It is the 13th of November 2026.
I am Cory J.
Mahler, and this is at any cost.
This is episode 45, a QA episode.
And I have a little bit of housekeeping before we get into
the questions.
Everything looks good on my end, so I will presume that everything
is functioning until the chat tells me otherwise.
I'm always a little suspicious when OBS just launches and I have
zero problems.
If you were expecting me to appear on Instagram at any point
in the near future and I mention that because when I opened
Restream today.
it said they streamed to Instagram now.
I tried to set up an account and I was immediately flagged
for review.
So odds of that are probably pretty low that I will be
streaming on Instagram in the near future.
I think I'm probably pre-banned.
That aside, the actual housekeeping that I have is related to other
things. So let me go ahead and pull up a browser window
here. Just a few things on which I have been working that
I can now pretty much say are ready for use.
I can announce them.
Of course I've dropped the cap on my pen.
Hmm, there we go.
So the things on which I've been working that I wanted to
announce, a couple of free things.
Actually, they're all free.
One of them has a paid option.
I created a printer management software that is called Zprint.
That is here, you can go to zsuite.cc.
You could probably also search for it as long as you also
include my name, I'm sure it'll come up.
But this is just printer management software, works under macOS and also
Linux. I figured out that the code overlapped largely with Linux, and
so there's a Linux version as well.
And
it's just a nice for it does a lot more than managing
printers. You can save to a file, you can make the file
searchable under Mac OS.
You can print an image and save to photos.
Lots of options there for you.
Go ahead and play around with it, it's free.
If you encounter any problems, let me know.
The second one I wanted to mention is ZDOCA, which is a
software I made for contact management, basically so that you can keep
more notes on your contacts.
You know, if you want another person's favorite food or favorite restaurant
or remember certain relationships, things like that.
And that's also free available on the app store.
So Incidentally, this is one of those cases where if you would
like to support me in a way that does not cost you
anything, then you can certainly download this and leave a review, and
that is certainly helpful.
I don't get anything monetarily from that, but it's certainly helpful.
And then more people can find the software.
The last item is Zfolio.
I created a
WordPress editor sync engine, basically a WordPress
documentation suite also writing things like that.
So anything involving text.
Largely because I wanted this for my own use and it has
an AI agent surface and MCP, things like that.
And I wanted to use this for my own purposes for documentation.
Eventually the Septuagint.
I'm going to use this as the backend for running that website.
Because I didn't like the one I was using.
It was annoying me.
But at any rate, this one is free.
It does have paid plans if you want some more features.
So go ahead and try that out as well.
One very nice thing about it is that as far as I
can tell, I've essentially solved the problem of syncing in in live
sync which is an ongoing challenge for a lot of platforms.
So
if you use this, go ahead and test it.
Open it on three or four, five, six if you feel like
it devices.
And try to cause a conflict.
I don't think you'll be able to, because the engine is quite
robust. At any rate, that's pretty much all of the housekeeping that
I have.
So
one last item actually, I will mention it because I mentioned it
in my chat on telegram, but I did not say it to
those of you who don't read the chat.
I went through and organized basically, all of the past questions and
the topics on Omniphora for this show, all of that information should
now be up to date and accurate.
So I have a list of pending questions now that I have
not answered to my satisfaction.
I will go through three of those today and I'll be working
through those in future shows as well.
So if your question incorrectly got flagged as answered, please let me
know. Ask it again.
That being said, I will go ahead and get into the first
question, which is actually tangentially related to what I just said.
And And this one was sort of a general one from a
previous session in the chat just about AI and my general view
of AI.
And
my view of AI really there are this is question one.
There are
two layers to it.
One is that it is a very useful tool.
It has a great a great deal of potential.
I'm making great use of it, as you can probably tell from
the housekeeping there and things like that.
And so obviously I am not 100% opposed to it because it
does have advantages, it does have utility, it is a very useful
tool. But it is one of those tools that is a double
edged sword, and that's sort of the second aspect to it, and
one that I have focused on in some writing and things like
that Where I have mentioned the negatives.
I'll go ahead and bring up an article on that that I
wrote. This is probably the one that people are thinking of when
they ask me about AI and my views of it.
I have written about it in a negative sense, and I wrote
this back in 2023.
And
for I'll go ahead and reveal something about the article that most
people have missed so far, and perhaps ironically some of the modern
AIs would recognize.
This last line is meant to be sort of an ironic reference
to a particular philosophical tract, and I'll go ahead and let the
reader, the listener, figure out which one.
But the negative aspect, if you read the article carefully and some
other things that I've written on the subject as well, would be
the human aspect.
And the reason that I have some negative views about what could
happen with AI, and I've written a few articles on it, just
the three so far, the ways in which humanity is going to
use AI
will be beneficial in some ways.
Certainly, there are good things we're going to do.
It makes it so that we can make more secure software more
quickly. We can run certain medical analyses more readily and more accurately
than human beings can do because AI can analyze more data than
any human being ever could.
There are benefits, certainly.
But we're also going to use it to develop things like bioweapons.
And we are going to use it to develop new chemical weapons,
and we're going to use it to build autonomous robotics that will
then be used on the battlefield.
We're going to use it to cause immense harm.
And that's the problem that I see.
And some of those things, and as someone mentioned in the chat,
yes, it's also used for pornography.
And
some of those things have such a huge negative potential that it
is difficult to see AI as a good thing overall in the
context of how humanity will use it, right?
This is sort of just a basic game theory problem.
If there is an immense payoff for something with a certain percentage
chance, right?
It doesn't really matter what the percentage chance in the in this
case because of the potential negative payoff.
The potential negative payoff here is virtually infinite.
And if the potential negative payoff is virtually infinite, there is never
a rational reason to choose that route.
Because the basically the outcome on balance is negative.
Infinitely negative.
And that's the danger that I see with AI.
Infinit it's probably worth noting that the infinite sadist, that article, is
more of an argument against hedonism and things like that than specifically
AI. It just happens to touch on AI, that's why it's tagged
for that.
Really, it's two articles on AI on my site.
But that's essentially my view.
I don't think that it's inherently bad.
I think that it provides such a capacity for immense harm that
it will be a net negative.
But it's because of the way human beings will use it.
You can say, well, any tools like that.
That's true, absolutely.
But a crazy person can do only so much harm with a
knife. A crazy person can do a lot of harm with nuclear
weapons, right?
And unlike nuclear weapons, I can run AI here.
I have AI running just down the hall in another room, right?
Most Most of the work I'm doing is on various subscriptions and
things, but there's a fundamental difference between something like a nuclear weapon,
which can do a great deal of harm, and something that literally
is already running on your phone.
So the risk there is just very different.
So that's essentially my view on AI.
Again, not inherently negative, probably something that is inherently good, but you
have to modulate that with regard to how humanity will inevitably use
it. And of course, there are also the risks that I mentioned
in before the deluge with regard to knowledge and the way that
AI can basically be used, even unintentionally, to destroy the capacity to
relay knowledge.
And I think that's probably the strongest argument I would make against
it. And the only way to deal with that is really gating
it very heavily in a way that we don't have the capacity
to do because we don't have the systems in place.
Those are political systems, notably, not AI or IT systems.
Question two is a related question, is about really the subcontinent and
how those from that region wind up in positions of power, particularly
in IT and related companies and certain corporations.
And perhaps this one is timely that I put it off to
answer it until today because Microsoft just had that enormous outage.
I was not impacted by it, but I have a lot of
attorney friends, and certainly most law firms use Microsoft products, and so
I was hearing about it all day.
But the reason they wind up in those positions is really
there are two main ones and then there's sort of a third
point that I will bring up because it has more explanatory power.
The first one is the most obvious, and it is nepotism in
the strict negative sense of the term.
They will always preference their own completely regardless of ability.
And so they will cause immense harm to others in order to
preference their own people.
Now, is it bad to preference your own people?
No. But again, let's take an extreme example.
Should you put your own people who are wildly incompetent in charge
of a nuclear power plant, one of the old style ones that
has the potential to melt down?
The answer is no, you should not do that.
They do that.
And so that form of nepotism, of course they wind up in
positions of power, because as soon as you get one, you get
two, and then you get four, and then you get eight, and
that's how it goes, so on and so forth.
The other part, the second point that I want to make that's
very much related to that, the entire subcontinent is a mill for
fake credentials.
And so we don't have great systems in place for checking fake
credentials. We just kind of accept you have a BA, a master's,
a PhD.
Well, okay, it's a BA, a master's, or a PhD.
They churn out millions upon millions upon tens of millions of fake
ones all the time.
And so they apply with fake credentials, and then because of the
first point, if someone calls to verify them, they lie for each
other. And then
the third part would be that again, it's kind of tied into
what I just said, our systems don't have a way to really
deal with this.
And it is partly because of capitalism, and it's partly because we've
lost the sort of tight-knit community you need in order to protect
your own people.
And immigration shouldn't be a thing.
So it's complicated why it happens, but it's also very straightforward.
They're liars and thieves.
And being a liar to thief works really well if no one
stops you.
Question three is largely unrelated to the previous two, unless you want
to go on a true tangent.
Someone asked about my audio setup, and so I will just run
down very briefly what I use for anyone who wants to do
audio work, I I really should have a recommendation page for this.
In fact, I will go ahead and make that a note for
myself, so I will do that.
I have a recommendation page on my site for various things, but
I don't have all of my audio hardware up there so I
will update that.
But
let me see what I have on that page for recommendations.
I'll pull that up quickly here.
So for
yes, I do have a little bit, but obviously I don't have
all of it.
You can see I have my headphone recommendations, and I would add
to that obviously Apple AirPods are great, but if you want to
do studio editing work, the Zennheiser 4090 pros are absolutely the best
thing you can get.
They are fantastic.
The only problem with them, and I will say this in the
sense that it is a problem sort of, but not a problem
with the product.
Once you have listened to audio on the Zenheiser 4090 pros, everything
else will sound like garbage, comparatively, which is unfortunate, but it's the
reality. So that's what I use.
You've seen me with those on before.
That's what I use for all of my audio editing and listening
when at my desk because they're what's hooked up to my computer.
My main microphone is the Xenizer E965.
It is not what I am using right now, because right now
I'm obviously using the lapel mic, which is one of these little
road units.
You may know this from a certain infamous political incident, we will
call it.
Thankfully, I do not have the massad special, so I should be
fine. I ordered mine long ago before that sort of thing was
going on.
Not before it was going on, before that particular incident.
So I use the
Rode lapel mic, the lavalier, whatever you want to call it, for
stuff like this, because then you don't have the giant mic and
the boom arm in my face, right?
There's also a Zenheiser set for that that is very nice.
I would use one of those two if you need to do
something with a lavalier.
And then for the back end audio, someone asked about does the
Zennheiser need a separate power unit?
And for the headphones, the answer is yes, they do need an
amp. And I am using an Evo 4 for that.
That's probably one of the better options if you are just getting
started and need something that really only has two inputs
and I think it's two inputs on this one.
Yes, it's two inputs, forty-eight volt, passive, right.
That's what you're going to want.
Something like that.
There are a few other options that people like and you can
find those easily online.
I happen to like this one, it works quite well.
Road has one now that I'm sure is quite good as well.
But for the audio software, which obviously is going to be a
big part of how this works and sort of where the magic
is for some of this stuff.
I would definitely go with this setup.
This is what I recommend, period, because it is what's going to
work best for virtually anyone, certainly anyone asking me this question.
If you think of you have something better, then by all means,
if you know that system, use it.
But for anyone else, use this.
You need a Mac.
And you need a Mac just because Macs are quite frankly best
for A V stuff.
That's just the reality of it.
You can disagree if you like, but go look what's in professional
level studios.
In many cases, you're looking at a Mac.
And these days you can get a Mac Mini pretty cheap, and
they are certainly powerful enough to run this sort of thing.
On top of that, for the software, you want what is called
audio hijack.
That is going to be your audio stack.
That's where all your plugins go.
That's where you do all of your tweaking of the audio stream
before it gets into your digital audio workshop, your DAW.
And for that, I'm going to say stick within the Mac system,
use Logic Pro.
If you're already familiar with another one, that doesn't matter as much.
I think Logic Pro is probably the most powerful.
It tends to be what you see in actual professional studios again.
So stay within the Mac ecosystem, use that.
These days it's part of Apple's creative subscription or whatever, which includes
pages and keynote and a bunch of other stuff.
So I would just do that.
For the plugins, you are going to want.
You're going to want two different groups or classes, as it were.
The first one is Rough Rider 3.
That is going to be a big part of just the initial
sort of tweaks of the audio stream to make sure that you
sound good on the other end.
And that one used to be free.
There were some abuse issues with people abusing their website and things,
and you can still find it for free.
It was available for free at one point, so don't feel like
you're doing anything bad using it.
By all means, toss a little bit of money toward the developer
if you use it all the time.
I certainly do.
I use it all the time.
It's in my stack.
And the other one would be
The biggest one is Clarity VX, and the reason you want Clarity
VX is that that is the one that eliminates all background noise.
And I mean all background noise.
I have used this one to record at an Oktoberfest at an
outdoor bar, and you could still understand what people were saying.
It is that good at eliminating background noise.
So
that's from Waves Audio.
You can look at the plugins that they have there and determine
which ones you need, but really the big one you need is
Clarity VX.
Then probably just add a vocal writer.
Waves has one that's quite good.
Other than that, that's really kind of about it, unless you have
a problem with sibilance, which is to say if you make a
lot of th those kind of noises, then by all means look
at a plugin that cuts down on that just for audio quality.
But that is probably about what you need to get started if
you're doing actual audio work.
And then other than that, export in M4A, which is to say
automatic, you're going to use Apple lossless, but excuse me, make sure
it is not the full file size, which would be for say
a Stone Choir episode, you're looking at one to two gigabytes, use
the compressed version, which is again still lossless.
That will give you much better audio quality than basically anyone else,
because most everyone else uses MP3, horribly compressed down usually to 128
kilobits per second, which is crazy in this day and age when
everyone has more bandwidth.
So that will give you much better audio quality than everyone else
and make people much happier to listen to you.
And that's basically my stack.
And other than that, I'm using an iPhone as my camera because
quite frankly, you probably have it in your pocket and it's other
than buying a DSLR for five thousand dollars, the best camera you're
going to get for this.
and so far as a DSLR is concerned, I don't think you'll
need to be counting how many pores I have in my nose.
So the iPhone is probably good enough.
It does four K.
It does eight K if you want, but I don't think any
platform supports that for streaming.
Maybe YouTube if you're paying.
Question four is from the chat.
Is there a biblical slash Christian meaning of being an athlete?
This one I'm going to pull up two different verses from scripture
that are related because they certainly come to mind, and I'm sure
they come to mind for some of you when this question is
asked. So let me pull up logos here.
There we go.
The first one is from first Corinthians, of course.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run,
but only one receives the prize, so run that you may obtain
it. Every athlete exercises self control in all things.
They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
So I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one
beating the air, but I discipline my body and keep it under
control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Right. And let me hope I didn't just push something there.
Second Timothy is the second one.
An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.
It is the hard working farmer who ought to have the first
share of the crops, etc.
And of course there is another verse of which you should think,
which is saying that, you know, physical discipline and things like that
is of some utility, but it's not everything is the gist of
that verse.
So
what does it mean to be an athlete?
An athlete isn't really necessarily technically a spiritual or, you know, a
scriptural concept.
It is good to be fit.
I would have called myself an athlete, say, twenty years ago.
These days I could probably lose a little bit of weight, but
it is a good thing to discipline the body, to keep the
body under control, to keep the body in shape.
This is something God has entrusted to you, you should do the
best job you can to keep it functioning for as long as
God gives you life, right?
It benefits you as well, right?
You're going to have a better life if you are in good
shape than if you let yourself go.
That's just the reality.
Thin people have better lives than fat people.
So is athlete though like a theological category?
No, it's just something that is used as an illustration, as a
metaphor, as an analogy, and Paul particularly likes it.
It's used a lot.
It is useful, but it's not strictly a theological category.
Question five also from the chat.
How would you say your beliefs regarding Christian nationalism have evolved?
So I don't know that my beliefs have necessarily evolved or changed.
My views on these things have been pretty set for quite a
while now, probably 30 years, realistically.
So So and yes, I realize that sets me at r a
rather a fairly young age when I first developed these views.
But
if anything has changed, it would be sort of nuance or little
polishing of the edges of my views, things like that.
I wouldn't say that my views have really changed in any truly
significant way, because I've always recognized that there is very clearly a
religious element that is necessary for any sort of meaningful mass political
movement. And that's just a practical answer, even if you don't take
into account that yes indeed the truth matters and you should worship
the Lord God because he is in fact God.
Practically speaking, you have to have that myth aspect is what I
would call it now, certainly.
And religion is the biggest component of myth.
And that's why I keep saying that you need blood, soil, myth.
Blood and soil is not enough.
They're necessary, but they're not sufficient.
All three are necessary and together are sufficient.
And so you can't ignore the myth part.
And so you need the Christianity in order to have the nationalism,
because you're not going to get any sort of meaningful nationalism without
the myth
Question six I am the origin of the backlog note about the
Orthodox. It was badly worded since I was tapping it out while
doing laundry.
I'd still like to know more detail about your opinion on them.
So this one has come up a number of times and it
will probably continue to come up here and there, so I'll go
ahead and answer it again and I suppose I will touch on
four points.
And these aren't in any particular order.
I'm not saying these are hierarchical, like one is better than the
other, or more strongly supportive of the conclusion, whatever.
But these are the four points that I would make.
And I've made various points against them.
I have the article and we have the episode and I will
go ahead and add that as a note for myself to add
that to the show notes.
The four points that I would make.
One, the Eastern Orthodox in the West are a LARP.
The West was Christian for well over a thousand years, nearly two
thousand years, in some cases.
The West was never Eastern Orthodox, as the name should probably imply,
right? West Eastern, not the same.
And so those in the West who pursue that are LARPing.
They're not serious.
They're not taking the faith more seriously than you and I.
They are not returning to tradition or anything like that.
They are pursuing a LARP because they have abandoned their own people
and their own history.
And so I detest it for that.
Then there is also the fact that look at how they interact
every opportunity they get.
They are incredibly hostile to the West, to Western Christianity, to Protestantism,
and to Catholicism.
And you know, we have our differences there, our internecine conflict between
Protestants and Roman Catholics, we don't need this alien third party coming
in and making things worse.
So I do not like them because of that.
There is also the fact that
they are very much a PSyOP.
And they are a PSYOP starting in the World War II period.
Because the communists basically destroyed Christianity in Russia and some other parts
of what would become the USS USSR.
You can see the consequences of this today on a map still.
If you lay over it, you know, belief in God and things
like that.
And then actual practice of Christianity.
Don't just go on self-report.
Go on what they actually do.
Do they attend church?
Do they believe that abortion is morally impermissible?
Do they support the death penalty?
Things like that.
But the communists basically destroyed the Eastern churches, and then they figured
out, well, actually we need something to motivate these men to pick
up guns and go murder other Europeans.
And so they resurrected the churches.
But they resurrected them under the control of the Communist Party, and
they used them basically as a propaganda arm of the Communist Party.
That has extended into today.
It morphed, of course, from the USR to Russia, but Russia continues
to fund these things in the West as a destabilizing force.
That is one of the tactics they used.
They also funded the civil rights movement, so called.
This is a divide and conquer tactic, a destabilization tactic they have
used for many years.
And so I do not like them for that reason.
They are a foreign beachhead, made to cause problems, funded by foreign
interests. And then the final point, and I will say this one
is hierarchical because this is actually the most important one.
I didn't save it for the last because it's most important.
I just happened to save it for the last.
I disagree with them doctrinally.
Extremely strongly do I disagree with them doctrinally, because Palamus is a
rank heretic, and Palamus is basically the architect of their theology.
He is the man who sets their doctrine of the theology.
He is the one, they will always say, This is what we
believe. And there are things in his book, The Triads, that are
unbelievable rank heresy.
Like I've said many times before, reading that book feels like reading
something that someone found in hell and somehow brought back.
I do not recommend that you read it.
It is an evil book.
It is an evil work.
It is not good for men to read it.
That is their theology.
And And the kind of man who can't recognize evil when he
reads it, there's a real problem there.
And you have these men who are sons of the West, who
are inheritors of the West, looking at this stuff and then saying
they agree with it, there's something fundamentally wrong with the men who
go East.
And that's my biggest disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox is that they're
doctrinally unsound.
They are heretics.
That does not mean, as I have said many times before, that
everyone who is part of an Eastern Orthodox Church is damned.
Lutherans have the ready answer, it's called felicitous inconsistency.
Most of them, if you went into an Eastern Orthodox Church in
Greece or pick any random country that is historically Eastern Orthodox, the
average man sitting in the pews will know nothing of Palamus.
He may not even understand or recognize the name, but he knows
Jesus, and he relies on Jesus.
That man is saved.
The men who are teaching this stuff, I have significant doubts about
their salvation.
But that is the summary of my problems with the Eastern Orthodox.
Couple questions here about topics that I will have to look into
before I answer because I just don't ha really have any opinion
on them.
Okay, question seven.
Is it cheating on my devotional reading since I try to listen
to all the confident faith episodes from all its podcasts if I
only listen to it when I also could be reading?
No. And the easiest way to understand that is that through most
of Christendom's history, most men were illiterate.
They didn't read their daily devotions.
At most, they memorized a handful of prayers and recited those, and
then they listened to someone else read.
So it is it's perfectly fine to listen instead of reading.
It is good to read as well, right?
Because we in Ingest things in different ways and the brain processes
it differently.
It's just like handwriting things is fundamentally different for learning and retention
than it is, say, listening or even breathing reading or whatever it
happens to be.
And so do take notes when you read.
That does help you memorize things just sort of as a tangent.
But by all means, listening is fine.
And if you are listening to all of the stuff from Confident
Faith, then that does wind up being forty-five minutes to an hour
per day right now because I bumped up the reading on through
the Bible in a year because I want to get it done
before the end of the year.
hence in a year.
So
yes, listening is completely fine, but do a little bit of reading
as well, and don't neglect your prayers, right?
Say the Lord's prayers, say the creeds, things like that.
At least the Apostles' Creed, say the Apostles' Creed at least once
a day, right?
Just the standard practice of the faith down through the centuries in
the West.
So but yes, listening is great.
And by all means, listening is something that gives you the opportunity
to ensure that you have that devotional time, even if you happen
to have a frantic schedule or something and you can't necessarily make
the time to sit down and read.
You can listen to me read whatever book I happen to be
reading right now, I'm reading Ezekiel, you can listen to me while
you're doing cardio or something.
Probably not the most upbeat listening while doing cardio, but you get
the point.
I have seen the question.
I just want to note this for the record.
I have seen the question about local currencies.
I will get to that next week.
I'm going to make a note for myself on that one.
I do have it in my actually my PDF notes here for
my backlog of questions I want to answer.
I will have to look into John McKenty.
I do not have an opinion on him.
I answered the question about the Zennheiser power and the Evo 4.
So I will just
go ahead and drop those two.
I'll go ahead and add this one to the
the questions for the episode just because someone certainly will find it
funny. Have you ever thought about being a mall Santa?
Is question eight.
The answer is no.
I've never thought about me being a Malsanta.
I don't particularly like wearing very bright red.
I have literally owned only one very bright red shirt in my
entire life, and it's because an ex-girlfriend bought it for me.
So
I have never bought one for myself.
Also, I'd have to gain more weight, and I'm trying not to
go that direction with my weight, so
I'm not sure what I'm going to look up my backlog of
questions here because I have cleared most of the questions from the
chat, I believe.
So
Oh of course the question about Nietzsche and John Calvin.
I will get to that one eventually.
I I do have it in my list.
Actually this one is a good one that I will bring out
here. Question nine.
What do you think about the controversy concerned Concerning the lapsed, that
is to say, those who complied with Emperor Decius's mandate to sacrifice
to Roman gods.
Is this sin forgivable by a bishop?
So I will go ahead and say that the sin is indeed
forgivable and not just by a bishop.
That is forgivable by
any Christian, right?
And it is certainly forgivable if you just pray for forgiveness to
God. It is not the unforgivable sin, it does not require some
special rank of clergy in order to forgive you for that particular
transgression. Now, there is a second layer to that, and I think
perhaps the second layer may be the more important one here, because
the doctrine question, theolic theology question is very straightforward, right?
Is there an unforgivable sin?
Yes. What is the unforgivable sin?
The sin against the spirit.
What is the sin against the spirit?
Unbelief. Because that's the only unforgivable sin, right?
The only unforgivable sin is unbelief.
And if you have committed the unforgivable sin, this is always worth
mentioning, because people worry about it.
If you worry about it, that's good that's good news for you.
Because if you can worry about it, you haven't committed it.
Because if you committed it, you won't worry because you will have
a seared conscience and a charred heart.
You will no longer worry about such things at all.
Because you will be so confirmed and dead in your sin that
you are beyond saving at that point.
So if you can worry about it, you haven't committed the sin.
Sort of irony, right?
Sort of like almost a catch-22.
If you can worry about it, you shouldn't worry about it, kind
of thing.
But the second part of the question that is perhaps important and
may become important in the future, right?
If you have fallen away from the faith during a time of
persecution and then you want to come back to the faith, right?
And in this case, the falling away is public, because these were
individuals who sacrificed to the Roman gods.
Today you can think of someone who goes and right, goes full
tilt for you know Zionism or something like that, or goes Eastern
Orthodox. Something they've done publicly where they have renounced the faith and
gone in some other direction.
It is appropriate for the church to have some kind of canon,
some sort of rules For bringing them back in, having them publicly
declare, repent, do things like that.
It's for the sake of good order in the church.
It is not necessary for forgiveness.
You are forgiven when you repent to God, you are forgiven when
it is declared to you by your pastor or another Christian.
But those are two sort of separate but related questions, right?
When is it forgiven?
Whenever you seek the forgiveness, whenever you repent.
What should be done to bring you back into the church, into
the corporate body of the church here on earth?
There should be some rules for that, because that sort of public
apostasy needs to be treated in a certain way in order to
have good order in the church and in order to discourage people
from going down that road in the future.
Let me go ahead and copy that into my show notes here
so I don't miss it.
Okay, let's see.
Question 10.
Are there any Lutheran groups you personally would endorse?
And so the answer to that is absolutely yes.
But it sort of depends on what you mean by groups.
Are there Lutheran churches I would absolutely endorse?
Yes. There are good LCMS churches, there are good Wells churches, there
are even good churches in some of the other smaller synods.
And I know some of those pastors and I would certainly endorse
them. I won't mention them here for reasons that should be obvious
to everyone.
Now, are there
those who are more public with the fact that they are Lutheran
churches who are aligned with us?
Yes, absolutely.
Some of those are on social media and others.
I have endorsed them there and certainly I continue to endorse them
in their work.
Are there any Lutheran bodies that I would endorse?
No. But that's true for literally every branch of Christianity right now.
There's no Presbyterian overarching group, right, that I would endorse.
There's no Anglican group that I would endorse.
Because as I've said many times before, all of the corporate bodies
are largely apostate.
The leadership are wicked men.
And so
I'm not going to endorse a body or a group in that
sense, but there are certainly
congregations, parishes, whatever you want to call them, that I would endorse,
including in some of those those other traditions.
I don't fully agree with them, certainly, but I do believe that
they are there are good groups, there are good churches under those
umbrellas, even if the groups themselves aren't good.
In many parts of the country, if you're looking for a Lutheran
church, you're going to find an LCMS church that is full of
actual Christians, and many of them are good men and women.
They will have their problems, but that's true of humanity everywhere.
Don't go in and immediately, you know, reveal your power level as
it were.
That's not necessarily the place to do it.
But you certainly will find Christian men and Christian women there and
have the fellowship that you should have as a Christian.
So don't think that just because the leadership of the LCMS in
particular happen to be wicked men that you can't find a good
church under that umbrella.
I believe I answered this question about the difference between Matthew, Mark,
and Luke and John.
So Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the one hand, John on the
other, last time.
So I'm going to go ahead and
add that to my backlog.
Please go and check last week's episode.
That will be up after this stream.
Probably give me about 30 minutes to get that episode back up.
And
If that is not answered in that episode, then go ahead and
submit that again.
Question eleven.
I know you recently had a spat with Michael Spengler about marriage
in heaven, but do you align with him on not celebrating Christmas?
He believes it is pagan and man-made.
So I have actually not spoken with him about his views on
Christmas, so I cannot speak to that.
I will speak to the general question instead, but first I will
comment we didn't really necessarily have a a spat, we just disagree
to some degree.
And I can't say that I his I can't say his disagreement
is unexpected, right?
Because Because most Christians, from my perspective, I believe, get this one
wrong. And I understand why they do.
Because the comments from Jesus to the Sadducees are easy to misread.
And I think most men do in fact misread them, but that
is a a separate question, and so I'm going to answer the
the question that's actually posed here instead.
I do not believe that Christmas is pagan or that it is
man-made. I believe that there are pagan festivals historically that happen to
be around the same time.
And to some degree there's a little bit of overlap, right?
You have a winter festival.
Well, any time you have a festival, what do human beings do
for a festival?
We eat and we drink, right?
So you can't say oh they ate and they drank in the
winter and so this is the same festival because you eat and
drink and it's in the winter.
That's absurd, right?
By that logic you could say that every human festival is the
same festival.
That's just dumb.
Many of the things we use specifically to celebrate Christianity are in
fact explicitly Christian from historical practice.
The lighting of candles on certain day comes from some Scandinavian traditions
linked to saints.
The commemoration of certain weeks and certain aspects of Christianity are from
Christian history.
The Christmas tree is from Martin Luther.
The wreath is from again a Lutheran pastor.
These things are all Christian and no, it's it's completely absurd to
say that it's pagan.
That is the neopagans, the bad ones, attempting to rewrite things and
sow division and discord, and it's just complete nonsense.
It's not a pagan holiday, it's a Christian holiday.
So by all means go to the the Christmas market if you
happen to have one and enjoy some mold wine.
I'll go ahead and answer this one.
This sort of complicated question, but it's it's one that warrants an
answer.
Question twelve.
Many professionals are trapped in DEI captured firms.
What is the strategy for quiet decoupling to build parallel networks that
provide for our families without compromising our conscience?
So So
in many cases you can get by in these corporations, and it's
of course large corporations typically we're speaking of here.
You can get by in these corporations without doing something that is
going to run specifically counter to your conscience?
Now does the corporate culture, do the policies of the corporation, do
things like that run counter to what we would want as a
Christian? The answer is yes.
But does that mean that you personally are actively participating in those?
The answer is no.
Right? You can think of Paul speaking of whether or not it's
permissible to go to the market and purchase meat that came from
an animal that was sacrificed to a pagan god.
That's permissible for a Christian.
That's explicitly in scripture.
You're permitted to do that.
Because you are not doing it in worship of that false god.
So can you work for these Christians?
Can you cash your paycheck and things like that?
The answer is yes.
But
spend your money in places that advance the causes that actually matter
as a Christian.
So support our guys who have various businesses, right?
You can buy I was going to say coffee, but coffee is
and isn't a good option because by and large you generally kind
of want to support the local business for coffee and maybe influence
that business in our direction.
But if you don't have one, then by all means there are
coffee roasters in our space.
You can support those guys.
They're good guys.
They've been at a number of events I've been to.
So you can patronize them.
We got plenty of publishing businesses now on the right, so you
can patronize them.
And for various other things, right?
You want to patronize our guys so that your money is going
to Christian men, and then those Christian men can use it to
spend money with other Christian men, right?
That's how how money works, right?
Velocity of money sort of thing.
So
I think I think the underlying question there really is, you know,
can I work for this company without negatively affecting my conscience?
And I think the answer, again, the answer to that is yes.
But spend your money wisely and invest your time and your effort
wisely as well.
So right now can you fully decouple from something like this?
Probably not, right?
Because if you have a corporate job that's paying really well, are
you Are you going to find a job in the
far right or whatever you want to call it political space that
pays as well?
The answer is no.
You just won't.
So, with some very few exceptions.
So by all means, use the resources God has entrusted to you
with this job that hopefully is paying you well, and then use
those resources wisely to support things that matter.
Go ahead and answer this one because it is
related to one I already answered.
Sort of a follow-up on Christmas.
Is celebrating Christmas, this question 13, is celebrating Christmas in a Christian,
non-modern capitalist way something Christians are allowed to celebrate?
The answer is absolutely yes.
By all means celebrate Christmas, but listen to Christian Christmas music instead
of all the stuff put out by Hollywood Jews that is deliberately
designed to remove Christ from Christmas.
And you're you're right.
Don't try to focus so much on the capitalist elements of it.
The reason for the season, right?
It's not presents.
It is a present.
It is the biggest present the biggest present in all of history.
So focus on that and celebrate it in the traditional way that
Christians always have, right?
Advent. Celebrate Advent.
Get Advent candles and an Advent wreath, do the lighting, do whatever
readings your tradition happens to have on the Sundays, gather your family
around the table and do that.
Make it a Christian celebration.
But yes, of course, still give your children presents on the 24th
or the 25th, whichever one you happen to do If you're European,
it's earlier in the month, but there's nothing wrong with giving your
children presents.
Right? That is not a bad part of the year.
A bad part of the celebration.
Question 14.
I also realized I have no idea how long I've been going,
so we'll keep going for a while.
Question fourteen.
I am very capable mechanically and know a lot about machinery and
electronics. Can I use these skills to help the nationalist cause?
The answer is yes, I'm certain, but I don't know necessarily specifically
what way you would use it right now.
I think probably the best thing that you can do is find
a good job with those skills and and get a wife, raise
up children, and again it's sort of like the corporate job question,
right? What do you do?
You use the resources entrusted to you in order to help our
guys, in order to help your own people.
And then I am sure that opportunities will arise, right?
Get involved in whatever your local group happens to be, make those
connections, get that networking going, and then you know, it'll wind up
being a friend of a friend of a friend who knows, hey,
I know this guy who does the thing that you need.
That's how it works in reality, right?
So that's how a lot of the stuff that I have been
able to do or gain access to for various projects, it's been
a friend of a friend of a friend.
that's how networking works.
So build that up and the opportunities will present themselves in time.
And if I happen to think of something, something that comes along,
I will go ahead and mention that on the stream and you
can go ahead and reply to me.
I don't have anything in particular right now.
Everything I'm personally doing is sort of software or not that at
all political.
But if something comes up, by all means
Question fifteen.
What do you think about the theory that civilization can only thrive
when they have a race intertwined religion and the Westfell and Christianity
separated race from the religion?
I don't think that that's true in the sense the neo-pagans employ,
but I think it is true in a more fundamental sense.
In the sense the neo-pagans employ, they try to argue that, and
I obviously don't mean all of the neopagans, it's mostly the very
loud ones on X, but they try to argue that you have
to basically make your race your religion, right?
Your gods have to be like a manifestation of your race, sort
of thing.
Which you'd think they'd recognize the fundamental ridiculousness of that, right?
If your gods are a manifestation of the race, then they aren't
gods, they're something else.
But at any rate, I think the
sort of the more meaningful, the deeper sense here is that you
do have to have a racial aspect to the practice of the
religion. Because if you don't have that racial aspect to it, it's
always going to be foreign to your people.
It's not going to be your religion.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a racial aspect to
your religion in terms of the practice.
In terms of
the doctrine or the theology, it's fundamentally absurd assertion, right?
Because what is doctrine or theology?
They are true propositions about reality.
Is truth
linked to race in a way that is causal?
The answer is depending on the direction you're flowing.
In the terms of from race to truth, the answer is no,
right? The truth doesn't change if you're German or you're French or
you're English or whatever, right?
The laws of logic are the same for literally everyone.
If you are a German with an IQ of 165 and you
are And you are or you are say a bushman somewhere in
Africa with an IQ of sixty.
Well, the law of identity is the law of identity because it's
true. It doesn't depend on you in any fundamental way.
It doesn't depend on you in any way whatsoever, because it depends
upon God alone.
And so for the truth claims of religion, no, race is not
actually related in that sense.
For the practice of religion, that's where it comes in.
And Lutherans have historically recognized this, and even the Roman Church recognized
it to an extent and then really started to tamp down on
it during the Reformation, which was part of the animus there between
the Germans and the Italians, because the Italians were basically telling the
Germans to stop being German.
Good luck with that.
Right? And it wouldn't it would not work the other way either,
right? The Germans can't tell the Italians to stop being Italian, and
so I've said this many times.
I think that the practice of Christianity should look different from one
race, from one nation to the next.
The English are going to be quieter and more orderly than, say,
the Spanish, right?
And the Spanish are going to be louder and more boisterous than
the Swedes.
That's just the reality of race and the reality of nation.
There's nothing wrong with that.
God designed us to be different like that.
Insofar as that is an expression of the race and of the
way that race relates to interacts with God, I think that's a
good thing.
And that should be upheld, that should be supported, that should be
something that is part of Christianity.
So is part of the problem with the modern practice of Christianity
that it's been decoupled with race?
I think the answer is yes, but in the sense that basically
everything has been decoupled from race in the West.
We no longer recognize that everything around us is a racial construct,
right? You know look at all the things that are around me
in this room.
You can't see that many from this view of the camera, but
I mean I have a a tea kettle and I have, you
know, silverwork, a crucifix.
These are things that are a product of of Western European culture.
I mean, you know, this is borosilicate glass.
This is not something that other peoples historically produce.
This is a product of our culture.
And you can't decouple culture from race because culture is a product
of race.
And insofar as a nation is blood soil and myth, the myth,
the religion being the largest aspect of that, is inevitably going to
be tied to the race in some way.
But again, not with regard to truth claims, but with regard to
the praxis.
I actually had to turn the the stand for my tea kettle
because the light from the candle was a little bit too bright
in the background there.
It was a little too aggressively focal in the camera.
I think I actually have answered this one previously, but I'll go
ahead and answer it again because I I don't assume that people
have listened to absolutely everything that I've ever said and managed to
remember every question and answer right.
That would be absurd to expect that of people.
Question sixteen.
At what age did you find out the truth about World War
II and how you hinted at it vaguely before but never was
quite clear, and I'm kind of curious.
So So the answer is fifth grade.
I remember distinctly, very distinctly.
And my school was starting to go over the Holocaust and the
standard narrative and you know all the books they make you read
Night by Eli Weasel, which is it's appropriate his last name is
Weasel, but he admitted it's fake.
Like he even admitted that that book is fiction.
He's not even trying to say that it's real when it's false,
he's saying it's fiction, but you know, ignore that.
and Frank and all that crap.
But I was looking at this narrative they were trying to tell
me was true and going, okay, this doesn't really seem to make
any sense.
And so I started reading primary sources.
I managed to find a copy of Mein Kampf in English, which
was both a little easier and a little harder back then.
I'm forty-one, so this has been a while ago, it's been thirty-one
years ago.
So
I started reading those primary sources and came very quickly to the
conclusion that this stuff was just false.
This was complete and utter nonsense, and so I
just figured out the truth because the truth is pretty obvious if
you start looking at the actual evidence.
And then you look at the claims of the one side, and
then you look at what's actually written in Mein Kampf and the
other primary sources and you go, someone is clearly v lying here.
Someone is telling a very big lie.
And I didn't find it that hard to figure out which side
was actually lying, despite the propaganda.
But yes, I figured that out quite early on.
And like I said, it was from reading the primary sources and
just just applying logic to the problem, right?
Some of these claims are just outlandish.
I mean even then, like I I had a calculator, I could
run the numbers and figure out something doesn't add up here, right?
This is this doesn't work.
The math year makes no sense.
Which is one of the reasons, you know, you get banned for
the the math year makes no sense sort of assertions on certain
platforms.
L'univers
Question seventeen
Would you be interested in running for political office?
I have commented on this before, and my answer is still I
don't have any objections to it, but that is quite the undertaking,
and just to be blunt, right, it's an expensive undertaking too.
I have also just so that I have a good idea of
how these things work, I I
ran the numbers and ran an analysis of the state law, particularly
here in Tennessee and some other places nearby.
And it is not a cheap undertaking by any means, particularly if
you're doing it in the sort of way that would be a
meaningful pursuit, you are looking at
we'll say a non-trivial amount of money.
I won't give a hard number here because there's kind of a
wide range, but I don't object to it.
I would not object to doing that, certainly, if the conditions were
right for doing it.
And by conditions were right, I'm not saying, you know, there's no
threat or anything like that.
I I recognize that there are going to going to be threats
and things like that.
I mean I have a ton of death threats in my X
DMs and places like that.
I'm used to it at this point.
Doesn't that doesn't bother me, doesn't even faze me.
But no, I have no objection running for political office, and probably
will at some point in the future.
Question eighteen.
You have talked before about the disadvantages of interracial marriage from the
point of view of the individuals involved.
How much importance is there in the effect on the race itself?
That is arguably the more important effect, the more important consequence of
that, because when you're talking about the race, right, if a race
disappears, it's never coming back.
And if you lose certain aspects of your race, you probably cannot
regain them, at least if you're losing them genetically, we'll leave aside
the possibility of genetic engineering right now because that's a completely different
can of worms with a lot of other considerations.
So the consequences on the race are essentially the reason that you
would have laws against interracial marriage, and I think that we should
have those.
And that you have restrictions on, you know, whether or not someone
can join your nation in the sort of formal sense depending on
the blood composition of that individual.
I don't think that's wrongful either.
I think we should have those as well.
So I think it is the more important consequence for the race
as a group than it is for the individual, in the sense
of the collective in some cases, and in some senses being more
consequential than the individual.
And you can find this in scripture as well, right?
God speaks of nations as being an individual in some cases.
He addresses Israel in the singular as Israel his or her, depending
on the writer, right?
But But
yes, I think that that is one of the reasons these laws
should be in place, in order to preserve the race into the
future in perpetuity.
It is something that God created for good and something that we
should not destroy.
It's something we should preserve.
And And obviously there's a numbers question here, right?
If you have one person who marries outside his race and you
know, let's say we'll take the easiest example, it's not far outside
his race, right?
You have a Spaniard marrying a Russian woman, or vice versa.
Is that going to change things?
This is sort of the mild version of interracial, mind you.
I'm not taking the extreme one right, which would be a European
and an African, a sub-Saharan African.
Is that going to change either race?
Very minimally, because you're talking about one person in tens of millions,
right? It's a different thing.
So it does depend to some degree on the numbers.
But just because something is a numbers problem doesn't mean you should
permit it.
Because any amount of something that dilutes or harms is still harmful.
It doesn't mean that if you're in one of those marriages right
now, you should get a divorce.
You shouldn't.
Divorce is morally impermissible except in cases of infidelity.
Or the equivalent of infidelity, so abandonment, things like that.
I don't think that that is going to be something, this minor
dilution is going to be something that fundamentally changes the race.
But it still doesn't mean it's something you should do, right?
Some small amount of harm should still be avoided if you can
avoid it.
And there's no reason to permit this sort of thing.
I don't believe that you have people who are like, oh, I've
fallen madly in love with X.
I don't think that really ever happens, honestly, just to be blunt.
So the greater harm is to the race, obviously, but in the
sense of the magnitude of the immediate harm, the individual certainly suffers
in a greater sense because the individual carries it around for his
entire life in his essence and cannot escape it until the next
life. It is a problem for this life only.
I don't know how it exactly God solves it in paradise, but
he's God, He's infinite, I don't have to worry about it.
Right? Those are all those are God's problems.
I'm glad they're his and not mine.
But yes, the greater harm is the harm to the race because
the group is superior to the individual in many senses.
Someone asked something about a snake from and referenced the last stream.
If you would go ahead and
specify exactly what you mean, that would be very helpful because I
don't know that I know the exact question you are referencing.
I would have to look back through the notes, which I am
not going to do right now on stream.
So if you could specify that would be very helpful.
That's from the YouTube comments, just so I'm more specific about which
one I mean.
While I'm waiting on that.
Question 19: How do we push church leadership to formalize mutual aid
and commerce networks as a core congregational duty, rather than leaving it
to these sporadic, uncoordinated efforts of individuals.
So I think that the way that you do that is by
taking over the leadership.
Just to be blunt, right?
If you
and several of your friends all push to become elders, many churches
have significant
gaps in their leadership because they have lots of men who are
just not stepping up and taking on these offices despite the fact
that they should.
This is incidentally part of why sometimes women step into those positions,
the women shouldn't.
The impulse isn't entirely wrong because they see a a gap, they
see a need, and they try to fill it.
That's innate to women in some ways, but it doesn't mean they
should do it because they're not permitted to do that in that
case. So
make yourself useful to the church, make yourself available, participate in the
church, be active in the church, become a leader in your church,
and then start the program yourself.
If you happen to have a good pastor, recommend it to him.
If you have good elders, recommend it to them.
There may be a congregational meeting where you can make a proposal.
Make it Make it in a way that people will accept it.
And then of course you can, you know, start help to guide
things as they progress.
But there are many ways that you can do this, but by
and large, the fundamental way that we change these congregations is by
showing up and becoming the leadership of these congregations.
And particularly for those of us
who are
you know, millennials, right?
We're now in our late thirties, forties, that range.
We should be taking over these positions of authority in the congregation.
That's about the right age where that should happen.
Because that's where the you know seventy five, eighty year olds are
starting to be a little too tired and they need to hand
off the reins to younger men.
And even if they're not too tired, they still need to hand
off the reins to younger men.
That's how human society, that's how human groups work.
You have men who are, you know, one or two generations older
handing down the reins.
And they should do it sooner than eighty.
They can stay on it as an advisor, certainly.
That's a great thing to have elders who can advise the handful
of good ones we have left, that's their role.
That is a good thing.
They should continue to do that.
But younger men should be taking over the leadership, the control of
the organization.
So that's how you do it.
Take over.
And then guide the congregation.
But to some degree, not all of these things are things that
the church needs to be doing.
Many of these things are, for lack of a better term, secular,
but the church should be encouraging them because the church should be
an extended part of your local family, and that's where everything should
start, right?
It's family, extended family, your town, your city, your state.
Those concentric circles are how everything should work.
And I just as a sort of side note, I would certainly
be personally pushing for more of this stuff if it weren't the
case that if I get involved in anything related to churches, it's
probably going to bring down your leadership on your head.
So I am by all means willing to help behind the scenes,
but I can't really right now push many of these things publicly,
even the things in which I am still and have become involved
recently. I can't push them publicly because of, you know the obvious
reasons. For those of you who are Lutheran, if I am helping
you with something in your church or you need me or want
me to help you with something in your church, there are cases
where I'm doing that, I'm happy to do that, but I won't
say anything about it publicly because then Matt Harrison will be trying
to crawl in your chimney at night or something.
So
You know, obviously be wise about these things.
Okay, I see the question about the snake.
I am going to save that one for next time because I
want to go into that one in greater depth, but I do
have that question now.
And now I have it on my board.
So now we're good.
At least I will have it on my board when the AI
updating my board triggers in a minute here.
I guess tying back into the earlier AI question.
Question twenty.
I'll go ahead and answer this one, even though it's sort of
a
a hard question, and it's a it's a warranted hard question.
This is one of those questions where it sort of has two
layers to it, but I will go ahead and read the question
first. Question twenty.
Can you blame young men for having enmity with the church?
Christians lost their identity a long time ago, and the church has
functioned as a collaborator with the enemies of these men.
Actually I think it's really three two layers, but a third point
I want to make.
And the I'll make the third point first.
And this is that I have mentioned many times, the churches fell
last. It is worth repeating, it is worth remembering, because by the
time the churches fell, Well, the enemies had already taken over our
institutions. They'd taken over Hollywood, certainly, our media, the propaganda.
They'd taken over large chunks of our government.
They'd taken over the academy, which is to say, the universities.
They had taken over the social institutions, they had taken over basically
every single lodge system.
I mean obviously they took over the Masons a long time ago,
but the list goes on and on.
The churches kept fighting and fell last.
That is worth remembering.
The people who fight until the last, or even if they eventually
capitulate, which is certainly an unworthy thing for a church, but They
fought the longest.
That is worth remembering.
That is a worthwhile thing to note.
And then there are two layers to this, right?
There's enmity with the state of the churches, the corporate leadership of
the churches, the wicked corporate bodies that currently govern the churches.
And then there's enmity with the church.
You must never have the latter.
The former is required of you as a Christian.
If you are a Christian, you should be at enmity with those
who have corrupted the church, those who are leading the church falsely,
those who are teaching false doctrine, because those men are enemies of
God, and as a Christian, you are required to consider the enemies
of God to be your enemies.
And so having enmity with the leadership of the church, the wicked
leadership, because let's not forget there are a handful of good men
here and there.
At the highest levels, the wicked leadership of the churches, you should
be at enmity with those men.
That's a good thing.
As a Christian you must do that.
But that does not mean that you will be at enmity with
the church in the sense of the uppercase C Church Catholic.
And I mean by Catholic just to clarify for those who will
try to take me out of context, universal.
All those believers down through history, Adam onward, right?
Or if you want to count from Abel because he was the
first one to enter paradise.
I could even make an argument along the lines of what Paul
says, right?
Paul speaks to those who want to consider themselves holy under the
law, right?
In the sense of H O L Y, not W.
Those who want to consider themselves holy because they obey the law,
right? He says, Well, I am a Pharisee of Pharisees.
Circumcised, uh child of Pharisees, I obey the law, all these things,
right? He lists out how he is very clearly the epitome of
what they want to be, and he still considers it all to
be nothing and loss compared to Jesus Christ, right?
I could make a similar argument in this vein, right?
There are young men who say they have enmity with the church.
Okay. I have been persecuted by the church.
I have been ambushed by the church.
Granted, they weren't very subtle, so I knew the ambush was coming,
but I've been ambushed by the church.
I have been excommunicated by the church, so-called.
I have had police called on me by the Church.
I have had police threatened to be called on me by more
than one church.
And yet I am not at enmity with the uppercase C Church.
And the reason I am not is that I recognize that it
is still the church of Christ, it is still God's representative on
earth, and we are part of that because we are part of
Christ. We are not part of the church because it's a corporate
body, because it's headquartered whether it's in St.
Louis or whether it's in Rome.
We are not part of that church.
We are part of the church universal.
And I am at enmity with the leadership of these churches, and
my enmity is very public, and I am very clear about it.
And I have written letters to these men, so I have explained
it to them in person as best I could as well.
I have not hidden my enmity in any way, shape, or form,
and I won't, because it is my duty as a Christian to
be at enmity with these wicked men.
But I am absolutely not at enmity with the church, because the
church is Christ's body and I am part of Christ's body.
I can't be at enmity with myself and my Lord.
And so is it right that these men have enmity and that
they harbor a hatred for these wicked men?
Absolutely. You are supposed to hate wickedness.
But do not let that transfer over into hating the body itself
which is a different thing.
Right? A corrupt shepherd does not mean you hate the sheep.
And certainly does not mean that you hate the good shepherd.
You hate that wicked under shepherd, and you seek to have him
removed. That is your duty.
So young men should absolutely have enmity with the current corporate bodies
and their leadership, but not with the church itself and not with
Christianity, because those are not the same thing.
The corporation claiming to represent the church is not the church.
The corporation can be wicked, the corporation can be fallen, the corporation
in many cases and today certainly needs to be destroyed.
But that does not mean that the church that is the body
of all believers is itself wicked in any way, shape, or form,
or has been destroyed or subverted.
The church is always holy, the church is always true and right.
And so be part of the true church and be at enmity
with these wicked men, because that is your duty as a Christian.
I tapped the wrong button, but the good news is I memorized
the question before I did.
Would it be this is question twenty-one, would it be appropriate for
only government officials to be checked for white ancestry?
And then the example given was that it is already sixty percent
non-white. I do not know exactly what is being referenced by that,
but sixty percent sounds probably about right for certain government agencies in
the U.S.
and probably other parts of the West as well.
So I'll assume that that's what that is.
And I believe that I remembered enough of that question to state
it correctly.
So obviously I did not remember it word for word because I
barely saw it when I clicked the wrong button.
So that being said.
I think that it absolutely should be limited to members of the
race with regard to positions of government power.
Absolutely. But I don't think that's sufficient because you are going to
have a dilution and a not necessarily corruption, but just
it's going to change the way that members of the race interact
with one another and live their lives to have foreigners among them.
It is not good to live among foreigners or to have foreigners
live among you.
That is true for all peoples.
Because
you are going to behave differently among your own.
This is very easy to see, right?
Go find a bar or something that is all your own people
and go there and get a general feel for the atmosphere, how
people interact.
Just the general feel of the environment, and then go somewhere that
is a mixed multitude.
It will be fundamentally different.
Go to the DMV.
It'll be a wildly different experience because
you are going to behave among your own people in one way
and among foreigners another.
You should not have to do that in your home country.
And so we need to change immigration so-called policies, and we need
to not have this flow of people between and among the nations.
People need to be sent home to where they belong.
There are people who do not belong in America and simply should
not be here.
And it should not be limited just to government officials, it should
not be limited just to officials in the church, which I also
think that is permissible.
It should be limited to being in the nation itself, in the
land itself, in the country.
Now, does that mean we can't have visitors?
No, I've been very clear about that.
We you can certainly have visitors, you can have sojourners for a
period of time, right?
I'm not going to say that and I'll use the obvious example.
I'm not going to say the Japanese can't continue to visit the
US to visit the national parks.
They really like doing that.
I'm not going to say we should stop them.
That's fine.
A certain number of them can come here every year and visit
the national parks.
They don't cause problems, they don't litter.
Great. But it is up to the nation to determine which peoples
can visit and which cannot.
So No one else should be moving here and living here.
That is a fundamentally different thing.
Let's see.
I now see that I am going to have to
update this.
There we go.
Actually, I grabbed the text of the question and I pretty much
remembered it exactly, so that was that's good.
I see I'm going to have to update this because it did
not show me certain things from the chat.
Like I cannot see super chats on this.
I do see them in in OBS though, which the chat is
working in OBS for once, which is a delightful change.
But question 22.
Does the Christian Prince have a duty to actively protect his nation's
traditional language even when it only has a tiny minority of speakers
like Gaelic in Ireland.
This one is
on the one hand easy to answer, but on the other hand,
somewhat difficult to answer.
And
the reason that it's difficult to answer is that
Language can change over time, a people can sort of lose one
language and adopt a new one, or the language can just change
so much it becomes a new one, right?
Think of English.
English has gone through a number of iterations.
But you do lose something fundamental about who and what you are
when you stop speaking your native tongue.
And that was part of what was done to Germans and Scandinavians
in the United States during the interwar period, German in particular was
persecuted and stamped out.
In fact, the image for the Wikipedia article for Tarred and Feathered,
used to be a German farmer who was tarred and feathered for
being seen as not sufficiently pro-American for not buying enough war bonds.
Really, it was because he was German and probably spoke German.
And an example that I've given is the Lutheran church that I
attended in California had a capstone on it that was in German.
And it was in German because it's an old brick church built
by Germans, German Lutherans.
And it has stained glass windows from Germany, from a factory that
was destroyed in World War II, unfortunately.
Some of the last ones that made it out.
And they had to cover that capstone during the interwar period and
the World War II period, in order to not have people smash
the stained glass windows into other things.
Didn't stop the government from violating the Constitution as much as that
matters, and billeting troops in the church, but and particularly in the
social hall next to the church.
But the German language was something that was fairly widely spoken in
the US until relatively recently, and we certainly lost things when we
lost that language.
Now, in a country like the US, it is perhaps a little
more complicated, right?
Because if we were speaking our native tongues, we would have at
least three of them, according to the traditional initial competition of the
United States of America.
Granted these days obviously we'd have a few others because we have
a large Italian composition in certain cities and things like that, but
it would by and large be English, German, and Gaelic, Scots, incidentally,
specifically Scots-Gaelic.
But
I do believe that it is a good thing for a country
to preserve its language, and I actually agree with the French and
the German approach, which is to have a body that basically regulates
the use of the language and says this is the standard, as
opposed to the English approach, which is just sort of let things
go and hope for the best.
I don't think that always works out very well.
So
I do think that we should absolutely have a body that regulates
our language and we should also seek to preserve our language Because
your language is an enormous part of who and what you are.
And psychology is also very clear on this.
We have great studies showing that the language that is particularly your
mother tongue, but any language in which you are fluent, does influence
your thinking and actually to some degree dictates the things about which
you can think and the depth to which you can think about
them. There are languages that bound what you are able to do
by nature of the structure of the language.
Which is one of the reasons that Western Europeans have been capable
of producing such great works.
Now, of course, there's a feedback loop there, right?
Because the language is a product of the mind, and then the
language influences the mind in turn, so you have that cycle going
there. But preserving a language is absolutely something that is a duty
of a Christian prince.
And I do think it would be good if the Irish and
the Scots were more widespread in terms of their knowledge of their
native tongue.
I think that they should probably speak too.
I think it's a good thing for them to speak English as
well, because there's that sort of awkward relationship right in the United
Kingdom. So I do think it would be good if they spoke
Gaelic as well as English.
Just like in the US context, I've been very clear.
I think it would be good if we spoke English and German,
because I think that
we have a huge chunk of our history that is essentially closed
off now, obviously with AI translations, not as much, but historically, we
had a huge chunk of our history that was closed off to
Americans because they couldn't read it.
I think it's also part of the reason it was so easy
to get Americans into World War II, and indeed World War I
as well, with propaganda, because they couldn't read the German materials by
and large.
And translation was laborious and difficult, and so the German-speaking contingent in
America could not produce the materials fast enough to get the rest
of the population to understand what was actually going on across the
Atlantic. And even And even with the advent of AI translations, obviously,
there are things that just are not the same, unless you know
the language, right?
Poetry is not the same in translation, and that goes for theatre
as well, right?
Opera things like that.
So yes, the short answer is preserving the language is absolutely a
duty of the Christian prince because it is essential to the character
of the nation itself, of the race itself.
And I will say that I am glad I am not the
one having to learn Gaelic because
I do not like the way the letters are used.
I it's kind of like with Greek I don't mind because Greek's
a different alphabet and so I understand these are pronounced differently foreign
language. The problem I've always had with Gaelic is that I am
looking at letters I know and they do not make the sounds
I want them to make.
So it's a very different sort of mental state to try to
learn a language like that.
If they would just use a different alphabet, I would be very
happy about it.
I'm sure that they will take my critique under advisement.
So So
see
Question
I'm gonna have to change that.
Question twenty-three Who from the non-Christian right do you respect the most?
I don't know that I would necessarily assign the rank of someone
I respect the most, but I can certainly
give some examples of men who are doing good things on the
right who are not necessarily Christian men, or at least not explicitly
Christian men.
I think the most obvious example, right, would be Rousseau, the leader
of Patriot Front.
He is doing great work.
And he has not really said anything publicly about his religious beliefs,
or at least he said very little publicly.
I know he said a little bit, but he said relatively little
about his public
in public about his religious beliefs.
But he is still doing good work.
Like I've said before, he owes me a conversation about religion at
some point, so hopefully that will be fruitful and I'm certain that
it will be with God's blessing.
He's a smart man, he understands the the reality of what we
face and understands that it's not purely a physical conflict and I
think the inevitable conclusion from that is that Christianity is right because
the enemies we're fighting are
The enemies of Christendom, ultimately, of Christianity.
But insofar as other non-Christian men on the right, you have a
handful of good leaders in other countries, Australia, Britain, Germany, who are
not necessarily explicitly Christian in their beliefs, but they're still doing good
work politically.
I do hope that they will continue to do that.
Let's see.
There are a few questi there are a few questions here that
I know I'm going to save for next time.
I already know what it is I want to say on them,
but there are a couple of quotes from the Church Fathers I
want to pull up and read those and I don't want to
spend the time looking through logos for them right now.
So I will save those for next time.
See we'll answer this one question.
Question twenty-four.
Then I have a
On the topic of Patriot Front, what do you think of the
National Socialist Movement in America?
I think the issue with any sort of explicitly national socialist movement
in America
is that you are going to have immense hurdles to overcome.
Now, I obviously don't shy away from those symbols and that symbolism.
I don't think that they are wrong.
I think that they I mean, aesthetically they're great symbols, and I
think that we ultimately stand for the things for which they stood.
And so I don't think it's wrong to employ those.
I don't think that we should shy away from those.
I don't think that's good strategy because that is seeding territory to
the enemy, it's handing them a weapon and they are going to
bludgeon you with it.
So I think it's unwise to hand the enemy that.
Because if you take that away from them, they have nothing left,
right? Their ultimate weapons are the so-called Holocaust and Nazis bad.
Those are their arguments, basically.
And if you take those away from them, they can't do anything
to you now because they've lost all their power.
They have no rhetorical power left, they have nothing left in their
bag. That's what they do.
And
that being said, I do think that you have to have a
movement that is explicitly American that just doesn't shy away from that
stuff as opposed to being explicitly national socialist and happens to be
American. Because ultimately, right, we're not German national socialists.
I mean, I'm German and I believe in nationalism and that kind
of socialism, so okay, in my case, but I'm American.
I'm an American.
My family has been American for a very long time.
I have family who've been buried out in the hills here
since before this state existed, right?
So
we have to be American because we are American.
Just like you couldn't have German National Socialism in England.
It would have to be English
nationalism. And you couldn't in Spain.
You have Spanish nationalism.
You need American nationalism.
It is a distinct thing because we are distinct people.
This sort of harkens back to the earlier question about right the
national practice of the religion.
That should be distinct.
Politics is the same sort of thing.
So you need to be an American movement that doesn't shy away
from that history, that doesn't shy away from the truth, but without
making that who you are essentially, because that's just shock and awe
sort of politics, right?
That's like the radio shock jock kind of thing, but in politics,
it may get you a little bit of media coverage, but it
is not ultimately something that is going to be successful.
And politics is the art of the possible, to quote Bismarck, right?
You have to make sure that what you are pursuing, that what
you are doing, can yield the results you want to obtain.
And so like I said, you can't shy away from it because
it's handing the enemy a weapon they will use to beat you
to death.
So you can't do that.
But you also can't make it the core of what you are,
because the core of what we are is American.
We are American nationalists.
Or if you are something else, then you are some kind of
other nationalist for your own country.
Let's see.
Question twenty five.
Do you agree with Justin Martyr's view that the law of circumcision
and Sabbath observance were a curse God put on the Hebrews in
the Old Testament as punishment for their disobedience?
I have not
I don't think I've read that passage from Justin Martyr, and if
I have, it's been a very long time.
So I would have to look at the passage, but I can
comment on
the general conclusions instead of just the specifically the Justin Martyr treatment
of it.
I'll treat the easy case first, the Sabbath observance.
No, that's not a curse.
I think that Sabbath observance is very clearly something that God wants
all men to do.
And so yes, I do think that we should have businesses closed
on Sundays, including restaurants and things like that.
I think everything should be closed on Sundays except for necessary services,
right? You can think of God saying that the priests profane the
Sabbath and yet are guiltless, right?
I think doctors can do that too, right?
Emergency room doctors, surgeons, firefighters, police, people who have to be working
on Sunday because certain things don't conveniently wait till Monday, right?
Fires don't all wait till Monday to happen.
And criminals don't wait until Monday to do their business.
So There are things that you have to do.
They can go to services on Saturday night instead.
That's perfectly permissible.
But I think as a society, as a civilization, we should go
back to having Sunday laws.
Everything should be closed on Sunday.
You should exercise that as a day of rest.
You go to church, and then you don't do manual labor on
Sundays. I'm not saying you can't do any work, right?
We're not going into legalism here, but I do think that it
should be a day of rest.
God is very clear about that, that He wants to have one
day of the week be a day of rest.
And it's not just with regard to the specific observance of the
Old Testament and it's not ceremonial law.
Some of the things related to it were ceremonial law, but the
general rest on the Sabbath is something Christians should observe.
And we should observe it at a society level.
It should be It should be the law of our land.
So I don't think that is a curse.
But is circumcision a curse?
I don't know that I would necessarily go so far as to
call it a curse, and bear in mind this is This is
worth mentioning here because it comes up all the time.
Circumcision that was practiced in the ancient world, very different from today.
It was either a cut in the foreskin or a small piece
of the tip of the foreskin being removed, not the removal of
the foreskin, and you can see this very clearly in the treatment
of it in certain instances in the Old Testament, where men recovered
from it quickly.
You don't recover from circumcision quickly as an adult male if it
is the full removal of the foreskin.
And we know this because we have people dumb enough to go
through that today.
And so we know exactly how long it takes to recover.
It takes longer than the cases in scripture.
So not the same practice.
It was meant to set them apart.
It's typological.
It has the shedding of blood.
It is part of the covenant, right?
There's a whole there's a whole universe of things there to draw
out in terms of the relationship of the sign to the sign
the things signified, right?
It's it is typology, a large large part of it.
But is it a curse from God?
I don't think it's a curse from God.
Now, are we cursed from God for letting Jews come in and
say you should practice this modern form?
Yes, I think our version of it is a curse.
But that's because we have tolerated the wicked Jews.
I don't think what God did to the Old Testament Hebrews was
a curse.
So
some of the things that he made them do might have been
a curse.
I mean he said that they weren't allowed to eat bacon.
That sounds like a curse to me, right?
They couldn't eat seafood.
That kind of sounds like a curse to me too.
Like you you can't have bacon wrapped shrimp if you're an old
testament Hebrew.
So some of those things may have been had a curse element
to them.
They were by and large because God was setting them apart in
their practices and testing them to see if they would obey him.
He knew they wouldn't but he was testing them Testing them to
see if they would obey him.
And they didn't, of course.
But circumcision and Sabbath observance, I don't think those are curses.
But I would like to see the the treatment from Justin Martyr,
so I will actually look that one up.
I see an easy question for me in the chat, but it
has not shown up in my pad yet, so I don't want
to take it out of order because then the the numbering gets
wonky.
I'll answer this one.
It's I've I've touched on this before, but I'll answer it.
I think maybe a couple more questions here.
I think we're
what are we getting into here about an hour and a half?
Give or take.
Question twenty-six.
Do you believe that in order for the US to move forward
all the Protestant churches must become one?
He says under Lutheranism in parentheses, because having four thousand plus denominations
isn't doing white Christians favors.
The four thousand number is typically somewhat overblown.
I don't think that we are
really at 4,000, right?
But it depends how you number them, right?
If you numbered according to the umbrella, which is to say the
to say the large denominational groups.
And it's really maybe like a dozen, maybe twenty, if you're being
sort of not generous, because w what do you have, really?
Lutheranism, Methodism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism
I'm not going to name them all because I can't remember them
all, and there's honestly really only those is kind of the big
ones. Obviously the Baptists, yes, I'm not forgetting the Baptists.
But I don't think that we can really unify to answer the
question itself.
I don't think that we can really unify under one form of
Protestantism because we have so many men who cling vehemently to to
their team flag, their team color.
And I think that's the right way to describe it because a
lot of the men who do it in that way don't cling
to it because they necessarily believe that it is inherently true or
is the one true form of Christianity.
It's just the team they have selected or the team into which
they were born, and so they support it.
That's not always wrong, right?
My parents, if you're saying right, hypothetically, my parents have always been
ex tradition, and so I am going to be that as well.
That's not entirely wrong.
That's a good thing, that's a good impulse.
But you should also desire to be following the truth, the following
the the truest statement of the religion.
And
I think that probably the way it's going to have to go
is not Balkanization, but a sort of federalization in which we go
back to the solution that we had For a little period of
time that worked pretty well during the Reformation, where the ruler of
a region chose the religion of his region.
And so you'll have a territory that's Lutheran and a territory that's
Presbyterian. I think that is one of the best ways we can
do it because then we don't have the negative impact on our
conscience of living under a king who we believe is following a
false version of Christianity, or at least is doing things that are
not 100% consonant with true practice of the faith, and yet not
engaging in conflict with our brothers.
And like I've said, if God wants to clearly demonstrate which one
is correct, he can bless that group more than all the others.
Right? It's not tempting God, it's just sort of presenting the opportunity
as it were.
Maybe he doesn't intervene, maybe he does.
It will be very obvious in time.
I think that's the best solution because then we don't have those
sort of internecine conflicts.
We should not be shedding our brothers' blood just because we don't
agree with them on election.
Right? I'm not going to say we have to kill all the
Presbyterians because they're wrong on election.
I don't believe we should do that.
I think that would be a greater wickedness than letting them have
that error.
I view it as an error very clearly.
I'm not going to sugarcoat that for them.
But I don't think that we persecute them for that.
I think that having that little bit of separation is the better
way to do it.
And in the US we can sort of fracture along natural lines.
Then you have the regions that do that, and then the overarching
government, the it would be an empire at that point.
The imperial government would be sort of Protestant but tolerant of other
things, or it could even be specifically one denomination, say the ruler
winds up being Lutheran, right?
He can be Lutheran, but part of the understanding is that he
is Lutheran but will not enforce that on the territories that are
not. I think that is the best way forward just because of
the reality of how things have developed over time.
We're not going to get men to all agree, right?
I do think that whatever winds up being the tradition of the
man who is the leader will see a huge influx of men
into those churches, and I think that will be a good thing,
but it will not be 100%.
So avoiding conflict is sort of the the major goal though there
while remaining as faithful to God as we possibly can.
There we go.
the easy question popped up, so I'll go ahead and answer that.
Do you like Gaeta?
The answer is yes.
he is an excellent writer, very worth reading.
This very much ties into the earlier answer about language, right?
If you know German, you are going to get a much better
experience reading Goethe or, you know, Schiller or someone than you are
going to get reading it in translation.
Different between prose and poetry, obviously.
You can carry over most of prose, although sometimes you have to
your use circumlocution that gets a little wonky, but you can bring
over basically everything in prose from one language to another, as long
particularly when they're closely related, like English and German.
But it is incredibly difficult to translate poetry without losing something.
I'll answer this one too because this one's also easy.
Question twenty-eight.
What do you think is a bigger problem, feminism or Jewish power
in our countries?
Well, I think that feminism is a direct consequence of Jewish power,
and so I would always say you should treat the disease, not
just the symptoms.
You don't go for just for palliative care, right?
And so the the biggest problem we have is in fact Jewish
power because the Jewish influence is what has led to all of
these downstream negative consequences.
And the episode that we did on feminism, on women, feminism for
Stone Choir goes into the fact that it is very much a
Jewish psyop top to bottom, made designed from the deepest pits of
hell, to make women hate men and in turn to make men
hate women.
So So, yes, obviously the disease is worse than the symptoms.
I am going to save this reading recommendation on philosophy for next
time because that is quite the question to ask.
Where do you start in philosophy?
And it will make people angry at me regardless of what I
say. Because you know, if I say start with the Greeks, it'll
make the people who love the German writers say that no, you
should start with the Germans.
And if I say the Germans, it'll make people who prefer the
English or the analytic versus the continental, right?
So on and so forth.
Someone asked me about Judith Cohen and I honestly do not remember
who that is.
Or are we talking about the engineer?
I'm just going to assume that this question is about the engineer,
and I'll just answer the question generally.
Uh assume I'm right about the woman.
Question twenty-nine.
What would you say to those who say there have been a
lot of good Jews like Judith Cohen?
And again, I assume that is the woman who was an engineer
who worked on the Minuteman missile and is the mother of a,
I think, a couple of Hollywood actors or something.
The issue with regard to the Jews
is not that the Jews never produce anything good.
That's a ridiculous argument, right?
And I don't think anyone really advances that seriously.
The issue with the Jews is that the Jews as a group,
and also by a large part, and obviously to varying degrees, as
individuals, are evil.
They are wicked.
Because they have worshipped demons for a very long time, in a
very active way, like they were involved in human sacrifice for centuries,
they're still involved in it.
Now they just call it abortion.
And birth control.
And things like that.
And it's worth mentioning again that hormonal birth control is an abortive
facient. So if you know a woman who is on it, you
need to get her to stop.
Because that is a grave sin.
She needs to repent.
But
the issue with the Jews is that when you tolerate the Jews,
you bring wickedness into your country because they will always engage in
this wickedness, because it has become their essential character as a race,
as a people.
And that's why we have communism.
That's why we have feminism.
That's why we have the sexual revolution.
That's why we had the civil rights movement.
And I could keep listing things.
All of these things were backed by the Jews.
And they will continue to behave in that way because it is
who and what they are essentially, and so they cannot be tolerated.
So even if you have individuals, part of that group, who produce
good things here and there, which does happen, you can't tolerate the
group, and you can't tolerate any of them because they will continue
to do those evil things and they will continue to be part
of this foreign subversive element.
And go and listen to the episodes that we did on that.
They go into it in much greater depth.
So the Stone Choir episodes on that, I will add those to
the show notes.
So go ahead and re-listen to those or listen to those for
the first time if you did not.
I have one more question that I think I will answer this
week. I'm going to answer it in a general form because it
showed up a few times in the chat, but I'll go ahead
and answer that one.
I think this will be the last question for this week since
we've ran a little long, which was my intention anyway.
And it is of course is a question on interracial marriage which
comes up all the time.
The question essentially is about what
sort of percentages are we dealing with, right?
And how should
I just smell could smell the candle just went out, so just
checking. But sort of what percentages are involved and what should be
tolerated and what should not.
Generally speaking, I haven't drawn up, you know, Nuremberg two point oh.
No one I don't think anyone has done that yet.
And I don't think that we're in a position where we should
be doing that.
But we can certainly lay out some general guidelines.
And so I think that there is a fundamental difference, right, depending
on the admixture.
If you're talking about anyone who's European, we can pretty much just
accept any European in the US at this time.
And then going forward, we can set our immigration laws so that
we don't have people who are not compatible with America racially nationally
coming here, at least not in large numbers, right?
And then we should set our laws such that no one is
coming here from an incompatible or a truly foreign or alien group,
which means everyone who is not European and specifically Western European, because
America is a Western European nation.
And so I just like I don't believe that Spain should be
admitting Russians, and I don't think that Russia should be admitting Frenchmen,
right? I think that it we should keep these nations distinct.
And that includes America in its current state.
You can say whatever you want about history and historical immigration policy,
but those who are here of European descent, I think we should
allow them to remain, unless they decide to be subversive, then they
can be sent home to their f their actual countries of origin,
right? Because subversives that's a different thing.
But we should not be permitting anyone else from anywhere else into
the country.
The question really, though, is about what do we do with those
who are mixed who are already here I think that if you're
dealing with someone who is, say, fifty percent, some of those will
have to be sent back to their countr their country of origin,
their non-American portion.
I think that is the case for all of those who are
admixed with African blood.
If we have some who are here who are, say, 50% Japanese,
I think by and large, those individuals have to choose which one
they are, right?
Are you Japanese?
Are you American?
If they are married to an American and have American children, right,
they're three quarters American, then I think that we should allow them
to stay.
I think that that is not going to influence us negatively as
a nation, as a race, as a polity.
I think that we can tolerate that.
And I think that we're doing is recognizing that previous generations made
a mess for us and we are cleaning it up as best
we can without running afoul of God's laws without causing future harm
to other individuals.
We can tolerate some percentage of that.
I think the percentage we can tolerate with regard to Hamidic mixture
is much lower.
I don't know exactly what that percentage is, but I can certainly
say if I had a daughter, I would not let her marry
a man who was a quarter African That would be too high
in my book.
One eighth.
I think maybe that might be the point where you're starting to
have some questions about which way you go or not, right?
But
as a nation, as a race, as a polity, we will have
to set these rules in a way that is consonant with the
preservation of our nation and without running afoul of God's law by
mistreating others in a way that is not morally permissible.
I think that by and large we can solve those issues with
giving individuals who would be affected the option to self-deport.
And if they take that option, then great, there's no problem.
We depart ways as amicably as possible.
If they don't take the option, then they have chosen to be
in enmity with us, and that is a fundamentally different thing.
But like I said, that is sort of just a general overview.
I have not
spent the time to draw specific numbers for this or to run
all of the analysis because obviously, right, there's a difference whether it's
your mother or your father, who is from the foreign group, because
right, you inherit different things from your mother versus your father.
And sometimes the mother matters more, sometimes the father matters more.
And it matters if you are a leader or not a leader
and leader and right this is not an easy question.
It's complicated.
I have not dedicated the time and the effort to drawing up
specific rules.
Maybe I will eventually, but you know we're not in that position
right now.
That's the sort of question when you have political power and you
decide what you're going to do.
I think it would be good to have general rules in place
so that we can tell people this is what we want to
do, right?
This is our idea, how to make things better, how to improve
the nation, how to preserve the nation that has been entrusted to
us by God.
He is the one who created it, and we should not destroy
it or permit it to be destroyed.
But we're not in the position to draw, you know, very specific
laws and enact those right now.
I think that gives a general overview and a good general sense
of how things should be conducted, gives individuals guidelines in their life.
But by and large, most of these issues
hopefully can be
you know, despite some of the questions about things I've said on
X, right?
People are always concerned about that, right?
X is different.
X is the political square, it's polemical, it's a different thing.
In practice, would we prefer to have most problems resolved without resort
to you know, violence?
The answer is yes, because any time you can resolve a problem
without resort to war, that is the better option.
But you do that without taking war off the table, because sometimes
war is morally required.
But where it is not morally required, if you can avoid it,
you should.
War always costs more than you think it's going to cost.
It always causes greater harm than you think it's going to cause,
so don't pursue it except where it is morally required of you,
in the defense of your people, in the defense of your God,
whatever it happens to be.
So that is the general outline of those rules, and I'm sure
there'll be more questions about it in the future.
Perhaps I will write something on it to sort of forestall those
questions and answer them more completely.
I think that is going to be it for
tonight. Someone asked me about Rabbi Jeff on X.
I have seen his account.
I don't believe I'm following it, but I he seems like he
has been putting out some useful content.
Making some excuse me, making some good use of usage of AI
and Grok, right?
Always a good thing to do.
And it's one of those cases, right?
People will believe what the AI says and is that good or
is that bad?
You could debate it one way or the other.
There are benefits and their detriments.
But at the very least it is good rhetorically and it is
effective, which is part of the measure of being good rhetorically.
But that being said, I think that is it for tonight.
I'm going to take a sip of my tea before I wrap
up here.
Since my candle burned out for some reason and that means my
tea is going to get cold.
Oh, I guess the candle actually burned all the way out.
So it did its job.
That being said, I try to do these QA's on Thursday or
Friday. I'm going to just say or now because it winds up
being however my week goes, and
they tend to be a little later in the evening, but I
tried to do it earlier this time because I have some things
I need to get done later this evening and so I was
trying to get the QA finished up.
I try to do this every week, it winds up being every
other week often.
I guess my dogs are now barking at something.
Good timing.
That being said, thank you for those of you who contributed questions
and thank you for participating in the chat.
I will try to get to the other questions.
I do have them in my intake system here, so hopefully I
did not miss anything and hopefully I won't miss anything.
Like I said, on
my telegram channel and the beginning I did a large cleanup of
the backlog of questions and episodes and so the transcripts, the questions,
the wikis, all of that information should now be up to date.
And so you should be able to look at that information.
If your question got incorrectly flagged, please go ahead and ask it
again. There's nothing wrong with that.
Questions can be submitted on the forum.
That is preferable, but you can also submit them on X via
Telegram or in the chat.
Whatever way you can get them to me is fine.
If you are so inclined, you may even write them and send
them to my P.O.
box, which is public.
That will probably take longer for me to notice.
But that being said, it is Friday evening.
I hope you all have a good weekend.
Go out and enjoy God's beautiful creation.
It's finally nice and cool, so you can go on a nice
long hike or something.
Always good to enjoy that.
Take your dog with you.
At any rate, go to church on Sunday, and I will see
you all next week.
Until then, God bless.
yeah, yeah.