Shownotes
Dr. Yoram Hazony is chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation and author of The Virtue of Nationalism. In this conversation, he explains how liberal imperialism disguised as "tolerance" destroys nations from within, argues that America's founding as a Christian nation offers the only path back from cultural collapse, and warns that China represents the greatest existential threat to Western civilization while young men waste energy fighting imaginary enemies.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Liberal "neutrality" creates a cultural vacuum that gets filled by neo-Marxism and chaos
- Hitler was an imperialist, not a nationalist - nationalism means independent nations coexisting
- Human obligations are inherited, not chosen through consent - loyalty bonds create nations
- America was legally recognized as a Christian nation until 1947's separation doctrine
- China is the only real threat to America while conservatives fight phantom battles
- Orthodox Jews and serious Christians are natural allies against liberal imperialism
MENTIONED IN THIS PODCAST
CONNECT WITH DR. HAZONY
"The Virtue of Nationalism" - https://a.co/d/10D22tz
"Conservatism: A Rediscovery" - https://a.co/d/10D22tz
https://nationalconservatism.org/
🌟 The Will Spencer Podcast was formerly known as "The Renaissance of Men."
FOLLOW US FOR MORE
- Biblical Men's Mentorship - START HERE
- Will Spencer Podcast Home
- Substack
- Twitter/X
- YouTube
The Will Spencer Podcast is a weekly interview show featuring extended discussions with authors, leaders, and influencers who help us make sense of our changing world today. I release new episodes every week on Friday.
ADVERTISERS
Mentioned in this episode:
-- REAL BROTHERHOOD FOR CHRISTIAN MEN --
Tired of fighting your battles alone? I'm starting a facilitated brotherhood for Christian men who want real accountability, not surface-level fellowship. We meet twice monthly on Zoom for honest conversation and mutual growth.
Accountability Group For Men - LEARN MORE
-- WASSON WATCH COMPANY --
Swiss craftsmanship meets Christian conviction at Wasson Watch Company - where quality timepieces come from a founder who won't bend the knee. EXCLUSIVE promo code WILL10 saves 10%
Transcripts
Foreign.
Speaker B:Hello and welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast.
Speaker B:This is a weekly interview show where I sit down and talk with authors, thought leaders and influencers who are help us understand our changing world.
Speaker B:New episodes release every Friday.
Speaker B:My guest this week is Dr. Yoram Hazoni.
Speaker B:Yoram Hazoni is an award winning philosopher, political theorist and Bible scholar.
Speaker B:His books, the Virtue of Nationalism and Conservatism A Rediscovery paved the way for nationalist revival in dozens of countries and set the stage for the rebirth of conservative political thought worldwide.
Speaker B:His previous books include the Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, God and Politics in Esther and the Jewish the Struggle for Israel's Soul.
Speaker B: ica, Britain and Europe since: Speaker B:He is president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem.
Speaker B:Dr. Hazoni, welcome to the Will Spencer Podcast.
Speaker A:Hello Will.
Speaker A:Thanks for having me.
Speaker A:Good to see you.
Speaker B:Thank you, sir.
Speaker B:I'm very grateful to have you on.
Speaker B:I have your book here, the Virtue of Nationalism.
Speaker B:Pardon me?
Speaker B:My daughter got to the COVID of this, but this was a formidable book, sir.
Speaker B:I wrestled with with this book because as I started reading it, I deemed that it was worthy of wrestling with.
Speaker B:And so I've been looking forward to asking you some questions and sort of getting into the thesis behind the book and sort of revealing sort of my takeaways from it.
Speaker B:So thank you so much for this work.
Speaker A:Sure, my pleasure.
Speaker A:Thank you for reading it.
Speaker B:Absolutely.
Speaker B:So just real quick, before we start the conversation, a little background on me.
Speaker B:I've had the blessing to travel to more than 30 countries around the world.
Speaker B:I've been to India and China for long stretches of time.
Speaker B:I've been to Israel as well.
Speaker B:I've been to South America and Asia.
Speaker B:The thesis about strong nationalistic countries versus anarchic countries versus imperialistic countries is something that I have direct firsthand experience with.
Speaker B:So that will color some of my comments today.
Speaker A:Great.
Speaker B:So just to start, what was the genesis of the virtue of nationalism?
Speaker B:When did you first start thinking about some of the ideas that took form in this book?
Speaker A:Huh?
Speaker A:Good question.
Speaker A: ok is that during, during the: Speaker A:I went to university in the United States in New Jersey.
Speaker A:Both, both Princeton and Rutgers.
Speaker A:And then I, my wife and I moved to Israel and we've lived here since and, but raised our family here.
Speaker A:So when, when we arrived, when we got back to, to Israel, it was the, the early 90s, right after the Oslo Accords.
Speaker A:I mean this, this was kind of like during this wave of kind of, you know, utopian politics, they were erasing, you know, erasing the borders in Europe and thinking that, you know, peace with China, that everything was going to work out because, because liberalism was going to conquer all, differ beings.
Speaker A:So at that time there was also the Oslo Accords where the Israelis brought the plo, the long standing Palestinian terrorist organization, signed an agreement, brought them into Israeli territory.
Speaker A:Israel's about 50 miles wide.
Speaker A:And there was this euphoria, there was this sort of emotional release and uplifting as the elites, the intellectual and leadership of the country kind of rejoiced in.
Speaker A:There's not going to be any more war, there's not going to be any more hatred.
Speaker A:Everything's going to be solved.
Speaker A:And what's interesting is that instead of just being a, you know, like a peace agreement between two warring parties, like, you know, you sign a deal and then both sides live their own lives normally.
Speaker A:What, what happened in Israel was that the, that these elites took the signing of this agreement as a signal for uprooting what they called post Zionism.
Speaker A:They, they were going to eliminate every Jewish aspect from the public life of the country.
Speaker A:So they wanted to change the national anthem, they wanted to change the national flag and put a crescent on the flag and just all these, this total attempt to overcome the past.
Speaker A:Israel was born in sin and everyone was just going to admit it.
Speaker A:We wouldn't have to.
Speaker A:So it wasn't just a, you know, like a military agreement or even a political one.
Speaker A:It was taken as a cultural signal for uprooting everything Jewish, both in the religious sense and in the national sense for public life and abandoning it.
Speaker A:And that, that got me and, and my friends thinking about, thinking about nationalism and anti nationalism.
Speaker A: mentioned, which came out in: Speaker A:And so while I and my friends, like we had this center and we did research and, and, and we read a lot while we were studying Israeli nationalism, Jewish nationalism.
Speaker A:We, we also started building back the store, building out the story of English nationalism and American nationalism and you know, what are the roots of these things and what do they have to do with it?
Speaker A:So I, I personally, I was, you know, just mostly focused on Israel and Judaism, Israeli and Jewish issues for most of my career.
Speaker A: ut God in Hebrew scripture in: Speaker A: h with me at the beginning of: Speaker A:You guys were putting together on nationalism, it's time for you to drop whatever you're doing and write the book that explains this to.
Speaker A:To other people, not just, you know, to Israelis and Jews.
Speaker A:And that's how the book was born.
Speaker A:It was.
Speaker A:That was the year of Brexit.
Speaker A:That was the year of Trump.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:And I looked around and.
Speaker A:And I. I saw that he.
Speaker A:That he was right.
Speaker A:I mean, I. I didn't figure this out, but he did that.
Speaker A:That America and Britain were both simultaneously heading towards, like, complete craziness and hostility towards national independence and their national traditions and the religious parts and the biblical foundation of their national traditions.
Speaker A: all of this in Israel in the: Speaker A:The same exact thing.
Speaker A:And I figured, he's right.
Speaker A:I need to explain nationalism now, not just to Israelis and Jews, but to Christians and Americans and Brits and others.
Speaker A:So that's where the book came from.
Speaker B:I'm so interested.
Speaker B:Can you take us into a moment where those pieces kind of clicked, where you're dealing with the question related specifically to Israeli nationalism, and then the pieces click into place like, oh, wow, I'm actually looking at a much bigger problem.
Speaker B:Problem.
Speaker B:Because that was my experience reading the book.
Speaker B:As I was reading the book, it's like, okay, this makes sense.
Speaker B:Why an Israeli national would be writing a book with such strong biblical foundations about what a nation is.
Speaker B:It makes sense.
Speaker B:But then it's as if you had discovered a gift that you wanted to give to the rest of the world.
Speaker B:Can you take us into the moment or the moments when that maybe kind of clicked into place?
Speaker A:Well, the connections, like you say, the connections between.
Speaker A:Between biblical.
Speaker A:You know, a biblical, mostly Old Testament nationalism.
Speaker A:I'm not, you know, I'm not gonna.
Speaker A:I'm not an expert in New Testament.
Speaker A:So I'll leave you to decide whether the New Testament is nationalist.
Speaker A:But the Old Testament is.
Speaker A:Is, you know, it's.
Speaker A:It's the source for the.
Speaker A:You know, for one nation under God.
Speaker A:Like the concept that a nation will be free and under God, we don't have any other source.
Speaker A:There's no Greek source for it.
Speaker A:There's no Roman source for it.
Speaker A:It's it's part of the Jewish inheritance of Christianity.
Speaker A: hat it didn't click for me in: Speaker A:I have this colleague, Ofir Haivre, who's an Israeli scholar, who is an expert in the common law, the political tradition of the common lawyers and pre.
Speaker A:Burkean conservatism.
Speaker A: ow, somewhere around the year: Speaker A:Who, who was the greatest of the common lawyers of his generation, wrote this massive book about, about the, the natural law and national laws based on the teachings of, of the Jews.
Speaker A:This, is, this, is this.
Speaker A:You know, today nobody knows his name.
Speaker A:At the time, he was the most prominent jurist in England.
Speaker A:And his goal was to show that national independence of England should be based on the common law inheritance the same way that Jewish tradition is based on the rabbinic inheritance.
Speaker A:That's a parallel that he draws explicitly.
Speaker A:And he's arguing that, that, that England is like.
Speaker A:Is England is like the Jews.
Speaker A:It has this inherited legal tradition which points it to God's truth and which is independent of like these, these universal efforts, you know, to take Roman law and impose it on England and try to turn it into like a universal law for everybody.
Speaker A:So, so these kinds of connections are things I'd been learning from, you know, my friends and colleagues.
Speaker A:And I knew quite a bit about it at the time.
Speaker A: What shocked me in: Speaker A:We know Donald Trump.
Speaker A:He's insane, he's a fascist, he has no principles, he stands for nothing.
Speaker A: He, he, he's bringing the: Speaker A:You know, they, they reacting.
Speaker A:I mean, just crazy, crazy stuff.
Speaker A:And what, what really happened was was that I, I didn't know how to take it because they sounded like they were acting crazy.
Speaker A:And I didn't necessarily believe what they were saying, but I didn't know what to think about it until I watched the Republican Convention and I saw Donald Trump give his acceptance speech.
Speaker A:And I remember I was sitting with friends and I said, what on earth?
Speaker A:Donald Trump, he's just like a traditional nationalist.
Speaker A:Everything he's saying is traditional nationalism.
Speaker A: when I was in College in the: Speaker A:The belief that America's independence, not some global governance, that America needs to care, to make sure that its people have factories to work at and that American defense industries are not dependent on foreigners and that the borders need to be patrolled.
Speaker A:And, you know, like, all of these are.
Speaker A:Were sort of like completely familiar things.
Speaker A:That's just a nationalist politician.
Speaker A:Why is everybody talking like he's, you know, like, like he's bringing fascism to America?
Speaker A:So that's, that's really the moment that it snapped for me is, is that I. I just suddenly realized that, that it basically all.
Speaker A:Everything that was happening was people who are like liberal globalizers.
Speaker A:I didn't realize how much my friends had bought into this stuff.
Speaker A:And it was really just them saying, no, utopia is going to come through taking down all the borders and having global governance.
Speaker A:I mean, these people called themselves conservatives, but I mean, there's nothing conservative.
Speaker A:That's like a Jacobin, universal, revolutionary, utopian set of thoughts.
Speaker A:And these were my friends saying this, and I couldn't believe it.
Speaker A:And Trump just seemed, like, completely normal.
Speaker A:Yes, it just seemed normal to me.
Speaker A:So that's it.
Speaker A:So the book was.
Speaker A:And then the UK part is lots of people were saying, no, Trump is insane.
Speaker A:He's mentally, he's this, he's that.
Speaker A:But then when I traveled to England and I found out that.
Speaker A:That in Britain, people were reacting the same way to Brexit that Americans were reacting to Trump.
Speaker A:So that just nailed it for me.
Speaker A:Then I just knew, this isn't about Trump.
Speaker A:They only think it's about Trump.
Speaker A:It's not about Trump, because the same thing is happening with Brexit.
Speaker A: that we saw in Israel in the: Speaker A:It's a revolt against having an independent country with its own faith, with its own traditions, with its own ways of doing things.
Speaker A:And no, we're going to give that up and we're going to destroy it.
Speaker A:We're going to drown ourselves in globalism.
Speaker A:Same exact phenomenon.
Speaker B:It's almost like an affront against their personal religion that they don't know that they hold it is.
Speaker A:Well, that's generally true about liberalism.
Speaker A:Is that.
Speaker A:That when I say liberalism, I'm not, I'm not.
Speaker A:I'm.
Speaker A:I'm using the term kind of the way we Use it in political theory.
Speaker A:So it's, it's not just people on the left who are liberals.
Speaker A:There are liberal liberals on the left and there are liberals on the right.
Speaker A:And what I mean by liberals is people who think that the only thing you need to know about politics is that, you know, that people are born perfectly free and perfectly equal and that the job of government is to defend their freedom and their equality.
Speaker A:If you think, if you think that that's politics and you don't think that government has some kind of important role to play in terms of propagating and preserving and strengthening the nation, the family, religion, fear of God.
Speaker A:If you don't think any of those things, family, nation, religion, God, scripture, if you don't think that those things are crucial to politics, then you're a liberal.
Speaker A:So there are all these liberals, Republicans and Democrats and, and, and, and they, many of them are Christians or Jews, that they, they have their religion privatized.
Speaker A:And they don't understand that by privatizing their, their Christianity and their Judaism and creating this supposedly neutral empty box, which, you know, which is, was their country like, once it was a Christian country, once it was a Christian nation, but now it's going to be a liberal nation.
Speaker A:I mean, it's neutral, doesn't believe in officially, and they don't understand.
Speaker A:That's the same thing as, you know, as setting, setting like lighting a fuse to the destruction of your country.
Speaker A:So they have a religion.
Speaker A:They don't know that they have a religion.
Speaker A:They think they're Christians or Jews, but what they've done is they've replaced like the normal historical Christian or Jewish concern with public life, with national life.
Speaker A:They've replaced that with empty.
Speaker A:Empty like a, like a vacuum.
Speaker A:That's, that's, that's their, their ideal is that the country should be neutral.
Speaker A:It should be a vacuum.
Speaker A:And into that vacuum, you know, so that they have the religion of vacuum.
Speaker A:And, and then after two generations, it turns into neo Marxism or all these other crazy things or the Stone Choir stuff that you were writing about.
Speaker A:That's also something that's growing because the public space has been a religion of vacuum for so long and people don't know what to do with themselves.
Speaker B:You mentioned that there's so many different directions.
Speaker B:I want to go with the things that you said going back to Trump and Brexit, but you mentioned it's lighting a fuse to the destruction of your country.
Speaker B:I wonder if you can unpack that a little bit, because I think it's central to the thesis of your book.
Speaker A:Yeah, right.
Speaker A:I wrote an.
Speaker A: ed after that, A few years in: Speaker A:It's where I answer all the questions that people ask me about the nationalism book.
Speaker A:So, so it's a bigger book and it goes deeper.
Speaker A:One of the topics is, is, is this question is how does Lighting the Fuse work?
Speaker A:And so my what, what I proposed in that book is, is that the heart of the problem is.
Speaker A:Look, toleration, tolerating people who are different from you is, is a virtue in political systems.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:I don't, I don't.
Speaker A:It can't be absolute.
Speaker A:There's no such a thing as, you know, tolerating everything and everyone.
Speaker A:That's impossible.
Speaker A:But, you know, being decent to your neighbors who don't agree with you is, to begin with, it's a virtue.
Speaker A:And what liberals do is they take this basically good thing and they turn it into an idol and they turn it into an absolute.
Speaker A:They say, okay, because tolerating a certain amount of tolerating others so that you can get along and live together, because that's good.
Speaker A:I.
Speaker A:We're just going to say, no, we're not going to call it toleration anymore.
Speaker A:We're going to call it, you know, absolute.
Speaker A:The absolute right of every person to think and do whatever on earth he or she feels like doing and to demand that others think it's okay that they're doing it and not protect themselves, no matter what it is.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:So, so that's kind of the, the heart of, of the, the, of the liberal thinking is if we could just turn this into an absolute.
Speaker A:And what happens is that, you know, the first generation, let's say after the Second World War, people came back from the war.
Speaker A:And I think America and Europe and, you know, lots of other countries were really traumatized by this and they wanted to fix things so, like, things would never be bad again.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A: d of the moving spirit of the: Speaker A:And so what they did was they wanted not just government to be neutral, they wanted the schools to be neutral.
Speaker A:So they expelled God in scripture from the schools.
Speaker A:They wanted neutrality between, you know, races, which, you know, if you just like, if all they were trying to do was to, to end persecution of, of blacks in some parts of the United States, then that probably, probably would have worked out okay.
Speaker A:But.
Speaker A:But then they said, no, no, it's not just blacks and whites.
Speaker A:Men and women have to be perfectly equal and atheists and believers have to be perfectly equal.
Speaker A:And, and, and you have to treat everybody equally.
Speaker A:So it doesn't matter if you go to the army or if you're a draft dodger, you're equal.
Speaker A:It doesn't matter if you get divorced or if you don or stay married, you're equal.
Speaker A:It doesn't matter if you have children.
Speaker A:You don't have everybody every, so this everybody equal, it turns into every thought, every idea has to be treated equally to all other thoughts and all other ideas.
Speaker A:And, and, and when you raise children like that, it turns out that you, you know, in the first generation, everybody has fun like, you know, trashing the inherited guardrails, transgressing and, you know, proving that, that, you know, you can do whatever it was your parents and grandparents would have hated for you.
Speaker A:So that's the first generation.
Speaker A:But what happens with the second generation and the third when, when they're raised with whatever you want to do, my son, my daughter, whatever makes you feel good, whatever you believe in, that's good for me.
Speaker A:Zero guardrails, right?
Speaker A:Zero inherited direction whatsoever.
Speaker A:And everybody's expected to be like this little Nietzsche who like trans values all values from within himself or herself.
Speaker A:But nobody can do that, right?
Speaker A:You know, maybe even Nietzsche couldn't do.
Speaker A:But let's say there's two people who can do it and then all the rest of us can't do it.
Speaker A:So then you end up with what we've got, which is kids who have no role models.
Speaker A:And you're right, in the essay of yours that I read that there's definitely a father famine, but the father famine, I mean, it's probably the most important part, but it's part of just a general hero famine that when it was normal to say, listen, kids, look at the way that grandma and grandpa are.
Speaker A:They're married 60 years later and they're still doing it, not because it was easy, but because it was right and important and godly.
Speaker A:And look at how they're still doing it.
Speaker A:And everybody around them says, wow, that's, that's great.
Speaker A:People should be like that.
Speaker A:That's one world.
Speaker A:And there's a different world where you say, no, you know, getting divorced, it's just as good as staying.
Speaker A:I mean, you know, whatever's good for you, that whatever's good for you at the, by the second generation, by the third generation, for sure, it's just a bunch of depressed people.
Speaker A:Human beings, they thrive in hierarchy and in truths and directions and guardrails and ways of looking at things that are handed down.
Speaker A:Of course, you get to a certain age, maybe you'll rebel and move over to a different hierarchy.
Speaker A:But human beings are always within some kind of handed down way of looking at the world.
Speaker A:That's if they're healthy.
Speaker A:And if you don't hand anything down, they just decay.
Speaker A:They get depressed, they don't know where to go, they can't generate it from within themselves.
Speaker A:And then they start doing drugs and other poisons in order to silence the hole in their soul that's screaming, where do I go?
Speaker A:Where do I go?
Speaker A:I don't know where to go.
Speaker A:And anything can get into that.
Speaker A:So that's Jordan Peterson's young men who can't clean their room.
Speaker A:But it's also Abigail Schreier's young women who in groups, dozens of them, decide that they're men.
Speaker A:When you take away the traditions, you take away not just the ability to find truth, but even the ability to just be mentally semi normal.
Speaker A:You take that away too.
Speaker A:And that's the fuse and all kinds of explosions.
Speaker A:It can be a civil war, it can be a foreign invasion, it could be anything.
Speaker A:But you cannot be healthy.
Speaker A:You had a Christian nation, you wanted it to be a neutral nation, and making it a neutral nation, which means that you're claiming that everything is just as good as everything else, that's the beginning of the end, can't be turned around.
Speaker A:I hope so.
Speaker A:I know a lot of really good people who are trying to turn it around.
Speaker A:But to turn it around, you need to understand where we are.
Speaker A:That's where we are.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker B:I see behind you on the shelf Carl Truman's rise and triumph of the modern self, which is of course the quintessential example where he set out to understand how was it that the statement, I was born a man, but inside I'm a woman.
Speaker B:How does that statement have any logical sense and sort of to unpack the cultural streams of how we got there?
Speaker B:But I want to go down that road.
Speaker B:But I mean, that'll take us on a whole different adventure.
Speaker B:But so.
Speaker B:So we talked about how to light the fuse.
Speaker B:And it seems to me that there was a reaction to the idea of nationalism that came after World War II, that that was what.
Speaker B:That was what all the evils of history were kind of pinned on.
Speaker B:And so let's talk about that for a minute because that seems to be the immediate go to fascist Hitler, you know, Holocaust.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker B:If you try to advocate for the well being of your own nation.
Speaker A:Yeah, I, I actually think, I actually think that quite a bit of this was going on already after World War I.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:I mean, remember that, that Woodrow Wilson.
Speaker A:After World War I, there was the League of Nations and the Kellogg brand Treaty.
Speaker A: Already in the: Speaker A:And you know, so, so this kind of like we're so, we're so sick of inherited commitments that like, we just need to flatten.
Speaker A: t was already in place in the: Speaker A:But you're, you're right, that, that, you know, from, from our perspective, looking back on it, World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, it's, it's like this, you know, this, this generation of trauma that, that had people willing to consider, how can we not do this again?
Speaker A:And right after World War II, there were many, many liberal and Marxist intellectuals.
Speaker A:Those are not the same thing, but both liberals and Marxists who jumped on the opportunity since Hitler did call himself a nationalist.
Speaker A:Now, I don't think Hitler was a nationalist because for me, a nationalist.
Speaker A:The traditional meaning of the word before Hitler was a world of independent nations.
Speaker A:There was the idea that many different nations should be able to chart their own course, you know, find God in their own way, according to their own lights.
Speaker A:That was the, like the old nationalism.
Speaker A:And Hitler hated that.
Speaker A:I mean, you know, like, I don't, don't tell anybody, I'm not going to tell anybody to read Mein Kampf, because then people will say, Yoram said to read Mein Kampf and forget that.
Speaker A:But if you did read Mein Kampf, you'd see that Hitler is no nationalist at all when he uses the word nationalism.
Speaker A:He hates independent nations.
Speaker A:He believes in only one thing, that the German race should be the lords of the earth and mistress of the globe.
Speaker A:That's what he believes in.
Speaker A:He believes in annihilating all of the freedom of other peoples to be what they want.
Speaker A:He is a biological imperialist, as Anthony Smith, the great scholar of nationalism once called it.
Speaker A:He's a biological imperialist, not a nationalist.
Speaker A:But after World War II, all these liberals and Marxist scholars start hammering on the fact that Hitler used the word nationalist.
Speaker A:He appropriated it from its actual use, and they said, yes, it's national independence.
Speaker A:That's what's evil.
Speaker A:That's what led to this, is that Germany was independent.
Speaker A:And so what's the answer?
Speaker A:The answer is no one's going to be independent anymore.
Speaker A:And there's a liberal version of this, and there was a commie version of this, but both versions, what they had in common was we're going to eliminate all the borders and we're going to bring eternal peace to the world by eliminating what they called the selfishness, the egoism of having a nation that looks out for itself and its own people.
Speaker A:And they.
Speaker A:From that perspective, you know, both.
Speaker A:Both the liberals and the Marx.
Speaker A:I mean, the Marxists were straight out, you know, obviously anti Christian, anti Judaism, anti religion.
Speaker A:But the liberals were more complicated because a lot of these liberals were hap.
Speaker A:They believed in, like, being personally religious.
Speaker A: ects from, you know, from the: Speaker A:And they thought that there's going to be no more wars because nationalism and religion is what caused all the wars.
Speaker B:I appreciated that you took it back to World War I, because I think that's in many ways that's a forgotten war in our cultural memory today that set the stage for so many things that ended up happening in World War II.
Speaker B:And you also touched on what I saw as the critical distinction in the book.
Speaker B:I listened to your conversation with Ezra Klein, and he, of course, zeroed immediately in on what, tribes, families and nations.
Speaker B:Something like that.
Speaker B:Tribes and clans.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:I didn't think that that was.
Speaker B:Obviously, that's important, but I thought.
Speaker B:And it made sense to me why he would pick that.
Speaker B:But I thought the distinction between anarchic, nationalist and empirical states.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Imperial.
Speaker B:Imperial.
Speaker B:That's it.
Speaker B:Not imperial, imperial.
Speaker B:I thought that was the far more crucial distinction that you made, and that was like staring up at a giant wall of.
Speaker A:Of.
Speaker B:Correct.
Speaker B:Like.
Speaker B:Yeah, I can't really argue with that.
Speaker B:So maybe unpack that for the listeners.
Speaker A:Sure.
Speaker A:Well, the.
Speaker A:The.
Speaker A:The original sort of.
Speaker A:I don't know if you can use the term state of nature before mass agriculture, okay.
Speaker A:Before the invention of, you know, of mass irrigation, human beings lived in a society that.
Speaker A:The term anarchy is reasonable, but it doesn't.
Speaker A:Sometimes people think anarchy means, like, all these individuals who have nothing, no political structure.
Speaker A:That's not actual anarchy.
Speaker A:The anarchy that I'm talking about is the order of tribes and clans, which is, you know, if you remember in Scripture, when Abraham leaves these gigantic river valleys, the Euphrates, the Nile, that's where all the power is.
Speaker A:It Comes from irrigating vast areas of land, unprecedented wealth in terms of agriculture, grains, which, which is wealth that you can, you, you can store.
Speaker A:And then that leads to standing government, armies, bureaucracy.
Speaker A:You know, all these people are like full time paid to, to like run, govern.
Speaker A:All of that is, it's very new in human history.
Speaker A:You know, it's, it, it's like five, 6,000 years old.
Speaker A:It's not like, it's not older than that.
Speaker A:And so the original, like what are human beings?
Speaker A:Kind of like naturally, if you leave them alone, what they are is that they form families or group of families which are like clans or bands.
Speaker A:And when they're attacked, these clans, they get together and then they make an alliance.
Speaker A:And if the alliance is longer term, then they become nations.
Speaker A:And so this, this kind of like you can see when, you know, when, when Canaan is invaded and, and Abraham, you know, he's got a few hundred men and he gets together with his neighbors and they've each got a few hundred men.
Speaker A:That's the order of tribes and tribes and clans.
Speaker A:It's a, every family has a foreign policy.
Speaker A:No, nobody has the right to take anything from you.
Speaker A:You decide like you and your God.
Speaker A:It's between you and your God, you know, and your neighbors.
Speaker A:But there's no universal anything in terms of politics.
Speaker A:And so that's the order of tribes and clans.
Speaker A:And what destroys it is the imperial state which I just described is the wealth of cities like those in Mesopotamia or in Egypt that creates the imperial state.
Speaker A:And the theory of the imperial state is, is always the same.
Speaker A:There's some God that comes to the king, unless the God, unless the king is a God.
Speaker A:But some God comes to the king and says to the king of Assyria, let's say your job is to go out and conquer the four corners of the earth and bring peace and prosperity to mankind.
Speaker A:I mean it's has a positive vision.
Speaker A:It's not just, you know, kill, kill for killing's sake, although there's plenty of that.
Speaker A:But, but the heart of it is why should people fight?
Speaker A:Why should, why should the order of tribes and clans continue?
Speaker A:There's no reason everybody should just bow the knee to me, whoever me is, and I'll bring peace and prosperity to the world.
Speaker A:No more disease because no more war.
Speaker A:And everybody will be happy.
Speaker A:And that, that imperial state, that's what gives birth to, to our scripture, to the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish and Christian inheritance which begins with the prophets looking at these imperial states and saying that's evil.
Speaker A:That's Evil, True, they want to bring peace and prosperity.
Speaker A:But it's evil to gather up an army, go to somebody else's country, and kill everybody who's in the way and take their women and take their land and say, that's in the name of peace and prosperity.
Speaker A:That's the heart of the idolatry that the prophets are rebelling against.
Speaker A:And in the Hebrew Bible, we have a proposal for an alternative.
Speaker A:And the alternative is an independent nation.
Speaker A:I mean, think about this.
Speaker A:That God, creator of heaven and earth, he speaks to Moses and he gives him borders.
Speaker A:I mean, he keeps giving borders.
Speaker A:He gives borders all the time.
Speaker A:But in Deuteronomy, we have it like Moses saying explicitly, you're not allowed to cross these borders.
Speaker A:You're not allowed to take an inch from your neighbors, and then suddenly realize that these borders, they're to keep you in these borders are so that you can pay attention to your people and their needs and their path to God instead of going out and conquering the whole world.
Speaker A:And this proposal that we get from Moses, where the king is from your people, he's not a foreigner.
Speaker A:The prophets, they're from your people.
Speaker A:That doesn't mean that the other nations don't have prophecy.
Speaker A:It just means you need to have prophets from your own people.
Speaker A:And the law is your own people, and the priests are from your own people, and it's your law.
Speaker A:And you've got borders, and you're not allowed to conquer the neighbors.
Speaker A:And that is the proposal that comes after the empires prove that they can destroy everything.
Speaker A:Every society of clans and tribes, they'll wipe it out.
Speaker A:And the proposal is, wait a second.
Speaker A:If you organize a bunch of tribes with a common language, a common religion, like a brotherhood of tribes, then you might be able to stand up against us.
Speaker B:That's one of the things that I was so surprised, pleasantly so by the book, was how deeply scriptural it was.
Speaker B:As I'm looking into the rationale for nationalism as the coming together of tribes, it's like, yeah, that sounds about right.
Speaker B:Particularly in the picture of allied tribes and clans forming a nation to push back on imperial ambitions, which we see throughout Scripture.
Speaker B:And one of the key concepts that.
Speaker B:One of the words that you use throughout the book, which I think is also foreign to a world today, today, is this notion of loyalty, mutual loyalty.
Speaker B:I wonder if in this age of, you know, we are born free and totally equal, and all of our obligations are by consent only.
Speaker B:One of the side effects of that is we have no loyalty to anything, because if we can just merely withdraw our consent for our obligations, then I owe you no loyalty.
Speaker B:And we see that across, across culture in so many different ways, across many societies.
Speaker B:But bonds of mutual loyalty as bringing clans together to form a nation.
Speaker B:Can you talk about that notion and how it shows up in the thought of how nations are formed?
Speaker A:Sure, but I think you've actually already said the heart of it, that the liberal.
Speaker A:Let's take John Locke at the beginning of the Second Treatise of Government.
Speaker A:He tells you all human beings are born perfectly free and perfectly equal.
Speaker A:And then he explains what that means is that they only undertake moral or political obligation by way of consent.
Speaker A:In other words, there's no way to be born into having obligations morally or politically in order to God or to anything.
Speaker A:So it's already right there that the moment that you say your obligations, none of them are inherited, none of them are situational.
Speaker A:None of them have to do with, you know, the reality that you're in and any kind of objective, you know, moral order or what God want.
Speaker A:No, no, no, no.
Speaker A:The only obligations are through consent.
Speaker A:And exactly as you said.
Speaker A:And by the way, this is, this is an argument that, you know, it's not.
Speaker A:This was already an argument that was, was being used against, against the, the pre.
Speaker A: Liberals in, in the: Speaker A:That same argument that if it's all by consent, then there's no obligation.
Speaker A:You've dis, you've dissolved all obligation.
Speaker A:There's it.
Speaker A:Where's their obligation?
Speaker A:Anytime, anytime that if it's consent.
Speaker A:So okay, so you consent to get married, but later you don't consent anymore.
Speaker A:So, so there's, so you don't have to stay married.
Speaker A:You consented to have a child, but then you meet the child, the child grows up and you say, oh, that's not the child I wanted.
Speaker A:Oh, whoa, you know, like I met some other child.
Speaker A:So then you don't consent anymore.
Speaker A:So he's not your child.
Speaker A:Like, I mean, it doesn't work like that.
Speaker A:You can't, you can't be born into a nation and say, you know, well, you know, I'm only going to go to war to protect my people.
Speaker A:I'm only going to do that, you know, when I like the government.
Speaker A:It doesn't work like that.
Speaker A:If you want to leave your country and you want to go move to China, good luck.
Speaker A:But when you get to China, you're still going to owe loyalty to China.
Speaker A:I mean, human beings cannot escape moral obligations.
Speaker A:They're inherent in the nature of our relationships with, with individuals and societies and with God.
Speaker A:And that's the absolute root of the liberal sickness, is thinking that it's up to you whether you have any obligations or not.
Speaker B:And that I think is the most corrosive idea.
Speaker B:So how do these mutual obligations take shape between clans forming a nation?
Speaker B:Why should a clan establish loyalty bonds?
Speaker B:And the key modifier I thought was mutual loyalty, it's not a one way loyalty.
Speaker B:And the word that comes to mind for that is covenantal.
Speaker B:Why should clans form bonds of mutual loyalty for each other towards the establishment of a nation?
Speaker A:Well, you know, there's, if you're not willing to get into like empirical human nature, meaning the way human beings are really like, instead of like the way philosophers think they are, you know, so philosophers, they can like, you can sit there and you can say, you know, oh, I'm not married and you know, and I, I don't have any children and I, I don't owe my parents anything and you know, I'm free, I'm perfectly free.
Speaker A:And you know, like you can think that kind of thing and you can think all human beings are basically like this, but it isn't empirically true.
Speaker A:Meaning, like experience teaches you that it's not true at all.
Speaker A:What, what actually happens is that you meet somebody and you know, it can be a man meeting a man or a man meeting, meeting a woman or a student learning with a teacher.
Speaker A:You meet somebody and at the beginning you're strangers.
Speaker A:And then experience puts, puts you to various tests and you start to feel like, listen, I can rely on this person, this person is my friend.
Speaker A:And after a while of, you know, you've been friends with somebody and then you test it and you say, listen, I'm having trouble with something, can you help me?
Speaker A:And they come through.
Speaker A:So what happens in real life is that these, these bonds are established through experience where you invest time in other people.
Speaker A:You discover that they, that they're going to be there with you, that they're going to fight your battles with you, that they feel your pain with you and you feel the same thing for them.
Speaker A:So you know, obviously sometimes you love somebody and they don't love you back.
Speaker A:But the foundation of human societies is the, is the mutual friendship, the mutual love or mutual loyalty that is built up over time.
Speaker A:Human beings are, we're, we're programmed to not start over every day.
Speaker A:We don't start over every day.
Speaker A:We, we have a friend and we want to keep our friend and we want our friend to keep us.
Speaker A:And if our friend doesn't stand by us in some difficulty Then it hurts.
Speaker A:It hurts because like, we feel like of the part, a piece of us is being torn away.
Speaker A:Okay, so, so when, when, when you switch this from kind of like analyzing it to thinking, so, so what should you do?
Speaker A:So what should you do?
Speaker A:So just.
Speaker A:So, for example, there's, there's this, this rabbinic principle called the hazaka, which means if, if, if I pick up somebody to go, you know, I see him hitchhiking and I take him, you know, I go out of my way and I take him to his home or his place of work once, then that's fine.
Speaker A:That doesn't mean I have to do it the next time necessarily.
Speaker A:I mean, it's good charity to do it, but you don't have to do it.
Speaker A:If I do it twice, it's the same thing.
Speaker A:By the time you get to the third time, like the third day in a row that you see him standing there, that the principle is that you gotta understand that in his heart you're creating something which it could be very positive, but you begin to owe him.
Speaker A:Like, you can't just, after you've done it a dozen times, you can't just say, oh, I don't feel like it today, and like, ditch him because he's now planning on the way he gets home is by going with you.
Speaker A:So that's just a very basic thing about human beings, is that it hurts us when we're betrayed, when it turns out that someone is not willing to uphold the thing that to us seems to be the basis of our relationship.
Speaker A:And so surprise, it's not just individuals.
Speaker A:I mean, it's obviously true husbands and wives and parents and children, but it also develops between, between groups.
Speaker A:And, you know, this is, you know, I don't know if it, if it's the Lord of the Rings or what's a Braveheart?
Speaker A:I mean, some of our, you know, our best adventure movies moralize exactly on this point.
Speaker A:Is, are, are the old alliances going to hold?
Speaker A:Well, what is that?
Speaker A:What does that mean?
Speaker A:They held 200 years ago, why do they have to hold today?
Speaker A:But there's something very, very human about saying, I'll stand with you.
Speaker B:One of the things that I also enjoyed about the book was the way that you parse things, showed the holes in the liberal approach.
Speaker B:Like liberal internationalism is ultimately imperial and, and slanders nationalism as doing all the things that imperialism did.
Speaker B:Like Hitler and the National Socialists were ultimately imperialists, not nationalists.
Speaker B:And so that they were sort of, they were, they were given the title of nationalist to Slander all of nationalism, which we live in today, but also the notion that, that liberals want this imperial state, this nation, this globalized state that holds together.
Speaker B:But what holds it together, if not loyalty?
Speaker B:Well, then that ends up being force, which is the very thing that I thought that liberals were opposed to.
Speaker A:Yep, exactly.
Speaker A:So, I mean, it's really, it's, it, it's peculiar how hard this is for people, people to understand.
Speaker A:But it's a, it's a very, very old idea that, that, I mean, you, you, you find it in, in Aristotle, you find it in the common.
Speaker A:It's in scripture.
Speaker A:The idea that if people are, if people are virtuous, I mean, this is basically the story of the Book of Judges, is if people are willing to stand by their brothers and to go to war to protect everybody, and then you don't need a government to force you to do it.
Speaker A:If people just spontaneously, they're willing to obey the laws, pay their taxes, go to war when necessary, and they're willing to do all of this without being forced because they're loyal out of loyalty, loyalty to their people, loyalty to their God, loyalty to their family.
Speaker A:If they're willing to do that, then that's the best way.
Speaker A:Everybody knows that that's the best way, that you don't have to force people.
Speaker A:But people are usually not capable of that, and government is the result of it.
Speaker A:So, so what happens if we decide that the entire world is going to obey certain rules, but we don't base the obedience to the rules on loyalty?
Speaker A:Everybody has individual consent.
Speaker A:They can do whatever they want.
Speaker A:There's no loyalty between anybody and anybody else.
Speaker A:So in the end, it's going to be forced, just like you said.
Speaker A:And so you take a great liberal thinker like Friedrich Hayek, and you get to the end of the road to serfdom.
Speaker A:The book is freedom, Freedom, freedom, and you get to the end of it.
Speaker A:And he's talking about world government.
Speaker A:Wait a second.
Speaker A:What.
Speaker A:How'd you get there?
Speaker A:You were saying that everybody should be free.
Speaker A:Yeah, but we need to, you know, we need to make sure everybody's protected and free.
Speaker A:And so who's going to protect us and make sure we're free?
Speaker A:Well, it's world government.
Speaker A:And you know, like, like you, you can't, you can't, you can't do that.
Speaker A:You can't give the, the world imperial state enough power to, to fix things for every single individual on Earth without having created something that, that is instantly a tyranny.
Speaker A:It just doesn't like there's no such thing.
Speaker A:It makes no sense.
Speaker B:You also talked about Immanuel Kant, and that I thought was another fascinating distinction.
Speaker B:Just how scriptural you're rooting the idea of nation set up against the anarchic state versus the imperial state.
Speaker B:But I didn't realize that the imperial state drew so much of its, I guess you might say modern post Enlightenment enthusiasm from Kant's writing.
Speaker B:So maybe you can talk a little bit about that.
Speaker A:Yeah, well, Kant wrote a couple of pretty famous essays.
Speaker A:One is called Perpetual Peace, and it's about how you eliminate war from mankind.
Speaker A:And another one is called.
Speaker A:This is like a slim.
Speaker A:Like a thin volume which is called Kant's Political Writings, and they're all in there.
Speaker A:And there's one called History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective, where he argues that the only moral route for history to go forward is if you begin by eliminating the borders in Europe.
Speaker A:And then he says it doesn't have to be all the nations in the world simultaneously because we in Europe were more advanced.
Speaker A:And the other nations, they're like children and they're primitive, so it'll take them time.
Speaker A:But he says the only moral way, direction for his history to go is first the Europeans will decide that they're not going to fight each other anymore and that they'll be under law and there'll be like one government and one court system that will judge among everybody in Europe.
Speaker A:And then he says, gradually it'll, like, we'll just add other.
Speaker A:As the other nations of the world, they reach maturity and they come to realize that were correct and that this is the only way.
Speaker A:Then they'll join and then in the end you'll have this, this World Federation.
Speaker A:And, and it's.
Speaker A:Yeah, it's completely bonkers.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:It, it's it's just like, you know, it's like John Lennon.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:It's this kind of like.
Speaker A:Imagine there's no nations and there's no religion and there's nothing to fight about.
Speaker A:But, you know, that's fine as long as you're not human.
Speaker A:Like, human beings, like, we fight about things.
Speaker A:That's part of being human.
Speaker A:And we, we need to.
Speaker A:We need to find a way to improve ourselves and make the best in that context.
Speaker A:And this is just like.
Speaker A:It's just like blue skies.
Speaker A:The only moral thing is for us to stop fighting.
Speaker A:And the only way for us to stop fighting is for us to have a world government.
Speaker A:And it's all right there.
Speaker A:That's the European Union.
Speaker A:And if they could, then they would do it to the whole planet.
Speaker A:They're only doing it in Europe now because they, you know, they're sitting around like Kant thinking, oh, you know, the, the non Europeans, they're like so primitive and, and so they're not ready, but they think everybody should just join the European Union.
Speaker A:They really believe that.
Speaker B:It seems to me that there's also some sort of subtle Darwinian ideas that are, that are looped in there that, oh, humans will naturally evolve.
Speaker B:Maybe Kant wouldn't use that word.
Speaker B:They will evolve to a point where they can just drop all these borders.
Speaker B:Certainly I know that many, many liberals today do think that way.
Speaker B:They have a Darwinian view of human progress.
Speaker B:Would you say that your biblical view is what roots the nationalism in the terms of God, says this is the way things are?
Speaker B:Like, evolution is not a thing.
Speaker B:This is the way things are.
Speaker A:Well, you might be right.
Speaker A:I haven't thought about like that before.
Speaker A:See, the thing about Kant and most of these Enlightenment thinkers is, is that they really think every, that there's like this universal reason that reason with like a capital R is this thing that every single human being can access.
Speaker A:And it's really, it's not very compatible with the biblical view that people are just, you know, kind of bad and in some kind of very profound way.
Speaker A:And the, the Enlightenment tries to defeat that, you know, that, that badness of human beings.
Speaker A:It tries to defeat it with reason.
Speaker A:It tries to say, look, all of us can have access to reason.
Speaker A:Reason dictates moral and political truths in, in sort of like an absolute way that's unmistakable and infallible.
Speaker A:That's the assumption in Kant and in many of his, you know, many liberals think something like this, that, okay, you're angry, but stop being angry.
Speaker A:You know, you're thinking about, you know, what they did to your parents, but stop, stop thinking, just use reason.
Speaker A:And then there's like this universal reason where you disconnect from all particular commitments, you disconnect from family and from nation and from history.
Speaker A:You disconnect from everything.
Speaker A:And then you're like in this perfect reasoning place.
Speaker A:And then once you do that, then, then you have the answer and everybody's going to come to the same answers.
Speaker A:So, so it, I would think more that there's kind of like a, there is an opposition between the, the Darwinian.
Speaker A:You know, like Hitler sees himself as Darwinian.
Speaker A:Like it's not, it's not like hidden.
Speaker A:It's like there's a struggle for, among the races and the fittest race is going to defeat and enslave all the other race.
Speaker A:So that's like a Darwinian imperialism.
Speaker A:Kant is kind of like the opposite.
Speaker A:I mean it comes in the end, it comes to something pretty similar, but in principle it's the opposite.
Speaker A:He's saying, he's saying no, it's not Darwinian.
Speaker A:There's no power struggle at all.
Speaker A:It's not about power.
Speaker A:There's only one truth and reason will dictate it like as though it's God to, to all of us just by thinking.
Speaker A:And scripture, Scripture doesn't, you know, doesn't accept either of those.
Speaker A:I mean it definitely does not accept that the strongest should rule.
Speaker A:That's a, that's at the heart of pagan politics, is that whoever's powerful, it's his job to oppress and destroy anybody in his way.
Speaker A:So that's paganism, one kind.
Speaker A:But in Scripture we also get a serious skepticism about human reason.
Speaker A:It's not that that reason isn't good, wisdom is good in scripture.
Speaker A:But you know, but the idea that if you just let people think they'll come to the right answers.
Speaker A:I mean there's this sort of like repeated refrain in the book of Judges, you know, that in those days there was no king in Israel.
Speaker A:Every person did whatever was right in his own eyes.
Speaker A:And that's not considered good because the liberal enlightenment assumption that if everybody does what's right in their own eyes, then they'll a come to the truth about what's right and B, everybody will agree about what's right.
Speaker A:It's non existent.
Speaker A:Those assumptions are anti scriptural in a very, very deep way.
Speaker A:So I think that both Kantian liberal imperialism and the power hungry racial imperialism, both of those are two good examples of things that are incompatible with scripture.
Speaker B:Yeah, too much faith and human reason.
Speaker B:Too much faith in human power set up against the way God has told us things are.
Speaker B:So let me ask you a couple questions about America with all of this in mind.
Speaker A:Okay, let's.
Speaker A:Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker B:So from being overseas, most people around the world have a, have a difficult relationship with America because there are many things that they love about us as a nation, but they also resent our imperialism.
Speaker B:I think both of those are true.
Speaker B:I've experienced both of those as American overseas.
Speaker B:How can America now begin to reconstitute itself in a more nationalistic sense?
Speaker B:I know this is a gigantic question, but get comfortable with pulling back from the imperialist posture that it's had for we'll say 40 or so years, probably more, because that seems almost a challenge to The American identity in a way.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:I think that even though the United States had for sure elements of empire during the Cold War, was fighting an openly imperialist enemy that was trying to conquer the world.
Speaker A:And, and so there were elements of Americanism that, you know, you could, you could accuse them of being imperial.
Speaker A: I, I, I was in College in the: Speaker A:I write about this also in my book on conservatism and Reagan was a nationalist.
Speaker A:Reagan, Reagan didn't fight wars of conquest.
Speaker A:I mean people don't remember this, but all this stuff about like, you know, we're gonna go conquer Iraq and Afghanistan and, and like that wasn't Reagan.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:The only thing Reagan ever, ever conquered was, was, you know, this, this island in the Caribbean called Grenada, that it was like a one week war.
Speaker A:That was it.
Speaker A:That was the only war that, that Reagan ever fought.
Speaker A:He was a nationalist.
Speaker A:He, he, he believed that America should back its allies, but he didn't believe that America should be the sole protector of its allies.
Speaker A:You know, like, which is basically where, where the, the, the, the neoliberals, the neoconservative, that's basically where they ended up was.
Speaker A:Now we're just going to protect Europe and Japan and the Middle east and South Asia and we're going to protect them forever until, you know, until we bring utopia that wasn't Reagan.
Speaker A:And, and, and so the, the, the America I grew up in still thought that it was a nation.
Speaker A:You know, like, I understand people can argue about it, but it really, really seemed to everybody like it was like it was a nation.
Speaker A:People still knew, you know, what was the religion of this country.
Speaker A:Not everybody, but most people did.
Speaker A:They knew what was the national religion.
Speaker A:They knew that the country was founded on scripture.
Speaker A:They knew that America was, was on, you know, on, on the side of freedom of nations, of independence of nations.
Speaker A:They didn't, they didn't think that America's job was, was, you know, was to conquer other nations and make them be like America.
Speaker A:So I, I, it's not that long ago that America was a nation and in a clear way.
Speaker A:And the restoration is, is something that's always possible.
Speaker A:You know, that's also something that we learn from Scripture, is that you can be going downhill and you can be like Sodom and God will just say, you know, done with this, no more patience, it's over.
Speaker A:But there's also the book of Jonah and Assyria we've talked about, you know, was the evil empire of that day.
Speaker A:But the book of Jonah teaches that repentance is still possible minutes before the destruction.
Speaker A:It's still possible for the king and all the people to repent and to change course and repent.
Speaker A:It's not just like an internal thing in your heart.
Speaker A:Repent.
Speaker A:Repent means you're going to change direction, you're going to act differently.
Speaker A:And so we don't rule out that possibility.
Speaker A:And in practice, I think, you know, as a Zionist means somebody who thinks like it's a good idea to have a Jewish state.
Speaker A:So there's kind of like a little political theory hidden in that.
Speaker A:Like why should Jews all, you know, why should most Jews or all Jews go and live in one place?
Speaker A:And there's this idea that the way that, the way that truth comes into the world, the way that goodness comes into the world is you start with a small society.
Speaker A:You know, start with Abraham and he'll build a family.
Speaker A:And that family, it'll grow.
Speaker A:And over time it can become something that's different from what it was.
Speaker A:Abraham comes from Ur Kastim, from the Babylonians, from the big city.
Speaker A:He comes from, you know, from, from, from a place of evil.
Speaker A:And, and, and he found something, found something that's, that's new.
Speaker A:And, and God wants Abraham because he can teach justice to his children and their children.
Speaker A:That, that, that's what we're told.
Speaker A:And the same thing is true in our reality that the most important thing is, is more important than anything else is that your family, you want to raise a godly family, you want to raise children that walks in God.
Speaker A:Children walk in God's ways.
Speaker A:Well, they need to be in a community that is like minded.
Speaker A:I don't mean that everybody has to agree on everything, but there's no way to raise children to resist, you know, a corrupt world without a community that is, you know, it's like, it's, it's like you're Noah's Ark.
Speaker A:It's like it's your, it, you're raising your children, protecting them from, from, from, from the world until they get strong enough.
Speaker A:And, and America has this, you know, old federalist system that it doesn't use for very much these days.
Speaker A:But, but it could, you know, it, it could in theory go back to having certain states have a certain character that would be better than the character of other states.
Speaker A:And I think that has to be the way to go.
Speaker A:I'm not saying there's nothing you can do from Washington, there are things you can do from Washington, but ultimately it Comes down to if there's no place where you can raise godly children and have a good shot of them carrying it on to the next generation, then it's pretty hopeless.
Speaker A:So that's the thing I tell people to do, is make sure that you marry somebody who believes in what you believe and then get yourselves to a church or a synagogue.
Speaker A:There needs to be a community, and if you don't know how to do it, then find some community that has the tradition that hasn't lost it yet, and you learn from that.
Speaker B:I think one of the hopeful signs in the world today is a lot of young men, and I do have a question about that quickly.
Speaker B:But a lot of young men grew up in this sort of liberal imperialism.
Speaker B:There are no obligations.
Speaker B:But beyond what you consent to, they're discovering that.
Speaker B:Actually, no, I do quite want the yoke of mutual obligations placed upon my shoulders because that's how I orient myself as a man.
Speaker B:I think Doug Wilson says young men are like semi trucks.
Speaker B:But if you don't put anything in the back trailer that kind of fishtails, it only goes straight if you put a weight in the.
Speaker B:In the back.
Speaker B:And I think that's a great metaphor.
Speaker B:One question I did have, though, is you say in, in the book that the way that a nation constitutes itself, and I may get the terms wrong, so please correct me if I do.
Speaker B:As a strong central supporting tradition, I would.
Speaker B:I want to say, I don't want to use the word ethnicity, but that's the word that's coming to mind.
Speaker B:That may not be the word that you use, but there's a strong central family tradition, which in America, I believe is Anglo Protestant.
Speaker B:I think that that's true and you agree with.
Speaker B:But one of the things that we're seeing in the United States today is as this Anglo Protestant tradition is attempting to reassert its sense of centrality, that a lot of young men are taking that as an excuse for hatred, that they're doing exactly the wrong thing with it.
Speaker B:And so you touched on it in your conversation with Al Mohler in the library a little bit.
Speaker B:We talked about it came up in my essay, in its own way.
Speaker B:So how do we begin addressing this?
Speaker B:How do we begin to reestablish a strong central tradition, let's say, that defines the character of a nation without it going into.
Speaker B:Without it going into fascism, without it going into hatred, without it going into ethnic supremacy?
Speaker A:Well, I, I'm, I'm not, you know, I'm not really sure that, that traditions that, that the, the Average tradition is more likely to, to.
Speaker A:To go to, you know, tribal or ethnic surprise.
Speaker A:The word ethnic is a. Yeah.
Speaker B:It's not the correct term.
Speaker A:No, it's just kind of a mess because ethnos is just, it's just the Greek word for nation.
Speaker A:So it's the same, it's the same word when you, you know, when you read the Bible and it says nation, which in Hebrew is goy.
Speaker A:Like in Hebrew, the Jewish nation is a goy, and the other nations are also goyim.
Speaker A:That same word in, in Greek is ethnos.
Speaker A:And what it means, it's a collection of tribes, but there is no racial content to it.
Speaker A:The tribes, they're built on families, but the families can adopt, like Ruth, the Moabite.
Speaker A:Your people is my people.
Speaker A:Your God is my God.
Speaker A:There are cases of non Jews joining the Jewish people as individuals and also as tribes all through scripture.
Speaker A:And that's normal for the old concept of nation.
Speaker A:Before modern racial theory was invented, before genetics, the way people looked at it was it's an inheritance.
Speaker A:It's based on family lineages.
Speaker A:But people marry in, people join, people volunteer to join.
Speaker A:And what holds it together?
Speaker A:There's a common religion, a common language, a common God, and the loyalty of people who are trying to do something together.
Speaker A:So that's a nation.
Speaker A:And ethnicity really does mean something like that.
Speaker A:Okay, of course there is a Greek inheritance, but everybody knows that if you decide you want to move to Greece and spend your life there and marry a Greek woman and have Greek children, then, you know, you could do that.
Speaker A:Anyway, I've sort of gone off on this tangent, but no, it's fine.
Speaker A:I do want to defend nationality and ethnicity without shoving it hard into this pseudo scientific category of race.
Speaker A:Nationality is not about race.
Speaker A:It's about who's loyal to whom.
Speaker A:Now you can say, you know, you can say it's hard for people who are not Anglo Protestants to be loyal to, you know, to a nation that's dominant with, dominated by Anglo Protestants.
Speaker A:And here's an interesting argument.
Speaker A:I actually think that it's much easier for people who are not Anglo Protestant, you know, whether they be Jewish or Catholic or from some other country, it's much easier for them to be loyal to a country that has a strong center where they know what it is.
Speaker A:Even if, even if you know that they don't feel like, well, that's exactly me.
Speaker A:But they don't need to feel like it's exactly me.
Speaker A:They only need to feel like those guys are basically good.
Speaker A:I don't agree with them about everything, but they're protecting me.
Speaker A:My life is good here, and I'm going to be loyal to them because they're being loyal to me, and so I'll help them.
Speaker A:Them.
Speaker A:That's something that happens.
Speaker A:That happens can happen very naturally in a society where there's a strong dominant tribe or culture or nationality that is.
Speaker A:Everybody knows that they're the people who run the place.
Speaker A:They're the people in charge and we're going to connect with them.
Speaker A:We'll ask for things and they'll ask for things and we'll find a way to be loyal to them if they're loyal to us.
Speaker A:That's natural.
Speaker A:Here's what's not natural.
Speaker A:What's not natural is to say, no, there is no center.
Speaker A:Nobody's in charge.
Speaker A:Nothing's better than anything else.
Speaker A:Nothing is in charge more than anything else.
Speaker A:There's no inheritance that holds us together.
Speaker A:Nothing.
Speaker A:Pure multiculturalism.
Speaker A:Everybody does whatever he wants.
Speaker A:All the tribes do whatever they want.
Speaker A:And that's the Book of Judges.
Speaker A:There's no possible way of holding that together in such a way that it doesn't descend into civil war and weakness from the outside.
Speaker A:So the goal for Americans, as for in every other place, the goal needs to be to restore the strength and the centrality of ancestral traditions where it's possible to do that.
Speaker A:I mean, like, you know, I understand this is a big challenge.
Speaker A:There are places in America where it's still possible to do that.
Speaker A:So those are the places to start.
Speaker B:Then how does for my people resist becoming against other people?
Speaker B:Because that, I think, is what we're seeing is that there are a lot of young men who are saying, I want to be for my people and establish a strong sense of national identity based on Anglo Protestantism.
Speaker B:And that becomes I'm for my people.
Speaker B:That instinct seems very quickly these days.
Speaker B:It could be an optical illusion created by the online dialogue, or it could be some longer phenomenon.
Speaker B:But that instinct seems to go very quickly.
Speaker B:I'm for my people and I'm against you sharing this land with me.
Speaker B:Please go ahead.
Speaker A:That question, it goes straight back to what you were explaining about the lack of fathers, which is.
Speaker A:The lack of fathers is just the most important, but it's just a part of a bigger picture, which is lack of useful, good father substitutes.
Speaker A:I mean, like traditional society, your father might have been killed in a war or died in disease or it's some accident, but you've still got your uncle.
Speaker A:You know, you've still got the local minister or the local governor.
Speaker A:I mean you've got people who, they can be the subs.
Speaker A:You don't always have to have your biological father.
Speaker A:It's better, but it's not absolutely the only thing that could work.
Speaker A:The problem here is that in addition to not having fathers, they also don't have, they also don't have father figures.
Speaker A:And so, so look, young men, Young men are not, they're not, they're.
Speaker A:Look, young men by nature, they're not inherently the wisest and the smartest of human beings.
Speaker A:That's not the, you know, seriously, it like if we want to be real realistic about human beings, people become, become wise when they get old.
Speaker A:They've been through a lot.
Speaker A:They gain status in the community.
Speaker A:They become, you know, like the church elders or, or, or, or the advisors to the king.
Speaker A:It takes a lot of experience and a lot of, you know, hard knocks in life and seeing a lot of things to get to the point where you have a balanced judgment.
Speaker A:And, and, and, and, and it's you, you can see the difference between, between a rival and an enemy.
Speaker A:You know, between a rival, meaning somebody who's competing with you because he's not like you, but you could make friends with him, you could cooperate with them if you, you know, under certain circumstances, if you did it right.
Speaker A:So that's a rival, an enemy is somebody who's trying to kill you and so you feel like killing him.
Speaker A:Now, young men, they, many of them, not all of them, but many young men, they're, you know, they're high spirited.
Speaker A:They like to, you know, to see enemies and imagine killing them, you know, like it, I'm not saying this is good, but it's natural.
Speaker A:And if you have a society that's organized in a reasonable way, then the young men, they go to the military, they fight, they learn love and loyalty for their country.
Speaker A:They learn justice from hopefully from their commanding officers and their political leaders and their religious leaders and from scripture.
Speaker A:And so as they grow up, they become a little bit less fiery and combative and more capable of distinguishing true enemies that are really trying to destroy you.
Speaker A:I mean those things really exist in the world from, from rivals or competitors.
Speaker A:People who are, you know, actually they could be your friends if, you know, if you be a little bit less obnoxious, you might end up being really actually good friends with them.
Speaker A:And how do we get here?
Speaker A:Look, it's all the same question, like in a, in a place where people do not have wiser figures that are inspiring them or just a place of sort of moral chaos and fear and not knowing where your future is.
Speaker A:It's just really easy to get these gangs, these gangs of youths, and they're usually led by.
Speaker A:Not always, but usually these gangs of youths, they're led by other youths.
Speaker A:The thing is, it's like it's all about rejecting all the elders.
Speaker A:It's all about rejecting the past.
Speaker A:So even if they're saying, yeah, we're not pagans, we're Protestants, but there's something really pagan going on, because if they're saying, no, all the elders in my church, they're just all selling out to the Jews, and they're selling out to the left, and Donald Trump is selling out.
Speaker A:Everybody's selling out.
Speaker A:And the only ones who really, really know who, you know, who the enemy is, it's this other guy who's like 35 years old, and he's the guy who's leading me.
Speaker A:I mean, I'm sorry, if you're 25, then somebody who's 35 cannot be your father.
Speaker A:He can't be your father, and he can't be your father substitute.
Speaker A:He does not have the wisdom that's needed in order to navigate these really difficult questions.
Speaker A:Like, it's hard to know the difference between.
Speaker A:Between an enemy and a rival and a competitor and a potential ally.
Speaker A:All of these things, they're subtle.
Speaker A:It's not subtle.
Speaker A:I mean, it's not always subtle.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:If Gaza's 50 miles away from my home in Jerusalem, okay, so it's not subtle.
Speaker A:If they invade my country and slaughter people and rape them, then I know that they're my enemy.
Speaker A:But that's not what's going on here.
Speaker A:We're talking about having to fight, to restore, to restore a Christian nation in a country that's lost it.
Speaker A:So in your imagination, you think, you sit around saying, oh, yeah, we'll make Catholicism illegal, we'll make Judaism illegal, and we're just gonna give orders and it's all gonna be fine.
Speaker A:Okay, good for you.
Speaker A:That's nice for you that you have that vision, but good luck politically.
Speaker A:And they'll say, no, no, no, it' gonna have a dictator.
Speaker A:We're gonna have a Franco, we're gonna have a.
Speaker A:This, we're gonna have.
Speaker A:Come on, look, realistically, you guys, are.
Speaker A:You.
Speaker A:You're not going to get anywhere.
Speaker A:Or you're just, you're just not.
Speaker A:You're not.
Speaker A:You're.
Speaker A:You're not going to get anywhere.
Speaker A:You can't.
Speaker A:You, you can't even convince the people in, in your own church you can't even convince Protestants to be like you.
Speaker A:What, you're going to take over the United States by force of farm.
Speaker A:This is all nonsense.
Speaker A:The reality is that you actually need to save your country.
Speaker A:And to actually save your country, you're going to need allies.
Speaker A:And those allies, they're just not all going to be like you.
Speaker A:So some of them you like more and some of them you like less.
Speaker A:And that's hard, but that's life is that you need allies.
Speaker A:You need to build bridges to people who.
Speaker A:They agree with you enough so that they'll help you.
Speaker A:They'll be your friends in the crucial battles ahead to.
Speaker A:To, you know, the most important things.
Speaker A:The most important.
Speaker A:Get God in scripture back into the classroom.
Speaker A:You know, get rid of pornography on every telephone.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Just find a way of eliminate.
Speaker A:That's important.
Speaker A:Find a way for people to start serving in the military again.
Speaker A:Find a way to build communities where marriages can stay together and children can be.
Speaker A:Be raised with the fear of God.
Speaker A:These are really, really crucial things.
Speaker A:You know what's not crucial?
Speaker A:What's not crucial is sitting around and dreaming about how you're going to shut down the synagogues.
Speaker A:Now, maybe, look, maybe you don't agree with me.
Speaker A:Maybe you think the most important thing is that there should be no synagogues in America.
Speaker A:You know, I think the problem with it is, like, before you get to like, is it good for Christianity is the right thing?
Speaker A:Is the wrong.
Speaker A:Before you get to that, you're dreaming a hopeless situation.
Speaker A:What you're saying is, what I really want to do is I want to cause every person who could have sympathy for me and help me and force them all into a camp where they're not going to help me.
Speaker A:So what do you need to do that for?
Speaker A:That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker B:You mentioned that the animus for the Jews, and we were discussing that a little bit beforehand before we started recording.
Speaker B:So you've been talking about things that I think a lot of young Anglo Protestant men would be very sympathetic, very sympathetic to.
Speaker B:And so I guess as we've talked about the.
Speaker B:As we talked earlier about the rise of antisemitism, do you think that your book can help put some of that away?
Speaker B:Because here's a Jewish man, an Israeli Zionist Jewish man, saying, no, you can have your nation.
Speaker B:When I think a lot of these young men are used to hearing otherwise.
Speaker A:Yeah, there's a lot of complicated issues here.
Speaker A:I mean, one of them is just a fact, is that there are a lot of liberals in America and I hope Everybody is listening.
Speaker A:You've already figured out that I'm not a liberal.
Speaker A:And no, I just, I've never been a liberal.
Speaker A:I was not for five minutes in my life.
Speaker A:There was never a moment I was a liberal.
Speaker A:Like, I never, ever, ever had sympathy for that.
Speaker A:I, you know, I grew up in a home where the analogy that, you know, the way that in Israel, we want Israel to be a Jewish country and we want our kids to, our kids to study Bible in schools and to serve in the army and to get a Bible from the military and to think that they're joining the hosts of the Jewish people going all the way back to Abraham.
Speaker A:And so I grew up with that as a Jewish vision.
Speaker A:And my father always thought that Christians should, should have something similar.
Speaker A:I mean, he always thought that Christians believe in the Bible, they can be godly, just like Jews can be godly.
Speaker A:I mean, I apologize, this is a very Jewish perspective that you can, Jews think you can actually find salvation through different religions.
Speaker A:So from my father's perspective, me growing up Jewish in America, he always thought that the good guys were, were the Christians who were trying to bring morality and, and Bible and, and love of nation back to their country.
Speaker A:And we would sit there when I was a kid and like, like, watch, watch the news.
Speaker A:And there was little, it was local New York, so there was always like this leftist Jew arguing with this rightist Jew.
Speaker A:That's, that's what they had on the New York station.
Speaker A:And, and whenever the leftist Jew would come on, my father would just go, oh, he knows nothing.
Speaker A:He doesn't understand anything.
Speaker A:What this country needs is moral fiber.
Speaker A:You know, like, and then the, the, the rightist Jew would come on and we start talking about like, like, you know, the Christians are the good guys.
Speaker A:And my father, that's what they need.
Speaker A:That's what.
Speaker A:So, like, I, I grew up with that.
Speaker A:I know that.
Speaker A:I, I know that most Jews in America are liberals, but the problem with, I know not everybody's going to agree with this, but, but this is my view, and I think it's right, is that the problem with Jewish liberals is the same problem that you have with Jewish Catholics, which is the same problem you have with Jewish Protestants.
Speaker A:And the problem with them all is that they're liberals.
Speaker A:And if they would stop being liberals, then they would stop being so annoying.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So look, I published along with Josh Hammer, who's another Orthodox Jew, and Tymon Klein, who you might know, he's the editor of American Reformer, and Tyman and Josh and I spent a Couple years.
Speaker A:Actually three years.
Speaker A:Just now writing a book about ending separation.
Speaker A:Not a book, I'm sorry, a law review.
Speaker A:It's very long, but it's not a book.
Speaker A:It's a long, long law review article.
Speaker A:And it's on ending separation of church and state in America.
Speaker A:And look, I understand liberals are not gonna like this.
Speaker A:Liberal Jews will attack it, but so will liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants and liberal atheists.
Speaker A:They're all gonna attack it.
Speaker A:It.
Speaker A:But there are plenty of Jews who understand that.
Speaker A:I mean, for this you have to go to Orthodox Jews, you have to go to nationalist Jews.
Speaker A:But there are plenty of Jews on the right.
Speaker A:If you bother to find them and actually meet them and talk to them, who will say the same thing that I'm saying, which is Christianity and Judaism have no future in America if it's a neo Marxist country.
Speaker A:Zero.
Speaker A:Not possible.
Speaker A:Not possible.
Speaker A:It has to be turned around.
Speaker A:So the only reasonable thing, if Orthodox Jews want to stay in America, I mean, you know, maybe they want to move to Israel, but lots of Orthodox Jews want to live in America.
Speaker A:If they're going to stay in America, then the Orthodox Jews are going to have to side with the Christians in bringing God and Scripture back.
Speaker A:They're going to have to support it.
Speaker A:If they don't support it, then America is going to be a place where no Jews can live and no Christians can live.
Speaker A:That's it.
Speaker A:That's the reality.
Speaker B:And would you say that's kind of your message to liberal Jews to get comfortable with the idea that a scripturally rooted Christian American nation, that where they honor in the Protestant tradition, the Reformed Protestant tradition honors the Old Testament.
Speaker B:That is actually a good place for them to be.
Speaker A:Look, that's where I would like them to get.
Speaker A:But here's the truth.
Speaker A:The truth is that Orthodox Jews have many children and maintain the traditions.
Speaker A:They learn scripture, they constantly learn scripture.
Speaker A:They teach their children Torah, they talk about Torah with their children.
Speaker A:And most of their children grow up to be Orthodox Jews who care about Torah and care about God.
Speaker A:And those are people who can respect Christians who do the same kind of thing.
Speaker A:If they see that Christians are leading that kind of life, most Orthodox Jews can respect them and if it's reciprocated, see them as brothers.
Speaker A:Also, liberal Jews are not having children.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:There's some liberal Jews having children, but the intermarriage rate for liberal Jews is.
Speaker A:I don't know what the actual numbers are, but you know, it's somewhere around 50%.
Speaker A:They, they marry out and, and then they only have one child or 1.2 children or whatever it is.
Speaker A:So the.
Speaker A:The future for Jews in America and in Israel and in every place where Jews live, the future for Jews is not.
Speaker A:Is not liberal Judaism.
Speaker A:The future for Jews is Orthodox Judaism and Jewish nationalism.
Speaker A:And, you know, so I have liberal Jewish friends.
Speaker A:They know my views, the ones that still talk to me.
Speaker A:They get to hear it all the time.
Speaker A:And, you know, and these days, there's plenty of Jews who are rethinking things in the United States.
Speaker A:And, you know, the left, which, you know, a lot of Jews used to think that the Democratic Party and the left, that that was a place for Jews.
Speaker A:There's not many Jews left who think that anymore.
Speaker A:And so now the big question is whether the Republican Party and the right can be a place for Jews to go.
Speaker A:I certainly think.
Speaker A:I mean, there's 35% of Jews in America.
Speaker A:It's not a lot, but it's most of the Orthodox and the nationalist Jews, they voted for Trump.
Speaker A:And those are people who, I think they definitely could be really good allies for serious Christians.
Speaker A:And as far as the other Jews, they're still thinking and, you know, some of them are talking to me, some of them are listening.
Speaker A:I'll keep telling them the same thing I'm telling you, which is America was founded as a Christian nation.
Speaker A:America was legally, by law, recognized by the Supreme Court as a Christian nation, a Christian people.
Speaker A: Up until the: Speaker A: Post World War II,: Speaker A:That was the first time.
Speaker A:That's not long ago.
Speaker A:So Jews need to help Christians if they want to save America rather than coming to Israel.
Speaker A:If they want to come to Israel, I'll welcome them.
Speaker A:If they want to stay in America, they got to help the Christians turn the country around and make it a place where decent people can raise decent children.
Speaker B:Yeah, because now they're looking at the pro Palestine movement, which has taken on a.
Speaker B:Definitely a violent tenor is sort of sweeping through the left.
Speaker B:So where are liberal Jews to go when they find themselves no longer welcome in the party they called home Home.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Well, they already know they're not welcome, most of them.
Speaker A:And most of the people I talk to, there's a tiny sliver who are totally crazy and still with the Democrats.
Speaker A:But the big mainstream of American liberal Jews, they know things have gotten really bad.
Speaker A:Let me ask you a question though, since you brought up these horrific.
Speaker A:I mean, they call themselves pro Palestine, but they're not really pro Palestine.
Speaker A:I mean, what they're really about is it's an alliance of neo Marxists with the Muslim Brotherhood whose goal is to overthrow.
Speaker A:And they make no bones about the fact that they're anti white.
Speaker A:But even if, you know, for people who are uncomfortable with that discourse, they're anti white, they're anti Christian, they're anti Jewish.
Speaker A:For them, decolonizing Palestine, you know, killing all the Jews in the land of Israel.
Speaker A:For them, you know, that's just, that's the ideal, that's the model.
Speaker A:They would do the same to the Christians, they would do the same to the whites.
Speaker A:What I can't under.
Speaker A:Here's what I really, I really can't understand about the, the rising, thickening anti Judaism on the political right.
Speaker A:Okay, fine, you don't like Jews because they're not the same religion.
Speaker A:And you're not happy with the fact that Jews are 2% of the population.
Speaker A:They have a lot more than 2% influence and that makes you unhappy.
Speaker A:Fine, okay, I don't like that.
Speaker A:I think you're wrong.
Speaker A:But fine, I get it.
Speaker A:Like, I can understand it.
Speaker A:I cannot understand how come all these anti Jewish guys are talking, you know, praise about Islam.
Speaker A:There's something desperately screwed up going on.
Speaker A:If you can't tell that, if you can't tell that the Muslim Brotherhood is here to take over your country, to overthrow it and to make sure everybody ends up Muslim and there's no Christians and Jews left.
Speaker A:If you don't understand that that's, that's the goal, and you're sitting there like, imagining like that the Jews are trying to do something terrible to you when, when, when you've, you've actually got Islam to deal with.
Speaker A:So God help you.
Speaker A:I can't, like, I, I can't understand, I can't understand that.
Speaker A:If you want to say, okay, I don't like Jews and I don't like Muslims, fine, okay, so you're just, I get it, you need to grow up a little bit.
Speaker A:But okay, you don't like Jews and you don't like Muslim, but that's not what they're saying.
Speaker A:This entire anti Jewish movement on the right, it's constantly talking up Islam.
Speaker A:So what's going on?
Speaker A:Are these guys getting paid?
Speaker A:Like, how could they possibly be doing this?
Speaker A:I mean, this is like, look, the nationalists in Europe, like we have, you know, in the national conservative movement there's an American branch, there's a British branch.
Speaker A:We have nationalists on the right, thank God, in many other countries.
Speaker A:The nationalists in Europe are all.
Speaker A:They're all pro Jewish and pro Israel, almost every last one of them.
Speaker A:Why?
Speaker A:Because they actually have.
Speaker A:They have an actual attempt to take over their countries by the mass Muslim immigration that's pounding down their doors.
Speaker A:In America, you guys, you have the luxury of pretending, you know, pretending that the Jews are your enemies because there aren't enough Muslims yet.
Speaker A:Whoa, you guys are going in the wrong direction.
Speaker A:Wait till you find out, you know, who your real enemies are here.
Speaker B:So you wanted me to explain why the.
Speaker B:Why so many on the right have.
Speaker A:Have us understand it.
Speaker B:So it's a.
Speaker B:It gets back to enlightenment.
Speaker A:Help me out.
Speaker B:Yes.
Speaker B:So it gets back to a belief of.
Speaker B:Of what the Jews are really about.
Speaker B:They.
Speaker B:They have read or heard about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a forgery that sort of discussed this Jewish plot to subvert white Christian men via the family.
Speaker B:So they look at Jews as being anti family, anti marriage, anti children, and so anti traditionalism.
Speaker B:That's.
Speaker B:That's their belief about what all Jews are about.
Speaker B:So it's.
Speaker B:It's locating evil in the Jews as a people.
Speaker B:And so as they look out across the spectrum of who could be our.
Speaker B:Our traditionalist allies, you have white Christian men, and they look to Muslims as still attempting to maintain a traditionalist view, and they have rejected Jews.
Speaker B:So it's sort of like the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Speaker B:So Muslims are the enemies of the Jew, so they must be my friend.
Speaker B:And that's the reason behind it.
Speaker A:It's just difficult.
Speaker A:I do.
Speaker A:I watch some of these podcasts, so it's not that I've never heard this before.
Speaker A:I've seen it.
Speaker A:I know what you're talking about.
Speaker A:I know that's what they're saying, but I can't imagine what kind of planet they're living on.
Speaker A:I mean, there was this.
Speaker A:This professor named.
Speaker A:Famous professor, Harvard professor named Huntington, wrote this book, the Clash of Civilizations.
Speaker A:And, you know, he has this famous, famous chapter called Islam's Bloody Borders.
Speaker A:And he says, look across the globe and see, like, where is there endless bloodshed that can't be put down?
Speaker A:Where?
Speaker A:And he says, well, it's where the Christians bump up against the Muslims.
Speaker A:The Muslims are being.
Speaker A:Christianity is being annihilated throughout the entire Middle east right now.
Speaker A:It's where the Muslims bump up against the Jews.
Speaker A:That's the Israel part.
Speaker A:It's where the Muslims bump up against the Chinese.
Speaker A:It's where the, you know, in the western provinces, it's where the Muslims bump up against the Hindus.
Speaker A:Everywhere.
Speaker A:Everywhere you look, Islam is, Look, I'll give you this.
Speaker A:For a young man who wants to do nothing but fight and see enemies all around him and dream of conquering the whole world, fine, I understand the Muslim Brotherhood is your thing, baby.
Speaker A:Like, but, but, but you're a Christian.
Speaker A:So, so what?
Speaker A:So, so what are you going to do?
Speaker A:You're going to ally with the, the, the, the Muslim aim of conquering the whole planet?
Speaker A:You and the Muslims are going to go forward together and come on, there's no reality here.
Speaker A:Where has that happened?
Speaker A:Where there's just no such thing?
Speaker A:Well, they complete fantasy.
Speaker B:Well, they look at Jews as the most urgent and pressing evil on earth.
Speaker B:So we'll work together with the Muslims to wipe out all the Jews and then we'll fight the Muslims.
Speaker B:But because God is on our side, we'll win.
Speaker B:And this allegiance with the Muslims is even more ironic considering the love for these radical right guys for the Crusades.
Speaker B:So it's like, wait, just five minutes ago you're talking about how great the Crusades were and they didn't go far enough, and now you're talking about allying with the Muslims.
Speaker B:Like, you got to pick one of these.
Speaker B:But they really do view Jews as the source of all evil on earth Earth.
Speaker B:And Jews as a result, have to be eradicated by any means necessary.
Speaker B:If that means distasteful alliances, then they're willing to do it and they'll work it out afterwards.
Speaker B:And that, that really is the worldview.
Speaker A:Well, look, I, I, I know it's unpopular on the right these days for, to, to say, you know, come visit Israel and see for yourself.
Speaker A:Because, because you know, you're not allowed to say, have you been there?
Speaker A:Like so, so, so I'm not going to.
Speaker A:But seriously, like, if you walk around as a Christian in Israel, it's just not true that anybody's going to spit on you.
Speaker A:They're not going to spit on you.
Speaker A:These Christian podcasters are always saying this.
Speaker A:They've never been to Israel.
Speaker A:They've absolutely no idea, but it's not true.
Speaker A:Jews don't hate Christians.
Speaker A:Jews of the same tribal, the same tribalist young people who are being obnoxious that everybody else does.
Speaker A:So I'm not going to tell you.
Speaker A:No Jew is ever going to say something obnoxious.
Speaker A:But no, Jews don't hate Christians.
Speaker A:If you walk around in Israel, you're Going to be absolutely safe in Israel.
Speaker A:Try to go to any place that's controlled militarily by the Muslims and find out how safe are you?
Speaker A:Like, where are you going to be afraid?
Speaker A:You're going to be afraid walking around in Jerusalem in the Jewish neighborhoods.
Speaker A:You think some Jew is going to come out and, like, try to hurt you?
Speaker A:No, try.
Speaker A:Cross.
Speaker A:Cross to the other side.
Speaker A:Go.
Speaker A:Go over to where, where the Muslims are and see how you feel walking around at night.
Speaker A:This is just.
Speaker A:This is.
Speaker A:I mean, you're real.
Speaker A:This is like a childish fantasy of somebody who has no experience of anything.
Speaker A:Anything.
Speaker A:Jews do not attack Christians anywhere.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:And if somebody tells you, oh, you know, like, I. I saw on social media that there were some young Jewish guys who broke tables in a Christian restaurant, okay, so maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.
Speaker A:But that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker A:We're talking about, do they want to kill you?
Speaker A:Do they want to destroy you?
Speaker A:Do they want to take your women and never give them back again?
Speaker A:Do they want an end to your civilization?
Speaker A:When have you ever met Jews who talk like, there aren't any Jews who talk like that.
Speaker A:So, okay, again, yeah, yes, liberal Jews say the same stupid things that liberal Protestants do.
Speaker A:Okay?
Speaker A:But Orthodox Jews, nationalist Jews, they are natural allies for Christians.
Speaker A:And like I said, if you can't, you're too young to be able to distinguish somebody who disagrees with you but could be your friend from somebody who actually wants to destroy you.
Speaker A:Well, you got problems.
Speaker B:You got big problems, kid, and that's really great.
Speaker B:I'm glad that you mentioned that.
Speaker B:Because if you really want to be worried about being a Christian somewhere, try going to China.
Speaker B:They will disappear you.
Speaker B:You will vanish.
Speaker B:I had a guest on my podcast, Sam Rotman.
Speaker B:He was a Juilliard trained pianist, raised Orthodox Jewish, became a Christian.
Speaker B:He was brought in.
Speaker B:He was brought in by a group to perform in China and never really got to perform.
Speaker B:He was basically on the run the entire time because the Chinese police were trying to arrest him.
Speaker B:He told me this, a private conversation.
Speaker B:And so I was saying earlier I was wrestling with your book because I felt it was worthy of the effort.
Speaker B:And very slowly, as I worked through it, not because I disagreed with it, because I wanted to wrestle with it.
Speaker B:And as I worked through the book, I was slowly overcome.
Speaker B:But the place where I think you pinned me was at the very end, in response to critics and the final pages where you call out the true threat that America should really be worried about, which is China.
Speaker B:And Not Russia.
Speaker B:And also how an American nation that's worrying about what's going on in Gaza is probably not the best use of America's time right now, given what's going on.
Speaker B:And you make that point very strongly that conservatives truly need to be worried about China.
Speaker B:And we ask where all this antisemitism is coming from.
Speaker B:I think ultimately it's influenced by Chinese money as a play to weaken the right.
Speaker B:We can talk about that perhaps separately, but maybe talk about the threat that China represents not just to America, but also to the west, also to nationalism and just expound on that a little bit because I don't think we hear enough about it in the United States.
Speaker A:Yeah, I don't.
Speaker A:It's, it's a little bit, it's a little bit mysterious to me.
Speaker A:And, and, and it, it may be that you know that as you're, you're saying that, that there's a tremendous amount of money, money and, and tech know how going into manipulating what it is that, that, that Americans and Westerners what it is that we see.
Speaker A:But you know, the, there's only one country that's really threatening the United States and, and that's China.
Speaker A:There's only one country that's really strong enough to have a hope of, of destroying America.
Speaker A:It's China.
Speaker A:And you know, even if, you know, you don't think that, that it's bizarre that, that the Chinese are interested in, in making sure that the United States can't, you know, that they make all the medicines in the United, for the United States and they're buying all the farmland and that like, even if you, you don't see any, nothing to see there.
Speaker A:No, no hostility that you can see.
Speaker A:Just the fact that the Chinese are so strong and they're so good at what they're doing compared to everybody else, that's something that I think like normal people responsible for the future of their country.
Speaker A:They should be thinking about a lot other things.
Speaker A:They should be thinking about definitely the penetration of Muslim Brotherhood into the United States because that's clearly a goal of the Chinese.
Speaker A:The neo Marxism in the universities, that's clearly a goal of the Chinese.
Speaker A:If their goal is just to weaken America, then bringing in lots of immigrants from Muslim countries and turning the universities into factories of atheist revolution, who by the way, happen to also be really interested in the white people being the evildoers and, and the colored people, which is to say the Chinese.
Speaker A:I mean the whole neo Marxist story is like, it's like as though it were designed by the Chinese.
Speaker A:I'm not saying it was, but I mean it was probably designed by the Soviets, but back then, so these three problems, the Chinese radical Islam and the, and the neo Marxist revolutionaries, those, those three things together, they, they are the, the, the, the actual threat to the United states remaining a, a, a, a, a,.
Speaker A:A cohesive country 50 years from now.
Speaker A:So I, I think America should be focused on that.
Speaker A:I don't think the United States is responsible for the security of the rest of the world.
Speaker A:I don't think that the United States at this late stage of the game needs to be responsible for the primary responsibility for the security of Europe or the Middle east or South Asia.
Speaker A:I think America's goal needs to be, and I think Trump and Vance and Rubio, I mean, I really, and Hank said, I think they're good on this, This, I think they understand America's goal needs to be to get other friends and allies to foot the bill, to stop freeloading, to send their sons and daughters to the military, to take responsibility, primary responsibility for security in their regions and let the United States focus on China.
Speaker A:I think that's, to me, it just seems like, completely obvious.
Speaker A:If I were, were the American president, that's what I would want, you know, So I, I definitely, definitely understand Americans who, who don't want to get involved in another Middle Eastern war.
Speaker A:There's no, I mean, this is in my book, I mean, I, I, I, I just, I don't think there's, there's any, any def, defensible theory for why the United States was conquering Middle Eastern countries and trying to install liberal democracies in those countries.
Speaker A:I mean, it's crazy.
Speaker A:It's all craziness as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker A:But President Trump wants to send B2s for 37 hours to bomb the nuclear weapons programs because Trump doesn't want to lease the bombers to Israel.
Speaker A:He'd rather that the Americans fly them.
Speaker A:So now that's gonna, you think that's like the end of your loyalty to the, to, to the Trump administration, like the best nationalist government, the most pro nationalist, pro Christian government that there's like, ever been in our lifetimes, and you're gonna turn your back on them because you think that, seriously, you think that Trump, Trump and Vance and Rubio and all these, these, all these guys, like, they're all just like, like marionettes being manipulated.
Speaker A:Like a few Jews call them up from Israel and, and they're, they're such limp nothings that they forget that they're America first and they're Jewish first, like, what on earth, like what, what planet are you living on?
Speaker A:These are the best guys that we've ever seen.
Speaker A:This is the best administration we have ever seen.
Speaker A:And you can dream all you want, but if you guys campaign against Trump, if you insist on civil war in the MAGA movement, you're gonna destroy the nationalist movement from inside and civil war, and you'll end up bringing the leftists into power.
Speaker A:You're never, ever gonna get a government this good again, never grow up.
Speaker A:I just think, like, I think again, like, you need a little bit of wisdom to be able to, to, to see who's really threatening you.
Speaker B:And this is part of the anti Semitic Jewish mania.
Speaker B:Like, it's not a rat.
Speaker B:It's not a rational worldview, and it is a totalizing worldview.
Speaker B:It does take a, take men and some women over and they do see Jews as the source of all evil and Israel as, as the big bad behind everything.
Speaker B:And it really does get its claws inside men's minds and hearts and, and ultimately souls.
Speaker B:And it's very difficult to extract those men from that worldview.
Speaker B:And you say, quite rightly, that a lot of them, like, I'm no longer loyal to Trump over the bombing of Iran, the surgical strike of Iran.
Speaker B:And it's bizarre to see because here you are advocating for a strong national United States that isn't necessarily getting involved in wars, that isn't leasing bombers to Israel.
Speaker B:You're advocating for this and you're saying, quite rightly, like, you guys got to grow up and understand what, what loyalty is.
Speaker B:Mutual bonds of mutual affection are to begin constituting your nation again and not just bolting with, you know, at the, at the first sign of something that you don't like that, that challenges your, your, your corrupted worldview, let's say.
Speaker A:I, I, I think that's a really good point, is that I, I understand this is, this is always, this is something.
Speaker A:It, it's always, it's always hard for young people.
Speaker A:You know, they, they, they don't understand how hard politics is.
Speaker A:They don't, you know, unless you've been close, close to it, to political power and actually seen the way it's done.
Speaker A:It's all built on coalitions.
Speaker A:You know, even the most feared dictators, they still need a coalition to rule.
Speaker A:They still need people on their side, and you can't escape it.
Speaker A:I mean, this is basic to being human, is you can't have everybody be your enemies at the same time.
Speaker A:And you have to have allies.
Speaker A:And Trump is so Good at coalition building.
Speaker A:And look, like I said, I'm a nationalist, I'm a conservative.
Speaker A:There's a lot of liberals in the Trump coalition.
Speaker A:Trump brought in, he brought in people like Elon Musk and RFK Jr.
Speaker A:There's a lot of liberals he brought into the coalition.
Speaker A:And I'm not a liberal.
Speaker A:And I can understand people saying, okay, Elon Musk is not my cup of tea.
Speaker A:RFK Jr is not my cup of tea.
Speaker A:You know, why even, you know, some members of the Republican Party, people in the Congress, you know, why is Trump backing them for elections?
Speaker A:And there's a very simple answer, but maybe you just don't want to hear it, which is that in real life, you can't win elections and you can't win wars without an alliance, without a coalition of people.
Speaker A:We're going to, to back you and be loyal to you, even when it gets really, really hard.
Speaker A:And the same with governing.
Speaker A:You can't go into government and just, you can't just issue, you know, like one man saying, I want this, I want that.
Speaker A:And it happens.
Speaker A:It doesn't, it doesn't work like that.
Speaker A:You need to have hundreds and thousands of people, and they need to come from different groups, and they need to all be bringing their force behind you to make it possible for you to win the election, govern, and then win the next election.
Speaker A:And that's just hard to do.
Speaker A:It's not.
Speaker A:It is.
Speaker A:I understand.
Speaker A:Young people are always impatient.
Speaker A:You know, the things the guy had said in the speech are, you know, it's six months have gone by and he's not implementing it yet.
Speaker A:Well, look, if you can't, if you can't trust Donald Trump and the really good people, that many, many really good people that he's got in his administration, if you can't give him some credit and let him do his work for a few years without turning on him and hating him, there's nobody who's going to satisfy you.
Speaker A:There's never going to be.
Speaker A:Be.
Speaker A:It's.
Speaker A:It's just there, there.
Speaker A:There is nobody better.
Speaker A:I'm not saying that Donald Trump is perfect.
Speaker A:He's not perfect.
Speaker A:But, you know, I've gotten old.
Speaker A:I've seen, you know, I've seen many, many elections at this point in America and in other countries, and, and Trump is, is the best.
Speaker A:You know, like Bannon keeps saying, like he's a historical figure.
Speaker A:Yeah, it's, it's really true.
Speaker A:You just don't get people this, this bold and this brave and this willing to fight on so many different fronts and this good at coalition building to make it actually happen, to make it possible.
Speaker A:You never get to see this.
Speaker A:It's, you know, it's so rare and so precious and sitting around, sitting around and like, hating on him, you know, like he's like some bad guy.
Speaker A:You don't get it.
Speaker A:You don't get what it's about.
Speaker A:It's incredibly rare.
Speaker A:You get somebody who is, who is this good and doing this many things right.
Speaker A:You should be doing everything you can to help him.
Speaker B:What are some of the things that you see Trump as.
Speaker B:Trump as getting?
Speaker B:Right, Because I know there are a lot of young men that are sort of being torn between two different perspectives.
Speaker B:There's maybe what they see and feel, and then there's all their bros that have turned hard against Trump and they don't know quite how to sort it out.
Speaker B:Maybe a more sober, wise perspective may help them see clearly what's actually going on.
Speaker A:On, you know, because I remember the Reagan years, and Reagan was the second, you know, the other great political figure that I got to see during my life.
Speaker A:And please don't like, jump on, jump down my throat because I said something good about Reagan.
Speaker A:You weren't there.
Speaker A:You don't know what was actually happening.
Speaker A:You don't know.
Speaker A:Just set it aside.
Speaker A:I'm sorry I annoyed you by saying that Reagan was a great man, but between Reagan and Trump, Trump is the one who's much more ambitious.
Speaker A:I mean, Reagan came into office, he basically, he had three principles, three things.
Speaker A:He only had three things that he.
Speaker A:One, he wanted to defeat the Soviet Union.
Speaker A:Two, he wanted to unleash the American economy, to break the unions and deregulate and allow America to begin, you know, being strong again.
Speaker A:And the third thing he wanted was he wanted to eliminate the debt.
Speaker A:The third thing, he, he, he failed the first.
Speaker A:And the second things, he succeeded at other things he believed in, like, you know, like de, de atheizing, de atheisting the American schools.
Speaker A:That's something Reagan believed in, but it wasn't one of his three top priorities, and he didn't succeed in it.
Speaker A:Trump doesn't have just three top.
Speaker A:I mean, we can name his top three priorities.
Speaker A:It's immigration, it's re.
Speaker A:Industrialization, so the country is strong and has jobs, and it's ending the, the perpetual imperial presence of America as the prime military power every place in the world.
Speaker A:Those are Trump's top three things.
Speaker A:So first of all, just on those top three things, I think he's doing really great.
Speaker A:I mean, just that immigration ICE is like the size of an army.
Speaker A:Now, it's just a few months in.
Speaker A:Give him time.
Speaker A:Time.
Speaker A:Look, he, he's doing more than, than anybody has ever done before, and maybe he's just going to pull it off.
Speaker A:Like, there's, there's a lot of good signs.
Speaker A:The, the, the business about the United States doesn't have to have responsibility primarily for, For.
Speaker A:I mean, gosh, he's, he's got it.
Speaker A:He.
Speaker A:He's got the Europeans talking about like, 5% of their budgets is GDP.
Speaker A:So you can say, all right, they're, they're, they're BSing.
Speaker A:It's not going to happen.
Speaker A:They're not.
Speaker A:Okay, maybe.
Speaker A:Maybe you're right.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But when has there been an American president who said that's it.
Speaker A:Listen, who's in charge of defending Ukraine?
Speaker A:If you guys want to defend Ukraine, that's up to you.
Speaker A:It's your job.
Speaker A:It's your region.
Speaker A:It's your security.
Speaker A:You pay for it.
Speaker A:You put the soldiers down.
Speaker A:Now, nobody's ever, Nobody's ever said that before, anything like that.
Speaker A:I mean, it's like a miracle to see that he's saying it.
Speaker A:His whole administration is on message.
Speaker A:They're all saying the same thing.
Speaker A:Instead of fighting with one another.
Speaker A:That's incredible.
Speaker A:And they're trying to do it.
Speaker A:Maybe they'll pull it off.
Speaker A:And the re.
Speaker A:Industrialization thing, it's the same thing.
Speaker A:He's simultaneously fighting with every country in the world in order to try to force a situation where they will actually pay for access to American markets.
Speaker A:Markets.
Speaker A:They'll invest trillions of dollars in the American economy building factories in the United States.
Speaker A:He's trying.
Speaker A:Maybe he'll pull it off.
Speaker A:Look, I don't know if he's going to succeed, but I do know that he's out there, frontline everything he said he'd do.
Speaker A:So I named three things.
Speaker A:So let's go for bonus number four.
Speaker A:The draining the swamp.
Speaker A:Okay, fine.
Speaker A:So you're unhappy about Epstein.
Speaker A:But can you please.
Speaker A:Let's say you're right.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:Do you understand that he is fighting trench warfare, agency by agency, appointment by appointment, bureaucracy by bureaucracy, to try to turn these things around.
Speaker A:He really is firing people.
Speaker A:He really is bringing in people, you're saying, okay, not fast enough, not good enough.
Speaker A:And what about Epstein?
Speaker A:But come on, there's never been anything like this before.
Speaker A:Tulsi Gabbard just.
Speaker A:Just announced this week that she's.
Speaker A:She's cutting 50% of the positions in her agency.
Speaker A:When have you ever seen this in the United States.
Speaker A:Never, never in our lifetimes have we seen 50% reductions and Rubio's doing it in state.
Speaker A:Never.
Speaker A:Okay, so that's number four, right?
Speaker A:Let's do number five.
Speaker A:Who in American history has taken on the university?
Speaker A:Who's done it?
Speaker A:The core.
Speaker A:The core of the training, the creation of this neo Marxist, pro Chinese, pro Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker A:The core of it is these universities.
Speaker A:And nobody's ever had the courage to take them on.
Speaker A:And he's taking them on.
Speaker A:I could just keep going, but listen, he's.
Speaker A:Sorry.
Speaker A:He's shown.
Speaker A:He's shown that he's one tough, serious guy on at least five major issues that the entire future of America depends on.
Speaker A:We haven't gotten to energy yet.
Speaker A:There's more, but enough.
Speaker A:If you can't understand that this man, that he is doing what it is humanly possible to do, to turn around the United States, which is in terrible, terrible place after, after generations of, of.
Speaker A:Of abuse and mismanagement and liberalism.
Speaker A:After generations.
Speaker A:And he's willing.
Speaker A:He's.
Speaker A:He's willing to fight on, on all these fronts.
Speaker A:Ah, you should be cheering him.
Speaker A:You should just be cheering him.
Speaker A:You know, if you don't cheer him now, 20 years from now, God forbid, you know, I, I hope this doesn't happen, but I hope you.
Speaker A:You don't end up in some place where 20 years from go, you're gonna say, there was this.
Speaker A:This Jewish guy, Khazoni, and he was defending Trump and saying that he was amazing.
Speaker A:And I didn't believe it because I just thought it could be much better.
Speaker A:And he was a sellout.
Speaker A:Come on.
Speaker B:Do you see hope for Trump potentially, Vance or Rubio bringing America back to a more nationalistic stance from where it is currently?
Speaker A:I see hope, but, you know, hope is hard.
Speaker A:No, I didn't mean.
Speaker A:Hope is.
Speaker A:Sorry.
Speaker A:I mean hope.
Speaker A:I'm okay on hope.
Speaker A:I see wonderful things that are potentially that are happening or beginning to happen.
Speaker A:I know that the actual outcome that I'm hoping for, that I'd like to see is not going to happen just in the next four years.
Speaker A:So I'd like to see.
Speaker A:See to see JD as, as president.
Speaker A:I'd like to see Rubio as president after that.
Speaker A:Like, like, I, The.
Speaker A:The.
Speaker A:There.
Speaker A:There's unlimited potential, but the, the hole is really deep.
Speaker A:The disaster is really, really, really, really deep.
Speaker A:And, and it's really difficult to do this.
Speaker A:And, and people should be, you know, should be praying and praying, praying for the administration and doing absolutely everything.
Speaker A:They.
Speaker A:They can't help.
Speaker A:So, yes, Hope, always remember that even, even the Assyrians repented and God spared them.
Speaker A:And there was nobody in the ancient world was more evil than the Assyrians and they repented.
Speaker A:God spared them.
Speaker A:So God, God, God, God bless America.
Speaker A:And, and I, I, I, I hope to see a restoration.
Speaker B:So you've been so generous with your time and amidst prepping for the conference next week, I wonder if we just want to close quickly about the coalition building and the National Conservatism Conference that's coming up next week.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So that's September 2nd through 4th, NATCON 5 in Washington, D.C. if you're a student, there's assistance and scholarships for, for students and for people who are like first responders and so on, there's special rates.
Speaker A:Please do come.
Speaker A:This is where the coalition is being built and you get to hear people you agree with and don't agree with.
Speaker A:But everybody there is working together in order to try to make national conservatism, nationalist conservatism, a reality in America and in the rest of the democratic world.
Speaker A:So see you there.
Speaker B:Thank you so much.
Speaker A:Sir.
Speaker B:Where would you like to send people to find out more about you and what you do?
Speaker A:Oh, well, first of all, natcon.org for the conference and you can from the conference site you can get to the website that we have recommendations of books that you can read.
Speaker A:There's an aggregator that comes up with the best nationalist and conservative essays every week they're posted.
Speaker A:You can sign up for our mailing.
Speaker A:And if you're interested in me, then why Khazoni Y H A Z O N Y on Twitter is my handle.
Speaker A:And take a look at my books if you're into that kind of thing.
Speaker B:Well, I recommend the Virtue of Nationalism right here.
Speaker B:You can see it's pretty well bookmarked and marked up as I worked my way through it.
Speaker B:And I was very grateful for this because it helped me understand a lot of things that I had seen and dimly understood.
Speaker B:And so you had mentioned earlier about potentially coming back on.
Speaker B:I have lots of questions for you about what you said about Israel, about why the hatred for Israel related to its stubborn nationalistic stance.
Speaker B:I wonder if you'd be willing to come back on at some point and have that conversation.
Speaker A:God willing.
Speaker B:Wonderful, sir.
Speaker B:Well, thank you so much.
Speaker A:I hope we'll have the opportunity to do that.
Speaker A:That and thank you for having me.
Speaker A:Thank you for hosting me and for that marvelous essay which opened up our conversation.
Speaker B:Praise God.
Speaker B:Thank you so much, sir.
Speaker B:I'm very grateful to connect as well.
Speaker A:Sa.
