it.

>> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. So, it's like we, we are trying to to do this Christianly.

>> Yeah. And people assume the worst motives. And I really do believe I'm working on a book called God's Design for Nations. And I'm, my hope is to spend a year in research and preparation on it. And. And so, but we do. We need these conversations because a lot of our problems are trickling down from a, a fragmented church around nationalism. Like when, when the nation's crumbling again, everything kind of crumbles underneath it.

>> Sure. And, and so, England's crumbling. Well, what's happening to the Anglican Church? It's crumbling, too.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, you know, uh, well, and you know what you want, what's happening in really crumbling in England is the monarchy. Yes. You want to talk about the. Okay, the church is crumbling. Who's the head of the church? The monarchy. So, the. Hey, it's a headship problem, man. Where is your headship? Your headship's absent. Right now, you've got an adulterer as the king. I love King Charles. Great sense of humor. I've heard from second-hand accounts that he is a Christian man, at least now. He certainly wasn't. And he is an adulterer. So, it's like, you, you look at. I mean, do you think Elizabeth II would have stood even for a second, a female archbishop? If it didn't, if she was still alive, that would have killed her.

>> Yeah. Uh, we are seeing the monarchy crumble. We're seeing the headship crumble. So, this. Let me, let me, I guess, uh, we're going to have to land the plane now. The, the, the, I guess the confusion I always have, and maybe this is a bad thing because it'll bring up a much longer conversation, but I don't see an America to look back to that won't eventually devolve to the same issue. Because the whole point of America from the beginning was not protest reformed Protestantism, it was schismatics. It was Puritans, it was Wesleyans, it was Congregationalists. It wasn't a nation founded by a Protestant tradition, it was a nation founded by. The reason we have evangelical multi-million denominations is because of America. If we just had the Anglican Church of America, which is essentially the Anglo Church of America, um.

>> You read your Abeka book, homeschool history book, or whatever, and it says, "Oh, the Puritans were escaping religious persecution." It's like, okay, technically, definitionally, yes, it was religious persecution, but was it rightful or wrongful religious persecution? Because the Anglicans are saying, "That's heresy. You don't get to do it here." And that's a good thing to do, to stop heresy. And they said, "Well, sick. We're just going to go do our heresy across the ocean." And now we have an America with no church over it where everyone's just allowed to practice their own version of Christianity, Quakerism, or or Puritanism, or Wesleyanism, and it's chaos. And there's no headship. And where there's a lack of headship, I'm going to sound like a papist now. Where there's a lack of headship, there's no vision, and where there's no vision, the people perish.

>> So, the answer to this whole discussion.

>> Mhm. We need a nation, like a real nation.

>> Mhm. Right now, we're kind of an empire, but we need a nation. We need a reformed Catholic Church.

>> Mhm. That'll give us authority. And then we need a monarchy.

>> Yeah. There we go. Okay.

>> Give us a king.

>> So, we have a nation, we have a king, and we have a reformed Catholic Church.

>> Yeah. Yeah. You get me with king, you'll win me over with king. If we get you an American American dynasty, King Bush, just kidding.

>> That's the. That's the solution.

>> Yeah. That's a fantastic conversation. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for admitting that yoga pants aren't sinful. I'm kidding. I'm going to clip that out. Uh, but it was absolute pleasure. I appreciate you allowing me to challenge things. Again, I, I speak as a fool, somebody who's younger, who does not have family, the leadership, the wisdom that you have just through, you know, sheer age and experience. So, I appreciate you allowing me to to challenge you and question you and disagree with you. And, and we're still going to disagree on things, and that's fantastic, and that's great. That's the point of this. Until you get your king into office, and then I'll be guillotined.

>> So, amen.

>> Look forward to the day.

>> [laughter] Thank you for the conversation.

>> Thank you, Pastor Dale. Appreciate it.