Joel Webbon on Feminism, Race, and Christendom

Anthony Abbate and Joel Webbon discuss contentious issues in our day, focusing on how Christianity and Catholicism intersect with modern challenges. They explore these topics through the lens of religion, debating various viewpoints. The discussion also touches upon biblical interpretations relevant to contemporary society.

Chapters

• 0:31 Guest Intro And Setup
• 1:52 From Complementarian To Patriarchy
• 4:16 Nature Of Preaching And Male Authority
• 5:47 Mutual Submission And Church Drift
• 6:56 Shadow Elders And Marital Order
• 7:41 Christian Nationalism At Home
• 8:12 Women, Consensus, And Power
• 9:58 Conservative Optics And Messaging
• 15:12 Interracial Marriage Debate Framed
• 19:21 Norms, Exceptions, And Revelation 7
• 24:22 Conquest, Mestizos, And Sovereignty
• 31:12 Immigration, Idolatry, And Judgment
• 40:55 Religious Liberty And National Cohesion
• 41:38 Judeo‑Christianity And Jewish Influence
• 49:57 Israel, Theology, And Romans 11
• 58:23 Protestant Quietism And Costs
• 1:04:59 Realigning Priorities Across Traditions
• 1:07:13 Support, Cancellations, And New Platform
• 1:09:24 Book Details And Closing Thanks

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:31

Joel Wevin. Um, it I've been I've been watching Joel for a while from a distance, and I thought it might be interesting to get him on for a conversation. I'm not going to do um like typically we have like a whole bunch of sponsors and stuff. I'm kind of gonna skip over that because Joel only has an hour with us. Um, but Joel, I've I've I I always keep an eye on the Protestant world and some of the things that are happening. And then uh you came across my radar probably about a year ago when you started discussing some of the more difficult topics, like uh the relationship between Christians and Jews and and how that's changed over time. I caught a conversation you have with my friend Taylor Marshall that I thought was really productive. And then you just had my friend Tim Gordon on last week. So I think the three topics that that Catholics and Protestants right now really can find a place to find common ground on are the three most important topics, in my opinion, which are feminism, race, and the relationship between Christians and Jews. Um, now I started seeing on your channel about a year ago you starting to discuss the the Jewish question and things like that. But before we get to that, I'm gonna kind of save that for the climax. I'd like to what I I saw your conversation with Tim Gordon, and you had said that if you had come out saying some of the things that Tim said in this documentary, like a wife should obey her husband and all things deferential, uh prudential, and she should do what her husband likes, wear what her husband likes, that you would have got a ton of pushback from to be fair.

SPEAKER_00: 2:16

I have said those things, and I did get a ton of pushback.

SPEAKER_01: 2:20

It's it's it's so now if you back up like 10 years, has your like what what leads to your your your changing of your stance on this to be more vocal about it? Did you always think this, or is this kind of a because I've seen you say that your opinions on this stuff have kind of evolved over time?

SPEAKER_00: 2:38

Yeah, well, yeah, 10 years ago I would not have held the positions that I do today. Um, you know, I I remember, you know, being in California. I was born and raised in Texas, but I was in California for about a decade and uh planted a church there. And I remember like transitioning to uh more of a patriarchal view, and we had, you know, about a third of the church uh left. And that was back in like 2018 and 2019. Um before that, you know, I was I was complementarian. Um so the idea that there's a difference in role between uh the sexes, uh, but it's primarily just in the church and in the home and doesn't really stretch beyond that into the public sphere or into you know the civil magistrate. And uh that this distinction and role is somewhat capricious and arbitrary on the part of God because it's um, you know, it's kind of like the mentality like that that a woman could say, anything you can do, I can do better, I could do anything better than you, but you know, uh the Bible tells me not to. Whereas now, you know, like my my views, you know, evolved like 2018, 19, um, to where, you know, like for instance, like preaching, you know, like it's it's not just that a woman um is not permitted to preach. I would say that a woman um should not preach, uh, one, because it's a command, but two, because it actually goes against her nature. It's not just that she shouldn't preach, she can't. She can't preach because preaching is not merely serving, you know, a spiritual meal of nourishment uh to the children of God and feeding them, uh, because that seems, you know, on its face to be very maternal and uh and something you know feminine and domestic. But preaching is also uh it's a call to to war. It's likened to William Wallace riding down, you know, uh the front line and slamming his sword into the spears of his men, rallying them, charging them, uh activating them as soldiers uh to wage war. And uh it's something that not just a woman is not permitted to do, but she can't do it. If she attempts to do it, um, men won't follow. Uh she's she's she's just not built in that way. So those those kind of views uh evolve for me again on the feminist issue, uh biblical patriarchy. I began to describe myself and no longer shy away from the word patriarchy, no longer see it as a bad word, but a good word and associate patriarchy directly with Christianity. Probably that that transition was complete by 2019.

SPEAKER_01: 5:00

Man, it's it's interesting because I'm I I watch you guys are kind of dealing with very similar issues in your world that we are as well. Like, I I think this idea of mutual submission might be at the root of every problem in the Christian church. Like for Catholics, the idea of mutual submission is basically like you have the priest who's the pastor of the church listening to the laity instead of being like the the patriarch of of that community and being the father who lays down the rules, he's he's uh submitting to the women who are surrounding him at the parish, in the you know, in the what whatever the secretaries and the women who help on all the different things. And it's something, you know, I'll obviously understand it more from a Catholic perspective, but I do see it happening in the Protestant world too, where pastors are afraid of the pushback they'll get from the women at their congregation.

SPEAKER_00: 5:56

Yeah, and for in the Protestant world, in some ways it's even more severe because it's not just the woman surrounding, you know, um uh the the clergy, but uh, but that clergy is typically married. And so therefore, there's one woman in particular that has his ear above all others, namely his wife. And if they have a complementarian, you know, mutually submissive uh relationship, even if he hasn't gone, you know, full-blown feminist, he's just a soft feminist, so they don't have you know female elders and they don't have a woman preaching, uh, you still have this informal role. I call it the shadow elders, you know, and it's like uh when you, you know, a pastor has, you know, a meeting with his session of elders, they agree on something, and then you know, they go home after the meeting. And within the next like day or two, you know, one by one, the elders you know begin to call the pastor and say, you know, after more prayer, after more thought, I actually don't know if we should do this. I think there might be some liabilities. And have we really considered at which point, you know, the pastor should respond by saying, Hey, can can I speak to the decision maker of your home? Um, you you weren't praying, you weren't talking to the Lord. I know what this is. You were talking to your wife. Um, so we, you know, we might as well just let's just call a spade a spade and um instead of meeting with the elders, I you know, let's just meet with all the wives uh since they're actually calling the shot. And so that's you know, I I think a lot of what occurs in Protestant, you know, conservative uh churches, you know, with conservatives like these who need liberals. But um, but that, you know, getting those things straight, uh, it's a Catholic problem, but it's also a Protestant problem. And in some ways, the Protestants have um perhaps, you know, a little bit more of a vulnerability um be because of uh having their wives. If they don't have a healthy marriage that's not established in their home, a husband is the head of the wife, uh, then they're even more vulnerable.

SPEAKER_01: 7:41

Yeah, but before we even came on today, I was talking, I was uh talking to my wife about, I was like, oh yeah, I'm gonna I'm speaking with a Protestant pastor today, and we're gonna talk about Christian nationalism. And she's like, what like she does, my wife doesn't actually have a clue about any of the conversations going on right now. But I tried to tell her, I'm like, yeah, we're probably gonna talk about how we only think Christians should be in positions of elect like elected officials and things like that. And she's like, she was shocked by that, you know. She's like, wait, you're going to say that you think non-Christians can't hold on. I'm like, yeah, this is actually like when you get to the heart of this issue, that's actually why abortion was passed, and that's why like 90% of the moral failures we're seeing in government right now are from us electing non-Christians to positions of power.

SPEAKER_00: 8:26

But the the pushback from my wife and the 19th Amendment would be a 100%.

SPEAKER_01: 8:32

Yeah, but the the pushback from her is just any women have this tendency to not want to uh be mean or say something that could go against the grain. And it's like, hon, just don't watch this episode, it's not for you, you know. Like there's a there's an element where women are incapable of just saying the thing that needs to be said because they're afraid it'll offend people.

SPEAKER_00: 8:55

Right. Yeah, I I call it um, you know, women are NPCs, and uh and I you know define that as a yeah, sure, a non-player character kind of mentality that there's an element of that, but to be a little bit more specific, uh, women are NPCs um in the sense that NPC stands for naturally pursuing consensus. So um there there's something, and and I think that that's God given. I I don't think that that's wrong. I don't think that you know that we have to beat women up um over that, but uh there's there's something to be said for just uh the domestic, feminine, submissive nature of a woman that is innate uh to the way that God designed her, to where she she naturally wants to go with the flow. She's not naturally rebellious, like all these blue-haired, you know, 22-year-old single women on SSRIs, you know, who are raging against the patriarchy. Um, if you really break it down, think about it, it's not that they're actually rebellious against authority. They're actually going 100% with the grain of the current zeitgeist, which is currently in authority. Um, it's it's this idea that we need to win over all the women, and that we need to do it through persuasion, uh, that we need to do it, you know, one heart and one mind at a time. You really don't. Uh, you can take an extreme minority of high-caliber um Christian men, uh, win uh politically, win in terms of real influence and power over institutions, uh, media, entertainment, politics, academia. And the moment that you win, and that becomes the central message of your society, uh, the women, just like, you know, like a robot, uh all of a sudden they'll stop. Uh, the chip will be removed of feminism, and and they'll pretend as though they believed it all along, naturally pursuing consensus. Women right now are not raging against the machine, they're not rebelling against the man, they're not thinking independently, they're not actually being rebellious. What they're doing is actually exactly what they're designed by God to do. Women currently today, liberal, feminist, progressive women, are submitting. It's not that they're not submitting, they're submitting. The problem is that the current reigning dogma and authority is a feminist authority, and so they're submitting to that. So you don't have to win women one heart at a time. You have to win the actual battle. Um, and the women will just follow suit. They're they're insignificant, um, not in the sight of God, not in the ultimate, spiritual, eternal sense. Um, I have four daughters, I love them immensely. I have a wife, I love her immensely, but they're insignificant in winning the war. Um, you we're not fighting against women, we're fighting against wicked men. And when we win that battle, the women will be ransomed. The women are the women are not the enemy. The women are really the damsel in distress. They're under a spell, right? They're guarded by a dragon. Um, and we have to go and and get the girl. And we don't just go and get the girl by climbing up the tower and secretly while the dragon is sleeping, whisper and have um, you know, the free market of ideas and see if we can change her mind. We can't change her mind. Like, literally, like there's a chip in the back of her head telling her what to think. She's not capable of changing her mind. What has to happen is not conversing with a woman. What has to happen is stabbing the dragon, kill the beast, kill the dragon. And all of a sudden the woman will say, Oh, yeah, I love, I love biblical patriarchy and and I love this and I love that. And I I really I always have. And you can say, No, well, sweetheart, actually, you are a raging feminist, but but God bless you, and I'm glad you've come back to your senses.

SPEAKER_01: 12:21

Well, part of part of the issue isn't just the liberal raging feminists, but I think I think one of the bigger issues we face is the so-called conservative women that that are out in public. Like you guys have your Liz's, we have our Lilas. You know, the Catholic world has Lila, you guys have your crazy Protestant Lizzie on Twitter.

SPEAKER_00: 12:40

We have our Lizzies, you have your Lilas, the Jews have their uh their Liliths. Liliths.

SPEAKER_01: 12:46

It's just because I think so we're we're swimming in such feminist waters at this point. It's almost like the fish doesn't know it's in the water, you know. Like we've we've been given propaganda for so long that even guys that I would consider like traditional Catholics don't get how deep this problem runs, and that they're they're putting women up on this pedestal to go and preach this conservative message. It's like a true conservative message takes women out of the equation completely and it's just an oxymoron.

SPEAKER_00: 13:20

It's an oxymoron. Um, but that but that's what we've done, you know. Like Catholics have done it um to some degree, Protestants have done it to some degree, and it's on every issue, you know. So if it's feminism, it's like, uh man, feminism is really tearing the world apart and it's hurting the church and it's hurting the nation. Quick, you know, call Ali Bestucky. Let's find a blonde hair girl, you know, and put her in front of a bunch of, you know, uh both a mixed audience of men and women and get her to tell men to, you know, to uh to get it together, and so that we still are able to, you know, keep up the appearance of being conservative, you know, we'll we'll try to, you know, thinly veil it and some kind of encouragement towards men, like men, we need your strength, you know, and so don't look at porn and don't I will we we actually don't we need men who don't look at porn. Uh what we don't need is a woman chastising men, even if it's wrapped in some kind of comforting, consoling language. You need a man to be saying that. And we do the same thing with race, right? So, like during you know, all the woke wars, you know, of 2021, 2022, and the right, you know, is uh finally starting to push back against DEI, these kinds of things. It's like, all right, you know, like uh this is a problem, uh, quick, you know, somebody uh somebody call Thomas Sowell, you know, quick, you know, somebody get Bodie Baccom, quick. Like, is there a black man anywhere, you know, that we can hide behind as a shield as he, you know, uh regurgitates our conservative talking points? When the reality is you could you can just come out, you don't have to be a blonde-haired chick, and you don't have to be a black man. You can come out as a white Christian man and simply say, look, race is real. Um, all this DEI stuff is nonsense. It needs to stop. But not just the DEI in one direction, the direction of the woke, the direction of progressives and liberals. Um, but but it's like at first, I'll say this, it's a little spicy, but it's true. It's absolutely true. And and I can say it without any hatred in my heart for anybody else. Um, at first it was kind of like, look, we got to get rid of DEI, and and then it was like, okay, we probably need to realize that race is not just a social construct, that it actually exists. Um, but now what I realized is um if we want to be faithful in in context, right? So I'm not saying this is the universal, you know, uh mold for what faithfulness as a Christian looks like in Uganda, you know, or what it looks like in Ghana, or what it uh, but I'm saying in our time and place here in America, which is historically built by, you know, predominantly white European settlers, and still to this day is 59% majority white, European descent, um, it's not enough to just be a race realist. You should be pro, uh, without apology, unadulterated, pro-white. And what I mean by that is not that you're anti-anybody else, not that you have hatred towards anybody else. Like I'm not of the position. And I know, you know, people will drag me in the comments and say, you're not that base. Like, I'm not of the position. I don't think Clarence Thomas has to go back. I love Clarence Thomas, I'm grateful for him. Um, you know, so I I'm not advocating for anything like that. Uh, but I do think that um that there should be, it's it's not just that we're against DEI, but if anything, like we should be pro-Heritage Americans. And I would say at some at some level, that also includes heritage blacks. Um, but uh yeah, like white young men in our context, not everywhere universally, but in America that was historically a white nation, is still a white majority nation. Uh, the founders told us who they were doing everything for, for us and our posterity. They weren't doing it for India, they weren't doing it for Asia, they they were doing it for their future posterity, their children's children. And um, and those individuals who are you know descendants of the founding stock of the country should um they they should receive uh a blessing. They they should be treated well. Um when we're thinking about you know who is able to provide for their family and find gainful employment and all these kinds of things, um, there should, I think there should be a deference uh that is afforded to uh the native citizens of a particular country. If you're in Japan and you say, all right, we're gonna have non-Japanese ethnically speaking people and extend to them citizenship. Uh, but we're going as a nation, we're going to emphasize publicly uh in terms of our public rhetoric, um our festivities, our traditions, our parades, you know, our culture, these kinds of things, we are going to give a special deference towards uh native Japanese citizens. That that wouldn't be racist, that would be good and proper, natural and and fitting. And so, you know, to have that kind of mindset, uh, but all of it back to the conservatives standing in the way, you know, with conservatives like these who need liberals, it's it's on the feminist issue, it's on the race issue. Uh anytime conservatives uh try to take a stand, they're actually they're they're already they're already um surrendering the issue uh by by simply saying, well, it shouldn't matter what what color you are. Um, but you know, behind the scenes, they're like, quick, find a black guy to say that. You know, or uh we we should be pro-men, you know, men are the head of their household. Quick. Uh let's find uh uh a chick at the blaze to say that, you know, like then you don't really believe it. You don't really believe it.

SPEAKER_01: 18:37

It's it's it's funny because I watched, okay, so you had the debate with Rooslan and I don't know the other guy's name. I only know Avery.

SPEAKER_00: 18:44

Avery is his name.

SPEAKER_01: 18:45

So you had that debate with them just discussing interracial matters. Now I think the I I think the I think the hardest part of that conversation was trying to debate it from scripture when um it's like the this to me was more of uh like a a common sense, uh like just kind of a natural uh natural theology kind of conversation where I mean I don't think you're going to see anything in scripture that explicitly tells you you shouldn't have interracial marriage, but there is something about like uh even this conversation now, like Americans are trying to like keep their identity as Americans, right? And when you open the borders up and flood the borders with people from third world nations and people, especially these, especially the the immigrants that are coming that don't even have they're not even coming from a Christian culture. The way that's going to upend the American identity, and the way they're doing it is they're pushing these foreigners into your local suburbs to make it so that when your kids go to school, your your your white daughter is going to fall in love with a a guy that doesn't look anything like her. Like it was very intentional and social engineering the way they did it. I think that the difficulty That conversation was a couple of things. One, uh, the issue's a little too close to Ruslan's heart because Ruslan's in an interracial marriage.

SPEAKER_00: 20:07

So and his wife, I've briefly met her. She's a great, great gal.

SPEAKER_01: 20:11

Yeah, like so. I think he was taking what you were saying way too personally. But I do, I do think there are just um, uh, I think it was um Bishop Williams had said interracial marriage isn't a sin against God, but it might be a sin against common sense. Like, there's the to to to say that there is no difference in white culture and black culture is absurd. The it you look at the music and the way black culture behaves, and there is a black culture in America. Now, to just stick a uh, you know, a a white girl with a black guy or a black uh a black girl with a white guy, there's going to be a clash of cultures that gets deeper to more than just oh, they love one another. There are real cultural issues that are going to come into play. Also, their children, when they're when their children come about, their children will struggle with identity. Am I white? Am I black? They're just it's such a uh a logical conversation over a scriptural conversation, in my opinion.

SPEAKER_00: 21:08

Yeah, so I completely agree. I think it it's uh much more rooted in nature than it's um explicitly said in the Bible. It's not explicitly said in the Bible, and just for the record, that uh was a part of my argument. So the thesis, I'm the one who you know who formulated the thesis for the debate, and my side, we were in the affirmative. And the thesis was interracial marriage while being biblically permissible. So I acknowledge that right out of the gate. There uh it's not a sin, and the Bible does not condemn it or prohibit interracial marriage. So interracial marriage while being biblically permissible, ordinarily, right? Um, or I know I said generally, um, generally goes against, um, so not not uh universally, not in each and every uh individual case, but in a general sense, it generally goes against God's normative slash ordinary plan for peoples, cultures, and nations. Um, and so in in the reverse, what what I would say is that they're saying, well, you didn't prove that from the Bible. And I understand that. Um, that wasn't really my goal. Uh, but what I would say is that that that can just be reversed and say, like, all right, if you're disagreeing, right, you're in the denial. I'm in the affirmative of that thesis uh statement that I just espoused. You're taking the denying position, but you're saying it has to be rooted in scripture, okay. Um, then uh what I would say is, you know, they they would they walked away, Roosalan and Avery saying, you know, um, we won the debate because Joel wasn't able to prove it from scripture. But if you're on the opposite side of that debate, then you actually you still have to prove it from scripture and you have to prove the opposite. So what you'd have to do is you'd have to say, Scripture explicitly tells us that interracial marriage, which is biblically permissible, generally does not go against um, and in instead, the opposite uh generally is God's plan, uh, God's normative plan. So you would you'd have to be saying interracial marriage, which is biblically permissible, generally is God's normative plan for peoples, nations, and cultures. And I would say that that that wasn't proven at all. Like, so if you're if you're saying that I'm wrong, um, you know, because I'm saying it generally goes against God's normative, ordinary plan for peoples, cultures, and nations. So if you're saying I'm wrong, then you're essentially saying uh that interracial marriage generally goes with or is God's normative plan. Um, and and I didn't see that proven at all. Because if all you're doing is pointing out the exceptions, well, in the line of Christ, you know, you have Ruth and Rahab, um, great. Okay, so let's just let's look at Abraham to Christ. How many generations, how many people are in that lineage, in that ancestry? Uh, you pointed out two, right? But the numbers, if we're just strictly playing a numbers game, because we're talking about what's normative, uh, well, then it's, you know, for every, for every Gentile who's grafted into that family tree, there's, you know, 10 or 20 um Israelites, you know, and so that that actually proves my point, because my point was never to say that it's not permissible or that it's a sin. My point was to say what is normative. And and basically what I'm getting at with that is I'm saying um at scale in the macro, if interracial marriage um is accepted as normative and and it is God's normative, ordinary plan for peoples, cultures, and nations, if that's believed and then practice, that belief is carried out at scale in the macro, not the micro. I have interracial couples in my church. I've I've uh officiated interracial marriages. But if that becomes the we're saying that's the normative, not only permissible, but it's the normative plan of God for peoples, cultures, and nations. And therefore it should be normal and it should be practiced in the macro. Um, then what you have is uh essentially it's going to result in the complete erosion of distinct peoples. You're you're no longer going to have distinct peoples. And then Revelation, you know, chapter seven, verse nine falls apart. This idea of you don't get eternal uh diversity of every tribe, tongue, and nation worshiping around the throne of God if you erode every distinction and diversity here on earth. Uh, the only way you have diversity in heaven is if you're able to maintain some sense of diversity temporally here on earth. Um, and so I would say because we know the end game of the the eternal, that there will be multiple tribes, tongues, and nations, um, I would say that you know that we can derive from good and necessary consequence that that that seems to be the normative plan temporally here on earth, is that tribes and tongues and nations would remain at least um normatively, uh at least generally distinct.

SPEAKER_01: 25:48

Yeah, it seems like they're they're almost pushing for the George Soros open borders, like uh one world. Like that's it's a very globalist idea to just mix everybody together and get some mishmosh thing instead of keeping peoples distinct. So even one person said, Yeah, I'm mixed race, white and Asian Pacific Islander. While I'm obviously happy my parents got together, I have no path forward to help advance my people because I don't have a people, I'm a mutt. Like that's that's basically what it comes down to. And and we've seen this in even throughout all the stuff we saw with the woke stuff, where you would have girls who would be half black, half white hating their white side because they're involved in this indoctrination where it's telling you white people are bad. So they they actually hate half of their lineage. So it's like there there is a real conversation that needs to be had there, and it can't just be Joel Webbon said something mean. It's like you're you're looking at a situation and saying, wait, like, yes, if you meet an interracial couple, you treat them with love and they have dignity, and and it's but there is in a in a very real sense that is not the ideal. Ideally, you would want your your your husband and wife to come from the same background and culture to pass that on.

SPEAKER_00: 27:01

And just to be extra, you know, extra careful and extra, you know, accurate with our language. I, you know, the word ideal in this in this case, I don't think is particularly helpful. I would just say it's not the norm. Um because I would say that, you know, like Ruth and Boaz, like, was their marriage in the sight of God an ideal marriage? And I would say, yeah, um, yeah, I think it was it was ideal. Uh was it normative? No. Um it was the exception, not the norm. Um, a permissible exception. And because it is a permissible exception, the full um gambit of of potential to have a healthy, God-glorifying marriage was available to them so that they could actually achieve an ideal marriage in the micro, right? In in their specific case study. Um, but uh so I would say that it can be ideal, like we have interracial couples in our church that I would say, hey, they have great marriages. Um, but but they would say, uh, yeah, my marriage is great, but I recognize it's not the norm. And although it's permissible, and although I, you know, I engaged in this and I don't have you know no regrets, you know, I love my wife or I love my husband, um, this is not the norm. I recognize that, and I don't want it to be um the norm. I I want it to be permissible. I know that it will be the exception and that God can bless this when you have two individuals who are Christians who are submitted to him. Uh, but no, this this isn't uh normative. And if it were, um then, you know, then we would lose all the distinctions that that we love. Like uh, you know, the husband, if he's white, you know, thinking of all his traditions and his, you know, white European side of the family. And uh if if the woman is, you know, whatever, she's Brazilian, you know, or she's um, you know, she's uh she's Japanese or or Korean, like she loves that. She loves her culture, she loves her people, she loves her nation. And uh, and and so yeah, I think if you just say this, this is not the norm. And you know, with with the debate that we had, um, you know, that that's essentially what I was saying is that this generally, so really, you know, um using that word general to mean not universally, not in every single case, but in general, which which assumes exceptions, um, in general, uh, this would go against God's um not his prescriptive commandment, but his normative uh providence, his normative plan. And if you're arguing against that, you can't just say, well, you're wrong because you didn't prove it with chapter and verse in a biblicist fashion. No, if you're arguing against that, you you really do have to argue the opposite. You have to say interracial marriage is the normative plan. It is the normative plan, in which case, um, then you you kind of have to point out the obvious and say that, you know, well, throughout um all of human history until 15 minutes ago, um, pretty much every nation in the world has been rebelling um in the macro, rebelling against God's normative plan for marriage and for people and for cultures and for nations. And we're really the first generation in all of human history um to, you know, to actually love Jesus and not be evil racist. And I just refused to condemn all of my fathers, all of my ancestors.

SPEAKER_01: 30:16

The uh so when all right, so this is this is somebody's saying a point to consider the Spaniards and Aztecs. So what happens is you have uh like the Aztecs and you had the like the in in South America, these pagan tribes, and then when the Christians come and evangelize them, they are they do intermarry and like m form this mestizo culture that's but it's now Christian.

SPEAKER_00: 30:41

So I don't think but not just that, it's uh what's important for the listener to pick up on is um the Aztecs, you're right. The Aztecs ended up mixing with um the Spaniards and creating a new ethnicity. That's absolutely absolutely true. And under the banner of God's so we have to understand the two wills of God there's his moral or permissive or revealed will, those things which are revealed to us, but the hidden things, you know, those things which are revealed to us belong to us and to our children forever. But those things which are hidden, um, you know, are are not revealed, belong to the Lord. And so the two wills of God are never in contradiction to one another, but but we recognize that God has his revealed, explicit moral will, um, that his permissive will, as some theologians would argue, but then also his sovereign or hidden will. And uh, for instance, an example would just be Jesus. We know from the book of Acts, uh, you know, it says, you know, all these people were gathered in Jerusalem, your holy city, um, to um um uh to see what your hand and your plan predestined to take place to your holy servant Jesus. So we know in God's um revealed will, his moral will, what he commands, uh well, one of the things that he commands is thou shalt not murder. Um, was Jesus murdered? Was he an innocent man sentenced to death? Yes. So God, in his revealed will, uh says, Do not murder. In his sovereign will, he ordains the murder of his own son as a lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. So what God ordaineth in terms of his sovereignty, um, he does for his good, holy, and righteous purposes. Um, but that doesn't mean that it's prescribed uh in scripture. So my point is back to the Aztecs and the Spaniards. Uh that's one example, and we know that there are many, again, not the majority, not normative, but there are many examples that can be cited throughout human history where one people um ultimately ends up, you know, um mixing with another people and a new nation, a new culture, a new ethnicity, new race um is forged out of that. But one, I would say, again, it's the exception, not the norm. And two, this is a big thing to realize, uh, the Aztecs they forged with the Spaniards to create a new people. But the Aztecs, as it was happening, and we can't miss this, the Aztecs were conquered. They didn't just this was not a happy agreement. This was not, hey, you know what, let's get together, you know, and and build a bear, you know, and make uh no, the Aztecs were conquered by Spain. They were conquered by the Spaniards. And so there are examples throughout human history, but they usually have to do with one nation conquering another. And so for me as an American and looking at our rich Christian tradition uh traditions and history and these things, um, it could be in God's sovereign will, his hidden will, um, that he has determined that the third world would completely invade the West due to as a as a judgment due to our apostasy and turning away from Christ, and that out of that he would take something that is a judgment and therefore inherently a bad thing. You're not supposed to celebrate judgment, you're not supposed to celebrate being conquered. These are judgments from God. So he would take something that is a bad thing, that's a judgment for our apostasy, but in his mercy and kindness under his sovereign will, not what's prescribed, revealed will, but his sovereign will, use that to forge a new people that he plans one day to redeem by his grace and that they might become a great people and a great name. That's great. That might be what God's up to, right? In the same way that God might be up to um when when one particular woman gets raped, right? Just this is this is a strong but a good example. God might be up to that that uh woman is impregnated. She makes the right choice and doesn't punish the child, right? The man who did this heinous thing, he should be punished. But the child shouldn't be. And so she does the right thing, she keeps the child, she raises the child, loves the child as um their mother, gives them a Christian education. God saves that child and uses that child to be uh some powerful preacher, you know, that he uses to bring revival to America and thousands of people are saved. Praise God, in his sovereign will, he did something extraordinary. But we would never look at that woman and say, um, you know, or or look at the masses, you know, beyond just that woman and say, so rape is great. Yeah, we would never say that. We said, no, it's terrible in God's permissive, revealed will, his inscription will it is immoral, it is heinous, it is wicked. And that individual who did this heinous thing is, I believe it's a capital crime. It should receive capital punishment. So back to the Aztecs and the Spaniards, I would just say, um, yeah, a new people were formed in God's sovereignty, and he does all things well, all which he ordaineth is accordance with his sovereign will, but in his prescribed will, um, nobody uh in the in the moment, right, 500 years later or whatever, that that's different. But in the moment, no people should be actively being conquered by by invasion of foreign nations, especially those which worship foreign gods, foreign pagan nations, and say, hey, you know what? This is great. In fact, you know what? I think this is the norm. Uh, you know what? If anybody, you know, even objects to this, uh, they're they're probably a racist. That's stupid. That's a stupid conclusion.

SPEAKER_01: 36:14

It it comes down to like like we're in a position where we're we're talking about this because we we're saying, like, do we want this? Like, like, do like because the argument could be made from the Aztec thing, like, well, maybe that's what's happening in America, where there'll be a new culture that's what, but it's like, do we want this? I don't think we do. I think that we actually have a culture that was handed down to us that is worth preserving, and we want to make sure we aren't conquered.

SPEAKER_00: 36:40

Amen. The Aztecs did not want it. Um, and you might say, well, yeah, but ultimately for their posterity and future generations, it was actually good because the Aztecs were pagan. Okay, all right. Well, that's not our situation. In our case, it's not that a pagan nation, aka America, is being conquered and mixed with Christian nations. It's actually the exact opposite. We are being conquered by Muslim nations, we are being conquered by uh pagan nations, we're being conquered by Jewish nations, we're, you know, we're being conquered by non-Christian nations.

SPEAKER_02: 37:14

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 37:14

Um, the immigration that we're experiencing is not making us more Christian. It's actually diluting the the little bit of Christian remnants that uh that remain. And so yeah, there's no way to look at this and say, you know what, this is great. I think that, you know, I think this is God's normative plan and um we should go with the flow. And and uh this is actually really moral and really good. No, it's not.

SPEAKER_01: 37:38

Yeah, I worry way less about um the immigration coming in from Christian lands than I do worry, than I worry about the Muslim immigration coming in, the Hindu immigration coming in, like they're erecting they're erecting statues and to these foreign gods or having Diwali celebrations. Like there really is something that needs to like we have to decide as a nation do we want to keep this country as a Christian nation? Right. And by allowing all of these foreign gods to come in, like that there's there's an element of God's judgment that will come upon us for abandoning our God. It's happened throughout. I mean, if you go back through salvation history, it happens every time the the Israelites start playing with idol, idol worship and things like that. If you abandon your God, you will face God's judgment.

SPEAKER_00: 38:27

And it's kind of like a cycle, it it's it's circular in the sense that like Israel. So on the one hand, um, Israel being invaded and taken captive by foreigners was a judgment for certain sins that they had already committed, uh, such as idolatry. Uh, but but then also at in the same way, they're being conquered and invaded by foreign peoples who worship foreign gods, also uh it would it was a judgment for prior sin, but then it also uh created opportunity and temptation for them to sin even more and then incur even greater judgment. So I would say that on the one hand, I think we're being invaded. Um the globalism, the mass immigration, all these kinds of things, I think we're being uh invaded as a judgment for sins we already committed. One of them, there are many, but one in particular that we can name is the sin of abortion. I think that um America, because of abortion and the sacrifice and slaughter of our own children in the womb, uh, God has placed us under his judgment. And this invasion is a form of that judgment. On the other hand, the invasion itself also is a sin because it's voluntary. Uh, we are choosing to open the good the doors and to welcome in not just different people, but um, but unbelieving, non Christian people who worship other gods and then carving out religious and legislative exceptions for them to exalt. High places and idols in our land that defile the nation and make it an offense in the sight of God and incurs even greater judgments. So it's it's kind of both. It's like the invasion is a judgment for the sin of abortion and others, sin of sodomy would be another. So the invasion and the globalism, the mass immigration is a judgment for abortion and for homosexuality. With the invasion, uh invasion, which is a judgment for prior sin, it's also opening up the door for further sin, the sin of of of idolatry and allowances for all these false gods, which will incur even greater judgment. And so it's it's kind of this this vicious cycle.

SPEAKER_01: 40:44

It's kind of well, it's one of one of the things uh as a Catholic, we always um like we never had the position of religious freedom the way Protestants do, right? Because error has no rights, and when you have religious freedom, like it's one thing to to say, um, like you can have a different denomination and and you know, religious freedom in that aspect, but the idea that you can just allow any religion to have just as much rights as Christianity does, it will decimate the fabric of your culture. And you know you what you what you wind up getting is elected officials who no longer see Christ as king and no longer see themselves as subject to the natural law, the moral law that comes from our Christian heritage, not our Judeo-Christian heritage, which will kind of lead us into um you wrote a book on the hyphenated heresy. Um, I want to make sure we at least touch on that while you're here. So uh about a year ago, I started seeing your content starting to address this issue. What were the first things that you started seeing that made you start? Because I mean, if you if you backed up 10 years from me, I'd have been the guy saying Israel is our greatest ally and they're the only democracy in the Middle East and things like that. And it's it's I know I know my own evolution on this uh weird word to use evolution, but like my own development of thought on this issue, a lot of it comes from scripture and understanding the old testament and seeing that the entire story is basically, especially when you go to the book of Genesis, you see the whole golden thread that runs through Genesis is about the firstborn doesn't get the birthright and it goes to the secondborn. It starts with Abraham's Ishmael and and uh and Isaac. Ishmael's the firstborn, it winds up going to Isaac, then it winds up going to Jacob and Esau. Esau's the firstborn, it goes to Jacob, and it goes right through that whole thing. And all of that is Ephrum and Manasseh. It's it's all to symbolize Israel is God's firstborn, they don't get the birthright, and it goes to the to the gentiles instead. And there's this inherent opposition to the to the Jews who reject Christ and the Gentile nations who receive him, and that that enmity existed from the time when the temple is destroyed up until the present, but that whole narrative seems to have collapsed after World War II when Christians were then convinced to see Jews as their friend and not view them with suspicion, but it doesn't appear they have the same, they don't reciprocate that they still hold suspicion against us.

SPEAKER_00: 43:22

Right. Yeah, no, I I think uh for me, you know, the the development of that thought was, you know, a lot of it was historical. So, you know, there's the theological piece and understanding, you know, supersessionism and um and covenant theology and these kinds of things, you know, from uh a scriptural perspective, but but historically uh just coming to uh coming to grips with um with the the reality of of uh the negative impacts of Jewish influence in Christian countries and in the West. And looking at that, it became undeniable. And for the record, I I wanted to attribute all this to malice. So I'm I'm not of the position that you know every every Jewish person is you know uh a part of some secret cabal, you know, and having you know secret Zoom meetings, you know, and and doing the hand rubbing thing and you know, and committing some kind of you know sacrifice of children or whatever, and plotting to destroy the world. Um, I think there's a much more benign explanation and more charitable and and I think more truthful, more accurate. Uh the reality is that Jewish people are uh an extreme minority, and um, and so whatever country they're in, other than um Israel, whatever Western country they find themselves in, that they that they make home, uh they're always going to gravitate towards uh political policies, economic policies, cultural policies, uh influence from media and entertainment and academia, you know, academic policies and ideologies and all these kinds of things that would favor minorities. Um and so, you know, and and not again, not necessarily from malice, um, but but simply from um a survival instinct. Uh my like my my position in terms of like solutions, you know, to the problem is not um uh that you know every Jew is evil and that they should be punished. That's not my position. My position is simply to say, um, I'm a simple man. I want for America what what uh what Jews want for Israel. I just I just think that we should do it too. Like um we should do what they're doing. We should have an in-group preference. We should view ourselves as um a collective, right? Not just as atomistic individualism, but we should view ourselves as a collective, as a people. We should favor our people, have an in-group preference. Uh, we should make sure that when it comes to the political positions of leadership for our people, that it's uh that it is, you know, accurately represented by our people. We shouldn't have disproportionate uh representation in our political offices of authority uh by foreign peoples, but rather it should be our people, native people. Um, that's you know, that that's and so what I what I realize is that again, not necessarily malice. I'm sure there's some Jews that that absolutely have malice, and some of them have said it out loud, but it wouldn't be fair to say, you know, and that's par for the course, that's every Jew. That's um, I think that the average Jewish person living in America, um, they they're simply going to have um, like your Ben Shapiro, for instance, they're simply going to be inclined. Their heart is going to be inclined, this natural propensity towards uh the welfare of another country, uh, Israel, and not not just America. They're gonna, they're gonna always going to uh side on, you know, the the side of wanting America to come to Israel's defense, you know, to like, hey, you know, like I, you know, we have special missiles that can, you know, break through bunkers and destroy the, you know, whatever, the nukes that Iran has been building, you know, that they're two weeks away from, and they've been two weeks away for the last 30 years. And, you know, we have this weaponry, we have the technology, and Israel doesn't. And so we should, we should get involved in a foreign affair and come to the defense of Israel. That's that's not, you know, to be fair, that's not necessarily sinister. Like I like Ben Shapiro, it's easy to give him a hard time, but I don't think he's you know sitting there, you know, like, well, ha ha ha ha, I hate America and I want it to be destroyed. No, I I think instead he's just sitting there as an Orthodox Jew, ethnically and religiously, and he's saying, um, yeah, I am in America. I have influence um with many, many Americans that listen to me, political influence, cultural influence, and I'm going to use the power that I have, not necessarily with malice in my heart, but with adoration, affection in my heart for my native people and my native country, Israel. And so my my point is as I started seeing that and realizing, like liberalism, for instance, I think liberalism is destroying the West. Uh, but liberalism, I think, um, there's plenty of non, you know, non-Jewish people, white European people who uh were integral to the project of liberalism and its devolvement to you know modern 20th century liberalism. Uh, but there has been a disproportionate Jewish um um influence and impact in this project of liberalism. And again, it makes perfect sense. Liberalism, the engine, the heart of liberalism is egalitarianism. And egalitarianism, when enforced and and when it has widespread adoption, will always favor the minority. Um it's it's it's going to be policies, it's going to be um a cultural way of thinking, a milieu uh that um that favors and and creates safety uh measures, protections, uh favorability for um for minority people. And so because Jews, until very recently, 1948, have always been um, you know, they've always been a minority, refugee type people living in another nation, they've always been pushing for policies and ideology um and ideas uh that that would make it more favorable for minority peoples living in a host nation. That makes sense. I and it doesn't have to be sinister, but we should recognize um that although it makes sense, although it's not sinister, it still is unfavorable for us. And so we shouldn't allow it. We we should say, yeah, we're not gonna have um we're not gonna have a disproportionate amount of Jews serving in political office in America. Do that, you have a country now, do that in Israel.

SPEAKER_01: 49:54

Yeah, well, what worries me about even um because I used to, I used to um I used to be like, oh well, Israel has the right to exist and all that stuff. But I I what worries me is the theological, in that part of the part of the reason they are dispersed throughout the nations is because they reject Christ. So it's like a punishment that they are dispersed. I mean, Christ talks about it in Matthew 24, talking about the destruction of the temple, not one stone will stand on top of another. So the idea that they're even gathered back in at this time seems like something uh that God is allowing for a purpose. And while you can't say all, that doesn't mean there aren't some that that have. I mean, if you go back and you watch even some of the things Netanyahu is saying, he's talking about America as the new Rome and that they're not going to lose the next war with Rome, and that they like there's just there's so many theological implications to all of this that it's one thing to discuss it from the political aspect and things like that. But I do see this as being a significant um turning point in salvation history.

SPEAKER_00: 51:07

Yeah, no, I think you're right. Uh, you know, Netanyahu, I I believe is a war criminal. I think he's uh a terrible, terrible man. Um, but yeah, from the theological standpoint, um, yeah, it's Israel is um, you know, they they you know, these people are under God's judgment uh for a rejection of uh their Messiah. And uh and the whole, you know, the theological impetus is, you know, Paul talks about like that that they would one of the things that God would use, uh, a mechanism to win them over to Christ uh would be a godly sense of envy, that they would look at Christian nations, gentile Christian nations, see uh the benevolence and blessing and kindness of God, and that that would drive them to um to a spiritual and godly sense of envy, that they would recognize, man, like the blessing of God is departed from us, and uh and the blessing of God has fallen upon Gentile Christian nations that have received the Messiah and received Christ as king. And we we want that too. We don't want to stand outside as the father is celebrating with you know the younger brother, kind of like the prodigal son kind of picture. We don't want to be the older brother who's throwing a fit outside and stamping his feet. We should go in and welcome our younger brother and be reconciled to our father by by receiving um his son, the messiah. And so, theologically speaking, at minimum, um, if you love Jews, uh, then you should, you know, you should want their highest and eternal good, namely their salvation, their repentance and conversion to Christ. And if you want that, you know, even from a Romans 11 perspective, um, you should recognize that that in Scripture, one of the chief tools that God says he's going to use to win them to Christ is um a sense of jealousy for his blessing, which has fallen on Gentile Christian nations. So then what would happen if these Gentile Christian nations took all the blessing that God is giving them and gave it to the rebellious brother, right? So imagine like you're inside, the father is throwing a feast for you, not because you've earned it by any merit inherent to yourself, but because of Christ and his finished work on your behalf, but you, by grace, have been welcomed into the father's house. There's a big feast, there's a party, there's a celebration, and the older brother is standing outside, stamping his feet, being mad. And instead of uh allowing him to look through the window and finally come to his senses and realize, what am I doing? I should go in, I should repent, I should humble myself and share in all the blessings and the feast and the party with my father and my younger brother. Instead, imagine you're the younger brother, and instead of letting the brother come to his, the older brother come to his senses through a godly sense of jealousy, you open the window and start just um shoving out all the food. You take the fatted calf, you take, you know, the desserts, and you take this and you take that, and you take all, and you just start siphoning all of it and say, hey, hey, older brother, you know what? It's actually fine that you stay outside and that you stay in in impenitence or rebellion against dad. Like you hate dad and you hate his son. Um, but you know what? Dad's blessing that he gave to me, I'll give it all to you uh with your rebellion. You don't actually, you actually don't have to repent. It's actually, my point is theologically, it's the most hateful thing. Anybody who claims to be a Christian, it's the most uh eternally hateful thing that you could do for the Jews that you claim to love. Because essentially what you're doing is you are um attempting to take the blessing of God and tell your uh your Jewish counterpart uh the blessing of God uh does not actually require, there is no prerequisite. It does not require faith in Jesus, it does not require repentance of sins, it does not require the ceasing of rebellion against the Christ. You can have all the blessings of God while rejecting Jesus, and that's what we've been doing for 75 years as the Christian West.

SPEAKER_01: 55:15

Yeah, I mean if you go back and read almost all we're literally damning them to hell.

SPEAKER_00: 55:19

What we're doing is we're essentially we are damning Jews to hell.

SPEAKER_01: 55:22

Almost all of the parables are about the the Jews who reject Christ. Like it's I mean, you go to the weddings, like uh the parable of the of the wedding. All of them, the parable of of the prodigal son is very much what you just explained, where the older brother are the Jews who reject Christ, and the younger brother are the Gentile nations who receive him. Almost all of the parables are like that.

SPEAKER_00: 55:46

And and the workers, the tenants in the vineyard, like uh God sends to them, you know, or the like the God figure, the master of the vineyard sends to them a servant um in order to reap his harvest, his due share for his vineyard that he's let out to these tenants. And instead of you know actually giving that portion over to the servant that he might return it to God, the master, they beat him up, you know. In another one, they just they ridicule. And then finally, the master in this parable says, I'll send my son, surely they'll respect my son. But when the son appears, they say, This is the heir, the one to inherit it all. And so let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. And then Jesus turns to the Pharisees and Sadducees, those Jewish religious rulers, and says, What will the master do when he finds out that they've killed his son? And they answer rightly, and they say, Well, he'll strip away the vineyard and he'll give it to another who is worthy. And Jesus says, Correct. Yeah, so all you're right, all of these parables are literally Jesus explicitly saying, I'm taking it from the Jews, I'm taking it from the Jews, I'm taking it from the Jews, I'm taking it. Every single parable, every single one of these is like Jesus, like, that's you, that's you, and and then you have all these evangelical Christians saying the opposite, which is madness.

SPEAKER_01: 56:56

It goes to even there's two Judases, right? Like the apostles, there's two Judases, one who betrays him and one who follows him. It goes to um, and even even with Romans 11, with uh the Jews being grafted back on at the end, like I would bring that back to like the reunification of Jacob and Esau after their enmity between them, right? To Joseph coming back and meeting his brothers. There will be a time where there's a reunification of the brothers and there's a grafting back in. We're just not in that time right now. It's you know, it's just people have to keep that perspective where we are in the story right now. Um yeah, it's uh it's man, I because what what what do you are there any other Christian pastors talking about this that are public right now? Like, because I I see very few of you guys, like for the most part, it's either Christian Zionists or a lot of the Protestants are just like, I'm gonna kind of stay away from the Israel question totally, but not talking about like the theological significance of what is going on right now and why that why that enmity actually serves a purpose and it and it will serve a purpose in the eschaton, like in the apocalypse, there is there's going to be an element of because the brothers have to unite at the end, there's just like the Pharisees crucify Christ the first time, like there's going to be a a way that plays out the second time. I don't know, I don't know how much typology you're into, but like that that really that story is going to kind of replay itself at the second coming.

SPEAKER_00: 58:24

Yeah. Um, there's you know, with Protestants, I mean, there there are some guys that I know um who share, you know, very similar views that that I do, but um are just they're they're just quiet about it because I think they recognize that um I think they just they they recognize uh the the direction of the political, you know, and cultural winds. Um that yeah, anti-Semitism, you know, alleged anti-Semitism, some of it might be um, you know, legitimate, but a lot of it is just you know being critical of Israel that's you know not that's not anti-Semitic. Uh, but uh but a lot of that like it's you know it's had a resurgence and you know it's it's um it's you know been been viral online and those kinds of things. But in terms of like actual, not just getting likes from you know anonymous accounts on on X, but in terms of real like institutional power, um financial power, you know, uh influential power, uh, whether it's political, you know, or or cultural or whatever, um, everybody knows um that uh if if you say some of the things that you and I are saying, that you're you're gonna be on the outside looking in. You're you're not gonna be invited to you know to those parties, you're not gonna be in that vicinity. Um, you're gonna have a target painted on your chest. Um, you're going to lose out on uh potential influence and all these kinds of things. So my my point is that there are some, I would it's the minority, but there are some Protestant guys that I know um who are simply quiet. Quiet about it because they uh they think that there is bigger fish to fry, you know, and uh and they want to be able to leave the door open um to have access and some kind of proximity and influence with the Trump administration that's very pro-Jewish, you know, or the future, potential future Vance administration, which is very pro-Jewish. And so they're just, you know, strategically, they would they would just say that it's uh it's a strategic, temporary calculus uh for political and cultural purposes, to even though I side with you Joel on this issue, I'm not gonna talk about it publicly so that I don't, um, so that I don't take myself out of out of the game, you know, with a future fance administration. You know, I'll never get the invite if I do what you're doing. Um, so there's some guys like that. That's probably maybe, I don't know, five to ten percent of Protestants. And then, you know, the other, you know, lion share of the Protestants really are diehard Zionists, like hook, line, and sinker. They've they've fallen for the theological propaganda, the political propaganda, and they really think that they're that they're doing a service to God by um by you know by basically just um utilizing all of America's power and money and influence to uh to bless Israel.

SPEAKER_01: 1:01:22

I'll end with this as I know you got to get going. Um you and I are having this conversation, neither of us are like ecumenists. Like you're not gonna downplay the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We obviously have different theological positions. What has made because I've I watched your conversation with a couple of Catholics with me, which made me kind of want to jump in and have a conversation with you also. So what do you what was the reason or the impetus behind saying, hey, I'm not I'm not going to do the typical low-hanging fruit arguing with Catholics anymore. I'm gonna try to have conversations with guys that I think I could be productive with.

SPEAKER_00: 1:01:59

Yeah, it's just um what changed for me was uh just knowing what time it is. You know, the sons of Isakar, they knew the times and what Israel ought to do. Uh, we need sons of Isakar, people who know what time it is. And um, when I when I look at the city and I see the orcs at the gate, um I I recognize that uh there can be sharp disputes um that really do matter between, you know, dwarves and men, you know, or men and elves or whatever. Um, but the most pressing timely problem, there are timeless realities, but there are also timely moments. And in this timely moment, uh Catholics just are are not um they're not my enemy. Um like the the enemy is mass migration, it's uh it's it's not Catholics, it's it's Hindus, it's Muslims, um, it's it's Jewish influence. Um those those are the pressing problems. It's apostasy, it's secularism, progressivism. Um, and so for me, it's just like I read the Reformers and I agree with them. I I am reformed. Uh, but I read you know, Luther, I read Calvin, you know, I read you know, Zwingli, you know, some of these guys, and the things that they said, you know, pertaining to Catholics, I you just have to remember, and I know you would sharply disagree with them as a Catholic, but my point is that um when you know when Martin Luther is saying XYZ about Catholics, well, Martin Luther uh was, you know, in his moment, in his timely moment, um, you know, Catholics were the biggest threat for him. I mean, he was on the run for his life. Whether he was guilty or innocent, you and I would, of course, disagree about that. But regardless, we would both agree. Like Martin Luther, whether he was right or wrong, uh, he his biggest threat was um was was the Bishop of Rome. You know, he his biggest threat was uh that that was, you know, it was Rome, the Catholic Church, that was the greatest, you know, alleged tyrant of his day that was that was directly threatening him, his wife, his children, their well-being. Um, and so so yeah, so when he's writing, you know, he's he's writing about the biggest threat of his day. And I and I look at our day, and I just have to realize as a reformed Protestant, as much as I love the reformers, I'm not living in Martin Luther's day. And there's a certain point where it becomes uh not only intellectually dishonest, but it becomes pathetic and and just truly, in the true sense of the word, a LARP. Um I think that part of what Christians and Protestants do is um rather than fighting the living dragon that's currently at large that's wreaking havoc on the people because that's dangerous, that's risky, that's scary. It's a lot easier to go and find a 50-year-old dead dragon that's already been slain and kick its carcass and feel like a hero. Or in the case of Protestants, go and find, you know, a 500-year-old dragon, you know, and kick its carcass. Um, it's a lot easier to put on your reformer, you know, LARPing costume and relive, you know, we're the Reformation continues and relive the Reformation and every year have your five solace conference, you know, and your Tulip conference and your Martin Luther conference, your John Calvin conference, and talk about, you know, the biggest enemy, the real threat to the gospel and to the, you know, is um Catholics. Like that's that's a lot easier. It's a lot easier than um than actually uh than actually pointing towards you know real people in power like Netanyahu, Israel, or pointing towards um uh FBI crime statistics, which uh will get you in trouble real fast, you know, or pointing towards Islamic invasion, or pointing towards this, that, and the other. So I long answer to your question, but just what changed for me is just waking up and knowing what time it is. Um I, you know, to have those disputes and those debates and disagreements that do matter, we're not relativists. We we believe that truth is objective, there are absolutes, somebody's wrong, somebody's right, and and we need to be able to have have that discussion. It's important, uh, but Catholics and Protestants won't get to ever have that discussion if our entire civilization is destroyed. And so right now there's just more pressing problems.

SPEAKER_01: 1:06:18

Yeah, I would I would agree with that in that I think feminism is destroying our daughters and our sons. I think there's a very important question of American identity and America as a Christian nation right now. And I also think a lot of this has comes down to that last end of the conversation we had to because certain influence is allowing these borders to be open and stuff. So I think these three conversations, I'm willing, especially the there's very few of us willing to have these conversations and be called the villain. So if there's if there are guys who maybe don't agree with me theologically, but they're willing to talk about these three pressing matters, I think it's a good a good place for us to find agreement and try to save our nation before it's too late. So I'm I'm I'm grateful that you came out with me, Joel. Uh, for anybody that thought this was gonna be a contentious conversation, I don't know why you thought that. I was very clear it wasn't going to be. So I appreciate all the stuff you are doing. Uh keep up the good fight. And uh uh okay, so the hyphenated heresy. Also, you lost your um Patreon, right?

SPEAKER_00: 1:07:20

Yeah, so uh we Patreon canceled us. We lasted a week and a half, which is, you know, to be honest, a little longer than I thought we would. So um, but uh Patreon kicked us off, which was a big hit, uh really big hit. Um we had 3,400 uh subscribed members, and um, and you know, the media company that that I that I lead NXR Studios um was really, you know, counting on that revenue is a big part of our um you know what what keeps um our our our media you know up and running. And uh, you know, we have several team members that I have to pay. And so that was a really big hit. Uh we we started, you know, we had to pivot. And so we you know, we pivoted and and started our own uh platform called uh you know, the the domain for it is members.nxrstudios.com. So it's we're calling it nxr plus, uh, but members.nxrstudios.com and uh but we had 3,400 subscribers. We got booted off the Patreon. Now we have like 750, so it took a really big hit. So anybody who's willing to join, uh, we we really appreciate that. Again, it's members.nxrstudios.com. And we're doing um to try to you know get some of our subscribers back, and as a gift to them, uh we've we've made uh subscribing uh the first month free. So if you subscribe, it's it's not gonna charge you anything for the first month. And if you decide you want to cancel, you can get out and never have to pay a dime. Uh, we obviously hope some people will stick around. But if you can join NXR Plus, you'll get you know the full 10-part series I did with Nick Fuentes, and we also have some more um long form series with some notable guests.

SPEAKER_01: 1:08:56

Those are great. The conversations with Nick, those are really good. I enjoy I'm enjoying I've I've been watching them as you've been putting them out. They're they're all really good.

SPEAKER_00: 1:09:05

Yeah, so you can get all 10 parts available now, ad-free, and uh by going to you know uh members.nxrstudios.com and sign up for a free month trial and not have to pay a dime. And uh the book uh you can get just on Amazon. It's the hyphenated heresy, subtitled Judeo-Christianity. Uh, it's written by myself and co-authored uh with my co-author, Jordan Hall, who is a fantastic writer. And the book has been doing really well. Uh, it's only been about two and a half weeks or so at this point, and uh it's already sold, um, getting close to like 2,500 copies, which is uh really good. And we hope that it's a blessing to people and helps, you know, it's it's a lot of the uh the scripture and the theology, and uh it's it's heavily footnoted. It's a 250-page book with lots of footnotes to actually uh bring receipts and and prove you know what Talmud Judaism actually teaches, what's actually in the Mishnah, you know, these kinds of things. Um, so it's an informative book, it's an easy read. It's it's a comfortable read. It's not high academic level, but um, but it does also bring footnotes and receipts uh so that people could have a resource to go back to, you know, to make their arguments.

SPEAKER_01: 1:10:14

Well, Joel Webin, thank you for coming on with us, man. It's uh uh really good conversation, man. I uh I hope uh maybe we'll maybe we'll get a chance to do something again in the future. Appreciate you.

SPEAKER_00: 1:10:24

That sounds great. Thanks, Anthony. I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_01: 1:10:27

All right, guys. We'll see you uh see you next time.