FIERY DEBATE: Christian Nationalism on Trial | Andrew Wilson Vs Gnostic Informant
01:26:39 Share

Between client meetings, managing your business, and everyday tasks, who has time to worry about website hosting? With Kinsta's managed WordPress hosting, you don't have to. They handle the technical stuff, delivering lightning-fast load times, enterprise-grade security, and 24/7/365 human-only support. Simply switching to Kinsta could make your site up to 200% faster. Kinsta's custom dashboard makes managing sites easy,

with powerful features designed to save you time and effort. Plus, their free expert-led migrations ensure a smooth transition. Ready to see why Kinsta is trusted by thousands of businesses? Get your first month free at kinsta.com. That's K-I-N-S-T-A dot com. Kinsta. Simply better hosting. Enjoying DebateCon 5 so far? Good?

I'm going to take that as a yes. So my name is Tom Ischidi, president and founder of Atheists for Liberty, a 501c3 nonprofit organization that stands for free speech, free thinking, and freedom for all. This is day two of DebateCon. Yesterday was the religion debates, but even though day two is getting a little more political, well, this is definitely a topic that I'm interested in. I'm going right into the audience once this starts.

So for all those that are watching here in the audience and live online, try to follow us at Atheist Liberty on social media. And you can find us on YouTube and plenty of other platforms. We're an ever-growing organization active throughout the country. And this has just been such a tremendous event. We're very thrilled to be sponsoring DebateCon 5 here. So thank you all so much for watching. And now I'm going to hand off the microphone to Dr. James himself. Thank you so much.

We are very grateful for our sponsors. In fact, I want to mention one who can't be here right now. Shawn Simanko from Uncensored America has been a huge help for DebateCon 5. So I do want to say, if you haven't yet, check out their link in the description box. If you enjoy debates, they host a lot of juicy debates as well. Another sponsor is Manifold, the world's largest online social prediction market. Check them out in the link in the description box, or you can predict who will win this very debate.

So what we are going to do in terms of determining the winner, we'll take a hand poll. So at the beginning of the debate, we're going to ask which side people lean toward more. Then we'll do the same thing at the end of the debate. And that will determine, namely, whoever sways most people to their side, who the winner is. So if you happen to agree, or you could say you are pro-Christian nationalism, you side with Andrew Wilson, would you put your hand up? Hang on there for me.

as we've got a number of hands here. So, as I mentioned, folks, if you're watching at home, now's a great opportunity. Check out the manifold link in the description box and vote right now. Go ahead for your hands. Thanks so much. If you happen to agree instead with Gnostic Informant that Christian nationalism is not a good idea, could you slide your hand up? You got it. So, like I said, we'll do another vote at the end.

We're going to have Gnostic Informant go first for his opening statement. Thrilled to have you here, gentlemen. We are getting right into it. These are approximately five-minute opening statements. Gnostic Informant, the floor is all yours. Wait a second, James, just very quickly. I'm concerned Brianna Wu may have touched one of these water bottles. Can I have a different bottle of water? We'll work on that. Okay, thank you. Gnostic Informant, the floor is all yours. All right, so I'm a last-minute fill-in.

The other one I was, at least I had some weeks to prepare from yesterday. This one was like two days ago I found out that I was going to fill in for this one. So I got a few notes put together in the last hour or so. But I think we're going to do good. I think the back and forth will be good. So classical liberalism, in my opinion, has been so effective for society that

That's the reason why so many countries have followed suit after, obviously, the French and American Revolution, and then it just completely took over the world, basically. Most modern countries have some sort of constitution, some sort of list of civil rights that are protected by the state, and it's led to the thriving of different areas, not just science, but

The arts. I mean, I was in Egypt and they do have local music there, but I couldn't believe how much I was hearing American music there. We're dominating in media and film and music because we live in a society where people are free to express themselves and put out that type of literature or film or whatever it is that other places don't really have the ability to do.

And so the reason is because in order to have scientific advancements, you have to have an environment where there is no dogma putting pressure on people, where there isn't a state-controlled theocracy, if you will, which is what Christian nationalism is, theocracy, that is getting in the way of people doing things that are exploring areas that are considered to be blasphemous or whatnot. And so...

Classical liberalism also offers people who are religious to be religious. So it sort of covers the other end too. I don't know if you ever heard of Rajneesh Biram. It was like this cult out in Oregon, a bunch of new age weirdos out there. I think it was like in the 80s or 90s.

They had their own commune. It was a disaster. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was a good thing. Is that the people retarded guy? I don't know. Was that Osha? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Osha? The point is they had the ability to do that under this constitution. They had the ability to go and build their own community and...

And you can have homeschool. Nobody's stopping you from homeschooling and setting up your own community of a church. In fact, during the Bolshevik Revolution, we had floods of refugees from Russia that came here because this was the best place to go that they could freely set up their church and start an Orthodox community in America.

So classical liberalism doesn't just give atheism to people. It gives them the choice to choose a religion. We do have one example still around today of what could be considered Christian nationalist nation, and that's Armenia. I'm interested to hear what he thinks about this because Armenia has a state religion. The government is pretty much tied to this religion.

State religion the Armenian Church Orthodox Church But they also score on the CPI corruption perception index 47 out of 100 which is 62nd worst out of 180 Behind so behind Saudi Arabia and behind Costa Rica just in front of Jordan and Kuwait so they're sitting right with their buddies that are all theocracy's and

And then at the top 20, you have all of the classical liberal nations, Denmark number one with a 90 score, Finland number two with 87. United States, I don't think anyone here disagrees. There's some corruption in the United States, but we're still, I think, 20 or 21 with a score of 69, well above Armenia.

And then there's other areas, other nations that aren't necessarily Christian nationalists. They do actually have constitutions, but are majority Christian as far as the culture goes, like Argentina and Costa Rica or Brazil, where Rio de Janeiro, where the giant Jesus is just staring over, sitting over the whole city. And these are places where poverty and unemployment and lack of labor, violent crime, drugs,

Gangs are rampant. So Christian culture isn't really doing much about that. And so, you know, I was thinking, since you're the one on trial here, I just wanted to ask you, how would you enforce this? How would this even go about when we already have a mostly, I mean, even people who don't consider themselves liberal, whether they're libertarian or center-right,

would probably align more with constitutional republic ideals than Christian nationalism. I mean, I don't even know what the percentage might be. I would probably say 90% of the country would align with what I'm saying right now. Not this room for sure, though, but that's okay. How would you enforce that? And also...

Which Christian denomination? Obviously, you're Orthodox, so what about Protestants? I was at a Protestant church for six years. Fifteen seconds. Okay. Who said the Catholics were all going to hell and so are the Orthodox. What about them? That's it. We'll kick it over to Andrew for his five-minute opening statement as well. Andrew, the floor is all yours. Well, first and foremost, thank you to the Crucible crew for drinking way too much with me last night. I'm trying to...

Trying to hair the dog here a little bit and get through this debate with my dignity intact. So to kind of dive into a few of these things, Christian nationalism, if you wanted to give a broad definition, I think this one would be fine. It's a form of religious nationalism focuses on promoting the Christian views of its followers in order to achieve prominence or dominance in political and social life. So...

Often the criticism that you'll hear from your opponents when you're talking about Christian nationalism is about enforcement.

How do we enforce this? Are we going to imprison the gays? Right? And that always comes down to imprisoning gay people for some reason. Are we going to oppress the women? Are they not going to be allowed to vote? Which even though I prefer probably most of them didn't. No, it's about prominence in culture. So what the ideal of Christian nationalism is, is the idea of Christianity being the prominent force in the social order of culture. It doesn't have much to do with law.

I think that laws will be just and justly created when the morality of the people who are making them have a Christian foundation and a Christian ethic. So that's what it's promoting. It's not promoting a takeover of all lawmaking systems. That's in many ways unimportant. We're talking about the foundational ethics of the lawmaker themselves. So if the foundation ethics of the lawmaker prominently work around this ethical system,

The theory, anyway, is that it should create a more ethical society, right? It doesn't mean that you couldn't make laws which were good for secularists or that secularists would need to be tortured with Chinese water torture, except maybe Neil. All it means is that it's the promotion of the prominence of Christianity as a cultural force, that our voices also get to be heard. And if our voices end up coming out on top, good.

Good. Why is it everybody else's theories and ideas get to come out on top except for Christian ideas and theories? And that's what we're really pushing for. That's what Christian nationalists are actually pushing for. So Neil, he makes, and this debate, the reason I wanted to do it,

is because I'm often attacked for always being on the attack, always hitting, which is true, but I'm actually happy to be on the side that's getting grilled to answer these questions because so many people have them. Classical liberalism, he says, good for society because of arts and media and a few things like that, but Neil forgets there's a double-edged sword that without that foundational ethical system, media has turned into a promotion for mass degeneracy, which hasn't been helpful for anybody.

massive promotion of degeneracy in most Hollywood films, massive promotion of degeneracy, which is coming out of most forms of media now. How would Neal compensate for that? Well, he can't, because if you have these kind of unlimited freedoms of expression, you're going to have to have a moral population or else you're going to end up with degeneracy. How are you going to instill those morals in the population with secularism like Neal's? He can't.

Society where freedom to express is important. Christian ethics doesn't say that you can't express yourself. Where is that happening? Nowhere. He says scientific advancement requires no dogma. I would argue it kind of is a dogma, but science is evolving now into sociology and psychology being a dominant cultural force.

So the thing is, is psychology and sociology even science? I don't even think it is. I don't even consider psychology to be a form of legitimate science.

But that is what is becoming the dominant force in culture, not real science. It's not like people who are building rocket ships are getting beat up by Christians. They're not like, oh, no, no more rocket ships. What they're saying is no more sociological studies which say that we can rearrange kids' genders and rearrange their autonomy and their anatomy, right? That's what they're saying.

He brought up the Oregon commune, which is funny. This was under a lunatic named OSHA. But here's what's so funny about it. Because of the weakness of the laws in the United States for these kinds of freedoms, these people were actually able to take over this entire town, put in their own police force, right, and turn it into a hellhole where they ended up all getting arrested because they were trying to poison the local population. Right.

Right? Great job there, Neil. Great job there. He says, well, what about these areas that have Christian ethics or they have Christian nationalism like Armenia where corruption is really high? Christian ethics themselves are designed to reduce corruption, that's true, but pointing out a place where it is corrupt and

and Christianity happens to be the dominant force for the religion doesn't mean that it's Christianity causing the corruption 15 seconds so and then lastly well we can get into it from there anyway Neil I'm happy to open this up whenever you're ready thank you very much gentlemen floor is yours

Is there a rebuttal thing too? Open dialogue. Let me just rebut one thing you said about the commune of the people. I brought them up and I did say it turned into a disaster but they broke the law. So the law is still there. The idea of someone

Lawfully starting their own commute is possible is what I meant. Yeah, I know but but listen They broke that's a terrible exam They broke the law later They broke the law later when they were trying to poison everyone but they actually work within the confines of the law take the entire town over take over the entire police department and literally begin but the enforcement of their cult in in because they didn't share the same value structures or virtues as the local population and

Right, but you and your entire community of orthodoxy could do the same thing and then not break the law and then live in your ideal situation that you're looking to do anyway. Which is what? Orthodoxy. Raising your children under orthodoxy, having a church, having people around you who have the same ideas as you. Yeah, but what did I say that Christian nationalism is? It's the movement towards Christianity becoming a prominent social force, social force for good,

So the idea here is social force, not necessarily taking over government positions, though. There's going to be an entailment. I don't think you're worried about degeneracy. Well, not just degeneracy, but that's a big part of it. When you look at government structure now, I don't think church and state can be completely separated because people are informed by the religious values when they're in office. So they're going to rule and govern based on those values. So they can't be completely separated. We have.

60 86 Christians in the Senate right now. Yep, and I I mean most of them are Christians So you would think yeah kind of weak a lot of them are pretty weak Chris And that's what I'm that's what I'm trying. That's another question. I have for you. Most people are we Christians? I mean, I agree How do you that's how we know that Christianity is not the dominant social force How do you get people to think the way you think without like like extremely harsh law?

Why would we need extremely harsh law? People, does it seem like I'm having trouble convincing people to think like I think? The truth is, is that just through debate, just through debate, dialogue, right? And the differences and clashes of ideas, it's very easy for me to promote that Christians should be the dominant force of culture. Well, here's what, what are Christians promising to do bad to you? Oh, we're going to eliminate, we're going to eliminate pornography. We're going to eliminate OnlyFans.

We're going to promote nuclear families. We're gonna try to bring the birth rate back up What is it we're trying to do here to you? What is it that Christians are trying to do that's so bad? Do you guys so, you know, I think obviously the state's playing to this Florida passed a bill where you can't log into porn websites unless you have ID I think it's good

I'm saying the law can work for your favor. Sure. And also on top of that, you just saw the last election completely sweep in your favor. So classical liberalism can be a good thing. You can have bad ideas win out, but then people get tired of those bad ideas or they realize I was wrong and they vote the other way. Can Christianity exist in any system? Communism?

It can't exist there. It has. It can't. It's not that it's optimal, but it can. Right. It can exist in capitalism. It can exist in classical liberalism. It can exist in libertarianism. The structure of the religion itself is a social force. Necessarily, that is going to start conditioning laws. That's true. But the types of laws that you're talking about that they're pushing are what? The reduction of degeneracy. The biggest force, the reason Christianity is making such a social comeback and why Christian nationalism will win

You can look at the odds markets even on this. Christian nationalism is winning because of the backlash towards degeneracy, which classical liberalism allows through art and culture. Other than this room, where is Christian nationalism winning? Didn't you just give an entire case for Christian nationalism, sweeping the entire government and laws? They're Christians, not nationalists, though. So I'm not saying that. There's a difference between Christian nationalism and then just having a bunch of Christians in power. What's the difference?

that they're not enforcing laws that are restricting. Except the one that they just passed in Florida? Well, that's fine. Is that your idea of Christian nationalism? No, I think you brought it up as an example of how Christian social force can lead to law. So that would be part of Christian nationalism, sure. But that's also what the point of a report

Democratic Republic is is that you have representatives in there who have different ideas 86 of them being Christian and they are gonna be did yeah Why do we need guys in there who have the idea that we need to legalize? That's not Christian nationalism. That's just that's just a Republican Democratic Republic working. Yeah, this happens to work in your favor at this point Yeah, yes, so great. But what is Christian nationalism? It's the idea of promoting the social force towards the ideas of Christian ethics and

It's not necessarily the idea of taking over government. That's just an intent. Once people become ethical, they move towards Christian ethics, we take over government anyway. So it's really just Christian populism. Is that probably a better term? Yeah, that's a term that I often interchange with Christian nationalism is Christian populism. It's the idea of the social force of Christianity being the dominant force for culture, period. And so the questions I was asking, where do you go into, like, okay, church and state, let's go there.

You said the church should have dictation over certain areas. Like what? Like marriage? Like marriage. Okay. And what happens when Buddhists want to get married? They don't get married. What if they want to? They can go to a Buddhist nation and get married. What do you mean? No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Relax. If it comes to secular marriage, things like this, if Buddhists want to get married, if we keep the state out of it, then who cares? Right.

Why marriage, though? Marriage was never just a thing for Christians, though. Yeah, but what is it? It's not going to still be a thing just for Christians. Okay, so you're saying... Just why does the state need to be involved in marriage? You're saying people can still get the benefits of being married without having a religious... What are the benefits of being... No, I'm saying you can take the state completely out of marriage. Why does the state need to be involved in marriage? Because, you know, one person makes a bunch of money, the other person doesn't, and then there's, you know, there's all these...

weird there's all these laws on what happens when they divorce all that stuff yeah so so the state needs to come in and govern your personal life huh that's what you're saying no no that's what you're you're i asked you why the state needs to be involved in marriage

And you said because of money, because one person could make more money than the other person or some nonsense. Well, there's like tax benefits, all types of benefits for people getting married. That's just part, you know, obviously. Yeah, you can literally just reform the tax laws. That takes care of that. I don't even have a problem with that. But why does the state... Isn't that what... Let's say that we took the state out of marriage altogether, okay? And now churches have the authority over who they're going to marry or not.

You, a secularist, an atheist, what's to stop you from just declaring you're married? I'm married. Right, but then there's no tax benefits. You don't get anything. There's not really much in the way of tax benefits now. And the earned income child credit, you get it whether you're married or not. So, like, what are you really taking away from people? That's all I'm really saying is that the benefits of why people get married is that's what people... Nobody gets married for a fucking tax break, dude. Could you even imagine that? Hey, baby, I can't wait to marry you. I just...

Thinking that I'd save a couple thousand dollars on my income taxes this year. Last thing on the marriage thing, because this is dumb. I don't know if you want to keep going on this, but what's the difference between getting married in your preferred church and then someone else doing it somewhere else?

What do you say? Well, so right now there's a... If someone goes to Vegas and get married, what's the difference? Yeah, right now there's a forcible recognition as to what marriage is. I think if the state is out of marriage, that the social order of Christians, the force of that order, we would recognize proper marriages which would lead to social shame for the types of marriages we don't like without ever needing to use the prescription or power of law for discrimination. Okay. Okay.

What else would the church do have powers in as far as right now you have your three branches of government? Where is the church going to play into this? What do you mean? They would just apply in a synergistic relationship. What's the logistics of that of a synergistic relationship? Yeah, it just means they have power over culture and culture has power of the dominance of governance.

That there's a lot like what's the degree of that? That's the that's very to me. That's very vague. Like, are they going to be able to stop a movie from coming out? They could through social pressures. Yes. But they can do that now through social pressure. Right. So social pressures is something that anyone could do. Yeah, that's right. What can the church do? It can apply social pressures just like anybody else could to stop a movie from coming out. Why do you need theocracy for that then?

Who the fuck advocated for theocracy? I'm sorry. Christian nationalism then. Because what is Christian nationalism? It's impossible now. What is Christian nationalism? It's the movement towards Christianity being the dominant social force in society. Okay. So if the idea here is that Christians are getting rid of things like abortion, smut movies, things like this, they can do that through social power.

It's just the realization that Christians have the social power to do it. Like, let me give you an example. You remember during COVID-19 that almost every place shut down, they told them to shut down except what? Churches.

They went, no, we're not doing that. That created actually a huge social pushback. Nobody else was defying the government except the church, except churches, right, who said, no, we're not doing it. We're not going to do this. No way. Not going to happen. That created a social dynamic of kind of fighting back. You know what I mean? It's the first time people have seen in a long time where churches were able to socially hit back.

And so that created a kind of dominant force or some sort of inertia towards something. So what we're looking to do is create that same social force in society towards what it is that we want, necessarily thinking that will at some point inform laws, but we don't have to change the entire process. I postulate the entire process will change over time anyway if the social foundation is predominantly Christian. My other question was, like, okay...

The degeneracy thing. You really thought he had some of that theocracy thing? No, I care about freedom of expression. I'm not pro-degeneracy, but I know there's levels of what people consider degeneracy. Some people have higher tolerances for things. Is it perfectly acceptable for you inside of this kind of government theory that you have in your head if Christians as individuals...

use the force of social shame and the force of kind of where we put our money things like this in order to Stop companies from releasing products. We don't like to stop companies from doing things We don't like even to stop governments from passing laws. We don't like is is there any actual objection to that? I

Through the system right now, no. No. So, like, I don't have any issues with – But Christianity is – Even if I disagree with the politics. Yeah. The last election is the last election people voted, and that's what it is. Sure. But that's Democratic Republic – that's the –

Yeah, that's just the structure of government. It's working. But like I said, Christianity can exist in any type of government structure. What I'm saying to you is that that doesn't mean it gets to be the predominant social force, and it's not right now. If Christianity was truly the dominant social force in society, porn wouldn't exist.

Right? It wouldn't exist. We would have laws against it. We would have laws against transgender doing reassignment surgery for kids. We'd have laws against these things. But it's not just Christianity that has ethical dispositions against porn, for example. Other...

Other faiths do the same thing. Can't wait for them to join us in our fight for social supremacy of Christianity. Great. So what's the difference between what's going on right now and then just people are becoming Christian? What do you mean? What's the difference between what you're saying and... Because right now Christianity is not the dominant social force in the United States. It's not? No. And the aim of Christian nationalism is to make it so.

I thought you said it was just realizing that they have the power. No. What do you mean realizing they have the power? I thought you just said it's them realizing that they actually do have the power because they're the most dominant group in... No, that's not what I said. I think you were talking about when I was talking about churches themselves realizing they had power to fight back against COVID. Yeah. Which was a thing where people realized, wait, the church... So when you talk about institutional power in the United States...

The left wing's institutional powers through media, right? I don't think we would disagree there, right? It has been through media for the last 60 years. And through these various tech companies until recently, that's been a huge source of their power too for propaganda, this and that. All the right really has is just, you know, the largest institution we could have, which is churches. But for a long time, they've been very silent on political issues, haven't really pushed too hard on them, except for maybe abortion, right?

What Christian nationalism is proposing is that the social order inside a society be shaken up where Christians become the dominant force and stay that way for social cohesion, adherence, and then eventually policy shaping will be in the image of those ethics. It's not a radical overhaul. It's not necessary for there to be a radical overhaul of the current laws and regulations because if people follow those ethics and their constituents follow those ethics, those things will be demanded anyway.

And what happens when different denominations and when the Protestants start arguing with the Catholics and the Catholics start arguing with the Orthodoxy, what happens then? What happens then is that we have theological differences, and then we start arguing about which one becomes the social force, which has always happened. But the kind of uniform ethics of those who believe in the Nicene Creed, right, they don't change, not kind of the universal grounding. We're going to agree on a lot more than we disagree about.

Yes, we'll fight over theology. That's true. But atheists fight over all sorts of different things when it comes to science and harm principles and stuff like this. It seems to still be okay. They can still unite over some issues, and it seems to be all right for them. And this is just kind of a joke, but the Methodist types that are, you know, that obviously you're not a fan of. Yeah. What about them? What about them? They're Christians, right? Do they have a say in...

in your Christian national... Yeah, as far as a dominant force in society, I still think that even Protestants, even Protestants...

bring more value to the table than secularists and atheists and people like this. Now, yes, I agree with you. Some Protestants are problematic. That's true. And you have some churches which have the LGBTQ stuff. It's disgusting, this type of thing. But if you were to have Christianity become, again, a prominent social force in society, those things would begin to be whittled away. They're already fought and resisted at every single metric.

At least within within. I mean, most Christians, for instance, if you have an LGBTQ flag in your church, they don't consider you a Christian. I mean, it's going to walk away from that. Right. I guess the thing I'm hung up on right now is what we just saw in the last election was people coming out to vote, mostly the Christian right and winning in every single all winning all the swing states, winning the House, winning the Senate, winning

What is wrong with this? How is that not working? That needs to like that seems working. So what? So what do you need Christian nationalism for? Because we here's the reason it worked is because Christian nationalists like me were pushing Christian ethics to be the dominant social form in society by pointing out that, hey, these progressive values, the things that these progressives want to do in this mass degeneracy is not working well for society. And so it was through tens of thousands of men like me

Even to some degree like you, Neil, who are saying, look, enough of this is enough of this. Right. Mostly pushed by Christians, though. Mostly pushed by Christians. Enough of the smut, enough of the degeneracy. That really helped sweep Trump in. Why do you think order one, day one, was there's only two genders?

Right. Signed into law. There's only two. Do you think that that was Trump's idea or do you think that that was the fact that his advisers went, look, you're Christian base. They've been fighting for this for a long time and it's time for you to put this in place.

Yeah, I think it could be that, yeah. Yeah. That is the idea of Christian nationalism. Christianity as a social force can have serious political ramifications, and ultimately, if we're the social dominant power, we can get rid of a lot of this stuff that's causing problems in society. And passing laws is one of the ways, right? Can you give me an example of a law that you would enforce that...

Gets rid of degeneracy. Sure. I would absolutely ask them to or or want to push towards the overturning of the interpretation that gay marriage is is a thing that's not up to the states. So I think that that should be completely left up to the states like it was. And that state should have actual voting done on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married. And then when that happens, guess what? They never are.

Like even California had failed, right? Yeah, even in California had failed. So when it's left up to the states to actually vote on these things, the people in the states vote, they say no. Right now, under the propaganda, they say, oh, people are so accepting of LGBTQ. It's like, well, how come when it comes to time for the people to vote, then they don't vote for it? They don't want it.

It's because it's all propaganda. So Christianity as a social force can do a lot to dominate these areas of propaganda and do a lot to push forward social issues that we find valuable. That's what it's postulating. Dominant social force. One of the things I brought up when I opened up was how important it is for universities to be free from any sort of dogma of any sort of ideology, ideology.

whether it's some politics or religion or whatever, to be able to make, to do studies on things and make breakthroughs or whatever. I didn't really hear anything about that from you. What do you... I think that psychology has become very dogmatic. I'm not just talking about psychology. Yeah, but I think that the dominant social force of science in...

The West is psychology and sociology. I think that that is the dominant social force when people say you don't believe in science They mean my studies. You don't believe in my studies and

You don't believe that, you know, studies show that due to gray matter in the back rear of the doula ablan gada, your kid could be trans, right? This is the idea of modern sociology and psychology, which I consider to be pseudoscientific and an extension of progressive. It's like an extension of the power arm of progressives is to use pseudoscience, package it as though it's real science, and then put it out as propaganda, right?

Right? Studies show, X, Y, Z. Most studies are not even reproducible because they're pseudoscience. So it's like, no, science itself has now become corrupted because what's passing for science isn't science. Let me ask you this. Nice, nice. You got a clap out of that. Let me ask you this. What would you prefer? You didn't get a clap. Yeah, that was you. That was you. What would you personally prefer? I'm curious. Would you prefer this constitutional republic like we have right now or...

For example, like the Byzantine Roman Christian state where there's an emperor and a patriarch and they can kind of control everything. What would you prefer? You or yourself? Oh, for my personal preferences? Well, I would prefer to stay under a constitutional republic for now. Yeah. For now. I think that that's what would work. Yes.

Interesting, because that would be a completely Christian nationalist system, in my opinion. And the reason why I brought that up is because I just don't think it could work right now in modernity. Yeah, right. Me neither. Yeah, I don't think it could work right now in modernity. That doesn't mean that there's not going to be a time for it, because I think there will. But that takes societal conditioning.

Like serious long-term conditioning. Christian nationalists are postulating a 300-year plan, just like the great churches which were built in the past that took hundreds of years. This is going to be a fight that takes hundreds of years. It's not going to be. What's the endgame of that 300-year plan? I'd love to hear that. What's the endgame of science? Of your scientific plan? There is no endgame of science. There's no such thing as an endgame for science. So here's my endgame. Here's my endgame for you, same as your endgame for me. The whole world becomes Christian. That's the endgame.

Has it ever been that way? Well, I don't know. I don't think so. No. Now, I don't want to get too much into like theology and stuff. That was more clapping, by the way. I got more clapping. Yeah, that was good. You got the crowd right now. So that's cool. You know, some of the stuff like Paul talks about the rulers of this age. You know, there's the rulers of this age are going to be swept away by the powers from heaven. And Jesus getting the coin of Caesar on it.

And he's asked, like, what about this image of Caesar? Basically, he says, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God is what is God's. There was this idea in the Gospels and in Paul's epistles that this world is evil. It's going to do what it does. Carry your cross. Be a Christian despite what's around you. But I'm seeing from you that...

Forget about that. We need power. I see a more Nietzschean approach. We should be in power. We should be controlling culture. Well, no, it's not a Nietzschean. I mean, look at the real question. It's not a Nietzschean approach. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying this. When you say pragmatic, you're not talking about philosophical pragmatism. You're talking about what we say in the commons like...

You mean like kind of practical when you say pragmatic? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, sure, it's practical. But because it's practical doesn't mean that that's what the meaning of it is. Just to say that I live in this society too, Neil. These guys all live in this society too. Right. Because we're Christians, we're not supposed to be devoted to suffering for suffering's sake. Right.

Right. And if we can make these positive changes, which we call these sins of omission, if you can help, if you can do something, you don't. That's sinful. Yeah. OK, that's a sin of that's a sin of omission. So it's like, why shouldn't we be making these sort of adjustable changes that we can make to the things which in conditions which are going on around us to the benefit of not just us, but everybody else? Because we know Christianity is true. We know it's righteous. We know it's real.

We know it's something that benefits everybody, even if they're not Christians. Why shouldn't we be trying to rein this stuff in, utilizing our own social power, right? And what are we talking about by social power? Are we saying show up with cudgels and beat people to death? The opposite. We're saying, hey, boycott them. Stop buying their stuff. Or we're saying put a significant amount of pressure on this company so they stop doing X, Y, Z. Or, hey, put some pressure on your elected officials, right, to say, hey –

Why don't you pass something that says you got to be 18 before you can go on a porn site? But what you just said is there's nothing that now needs to change to do what you're talking about. There is something that now needs to change. What needs to change right now is that Christians need to become and move towards and continue to stay in, when they achieve it, the dominant social power. Which they can do through voting. I totally agree.

They can do all that through voting and everything else. So if we say a Christian nation, like what did you think we thought we what did you think Christian we were saying that we were going to bring in the Byzantine Empire to clear Trump the emperor? And then like, what did you what did you think we were trying to do here? When I hear Christian nationalism, I think of some sort of theocratic system where the church is in power, has actual powers that it can dictate certain things in.

In society power is a strange thing because power it what can be an institution that you Give authority to even if it's not elected like this happens now, okay, and

There are certain, like let's say the World Health Organization, right? I didn't elect anybody in the World Health Organization, neither did you. But you're not going to argue with me that they're not a very powerful group. And it's because when they release their mandates, documents, things like this, people give it a lot of adherence. They're like, wait, these are experts. We should listen to what they're saying, right? We have a lot of trust in them. They exercise a lot of power.

Power's not always exercised through just voting and through things like this, but also through the trust of institutions or the trust of value structures that people have. So you could have an idea

of like a Christian social order, which has a lot of power just because they say things like, look, we're going to put significant pressure on you to put in Christian ethics from the top down. Using democracy, using voting, using your systems,

And aren't we allowed to do that under your system? Aren't we encouraged to do that under your system? So why shouldn't we be just going full bore to grab as much of that power as we possibly can so that we can make those changes? I'm just trying to figure out what the difference is then. Between what? Between the system we have right now that just worked. That Christians aren't the dominant social power. That's the difference.

And when Christians become the dominant social power, then you'll have true Christian nationalism. What does that look like to you when they have this dominant power? What does that look like to you? That significant pressures are then put on government institutions and NGOs to become an arm of Christianity rather than operate with independence against Christianity. Okay. An arm of Christianity. What does that mean? What are they doing? So like right now, NGOs will give money to groups to infiltrate churches to give them counter-training towards LGBTQ. Okay.

Right. Bunch of documents just recently released on this. I'm sure you read them. OK. Yeah. So the NGOs, the non-government organizations give out tons of money to various groups who go in and say, hey, look, you guys are having trouble with LGBTQ people getting the correct counseling in your church. Don't worry. We have a special counselor, faith counselor come in and help assist train you away from things like conversion therapy, this type of thing. Right.

So these are special interest groups by secularist organization and atheist organizations which are trying to infiltrate the church to exercise power. We're just offering to do the same thing in reverse. Okay, how about we send in our non-government organizations and we say, hey, look, OnlyFans people, let us give you some training on how to get the fuck out of OnlyFans, right? Let us do the same thing just in the opposite direction. Let us push forward the values and ideas that we have.

And if you're willing to use force for your ideals, you can't then be hypocritical and say we can't use force for our ideals. Let's talk about that for a second. Okay. People start to rebel. Even if it's not the majority, let's say you do...

You get there. Ready to shoot your shot? Log into BetMGM every day and play the new Fast Break basketball game for your chance to win prizes. All you need to do is log into BetMGM. Head to the promotions page and fire up Fast Break to find yourself on the b-ball court ready to make a play. Choose to pass the ball to the shooting guard or small forwards.

or take it to the rim yourself and go for a slam dunk. If you score a basket, you'll win a prize like a boost token, $50 bonus bet, or bonus spins. If you miss, just log in tomorrow and try again. Play fast break for your daily shot at boost tokens, bonus bets, or bonus spins. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21+. This U.S. promo offer not available in D.C., Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER throughout U.S. 8778-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY467369 in New York. Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP in

Arizona, 1-800-327-5050. In Massachusetts, 1-800-BETS-OFF-IN-IOWA, 1-800-981-0023. In Puerto Rico, or visit 1-800-GAMBLER.NET in West Virginia. Subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards vary and expire in seven days. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. At Emory University, we believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead.

founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge. An Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery, all to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu. Why choose a Sleep Number smart bed? Can I make my side softer? Can I make my side firmer? Can we sleep better?

40 of people in power are Christian.

But the people aren't. And people start to riot and destroy cities. What are you going to do? Yeah, so you would do the exact same thing you would do right now under your constitutional republic. Martial law, right? So there's no difference again. That's what I'm kind of getting at. No, there's a difference. What am I telling you the difference is? You're going to enforce it. Yeah, so listen. So let's do an experiment, a social experiment, just like right now. So we can see if, well, let's try it this way.

Do rights exist? I mean, they exist because something makes them exist. Yeah, yeah. They exist inside your mind, right? Yeah, it's metaphysical if you think about it. Yeah, sure. So they don't exist in reality. You can't touch them. You can't touch them, smell them, this and that. But they exist in reality. But if somebody violates my rights, you're going to use force? You get someone to use force for you. Sure. Yeah. Right. You're going to get someone to use force for you. You're going to use the court system, whatever. So you're willing to use force for a thing that doesn't exist because you believe in it.

Right. What's wrong? So hang on. So a Christian, you think Christianity is not true, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we believe in something also that is not true, according to you. But if you violate it, we'd be willing to use force in order to do something about that like you would for my rights. So what's the difference? You're saying I have a thing which does – I have a thing that doesn't exist, but I'm willing to use force in order to enforce it like it does exist.

How is that any different than you saying Christianity doesn't exist, but you're willing to use force as though it does exist? How is that different? There's a big difference here. Let me explain it. I can't wait to hear it. With rights, we're talking about a system that... Is made up. It doesn't matter if it's made up. Yeah, I know. Right. Exactly. The Constitution is what makes this entire thing work. Which is made up. It doesn't matter. It's the...

Now you're getting it. So if Christianity isn't true, it doesn't matter. What happens if I go to Saudi Arabia and I start saying that Mohammed is blank, whatever. Just think of something crazy. They're going to behead you probably. Put your head on a spike. I could do that here.

Yeah, you can do that here. Because no one can enforce anything against me for saying that. Yeah, right. So there's a reality behind it. Something's actually working because of these rights. Well, the reality is the force you're willing to use for the thing that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter. And you're going to act as though it does exist and use force in order to reinforce it, right? It's like saying knowledge doesn't exist, but obviously there's databases of information that are real. It's not like saying that. What do you mean? You agree with me. Rights themselves don't exist.

They do metaphysically. Where? Where metaphysically even do they exist? Well, okay. Bill of Rights, Constitution. What do you mean? You mean to the piece of paper? But they're constructs of the mind is my point. That's what I said. It's metaphysical. They exist. Okay. Got it. So that's what you mean by metaphysical. Yeah. Okay. So these constructs of the mind, they're not actually true. Like you don't, it's not true that you have a right to freedom of speech, right?

That's not true. But here's the thing. Nothing will happen to me here where we have freedom of speech. Not disagreeing. In comparison to someone right now. Not disagreeing because of the use of force. So you see how there's a reality behind it? No, the reality is exactly the same. If I make up something. Exactly the same. I'm not getting beheaded. Yeah, I know. If I make up something in my brain, like let me, this is God, let's say. Yeah. This is God.

And its properties are if you say Coors Light is better than Bud Light, you get beheaded. Now I'm willing to use force on behalf of this thing that you don't believe is true. But you use force right now on behalf of things you don't believe are true. Right, but it's the process behind the whole entire system.

Is that there's a bill of rights, there's a constitution, everyone has these things in common. I'm not disputing that your force, that you using force has results. Right, but if you don't have those metaphysical things, think of how different things would be. Yeah, they would be very different. So that's what I'm saying. There's a reality that is a result of the fake reality.

Just like the reality of me believing what you would consider to be. I don't deny that. So what you would consider to be fake God. I don't deny. Has huge benefits for guys like you, right? I agree. I was hoping you would go there. So if that's the case, like we're basically. Religion helps people, right? We agree on that.

Religion Christianity and other religions - I've looked this up brought some stuff some more than others University of California did brain scans to determine brain in my brain scans I'm sure it's good science, bro There there's report there's studies from Duke University about meditation improving cognitive performance University at Wisconsin did did studies that showed both of those two are correct and

point is people who are religious do have better lives. Yeah. But that's why I'm agreeing with you that there's an, even if it's metaphysical, not real, there's a reality behind it, but the same thing exists for rights, right? No, there's no reality to rights. I just explained it. No, no, no. What you, here's your, you're confusing the truth with the effect.

The idea is like, here's what's actually true. What's true is the effect is you pretend the effect is the truth, though. Yeah, the effect is true. Yeah, I agree with that. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, I agree with that. And the same with religion. Yeah, I agree that the effect is true. So neither of us are going to dispute that the effect is true on both ends. Right. What I'm saying to you is just simply this.

that you can't criticize people for using force on behalf of their fictitious sky daddy if you use force on behalf of your fictitious piece of fucking paper, right?

What you're doing is you're just saying, here's the values that I have and I'm willing to kill on behalf of them. Those are the values they have. They're willing to kill on behalf of them. If it's all subjective and nonsense, I'm confused. You're saying it's all subjective and nonsense, right? You're both applying the same standard. I don't even know how you could criticize him, but that's what I was saying. You just came back around to what I was saying. I'm saying,

Even though I don't believe, it doesn't matter if I believe in Christianity or not, there's a reality behind it is what I'm saying. There's a reality to the effect for you. Yes. Yes. And so. So what I'm saying, what I postulate is that our social order is,

Right. The social order of the United States should move towards Christian ethics. That would be much better for the United States. I mean, come on. Dawkins himself wasn't Dawkins. A guy recently was like, oh, I really miss the Christmas carols because I was able to. I love Christmas. The gayest sweaters. And I just miss them. I also I also really enjoy when I'm studying ancient Greek and Roman religion.

There's things about religion that are great, and I don't think it's necessarily just Christianity. Yeah, so this push for the social order being dominantly Christian and the dominant Christian effect in society, that's what Christian nationalism is proposing, that we move so far away from those values that now we have other values which are beginning to overtake them, hookup culture, degeneracy of all types. Like, for instance...

You can't even really talk to a secularist now, Neil, and ask him a basic question like this. Why should we even have monogamy? Like, why should we?

I think most people would prefer it over anything else. Well, I think most people who have Christian inclinations would. Yeah. But the truth is, the open marriage thing and the open relationship thing is becoming more popular. There's no real reason why you can say... But I think non-Christians enjoy marriage too. If you say two men can get married, why can't 20 men get married, Neil? That's polygamy though. Yeah, so what? What's wrong with polygamy? You're asking me about my preference?

Is that it? I don't like it. Yeah, it's my preference. I don't like it. But as far as monogamy goes, that goes outside of just Christianity. People prefer to be with one person, have a family with one person. People prefer that life. Yeah, they could be. But if the dominant social order is Christian, right, we want to normalize that as much as possible is the point.

So that would be like positive forms of, I would say, rhetoric. You could say propaganda. Propaganda is a negative connotation. But we would want to have real propaganda towards one man, one woman, not towards alternative lifestyles, towards things like this. That's what Christian nationalism would propose, right? I believe that the social power in the United States...

Is even more important than the political power, because ultimately I think the political power is influenced by the social power. We've seen this with the trans movement. Right. The legislation which has happened from the various powers from LGBTQ groups who have social authorities kind of given to them and social sciences which grant them these authorities. I'm saying Christians can do the same exact thing and need to be doing the same. And we haven't been.

We haven't been, so we've lost that dominant edge in society, and we need to get it back. We didn't talk about anything about education, which I think would be probably the force behind...

what you would need to get done, what you want. You mean indoctrination? Schooling. Yeah. Growing up in school and learning how to live or whatever. What would you propose on that? I would propose... We have Catholic schools and then we have public schools. Yeah, I would propose a movement which is gaining a lot of steam thanks to COVID finally, which is homeschooling. Homeschooling. The idea is to move people out of public schools as quickly as possible. So not orthodoxy in control of the school?

No, that would be well, listen, interest. That would be a bad idea for a lot of reasons. OK, that would be a bad idea. Yeah, it'd be a bad idea for a lot of reasons. It has to it has to at least have a semblance of it can work right for me to promote it or propose it.

Here's what can work. I think that orthodoxy itself will begin to overtake other denominations just by you seeing the result of the people who follow it and the pushing of the social needle because the people who follow it are doing that pushing. People gravitate towards it anyway. We don't have to use force. I can use rhetoric. I can use things that are at my disposal to convince people. One thing that is very convincing to people, though, is when they take their kids out of school and they homeschool, there's no indoctrination.

There's no indoctrination. And right now you can do that. You can do homeschooling. Yeah, and I promote everywhere that people should attempt as quickly as possible to do it, even if it's only half the time. The problem is that schools have become babysitting. Schools are designed to babysit kids, not to educate them. What about parents that can't homeschool? They're just like deadbeats. They can't do it. Yeah, unfortunately, one thing that was proposed to fix this was school vouchers.

You know what I mean? So that you could take the money that you would normally be paid to the public school for the, you know, your child's seat. So they get like, you know, 20 bucks a day or 30 bucks a day or whatever. Instead, that goes to the parent to pick the school so they could set them to a private school that didn't have that sort of indoctrination public schools do.

However, that was resisted, right? Right. This kind of goes back to what I was saying. You do have to have some sort of public, whether it's private or public, whatever. You have to have some sort of state school system in place for those people. No, private schools can accommodate that.

Private Christian schools can accommodate that. So basically what you're saying is just get rid of public schools, then everyone else can choose between private and homeschooling. Well, public schools aren't producing people who are very educated, man. Most of them can't read. They can't write. Our literacy levels are low, right? I don't know how accurate that is. You can pull it up. I mean, you can Google it on your phone. Go ahead. Look at the literacy rate. It's not great, you know? Do you feel like our schools are cranking out educated people, Neil? Well...

I'll take your word on that. But do you do you think so? Do you think they're cranking out educated people? Yeah, you do. I went to a public school and I know plenty of people who are lawyers and doctors and in high positions that went to the public school with me. Yeah. OK. I'm just not everybody, obviously. Yeah. A lot of dipshits who are coming out of these public schools. All right. I'll give you that. Yeah. Dipshits in public schools. So the thing is, is like, look, we can you can give parents the choice to utilize that money to move into a school district, which is good for them. Right.

Yeah. So no, Neil, the Orthodox aren't here to say we're going to take over the entire government by with use of force and machine guns. We're here to say through social and gradual change. Right. We want to produce the results that we want by becoming a dominant force in society. By the way, that's how communists got where they're at with us. Yeah. Doing the exact same thing. Right. I just propose it in reverse. And that is Christian nationalism.

invade their stupid little NGOs, wreck their little safe spaces, get right in their stupid little faces, and tell them no. What was your reasons when I brought up the Oregon thing and I also brought up the refugees from Russia coming here? They were actually setting up, because they speak Russian, they didn't speak anything else, and they came here and set up little communes in certain places in America. Some of them still exist to this day. Yeah.

What's what was your I don't think I don't think I heard you say anything of why you don't think that would be that a better route for someone who's someone like yourself and a whole community of people that wanted to start a community of whatever communes exist right now. Orthodox communes, especially they're called monks, right? They live in literal communes that are supposed to be self-sustaining. Not everyone has to be a monk. I'm saying, but that's what but that's what they live with a brand new like like

little comp like you know in a city basically yeah for what for what purpose i don't want some of the society i want all of it neil yeah we don't want a few souls we want all of them neil um it's like pokemon right you gotta catch them all that's true that is kind of the end game that you mentioned earlier so we want them all um you don't get to you don't you don't get any yeah right it's all our pizza and universities

They start, you know, universities are mostly liberal, mostly sometimes go as far as being Marxist, as you might know. Yeah. What about that? What about it? How do you get inside that? The same exact way the communists did. I guess that's kind of what I've been getting at this whole time is what's the logistics behind it? Yeah, so I've always said, and I've always said this on stream from the very beginning, and I just said it to you a few minutes ago. It's not a 20-year plan. It's not a 30-year plan. It's a 300-year plan.

The idea is you start 10, 20 years the same way Marxists did, right? You encourage Christians, the dominant force in society, to enter into those types of institutions, which they're beginning to do, right? You do the same thing that the Marxists did. You just give reverse propaganda. It's the same thing. We don't need to go in with a barrel of a gun to change the culture of a university. You just infiltrate it like they infiltrated it. So I guess what I would...

Almost don't object to what you're saying. Of course not It's completely reasonable because you what what you're saying is and we're gonna do it through the system right now And we're just gonna christianity has always done this either. We've used martyrs to do it. Oh, why? Did the martyrs were our martyrs going in suicide bombing? No, well our martyrs were saying hey

Because the system is so corrupt, right? We will peaceably non-violently die on behalf of our beliefs, right? That's what they were doing. Well, what I'm saying is the reason why I'm saying I don't object to what you're saying because it almost sounds like you're just hoping that everybody starts converting to Christianity. No, no. What I'm saying is that Christians need to be a driving force in society to convince other Christians to become a social powerhouse.

Convince their churches. Convince their pastors. It's time to become activated. But if nothing systematically is changing, that's what I'm trying to do. The systems will necessarily change. I'm digging to find out what systematically. The culture necessarily changes the system. Sure. That's the point of a democratic republic is

Yeah, the culture is necessarily going to change the system. This could have happened already, but people are actually going in the opposite direction. Yeah, and I'm trying to stop that. That's the point. So if it keeps going the opposite direction, then what? Then, I mean, we'll do what Christians have always done. We'll continue to fight an uphill battle against the absolute madness of the world the best way that we possibly can. But what we're talking about with Christian nationalism—

What we're talking about with Christian nationalism is not going kicking in your door, Neil, and dragging off your gay brother because we don't like his face very much. What we're talking about doing is using the system which is in place and doing a counter indoctrination, utilizing it for our purposes instead of just allowing secularists to use it for their purposes. I believe that that's actually better for political power. That's just liberal democracy working in your favor.

Great. Yes. And that was just liberal democracy working in the favor of the communists. Right. So you're a Christian nationalist. No. Yes. Yes. No, no, no. Let me explain. Let me explain.

I don't have a problem with the system working in your favor. It's the system that I'm supporting. Yes! Right. Great. So the system you support supports the system I propose. But it can go in any direction, though. Yeah, but I want it to go my direction. It might go in a direction of complete degeneracy, and it's still the system that I still prefer. Yeah, I know, but let me ask you a question. Yeah. If by supporting us, right, in this system that you already love, and it leads to less of that degeneracy which you don't like, shouldn't you support us?

It depends on, there's a lot of things, a lot of factors that I would have to be, depends on who's the president, what the policies are, it depends.

Yeah, but if our goal, if our ultimate stated goal is to eliminate that degeneracy. Like if you're saying. And doing it inside of the theory system you propose. If you're talking about just the results. Yeah, just the results. I'm just blind to how it happens. Then sure. Yeah, great. You don't want degeneracy. You want people to be happy. So Christian nationalist. You agree on everything like that. Christian nationalist nihilism. I just don't know if. I don't. I think you should rebrand it into populism or something. You should call it Christian nihilism. Yeah, there you go.

Christian nihilism? All I'm saying is, I guess what I'm getting at is, I was trying to dig and to find out what...

major drastic systemic changes you would do. I don't think you realize how major and drastic those changes are. I didn't really hear much. Imagine this, that we've been living your whole life, you've been living where things like pornography were legal. You've been living your entire life where the playboy at the gas station was there. Or you've been living your whole life where these things were readily available to you.

You imagine you say, well, this is just a moderate change that porn is gone. It's like, no, that's a major change. That's a major societal change. One that you've never even lived without. Right. So like for you to say, well, well, these just sound like really moderate changes. Like in a way, that's great for me. Sure. Because I can go, well, yeah, we're just barely tweaking the system. So just don't don't look over here. Go go over there and do your thing. Right. But what I'm seeing it happen through the democratic process of the Democratic Republic. That's the system.

Yeah. That's how the system's in place. Like, what did you think we were going to do? Like, ride our chariots in rebellion against the United States? Well, I guess when you hear the term Christian nationalism, you think that we want a Christian nation. You want a Christian nation. And how to do that, you know, there might be some drastic system. There's not even another way to do it. You have two choices with any system. System one, you use the system to change the system. System two, you burn the system down.

That's it, right? You don't really have any other choices? So I don't want to burn the system down, right? I want to utilize Christian force, right, in culture in order to make these effective changes. And the best way for us to do that is to remember that we have the power of the boycott, that we have various powers of social shame, that we can use our freedom of speech in ways that don't seem very nice. Remember this. It's so powerful, in fact. What did tech companies do for 20 years?

All they do is they go, well, I don't like what you're saying. Gone. You're blacklisted. Nobody can hear your speech. Nobody can hear what you're saying. Nobody can see. You can't even bank, right? So they use a form of like non-force to just deperson you, right? What I'm saying is that instead of allowing them to deperson you, right, we can use the same type of social structures to basically deperson them, right?

To say, no, you know, under our system, since most people agree with me and the social shame is there, maybe the prostitute can't come into our bakery. Maybe the prostitute doesn't want to because people give her the dirty looks and the this and the that, right? I'm glad you brought that up. Who determines who's – what if you just want to use that person as a prostitute and I don't want to serve them even though they're not? Right.

You know? Yeah, I mean, that's good. I'm saying, like, the reason why you have those discrimination laws. Yeah, but that's, I mean, but that happens now. Like, that happens now. They just hide it, right? Like, I don't want to serve this person based on this or that. You know what I mean? They have all sorts of, they just don't admit what the motivation is. Well, I don't even think people should have to serve someone regardless. Yeah, exactly. So that's not even against your value structure anyway. It's libertarianism, right? If I don't like the color of your eyes, I don't have to serve you.

No, it's more... It's not my... I'm not a libertarian. It's more I just believe in free market capitalism. Okay. So then if you just suspect a person's a prostitute and don't want to serve them, totally up to you, right? Yeah. As an owner of your own company, I think. Man, Christian nihilism, really, that's a thing. It's going to happen. It's going to happen. I mean, I... This isn't much of a trial, Neil. No, I mean, look. What I'm hearing... Does the prosecution rest? Well, what I'm hearing is...

I don't want to change anything. I just want to get people to agree with me and get into places of power. Really? So what you heard from me is I don't want to change anything, really? Well, no, no, no. I don't want to change anything as far as the structure of democratic republic. Yeah, just like the communists. The communists used and subverted the structure of power. I'm saying Christians are also going to use and subvert the structure of power. But then, once they had control, they completely went into complete power.

Where was a control, where was a control, a command economy and directly from the state and controlled everything. And that's what I'm, that's what I was trying to figure out if that's where, where your Christian nationalism was headed. But what do you, hang on, hang on, back up, back up. I'm talking about communists in the United States.

Communists in the United States have already subverted power. But they didn't need to change any of the democratic structures because the same weapons they use, we can use. You're talking about Marxist and academia? Yeah, not just Marxist and academia, but Marxist and propaganda and media. Okay, because I was thinking you were saying... The propaganda and media means more than anything.

You need to understand this, right? It's like if everybody ignores a law, it's not a law. This happened during the mask mandates. If everybody in an area ignored the mask mandates, they didn't exist. The law was completely useless and worthless as long as people ignored it. It's the social power that matters. It's the media power that matters, the propaganda that matters, not the law. You can also choose between Fox News and CNN.

You have, there's different media outlets that say different, that push different world views. The media landscape has changed, which makes this possible in a way that it didn't used to be possible. Yeah, no, I actually think that's good that the media landscape should change and be more diverse. Yeah, but it makes this idea actually now possible and viable. It's actually possible. It's actually viable. Where now, okay, we got X. We have other public platforms. We're not getting thrown off.

for saying, "Hey, we have alternative ideas about transgender, LGBTQ. We have alternative ideas when it comes to immigration. We have alternative ideas when it comes to who we're going to import into our nation, who have different foundational ethics than we do." Right? We have all sorts of different ideas now. And so it's like now, though, we're not just being depersoned for them because the landscape of the technocrats has changed.

Last thing I want to ask you about, because I think we're getting towards the end. To have a free market system, you sort of need there to be some free reign on what you consider degenerate, what's not. What do you do to sort of monitor the market so that it continues in your ideal Christian way? Do you agree that there were sex robots which were designed to...

To be like in the likeness of a child. That there are sex robots that were just... I did not know that. They're restricted in the United States. That's good. What about my free market, Neil? All right. Good point. All right. You got me on that last one. All right. You got me on that. So you're... Okay. All right. Yeah. I think I... Let me just sum up what I heard, I guess. You can say something right back. It doesn't sound like you really want to...

take over the system and turn it upside down. I think you know, I do. I do. Well, let me let me let me explain myself. You sound like you want to use the system as it is now to enforce, to slowly get to a place where people agree with you. And then then they get in those places of power and then they enforce laws the correct way, which is just normal. It's just normal classical liberalism for Christians, basically.

Yeah, no, I think that we can we can make our own propaganda. We can make our own form of and and movements towards the things we want, like the Marxist. Now, how fast the Marxists do it? 60 years, something like that. Way quicker than you think. Right. Even in your lifetime, since you were a kid right now, life's changed a lot, hasn't it?

Things go back and forth. Yeah, just social interactions with people has changed. It's like this can happen way faster than you think, and opportunity is here where Christians can begin to seize power. And I think that that's a way better system than what we currently have. It's not perfect.

Right? It's not perfect. And you're right. There's going to be denominational issues and things like this. But it's way better than this idea of she just got out of high school and now she sells her butthole pics on OnlyFans for $250 a month. That's a really bad system, bro. And a system that allows that is a really bad system. So, yeah, that would be what I would do is subvert the system. And that's what we're trying to do. Good on time.

We can go into the Q&A. My guess is that there are going to be a lot of questions. If you want to line up, folks, we'll have the Q&A right to my left right here. 40 minutes. Not long. We'll back up just a bit to that piece of tape. All right. So I'm going to hold on to the mic as usual just to be sure your questions are short and pithy. Here you go. Sure. Two quick questions for Andrew. One, how important is the religiosity of Christianity versus alignment with Christian ethics?

And then the second question is, we sign our names and date them to a date and measure all time relative to Jesus' birth globally, not just nationally. So you can't cash a check. You can't have a document up in court. So to what extent are we not already winning a 2,000-plus-year-old game, and we just have a mismanagement problem that we've got to overcome? Yeah, so a couple things.

To answer to your second question, yeah, we have a mismanagement thing we need to overcome. Does Christianity ultimately always win? Yes. Is it always going to? Yes. It's always going to. I fully believe that is the case. The gates of hell will never prevail against the church. Then ask your first question. Can you just tell me real quick what it was again?

How important is the religiosity of Christianity versus Christianity? Can you repeat it? Without the enforcement, remember it's enforcement arm, right? Andrew, can you repeat the question? Basically he's asking how important is the belief in God rather than just the alignment towards Christian ethics. I would say that

Your alignment towards Christian ethics doesn't mean very much without the belief in God because that's the thing in which you're deriving the morality directly. So otherwise you can just change your ethics, right? And we want that unchanging standard. Oh, all right. We're done. You got two questions. Yeah, for Andrew. Thank you. Is the Christian activism that you suggest vulnerable to corruption without genuine revival? Yes. Yeah.

Hey, do you think he'll be coming over to the dark side? I don't know. We'll see. Yeah? Hope so. We have the best pizza. Question. No, it's not pineapple. Question for Andrew. So Marxism took about, what, 60 years until it becomes in effect. How long would Christian nationalism last?

be like realistically it can happen very rapidly it can happen within just a few years especially when you have a birth rate crisis like we do it doesn't take long especially if you're bringing in immigrants from nations which are far more kind of traditionally Catholic and things like this than the Protestants which are here it could actually happen very rapidly

First question is for Neil. Neil, how easy was it for Andrew to just change your incomplete worldview right then? I didn't change anything. I feel the same before is when I got up here. I was actually happy to hear that he likes the classical liberal system of voting and having a Senate and House of Representatives and a president. Never said I liked it.

I'm just saying, you don't sound like you want to change the system very much, except you want to take the system and make it work in your favor. And I'm fine with that. That's just the way it works. So, good question, though. Second question, Andrew. How did you remotely tell Rachel to bring you a beer? She just knows. Excellent. What's your question? I actually was just curious on both of your guys' view, because...

I'm one that I'm actually agnostic, but I am rooted in Christian ethics, like the principles. So what would you say to people who are sort of in that balance where you do believe in the higher power and the gist of most of Christian principles, but still sort of

pull away from the general stories that people are told. Then there's no real rooting because you can just simply change your opinion and you have no unchanging standard from which to rely on to not just kind of change your opinion, right? So it's not that Christians get, they don't get to pick and choose their ethics, right? They have to follow their ethics from an unchanging standard.

Even if they don't like it. In fact, most of the time, they don't like it. Think of the idea of having mercy for your enemies. It's like, I hate that part. I hate that part. Hey, so since Neil doesn't really seem to take much offense to what your plan is, if Christian nationalism or culturalism became dominant, how would Neil and how would you, Andrew, feel about

Doing things like repealing the 19th Amendment, limiting suffrage, rolling back some of the gay marriage stuff. Well, you see, Rachel, that's just how the system works. Right, Neil? That's just how the system... Yep, it is. Theoretically, people came out and voted for those things, and it works, it works. That's just how... So when I say things like... I'm not wavering on that. So when I say things like...

We're going to repeal the 19th. What you're saying is that's just how the system works. It's totally viable. It's totally viable and reasonable as long as Christian nationalism gets a foothold in. And we use the social powers in order to change the ideas of the politicians, much like the Marxists did, that they could, like, I don't know, repeal the 19th like they did maybe for abortion, right?

Right. I actually was surprised that happened. I didn't think that was going to happen. Everybody was surprised it happened, but like I said, it can happen very rapidly. It's like, let's not pretend that this is not viable, right? It's just that we get to pervert the system back, right? We get to do it back to them, the same thing they did to us. So you were saying that in a Christian nationalist framework, that when you get to the point of being in power, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, they have dialogue with

and they decide which becomes the power base, which becomes the base of the social force. But you can't really ally with Protestants though because they don't have that unchanging ethic. They don't have a central force. Like Catholics do and Orthodox...

do to almost the same degree, but Protestants, there's 40,000 churches, so how can you ally with Protestants? Well, you wouldn't be allying with them, but they would be allying with you. How can they be a part of your movement, though? They would be allying with you, so they would just have similar aims for the universal portions of the ethics, right? So the universal portions like probably abortion,

LGBTQ, kind of marriage reforms, things like that. Those would be things that they'd be moving towards too. Remember here in the United States, we've always had tons of Protestant denominations, right? Long before the 20th century, that was still the case, right? And they still had kind of universals that they all considered to be a constant. I'm not saying...

theological infighting is not going to happen because it is but it's like yeah but it'll happen after we get rid of a lot of these things like OnlyFans etc etc so like let's have the fight then what rights were taken away from you as a Christian what's that what rights were taken away from you as a Christian did I say rights were taken away from me as a Christian you're kind of talking about rights being taken away from other people and what right the 19th amendment

Gay marriage? Wait, wait. Abortion? Yes. So hang on. I'll answer each one. My position on voting is not that only women shouldn't vote.

But that mostly mentioned vote either. And remember that at our foundation, people couldn't vote. It was not a thing. Universal suffrage wasn't a thing. And by the way, let me ask you a question. Why do you want stupid people to vote? Like, why do you think that's a good idea? That's a really bad idea that we have stupid people who can vote and nullify the vote of informed people. It's a terrible idea. Hang on. Second, when you're talking about repealing gay marriage, what are you talking about?

All I'm advocating for is that it's complete fairness. If I can only marry a woman, a gay man can only marry a woman. Totally fair. But where is that fair because you're not gay? What does that have to do with anything? You're not gay. So what? I can only marry a woman? He can only marry a woman. That really makes, I don't understand that argument. Well, it's fair. I don't understand. If I break cookie in half, I get half the cookie, you get half the cookie, right?

Okay, sure. But I also have the decision if I want the cookie or not. Yeah. Well, here's the thing. Why does the state need to get involved for gay marriage anyway? Why can't we get the state out of marriage and then gays can have what they call civil unions or they could go get married outside of a church or not be recognized by Christians because Christians don't recognize their marriages now.

So the reason why we need these unions is that so partners can make health decisions for others in case of emergencies. They can do it now. You can put somebody in charge of your health right this second. Why can't you? I have already. Yeah, you can. You can do it right now. You don't need to be married to put someone in charge of your health decisions. But there are then laws that come in place if you happen to not do that. Like?

Like when you're in a relationship that you're not able to then have these legal documents saying, yes, this is my next of kin, this is the person who is going to be able to make these legal decisions.

That sounds like really bad planning. So your only objection here is if gay men get married, then they instantly enter into a status of he gets to make medical decisions on my behalf. That's your objection. Even though you could not get married to him and that person can still make medical decisions on his behalf. It's just, he's too lazy to go draft the documentation so that he can make the medical decisions on his behalf. Do I got this right?

I hear where you see the flaw in what I am saying. Yeah. However, it is then also scary when we go to take away rights. Why? Do you find it scary when we take away people's right to own a, I don't know, machine gun? Is that scary for you? You mean like an AR-15? Yeah. No, no, no. Like an actual machine gun.

I know I live with guns. Yeah, I know, but an actual machine gun. That's my question. It's like people don't seem to find it too scary to take away all sorts of rights. Oh, no, that was not what, okay. We saw all the machine guns. How about that? What's that? Machine guns. Sure, yeah. I mean, if we take that, if you said no, we shouldn't, isn't that taking a right away then? Like this is always reducible. Same thing with the First Amendment. Like if we had hate speech laws, would you be okay with that?

Define what you mean by hate speech laws like you said something like the F slur to a gay man That would be hate speech. And so you're saying you're asking would you be okay with that being a hate speech law is my question I think then comes down to common decency That's not my question would you be okay with that being a hate hate speech law I don't think somebody should go to jail for words. I

Okay, got it. So then my freedom of speech should be able to entail me being able to call people the F slur, right? Then becomes some human decency. Yeah. So you're just a jerk. So your objection is you're just a jerk. Yeah, yeah, whatever you want. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Wasn't it Jesus who said he who is without sin casts the first stone? Yeah, but do you know what that means?

No. It doesn't mean that persecution can happen from the perfect, right? So what Jesus is pointing out here is hypocrisy.

But there's righteous judgment. When you're talking about the Bible, right, we can read about righteous judgment. Christians are actually to judge. This idea that Christians aren't to judge is not in the Bible. We're not only allowed to judge, but especially judge each other. That's how we keep each other on the straight and narrow. That's how we keep each other on the right path. When you're talking about judgment for the mortal soul, that's the territory of God. But human beings have to make judgments. We have to make value judgments about each other all the time. We have to. There's no choice.

It comes into confirmed consent, but I'm sorry. Okay. Time 99. That was crazy. No, my question is for you, Andrew, and we're talking a lot about how... I had to touch this water that Lou touched up here, I think. Dude. His trans vagina all over it. Dude, yeah, but...

Okay, real quick. It's trans-naminated, or no, trans-contaminated. There we go. Whatever it is. Go ahead. Okay, but Andrew, I've heard you talk a lot about how Christian nationalism would be good for the country, but if that was the case, what would that do to Christianity? Don't you think that that would kind of hurt Christianity if we had a Christian nation, then you'd have all these fake Christians trying to fit in? And isn't that worse than being a sinner? Isn't it being a fake Christian one of the worst things you can do? Yeah.

Wouldn't that dilute the Christian religion and theoretically could potentially hurt Christianity by making it a Christian nation? The problem is you've got tons of fake Christians now, but if we're going to have tons of fake Christians then, at least we'll get rid of the OnlyFans.

Right? So it's like, that's the status right now is that most people self-ID as Christian don't actually practice the faith. That's the truth. But do you think that, I guess my only question is, if we became a Christian nationalist country, and I could see the benefits of that, does it help Christianity overall? Yeah, I think it does overall, yeah. Sounds good. I think it does. That's my question. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Alex. Appreciate it. I think that's it for questions. Any last ones? Otherwise, we're going to do our vote.

And that'll give us plenty of time for dinner, too, in case anybody's traveling off-site. Did I even get one person to switch to my side or no? We'll find out. And remember that normally I would have devastated poor Neil over here, and he would have deserved it, but this was an opportunity for my worldview to be on trial. So I thought I did a pretty good job of not attacking yours. This is the time when we'll vote. If you lean more towards Andrew's position...

Christian nationalism, you're like, yeah, that's fine. Or maybe you're pro-Christian nationalism. Maybe I should put it that way. And then remember, only vote if you voted in the first one. And then, well, actually, sorry, Bobby Duncany. All right, keep your hands up, please. Again, if you're watching online, you can vote at the manifold link in the description on who you think will be most persuasive in this debate determined via our hand poll.

All right, you can put your hands down. And if you lean more towards Gnostic conformist position, where you think that Christian nationalism is bad, would you slide your hand up? Nice. I got a couple. That's not fair. They weren't here earlier. I think so. I think you're right. All right, Bob? All right, the first vote, Andrew, 25 votes, Gnostic 10. After the debate, Andrew went up to 28, Gnostic dropped to 5.

I win. With that, we'll want to give a huge thank you to our speakers. In any case, we're grateful for our speakers. Please give them a round of applause, especially Neil. It was fun. We appreciate Neil jumped in last minute to do this debate. So we do appreciate that, Neil. And with that, we'll let you go to dinner. So Bob, you'll see in the back. Can you raise your hand, Bob?

He will, if you are doing the VIP dinner with the speakers, Bob can show you where that is. However, if I remember right, it starts at 5:30. Are we able to go early? That was last night. That's right. Today was the VIP lunch. So you are all dismissed for dinner on your own. Thank you for that. Wherever you want to go.

Ready to shoot your shot? Log into BetMGM every day and play the new Fast Break basketball game for your chance to win prizes. All you need to do is log into BetMGM, head to the promotions page, and fire up Fast Break to find yourself on the b-ball court ready to make a play. Choose to pass the ball to the shooting guard or small forwards.

or take it to the rim yourself and go for a slam dunk. If you score a basket, you'll win a prize like a boost token, $50 bonus bet, or bonus spins. If you miss, just log in tomorrow and try again. Play Fast Break for your daily shot at boost tokens, bonus bets, or bonus spins. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21+. This U.S. promo offer not available in D.C., Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER throughout U.S. 8778-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY467369 in New York. Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP in

Arizona, 1-800-327. 50-50 in Massachusetts, 1-800. Bets off in Iowa, 1-800-981-0023 in Puerto Rico. Or visit 1-800-GAMBLER.net in West Virginia. Subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards vary and expire in seven days. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel.

When you think about businesses like Allbirds or Skims that are selling through the roof, sure, you think about a great product, a cool brand, and brilliant marketing. But what's often overlooked is the business behind the business that makes it all possible. For millions of businesses, that's Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, the home of the number one checkout on the planet.

With ShopPay, you can boost conversions by up to 50%, meaning fewer abandoned carts and way more sales. Whether your customers are scrolling online, strolling through your store, or browsing social media, Shopify ensures you're ready to sell wherever they are. It's no secret businesses that want to grow, grow with Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Allbirds uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash dax, all lowercase.

Go to shopify.com slash dax to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com slash dax.