America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - Who is God A Catholic Perspective feat. Classical Theist | America First Ep. 189

00:00:03.000 Good evening, everybody.

00:00:04.000 You are watching America First.

00:00:05.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.

00:00:07.000 We've got a great show for you tonight.

00:00:09.000 Lots to get into.

00:00:11.000 Lots to get into.

00:00:13.000 Lots of big news, obviously.

00:00:15.000 It's a big day.

00:00:16.000 Another big win for the Trump administration.

00:00:18.000 Now, who could have called that?

00:00:21.000 Black Pillars, nowhere to be found today.

00:00:23.000 Of course, tonight we're talking about the Supreme Court and what has happened today.

00:00:28.000 Two big wins today, two big wins yesterday, four big wins yesterday.

00:00:33.000 In two days.

00:00:33.000 That's a lot of wins.

00:00:35.000 So, of course, we're talking about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court, as well as the decision on the unions.

00:00:44.000 We were going to have Classical Theist on the show.

00:00:46.000 I'm not sure where he is, though.

00:00:48.000 I sent him over the Google Hangouts link, gave him five minutes from 7 o'clock.

00:00:53.000 It's 7 05 now, or it was when we started the show.

00:00:56.000 So, don't know where he is, but we'll be waiting on him.

00:00:59.000 Maybe he's running a little bit late from Mass.

00:01:02.000 You know, looking over the ancient texts, the ancient scrolls.

00:01:06.000 We'll give them a little while, give them a chance to get in.

00:01:08.000 But of course, there are some big things going on.

00:01:11.000 So actually, it kind of works out.

00:01:13.000 It actually almost works out a little bit because now we get to spend a proper amount of time on the Supreme Court, which of course everybody is talking about, everybody's interested in.

00:01:24.000 Liberals are very upset.

00:01:25.000 Haven't seen them this upset in a long time.

00:01:29.000 But today we saw the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, retire at the age of 81.

00:01:37.000 Old guy.

00:01:38.000 And you know how the Supreme Court works. 0.97

00:01:40.000 You either retire or you die.

00:01:42.000 There's no term limit, there's no in between.

00:01:45.000 So he was the oldest member of the court.

00:01:48.000 I believe he's the oldest.

00:01:49.000 Maybe he was the oldest conservative on the court.

00:01:51.000 I believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a little bit older than him.

00:01:54.000 But he was getting up there in age.

00:01:55.000 He decided after this month's rulings, of which there were several major victories from the Trump administration, he decided he was going to call the quits and he is retiring.

00:02:04.000 And of course, everybody's upset about this or excited about this because now President Trump will be able to.

00:02:11.000 Fill in a second vacancy on the court, which is very, very exciting.

00:02:16.000 If we fill in another vacancy on the court, we now have a solid, strong conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

00:02:24.000 And just to give you a little bit of background so the Supreme Court has had a 5 4 conservative majority for some time.

00:02:34.000 It had it prior to President Trump getting into office.

00:02:38.000 We had Antonin Scalia die, and then it was 4 4 4 liberals, 4 conservatives.

00:02:44.000 On the liberal side, you had Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

00:02:50.000 On the conservative side, you had Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and then Kennedy was marginally conservative.

00:02:57.000 They described him as a conservative that sometimes voted liberal.

00:03:01.000 He voted with the liberals, for example, on the gay marriage issue.

00:03:04.000 And so he's been a pretty inconsistent guy.

00:03:06.000 Out of the conservative block, he's been the least conservative out of all of them.

00:03:11.000 So we had a majority conservative court for a while.

00:03:15.000 But it was inconsistent because of Kennedy.

00:03:17.000 After Scalia died, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, if you remember.

00:03:22.000 And Democrats are eternally salty about this because, of course, Scalia died a long time before the 2016 election.

00:03:30.000 I believe something like eight or 10 months before the 2016 election, Barack Obama had Merrick Garland ready to go, nominated for the court.

00:03:40.000 And the Republicans were in control of both the Senate and the House.

00:03:43.000 The Senate's the only one that matters because the Senate has to confirm a presidential appointment.

00:03:48.000 So the Republicans obstructed it for 10 months.

00:03:50.000 Pretty crazy stuff.

00:03:52.000 Donald Trump gets in.

00:03:53.000 He puts up Neil Gorsuch, a very strong conservative and a young guy.

00:03:57.000 He's 50 years old, so he could be on the court for 30, 40 years.

00:04:02.000 Not crazy to say that he'll be on there for four decades.

00:04:06.000 So we were able to have a young guy, another conservative, a strong constitutionalist, and this gave us a number of big rulings this month.

00:04:14.000 For example, we saw the travel ban, which was upheld as constitutional yesterday.

00:04:19.000 We also saw a California abortion, pro abortion law that was overturned by the courts yesterday.

00:04:26.000 Today, we saw a big ruling on unions.

00:04:28.000 Which was overturned today, a 1977 law, which we'll get into in a moment.

00:04:33.000 And now we have Anthony Kennedy, who has retired.

00:04:36.000 And this is a win.

00:04:37.000 It doesn't change the conservative makeup of the court, but it does make it more conservative and for a longer time.

00:04:44.000 Kennedy was getting up there in age.

00:04:46.000 You know, he probably would have retired any moment, you know, maybe after a couple of years.

00:04:51.000 So Kennedy is off the court.

00:04:53.000 Now we're going to get a conservative who is much younger.

00:04:56.000 Donald Trump said he might want to have a justice in his 40s, maybe even his 30s.

00:05:00.000 Somebody who's much more conservative, a much stronger constitutionalist.

00:05:05.000 And so, with this new balance on the court, if we get somebody in there, get somebody through the Senate, you know, of course, the process is that the president selects an appointee, it goes to the Senate.

00:05:15.000 Normally, it requires a supermajority to approve a president's judicial appointment, but because of the filibuster rule, which was done away with last April by Mitch McConnell, now we'll be able to get a pick through with a simple majority of 51 votes.

00:05:31.000 So, it's really going to be A big deal.

00:05:33.000 That's why everybody's so excited or upset.

00:05:36.000 And it's a big deal.

00:05:37.000 I'll tell you why it's a big deal.

00:05:39.000 Because we've seen a lot of major decisions made in the last 50 years.

00:05:44.000 Roe v. Wade is one of them, which made abortion legal in all 50 states.

00:05:48.000 The gay marriage ruling, which made gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

00:05:52.000 Several Obamacare rulings, for example, one of them, which declared that the individual mandate under Obamacare was part of Congress's taxing power.

00:06:02.000 That was Roberts, who was the swing vote on that one, one of the conservative people.

00:06:06.000 So, I don't know if that one will get overturned, but you have to understand the sheer scope of power that the Supreme Court has been able to accrue over the course of the last 50 years.

00:06:18.000 The reason being is because Congress, because they don't want to be accountable, because they don't want to be responsible for making laws that upset people or laws that might not work out, they have ceded a tremendous amount of authority either to the executive department with the bureaucracies and other tools of the administration or to the courts where a law or A regulation will end up going through the federal court system, end up at the Supreme Court, and they'll have to legislate effectively from the bench.

00:06:48.000 And so, in a big way, the Supreme Court is more consequential than the House of Representatives, more consequential than the Senate in certain ways.

00:06:56.000 Because we look at some of these cultural issues where now we're given an opportunity to go back in time, essentially.

00:07:01.000 You know, people have often told me on the show or in Twitter or friends and family, we're never going back.

00:07:09.000 There's no chance that.

00:07:11.000 This counter revolution, these counter reformation forces in the country will ever succeed because we know that the country is now ruled by people who are liberal, people that are for the Globo Homo complex, the Globo Homo establishment.

00:07:27.000 And so, if that's the case, then there's simply no going back.

00:07:30.000 This is our new country, and we might as well just get used to it as opposed to trying to fight it, which is a futile effort.

00:07:37.000 But what we have an opportunity here with the courts is to overturn Roe v. Wade, make it so that abortion is illegal again.

00:07:43.000 How awesome would that be? 0.96

00:07:45.000 Make it so that gay marriage is illegal again. 1.00

00:07:47.000 Make it so that we could have many victories we haven't even heard about that aren't even talked about issues, for example, like the union ruling that went down earlier this morning, which can strip away the power of the Democrats, strip away the power of the courts. 0.86

00:08:01.000 A really great example of this yesterday was with Clarence Thomas.

00:08:05.000 He wrote in his concurring statement on the ruling made about the travel ban.

00:08:10.000 We know yesterday that the third iteration of the travel ban, which was launched in September of 2017, In the form of an executive order by the president, it was obstructed by circuit judges, the Hawaii circuit judge, and people in San Francisco, and people in Washington, and New York.

00:08:27.000 And Clarence Thomas, in his ruling the other day, said, Look, if these lower courts keep acting essentially as a veto power over the president or over the Congress, shutting down laws and regulations for totally arbitrary reasons, he says we might have to look at the power of those courts to do that and maybe strip them of that power.

00:08:45.000 And so the courts that they are so conservative now, or they have the opportunity to become so conservative.

00:08:52.000 And for such a long time, the next oldest justice, I believe, is Alito, who's 68, so he could be on the court for another 12 or 20 years.

00:09:02.000 That has the real power to really transform the country and redefine the country in a way that might actually be easier than winning the House, in a way that might be easier than winning the Senate.

00:09:12.000 And so this is why you have to trust the process.

00:09:15.000 You know, I went on when I started the show, and really I got more of a woke, red pilled audience over the summer when I started my own channel, but.

00:09:25.000 My whole deal, my whole concept on this show has been the idea that we can change the system from within the system.

00:09:32.000 That's in very stark difference to a lot of other, maybe parallel people who say we have to have change from outside the system, either through a change of government or a change of the system, some kind of radical reformation.

00:09:45.000 But I was always a big believer that a slow march through the institutions or some kind of subversion of the institutions is highly possible and the most probable way that we could change.

00:09:58.000 The existing order in the country.

00:09:59.000 And when you see these things happen, you understand that we had one guy.

00:10:03.000 We had one guy.

00:10:04.000 His name was Donald Trump.

00:10:06.000 He ran for president and he won.

00:10:07.000 That was a single individual.

00:10:09.000 And of course, many people campaigned for him and supported him and all the rest.

00:10:13.000 But this was one exceedingly competent, exceedingly resourceful person.

00:10:18.000 All it took was one guy.

00:10:19.000 And now we have the courts for generations.

00:10:22.000 We have the courts for possibly a minimum of two decades, possibly three, four.

00:10:27.000 It could even be longer than that.

00:10:27.000 Who knows?

00:10:29.000 A very long time.

00:10:30.000 And they will have the power to rewrite.

00:10:32.000 Union laws like they did today, immigration laws, cultural things, you name it, they will be able to overturn things.

00:10:39.000 That's one guy.

00:10:40.000 Imagine you have people who are on the same page as Trump or in some proximity to him ideologically, and they're in the IRS, they're in the post office, they're in local government, they're in the state house, they're in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

00:10:55.000 They're clerking for some of these justices, they're in the federal judiciary.

00:11:00.000 Imagine the potential if one guy can make that great of a change from within the system.

00:11:05.000 Staying for the most part within the Overton window of what's acceptable, imagine what we could amass with 100 people, 1,000 people, 5,000 people, 10,000 people.

00:11:15.000 These are not crazy numbers either.

00:11:17.000 In a country of 330 million, you could get 10,000 people easily.

00:11:22.000 We could look at 100,000 people.

00:11:24.000 If that's the ceiling, and that's a pretty ambitious project, if that's a liberal estimate, imagine how much damage 100,000 people could do working their way up through the system or aiding and abetting this counter reformation in some capacity.

00:11:38.000 What we saw today, I think more than anything, you know, we could look at the issues, we could look at some of the court decisions that could come down, but what we're seeing more than anything is a tremendous white pill for people that still believe in the process, people who still trust the system.

00:11:54.000 You get control of the courts, you get control of the executive, we get the media delegitimized.

00:11:59.000 We are now poised, maybe in a better position than even the left, than the globalists, to make serious reforms.

00:12:06.000 And so this is something I think that should tell people.

00:12:09.000 Change is possible.

00:12:10.000 All hope is not lost.

00:12:12.000 Your vote still matters.

00:12:13.000 Elections still matter.

00:12:15.000 And one of the big reasons why we look at elections as mattering, even though the House and the Senate have given up a tremendous amount of authority, and the reason that they do this really briefly is because if the House of Representatives, for example, passes a bill on immigration and it's not totally popular or it's not, you know, it doesn't work out very well, it's not a big success, well, the people that voted for that are going to get either primaried or they're going to lose their jobs.

00:12:42.000 In the next election.

00:12:44.000 In the House of Representatives in particular, it's a very fragile balance because people are up for election every two years.

00:12:51.000 You don't have the same kind of cushion that a senator has, that a president has, where you can make a decision early on in your term and maybe fix things up towards the end.

00:12:59.000 You know, if you're a senator, you're in for six years.

00:13:01.000 If you're a president, you're in for four years.

00:13:03.000 If you're a congressman, you're going to face the consequences of a decision within two years.

00:13:09.000 And it looks like we've got a note from our producer.

00:13:13.000 Who says that our guest has not gotten the proper link to the call?

00:13:18.000 So I'm going to try and get that over to him once I finish this point here.

00:13:24.000 Always the technical.

00:13:25.000 Oh, it's always the technical issues.

00:13:27.000 I don't know.

00:13:27.000 I send an email to the proper email address.

00:13:29.000 People don't receive it.

00:13:31.000 We're always having a great time with the tech.

00:13:33.000 But we understand that with congressmen, they want to be protected effectively from the consequences of their decisions.

00:13:39.000 It's unpopular with their constituency, it doesn't work out too well.

00:13:43.000 Suddenly, they lose their job.

00:13:45.000 So, gradually, they give more and more jurisdiction where the House should act or where the Senate should act to the courts or to the bureaucracy.

00:13:52.000 But let me see really quickly if I can get another invitation out here.

00:13:57.000 You're going to see it live on the air.

00:13:59.000 I'll give him a link on Twitter and then I'll give him another email, perhaps.

00:14:04.000 Let's see.

00:14:07.000 Okay, so I just shot him over a fresh link.

00:14:10.000 And let me take it off the screen so I don't dox his email really quickly.

00:14:16.000 Whoops, let's do that.

00:14:18.000 And then I'll send him another link.

00:14:19.000 That's all right.

00:14:20.000 That's all right.

00:14:21.000 Well, maybe we'll go an extra 20 minutes, right?

00:14:24.000 Let's see.

00:14:28.000 Let me find his email.

00:14:32.000 If it's not the internet, if it's not the audio, if it's not the video, it's the email, it's this, it's that.

00:14:40.000 We're always grappling with some really fun, really epic technical issue.

00:14:46.000 That's okay.

00:14:49.000 So let me see if he gets this one then.

00:14:54.000 Okay, so there he is.

00:14:55.000 It looks like we've got him on the air now.

00:14:57.000 Great.

00:14:58.000 Okay, so let me adjust my settings here and we'll abruptly transition over to our.

00:15:04.000 Well, actually, I think classical theists can lend some pretty good insights on the issue of the courts because a lot of them are cultural.

00:15:11.000 So just give me a moment here to get the window back on the screen.

00:15:17.000 Okay.

00:15:17.000 There we go.

00:15:26.000 Okay.

00:15:28.000 Can you hear me, Mr. Classical Theist?

00:15:31.000 Hello?

00:15:32.000 Hello?

00:15:34.000 You can hear me alright?

00:15:35.000 Yes, yes, can you hear me?

00:15:36.000 Yes, I can.

00:15:36.000 Alright, good.

00:15:37.000 That's great.

00:15:38.000 I don't know why I didn't get the invite, but what are you going to do?

00:15:42.000 Not a problem.

00:15:43.000 That's all right.

00:15:43.000 I'm getting a little bit of echo in the background.

00:15:45.000 Is that coming from you?

00:15:48.000 Or is that coming from me?

00:15:50.000 It's coming from me.

00:15:52.000 Oh, it is?

00:15:53.000 Okay, yeah, that's my bad.

00:15:54.000 Very sorry about that.

00:15:57.000 Okay, some days it's a winner, some days it's a loser on the technology.

00:16:01.000 That's all right.

00:16:03.000 But so, welcome to the show, Mr. Classical Theist.

00:16:06.000 It's your first time on here, so why don't you just tell us a little bit about yourself?

00:16:10.000 Of course, I know you from Twitter.

00:16:12.000 A very strong Catholic, a very educated Catholic on the theology and on the doctrine.

00:16:17.000 So just tell us a little bit about yourself, as much as you're comfortable with.

00:16:21.000 Yeah.

00:16:22.000 I first started making some YouTube videos.

00:16:27.000 I just thought that there wasn't a whole lot of content out there, at least in these kind of online circles, particularly concerning Catholic theology and philosophy.

00:16:45.000 Particularly from the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas.

00:16:48.000 And I think that that kind of intellectual tradition, that scholastic tradition that emerged in the high Middle Ages, I think that actually is a, you know, provides almost an infinite source of, you know, treasures to help bring to the current debate surrounding all sorts of issues, whether it be religion, politics, you know, political theory, et cetera.

00:17:13.000 And I've, I used to be an atheist, so.

00:17:17.000 I kind of came from that thought world.

00:17:19.000 And once I crossed over, seeing that lack of, you know, Thomistic philosophy in the current debate, I just thought I should step up and kind of offer that myself.

00:17:36.000 And so that's kind of what I try to do.

00:17:37.000 Very good.

00:17:38.000 Well, yes, I've been to your channel before.

00:17:40.000 Lots of great content on the scholastic tradition on Thomas Aquinas.

00:17:45.000 And it's been really a helpful resource for me, your Twitter and your YouTube, because.

00:17:50.000 You're right about medieval philosophy, particularly Thomas Aquinas, and how this is virtually absent from the conversation on both the Christian and the atheist side.

00:18:00.000 You know, how many people have watched a Christopher Hitchens video or a Richard Dawkins video, or maybe they even watched their favorite Protestant pastor on YouTube and they've never heard of Thomas Aquinas?

00:18:13.000 They've never heard the cosmological arguments, they've never heard the teleological argument.

00:18:17.000 It was astounding to me when I discovered them that you have this rich tradition, this rich intellectual tradition.

00:18:23.000 Tome and nobody knows about it, or very few people know about it.

00:18:27.000 So, yeah, there are all sorts of like watered down cosmological arguments that you find from certain Protestant apologists like William Lane Craig, etc.

00:18:37.000 I just don't find them very convincing and they don't get at the heart of what's most fundamental and compelling about you know the god of classical theism.

00:18:46.000 And once you truly look into the god of you know classical theism and particularly scholastic theology in general, you really discover that this.

00:18:59.000 Intellectual tradition going all the way back from Aristotle up through Plato and Plotinus, and then picked up by the Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages, that inoculates you against practically every argument that a Christopher Hitchens will throw against you because their arguments simply don't apply to the same God at all.

00:19:19.000 Right, right.

00:19:20.000 And that's one of the big subjects I wanted to get into you with in a moment, into with you in a moment, and just identifying what is God, who is God, because of course that is the central concept that is at stake in a debate about theology or in a debate about religion is the nature of God.

00:19:40.000 And one of the big mistakes I see is the Sky Daddy argument.

00:19:43.000 This is what Ryan Dawson brought up with me this, oh, you need a man in the clouds to tell you what to do.

00:19:48.000 So, you know, that's a very important thing, which I want to get to with you in a moment.

00:19:52.000 For starters, what I really wanted to talk to you about is, first of all, the Supreme Court.

00:19:57.000 I mean, this is obviously very topical, but I just want to get.

00:20:01.000 What's that?

00:20:03.000 We're drowning in white pills with this stuff.

00:20:05.000 That's right.

00:20:06.000 It's true.

00:20:07.000 Very big news, very good news from the courts.

00:20:07.000 True.

00:20:09.000 And I want to get your take as a Catholic because, you know, some of the big things that this court will see will be abortion, gay marriage. 0.55

00:20:17.000 How is this a victory?

00:20:18.000 Tell us about this from a Catholic perspective on.

00:20:23.000 I think, first of all, it.

00:20:25.000 I think it's a good concrete evidence that it's simply unacceptable for a Catholic to sit themselves outside of political participation.

00:20:39.000 I kind of see among certain Catholic friends that the society is too drenched in, you know, post Enlightenment sonic principles that we should just step outside of the system altogether and to try to engage in voting or.

00:20:57.000 Or, what have you, is just voting for the lesser of two evils, and you're just cooperating in evil, and you should just not even engage.

00:21:03.000 I think this really shows that that's not an acceptable route to take.

00:21:08.000 We have to, as Catholics, understand that we're not going to change the culture overnight.

00:21:15.000 That's simply not possible.

00:21:17.000 You have to take incremental steps toward your final goal, toward your final end.

00:21:25.000 And I think this Supreme Court news is just more evidence that.

00:21:31.000 Your political participation, even if you're making small incremental changes along the way, really does make a big difference.

00:21:39.000 And it's something that I think a Catholic should, I think, is obliged to take seriously.

00:21:47.000 Absolutely.

00:21:48.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:21:50.000 Yeah.

00:21:51.000 And, you know, of course, it's a major win.

00:21:55.000 I mean, it's potentially very plausible that we could get Roe v. Wade and such overturned and maybe even overturned the.

00:22:03.000 Decision regarding same sex marriage, depending on who Trump appoints to the federal bench or to the Supreme Court.

00:22:11.000 I think one potential Supreme Court nominee on this list in particular said some very promising things about same sex marriage.

00:22:21.000 I think it was William Pryor or something like that.

00:22:23.000 So there are all sorts of people on this list that are really promising for someone who's interested in Catholic integralism and trying to overturn the culture and such.

00:22:33.000 Definitely. 0.96

00:22:34.000 Well, and I think the chief problem of Catholics, which you mentioned, is the abdication of the public sphere. 0.99

00:22:40.000 You know, and you see this in Sede Vacantists with the religion. 0.73

00:22:44.000 You see this with many people in voting.

00:22:46.000 It's people who say, you know, things aren't really going the way we like them to.

00:22:51.000 So we're out.

00:22:52.000 We're washing our hands of this.

00:22:54.000 We want no part of it. 0.99

00:22:55.000 The country's in the shithole. 0.59

00:22:57.000 The church is going through some trouble. 0.97

00:22:59.000 So let's just opt out.

00:23:00.000 Let's find a way to rationalize inaction.

00:23:02.000 But of course, it's going to be a fight.

00:23:05.000 And we need people to fight it.

00:23:06.000 We need people to be active in their doing their part.

00:23:09.000 So that's a great point that you make about participation and incrementalism.

00:23:13.000 And the trick will be with the courts on gay marriage and abortion.

00:23:18.000 It's somewhat worrisome simply because you look at some of the more liberal conservative senators, like Susan Collins from Maine, for example.

00:23:27.000 We've got a 51 vote majority in the Senate with John McCain.

00:23:31.000 John McCain's out of play because of cancer.

00:23:33.000 So we have a 50 vote majority with the tiebreaker from Mike Pence.

00:23:38.000 So we need all Republicans to be on board.

00:23:41.000 And if we don't get Collins, if we don't get the senator from Alaska, who I have heard might be dicey on this, Could be a difficult process.

00:23:49.000 And they said if they.

00:23:50.000 I think it's.

00:23:51.000 I think maybe a potential white pill about that is the fact that Trump promised that he was going to pick someone from his list, all of whom are, I think, pretty good.

00:24:02.000 I can't think of one off the top of my head that would be a negative.

00:24:06.000 And for that reason, if they didn't go along, if some of these more liberal Republicans didn't go along with it, I think it would be very, very, very troublesome for their future ambitions.

00:24:16.000 You know, who knows what will happen.

00:24:18.000 Hopefully, it all works out.

00:24:18.000 True.

00:24:21.000 Back to the point of incrementalism, I wanted to mention it's also worth noting that how things got to this level of depravity in the culture, that started incrementally.

00:24:35.000 That started with incrementalism on the other side.

00:24:37.000 So that should give us that's kind of a mirror image of what we should be emulating.

00:24:42.000 That if they can get society to where it is now, we can have a really good shot with incrementalism in the opposite direction.

00:24:52.000 Yeah, that's a great point.

00:24:53.000 You know, I mean, people witness the success of the left and the success of certain groups or categories of people who, with small numbers, were able to achieve great things.

00:25:02.000 And instead of wanting to emulate their success, like you said, emulate their strategy, they say, well, we have to march forward into the open, into essentially like Normandy Beach, getting shot from all sides, declaring our intentions.

00:25:18.000 And it would make a lot more sense to go slow and steady.

00:25:20.000 Hey, Mitch McConnell, they don't call him the turtle for nothing.

00:25:23.000 Maybe slow and steady wins the race.

00:25:25.000 But.

00:25:27.000 So that's the courts.

00:25:28.000 I'm glad I got your take on that because I think that's such an important thing for religious people.

00:25:33.000 If you oppose abortion, if you oppose these things, the courts.

00:25:36.000 I like that. 0.89

00:25:37.000 Exactly.

00:25:38.000 Exactly.

00:25:39.000 But so the big thing I wanted to get into with you today is actually about a tweet that I saw the other day.

00:25:45.000 And this is from Jordan Peterson.

00:25:47.000 And I think a lot of people have seen it at this point.

00:25:50.000 And Jordan Peterson, to me, represents something that can be a very big threat to Christianity.

00:25:55.000 At once, he's a big opportunity because I think he turns people on to the.

00:26:00.000 The utility of religion shows people that, wow, you know, religion can actually be backed up by science and psychology.

00:26:06.000 Even if you're a scientist, even if you're an empiricist, you can look at what religion provides and say, well, there's a pretty rational explanation for why these things are good for you.

00:26:15.000 But he takes out the divinity, the supernatural elements, which are the reality of it.

00:26:20.000 He takes, he kind of guts that out.

00:26:22.000 Exactly.

00:26:24.000 I have mixed feelings about Jordan Peterson.

00:26:26.000 On the one hand, I appreciate the fact that, you know, going back to the incrementalism point, I realized that.

00:26:33.000 We're in such a deep hole that on some level you have to tolerate the fact that he has his irreparable limitations.

00:26:47.000 On the other hand, if you want to read the tweet out, or I could read the tweet out and we can kind of get into what that is, because that's kind of relevant to my point.

00:26:56.000 Right, yeah, I'll read it out.

00:26:57.000 It says, and he tweeted this the other day he said, quote, As demonstrated or manifested in your presumption, perception, and action.

00:27:09.000 So, you know, tackle that word salad, right?

00:27:13.000 On the one hand, like maybe you can interpret him as saying that, you know, oh, he's just saying that what you value the most is ultimately kind of what you worship, and what you worship is going to, you know, permeate through your entire being, through all of your operations and activities, et cetera.

00:27:30.000 You can kind of see maybe where he's going with that.

00:27:33.000 But I think on the other hand, he's really trying to, I think, reduce God to that level, to the level of simply one particular mode of being.

00:27:43.000 Among others.

00:27:44.000 And that's, I think, what is ultimately completely inadmissible to the divine.

00:27:53.000 It takes away from God what is most fundamental to what we mean by God, which is God is not one, he can't be restricted to one particular mode of being among other mode of beings.

00:28:07.000 He is the unconditioned, pure act of being itself.

00:28:13.000 I mean, I could conceive of all kinds of Particular modes of being.

00:28:16.000 I can conceive of like a cat, I can conceive of a triangle, trees, or what have you.

00:28:22.000 But in so doing, I'm always presupposing being itself.

00:28:27.000 When I conceive of any particular mode or manner of being, I'm always presupposing being itself as prior to all those things.

00:28:36.000 On the other hand, when I conceive of being in itself, just considered in its unqualified sense, that doesn't imply necessarily any of these particular modes of being.

00:28:49.000 If I'm just conceiving of being as such, I don't necessarily have to conceive the existence of the cat or the tree or the triangle.

00:28:58.000 So I think from that we can conclude that being unqualified and its unqualified, unconditioned sense is more fundamental.

00:29:06.000 It's prior to, it precedes any particular manner of being.

00:29:10.000 And that's why we identify God with this, because God is most fundamental to all things.

00:29:19.000 We can't conceive of any particular manner of being without.

00:29:22.000 First, acknowledging that ultimate plenitude and source of existence that encompasses everything, insofar as they're real.

00:29:29.000 And I think that's something that we really have to bring to the forefront when we talk about God, that we're not talking about just one being among many.

00:29:38.000 He's not just, again, I think even a lot of Protestants and some other Christians, they fall into that trap where they'll talk about God as.

00:29:54.000 The maximally great being.

00:29:56.000 I think that gets into the trap where it says, okay, God is just one being among other beings, even if he's like the top dog.

00:30:03.000 And that really, I think, sets them up for the trap of the Sky Daddy argument.

00:30:07.000 It's important to recognize that God is not under that genus at all.

00:30:12.000 He's that pure act of being itself in which all things can participate and share and receive their own perfections.

00:30:24.000 That's really most fundamental to get right about God.

00:30:28.000 And if you don't get that right, I think ultimately it's atheism.

00:30:33.000 It's either that or atheism.

00:30:35.000 Well, and Jordan Peterson doesn't even deny that he's an atheist.

00:30:39.000 I saw in one interview he said that.

00:30:41.000 And it's with all these people who try and make it into Christianity is actually about the mythology or Christianity is actually a cultural thing.

00:30:52.000 Yeah.

00:30:53.000 I don't know.

00:30:55.000 I think that.

00:31:00.000 If all you're looking for is a system that's going to bring you material benefits or cultural prosperity, I wouldn't necessarily, and if that's your ultimate end, I actually think Christianity might inhibit that in a way, in the sense that Christianity requires us to put aside the material.

00:31:21.000 It requires us to put aside these transient realities.

00:31:27.000 And so if you don't give reality, or if you don't give Christianity, Its ontological status, its reality on the level of the very being of things, then I think you should just grab it if you're not going to see it as ultimately real.

00:31:43.000 Yeah, no, that's a great point.

00:31:46.000 You know, and I get that a lot on my show. 0.89

00:31:49.000 I think that was a point that Ryan Dawson brought up, or maybe it was some other atheist who came on the show and said, well, you know, you could look at Christian countries in Africa or Christian countries in the Caribbean, which aren't successful.

00:31:59.000 And this kind of misses the whole point, right?

00:32:03.000 I mean, in order for Christianity to become powerful and potent, Your values have to be the divine. 0.82

00:32:10.000 Your value has to be the spiritual as opposed to the temporal and the material. 0.67

00:32:14.000 And that's what gives Christians, I think, the material well being that we have.

00:32:19.000 But in order to achieve that, and it's almost paradoxical in that sense, you have to at first suspend your valuation of those things.

00:32:27.000 So for people who say it's a magic trick, well, if we just become Christian, then we'll be able to get stuff and we'll be able to get this and that.

00:32:34.000 Well, then you're not really a Christian.

00:32:36.000 Therefore, you won't have those things. 0.92

00:32:39.000 So I think that is, like you said in the.

00:32:42.000 In the first part, denying the reality of Christianity, denying that God is real and realism itself, I think defeats the whole purpose.

00:32:52.000 And so maybe you could say, and I do think that incrementally, Jordan Peterson is somebody who gets people to second guess what they know about faith and second guess what they know.

00:33:04.000 Yeah, it gets people to, I think, question the presuppositions that have been enshrined.

00:33:12.000 In the current orthodoxy.

00:33:16.000 And to that extent, I'd say he's useful, but that tweet that you just mentioned, I think, portrays the limits of his usefulness.

00:33:24.000 And we have to go beyond him.

00:33:27.000 We have to, I guess, in a way, bow to his practical usefulness in these areas, but ultimately we have to go beyond him and keep moving forward toward.

00:33:42.000 Toward authentic realism and toward authentic principles that actually allow us to see these things as actually real and not simply reducible to, you know, Jungian archetypes in our head.

00:33:56.000 Because ultimately, what does that do for us?

00:33:59.000 I mean, sure, it might be able to help us achieve certain proximate goals for psychological fulfillment, but it's ultimately dead in its tracks if it's not going to have that yearning for the infinite beyond the infinite.

00:34:15.000 It'd be beyond that, the psychological limitation.

00:34:18.000 Right. 0.91

00:34:19.000 Well, I mean, that's the biggest problem you can think Jungian archetypes are intelligent or good or beneficial, but there's nothing that differentiates Christianity as some mythological kind of something to lean on, you know, crutch, than Harry Potter or Star Wars. 0.96

00:34:35.000 Or, you know, for people that say, well, Christianity is useful for these reasons. 0.77

00:34:39.000 Yeah, well, what about this mythological story?

00:34:42.000 What about that one?

00:34:43.000 There's no, like you said, there's no reality to it, it's not real.

00:34:47.000 But so, if Jordan Peterson defines God as the mode of being you value most and by you know this kind of psychological gobbledygook, you know, this jargon, let's sort of answer that with scholastic.

00:35:02.000 It's almost kind of hypocritical for me to say that's jargon because then I open up Aquinas and I'm like, whoa, you know, it's talking about essence and all these.

00:35:09.000 It's like, okay, right.

00:35:11.000 So, if God isn't that from a scholastic point of view, and maybe you could help walk us through some of those terms when you say.

00:35:18.000 Act itself or being itself or unmoved mover.

00:35:21.000 How do we define God?

00:35:23.000 Right.

00:35:25.000 The first qualifier I should put on that is that in a certain way, God is truly, ultimately indefinable from the standpoint of our finite limitations.

00:35:37.000 The finite cannot conceive of the infinite by ourselves.

00:35:42.000 So that qualifier, I think, should be set out.

00:35:45.000 But on the other hand, we could still know all sorts of things about God from.

00:35:49.000 His created effects.

00:35:51.000 And when we say that God is pure actuality, or when we say he is the unconditioned act of being itself, what we're really getting at is that God is most fundamentally not any particular limited mode of existence that you could encounter directly.

00:36:20.000 This world.

00:36:22.000 When we encounter material reality in front of us, we discover certain things about it that make it incapable of being self sufficient for its existence.

00:36:40.000 For example, you know, the tree outside of my house, it's conditioned, it exists in a derivative sense.

00:36:49.000 It's It exists, yes, but it exists only due to the fact that it receives its existence from certain extrinsic causes, such as its own material composition or even the past, how the tree came into existence from the acorn and such.

00:37:12.000 Even now, it depends for its existence on certain extrinsic causes.

00:37:17.000 So, this is not just talking about stretching back in time.

00:37:20.000 Even now, it depends for its existence on the fact that it is.

00:37:26.000 A composite reality.

00:37:27.000 It's composed of parts.

00:37:30.000 Any reality that is composed of parts is causally dependent upon the whole.

00:37:35.000 And the whole is also dependent upon its parts to exist as a unified reality.

00:37:46.000 But once you get at that, the fact that material reality, the existence of material things, is derivative, in other words, it It is received from without.

00:38:01.000 The existence of the tree is received.

00:38:03.000 It doesn't have existence from its own nature.

00:38:10.000 Again, we can conceive of existence, we can conceive of being without implying that the tree exists or the cat exists or the stone exists.

00:38:20.000 And for that reason, if the tree or if the stone or if the cat is going to receive existence, That means that those things that receive it are contingent, meaning they're dependent upon other things to exist.

00:38:37.000 Now, once you get there, you would ask well, could everything be such that its existence is derivative?

00:38:45.000 Could there just be an infinite regress of derivative existence?

00:38:48.000 Could existence be derived forever?

00:38:51.000 Well, that's not going to work because if existence is derived infinitely, then nothing could ever actually receive that existence in the first place.

00:39:02.000 Because being derived implies that it's, you know, if the tree's existence is derived, then the tree doesn't actually possess existence in and of itself.

00:39:13.000 So you would almost say that the tree considered in and of itself.

00:39:18.000 Doesn't actually possess existence because it's derived, it comes from without.

00:39:21.000 So, you would then ask, Well, if existence cannot be infinitely derivative, if it can't be just received, um, wouldn't there have to be a reality then whose existence is fundamentally not received, whose existence is not derivative in any sense of the word?

00:39:45.000 And it's that reality that we call God, that unqualified source.

00:39:51.000 Of existence itself, in whom everything that actually receives existence can participate and share in, but Himself is not any one particular mode of limited existence, but simply is that act of existence simply in itself.

00:40:13.000 And so that's one of the ways you can kind of get at the existence of God.

00:40:17.000 I know that might be not worded as.

00:40:21.000 Succinctly, as perhaps I should have worded it, but if you can kind of follow, yeah, well, I mean, that's sort of the trick of Aquinas and of classical theism itself is that these are not concepts which can be as easily understood as a basic analogy by, you know, some shit lib skeptic where they say, well, there's talking animals in the Bible, so, you know, debunk that.

00:40:44.000 Anybody could say, oh, well, that's objectionable, but to really lay out a case from a metaphysical perspective about contingency, about existence, about These kinds of things.

00:40:56.000 It's a much more protracted process.

00:40:59.000 It's a much more complicated and technical dialectic in terms of the words you're using, the conversation.

00:41:05.000 You know, like the argument from contingency, which you're getting at, which says that everything cannot be contingent.

00:41:12.000 You cannot go back infinitely to and have no source of, like you say, existence itself.

00:41:19.000 I mean, that's something which, once you can start to visualize this abstractly in your head, makes perfect sense.

00:41:26.000 The idea of the infinite regress.

00:41:28.000 And How that would make no sense.

00:41:31.000 But to really wrap your head around those kinds of things is a difficult thing.

00:41:35.000 It's not a sound bite, you know, where you get Christopher Hitchens who says, you know, yeah, go ahead.

00:41:41.000 I think it does take a lot of patience and willingness and effort to actually allow yourself to be open to it and therefore to allow yourself to digest it with humility.

00:41:54.000 On the other hand, I think ordinary people can encounter this in more subtle and less.

00:42:01.000 Intellectually expressed ways.

00:42:02.000 I think everybody has that experience of the fact that everything in the world is passing, and yet they're all united in the fact that they all have being.

00:42:15.000 We all have an encounter with being.

00:42:17.000 I think it's embedded in our very language when we use the word is, right?

00:42:23.000 If I say this is such and such, or this is this other thing, we can unite all that together.

00:42:32.000 At the word is, we can reflect upon that and realize the primacy of being in that way.

00:42:38.000 And I think that can lead more contemplative people down that route to be open to it.

00:42:44.000 I think most people simply don't understand that that's actually what we mean by God.

00:42:48.000 I certainly didn't when I was an atheist.

00:42:50.000 I thought what we meant by God was just some super reality, you know, up in, not necessarily, I didn't think he was actually up in the sky, but I considered him just like the highest point, right?

00:43:04.000 The highest type of being.

00:43:06.000 I never really thought of him as that.

00:43:10.000 Unconditioned act of being itself.

00:43:12.000 And once you allow yourself to kind of reflect on that and contemplate that, I think it's digestible to people who don't have any kind of, you know, preconceived antagonism toward it, which is hard to find.

00:43:26.000 Right. 0.96

00:43:26.000 Among atheists. 0.96

00:43:28.000 True.

00:43:29.000 Well, and I think it expands your mind when you realize that God is that as opposed to one particular individual or one particular organism.

00:43:39.000 I think it really expands your concept.

00:43:41.000 And once you start to think of it in those terms, You start to realize that the language surrounding theology and surrounding the Bible or scripture is the prism.

00:43:51.000 Exactly.

00:43:52.000 Exactly.

00:43:52.000 It's mostly, I hesitate to say symbolic, but it's allegorical, effectively.

00:44:00.000 It's summarized in ways that a human mind can understand.

00:44:04.000 It describes processes and premises and concepts that we can understand.

00:44:10.000 So it's not literally like God is walking around, except for in the case of Jesus Christ, but it's not like he's literally a person.

00:44:18.000 Doing things, and he made these rules, and if you don't follow them, he's going to beat the hell out of you.

00:44:23.000 But these are things that are used to describe.

00:44:26.000 There's a principle in scholastic philosophy that I think is very helpful when we're trying to conceive of, well, you say all these abstract things about God, but then it says that he's angry and he gets jealous, et cetera.

00:44:39.000 There's a principle, it's referred to as the principle of analogy, meaning that when we say that God has certain attributes, like that he's wise or that he has intelligence or something like that, We're not using the term in the same sense in which I'd say you have intelligence or anyone else has intelligence or you have wisdom or anyone else has wisdom.

00:45:03.000 But on the other hand, it's not completely different.

00:45:05.000 These are not just metaphors.

00:45:06.000 There's something similar about them between intelligence in a human being and intelligence of God, but they're not the same thing.

00:45:18.000 They're not used in a univocal way, which is to say that they're not the same.

00:45:24.000 Terms simply slapped onto God.

00:45:27.000 God, we get those terms and we can apply them to God precisely by reflecting upon Him as being pure actuality.

00:45:37.000 So, just like one example, like goodness, for example, when we say that God is good, you know, I can use the word goodness to describe all kinds of things.

00:45:49.000 I'd say, you know, this pizza is good or someone is a morally good human being.

00:45:57.000 But what do we ultimately mean when we use the word good when we apply it to God?

00:46:01.000 Well, if I can conceive of goodness in our own finite mode of being, we would say that we can't conceive of goodness without perfection.

00:46:17.000 Goodness is always going to be tied to perfection in some way, it's better or worse.

00:46:23.000 But once you think of that, you think, well, okay, if.

00:46:28.000 If something is good or bad, then it's more or less perfect.

00:46:34.000 What do we mean by perfect?

00:46:35.000 Well, ultimately, we have to get to the fact that it's more or less actual, right?

00:46:39.000 I mean, a triangle, for example, it has its geometrical definitions, and it's better or worse the extent to which it conforms to its geometrical definitions, right?

00:46:50.000 And we're really ultimately saying that it's more or less actual.

00:46:53.000 So, goodness, even in our direct experience, is sourced in actuality.

00:46:57.000 So, we would just say that God is that pure source of what's finite and limited in this world, that attribute that we call goodness, but exists supremely and ultimately.

00:47:08.000 And you can apply that to all sorts of the divine attributes that we use.

00:47:12.000 Well, yeah.

00:47:12.000 Right.

00:47:13.000 I don't mean to ramble so much.

00:47:15.000 No, no.

00:47:16.000 I think that's a great example because when people think of a triangle, this is the one that I'll often use because I think that kind of thing comes from Platonic thought to an extent the idea of forms, the idea that we know what a triangle is in this abstract and totally non real, non material realm.

00:47:39.000 That triangle has three sides.

00:47:41.000 The sum of its angles is 180 degrees.

00:47:43.000 It's perfect straight lines and all the rest.

00:47:45.000 But we also know that every attempt by us to create a triangle is an approximation of a perfect form that exists not in this realm.

00:47:54.000 So if I cobble together a couple of sticks and say, oh, this is a triangle, well, you could say this angle isn't quite right or these lines aren't quite straight.

00:48:03.000 So it's less perfect, it's less good.

00:48:06.000 And I think this goes to Aquinas' argument of degrees.

00:48:10.000 Once you introduce people to this premise of, You know, there is this perfection, there is this other kind of idea, not just of material, but of form.

00:48:20.000 I think then people start to get an idea of the divine.

00:48:23.000 So it's a perfect example for that.

00:48:24.000 I think it's also relevant politically, if you think about it, because if we conceive of everything having a nature as given to it, as the source of its perfection, well, we inevitably have to apply that to us as human beings.

00:48:37.000 So then we can conceive of the fact that our perfection is not going to be achieved by.

00:48:44.000 Trying to weave utopia out of a hat or to reinvent the wheel.

00:48:48.000 It's going to be by fulfilling those ends and inclinations of our own nature that's already given to us, that's already received.

00:48:58.000 We can't invent a new nature out of ourselves.

00:49:00.000 We are given a nature, and it's our end in life to fulfill what our nature is apt to be as ordained by the mind of God who created it.

00:49:15.000 And A big part of that is securing the expressions of humanity as male and female.

00:49:22.000 That's belonging to the very nature of humanity as such.

00:49:26.000 That's not alterable.

00:49:28.000 And to attempt to alter it would put you beneath the integrity of our nature.

00:49:34.000 And so it's true that the scholastic philosophy and Neoplatonism and such, they are abstractions.

00:49:41.000 And at first glance, that might seem not as relevant to people.

00:49:45.000 But on the other hand, you can see that they come with implications that I think are very.

00:49:49.000 Much relevant to constructing a coherent worldview with which to build a political kind of movement that is grounded on human nature.

00:49:59.000 Exactly.

00:50:00.000 Well, you could say, it's somewhat ironic, but you could say we have to become who we are, right?

00:50:05.000 That's a Nietzschean adage, but you know.

00:50:07.000 A lot of these things that the existentialists say you can kind of take but just apply them to our own worldview.

00:50:17.000 I mean, even like what Sartre said existence precedes essence.

00:50:20.000 Well, he's kind of right.

00:50:22.000 But not our own existence.

00:50:23.000 The divine existence precedes the essence of all things.

00:50:26.000 So it's just interesting how you can kind of play around with what these guys say.

00:50:29.000 Yeah, definitely.

00:50:30.000 And it's a good point that you make about the political movements because, you know, this is when we start to think of it in terms of the social consequences of religion.

00:50:38.000 That it's not just, you know, this is the biggest mistake I think people make is they say, well, my faith is over here, my belief in God and the eternal.

00:50:47.000 It's like this little compartment, but then I could leave there and, you know, walk down the street and I can be for abortion and gay marriage and I don't care what happens to this world, you know.

00:50:56.000 And then it all starts to fall apart.

00:50:57.000 But of course, these things do have implications, particularly if you understand that.

00:51:02.000 Man has a nature that is directed towards particular ends, then you understand that things go against that nature.

00:51:08.000 And also, those things are bad for people, bad for their souls, bad for their bodies.

00:51:12.000 And so, it's no wonder that all these people who are not in harmony with their nature, not in harmony with what is intended for us, it's no wonder that these people are killing themselves, that they're sick, they're miserable, and all the rest.

00:51:28.000 Yeah, that's very true.

00:51:29.000 And it's something that I think a lot of people in the right wing who aren't necessarily.

00:51:36.000 Sympathetic to Christianity would do well to consider because otherwise, how can they possibly justify their desire to advocate for what's truly natural and authentic to human nature in the face of people who want to reinvent human nature and to reinvent the wheel of human nature?

00:51:54.000 What can they say to them with intellectual justification and intellectual honesty?

00:52:03.000 I don't think they can ultimately have an argument against those people if we don't return to realism, if we don't return to theism ultimately.

00:52:11.000 And if we don't return to Christianity.

00:52:15.000 And I also think, you know, there's a way to get to Christianity.

00:52:19.000 Now, a lot of people ask me that question.

00:52:21.000 Yeah, you believe in, you have all these arguments for the existence of God and you have this realist metaphysics and such, but how do you possibly get to Christianity from that?

00:52:30.000 And I mean, I'm not going to get to that whole argument, that would take way too long, but there is definitely a way.

00:52:35.000 I have an argument for that on my channel.

00:52:37.000 You can take the principles of classical theism and use them to craft an argument for the incarnation.

00:52:45.000 That God would, given his nature, unite with mankind.

00:52:50.000 And that can be expected, I think, from rational principles.

00:52:54.000 And so I don't think there's any excuse, you know, ultimately.

00:52:59.000 Yeah, all true.

00:52:59.000 It's true.

00:53:01.000 And so I want to now move into a different topic.

00:53:03.000 This has been pretty good stuff on God, on actuality.

00:53:07.000 You know, I've been dying to get somebody on my channel to explain it because every time people ask me, it's like, you know, half remembered from Ed Fieser's book or, you know, this or that.

00:53:16.000 So it's a great introduction, by the way.

00:53:18.000 I recommend him.

00:53:19.000 Yeah, definitely.

00:53:20.000 I think I put that on one of my first book lists, which isn't available anymore.

00:53:23.000 Another thinker, just to recommend a quick book, is Father Norris Clark.

00:53:29.000 He has a book called The One and the Many, a contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics.

00:53:33.000 And that's a book that has helped me immensely.

00:53:34.000 If anyone's interested in Thomistic philosophy and scholastic thought, I highly recommend getting that book in particular.

00:53:41.000 Good recommendation.

00:53:42.000 Yeah, I love the book recommendations.

00:53:43.000 People are always asking me for them, and I'm looking for them as well.

00:53:47.000 But the other topic I wanted to get into is.

00:53:50.000 Because this is like my most asked one.

00:53:53.000 It's you're a Catholic, so naturally, because of your Pope.

00:53:57.000 These goofy things that the Pope says on airplanes, somehow.

00:54:01.000 Right, so they say, how can we be against immigration?

00:54:06.000 The first one is from the Catechism.

00:54:09.000 And it's important to recognize that while the Pope can say certain off color things, certain, frankly, dumb things, I mean, for example, I think on Twitter at one point he said, well, if we just abolish all weapons, there would be no peace.

00:54:23.000 I mean, Really?

00:54:24.000 You know, more rather.

00:54:27.000 But we don't have to take every single thing he says as magisterium.

00:54:32.000 Magisterium being the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

00:54:35.000 We get what we have to believe as Catholics from the magisterium, which is communicated through whether it be church councils, papal encyclicals, isolated statements of papal infallibility, etc.

00:54:50.000 The church doesn't really have a dogmatic statement on immigration.

00:54:56.000 It does have magisterial statements, but they aren't necessarily infallible.

00:54:59.000 However, What we do have is this, and I'll kind of like break down some of it if we have time to do that.

00:55:06.000 Sure.

00:55:08.000 So it says this is number 2241 in the Catechism, and also you have stuff from St. Thomas Aquinas.

00:55:15.000 I think that's helpful.

00:55:17.000 It says, the more prosperous nations are obliged to the extent that they are able to welcome the foreigner in search of security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.

00:55:29.000 Public authority should see to it that.

00:55:31.000 The natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who would receive him.

00:55:37.000 Now, here's the big but.

00:55:40.000 Wow, that was a wrong way to say it.

00:55:43.000 Anyway, political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various judicial conditions, especially with regard to immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption.

00:56:03.000 Immigrants are obliged to respect with Gratitude to the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them to obey its laws and to assist in carrying the civic burdens.

00:56:12.000 Now, if you take that second paragraph and you combine it with the first, and we read here it says, The more prosperous nations are obliged to the extent that they are able.

00:56:24.000 Well, what are the conditions under which they would be able to do that?

00:56:28.000 I think it would be the maintenance of their spiritual and material heritage, right?

00:56:31.000 Right.

00:56:32.000 And what is included in that?

00:56:34.000 That's something that we as Catholics can debate about.

00:56:36.000 And I think we should really take seriously the argument that.

00:56:41.000 A cohesive ethnic identity, a cohesive cultural heritage, a cohesive spiritual heritage sourced in Christianity.

00:56:52.000 These are things that are part and parcel, really essential to that material and spiritual heritage of the country.

00:57:01.000 And maintaining that thing is a part of its prosperity. 0.99

00:57:04.000 It's a part of its ability to take in foreigners. 1.00

00:57:08.000 So if you have a situation where Taking in certain kinds of immigrants would be either by definition or just incidentally deleterious to the country maintaining those essential attributes, 1.00

00:57:23.000 then the country should prudently say no and maybe help them in other ways, but not in taking in hordes of immigrants who will do damage to that maintenance of its. 1.00

00:57:42.000 Ethnic heritage, it's spiritual heritage, and it's even material and economic prosperity. 0.99

00:57:50.000 I mean, these are things that enable the country in the first place to take in immigrants prudently.

00:57:55.000 So, nowhere in this document does it say you have to have open borders. 0.99

00:58:00.000 It actually, you could read it as advising against having open borders.

00:58:05.000 And it's kind of funny when people will say that Pope Francis says various things that are actually not harmonious with what you read in the catechism, and they act as if that puts us in a bad spot. 0.93

00:58:15.000 If anything, it's the non Catholics who are in a worse position than us because they don't actually have that official magisterial document to guard what we're saying, whereas we do. 0.76

00:58:28.000 They have to battle against other Christians in their own denomination to interpret the Bible in different ways. 0.99

00:58:34.000 You couldn't potentially interpret the Bible as saying that, you know, when it says that you do not molest a stranger and it reminds the Israelites that they were once foreigners, etc.

00:58:46.000 Some Christians can interpret that as supporting open borders, but we actually have an official magisterial document to guard against those sensibilities.

00:58:58.000 And even that passage from, I think it's Galatians, where it's neither Jew nor Greek, that one as well.

00:59:04.000 Yeah, yeah. 0.88

00:59:04.000 They could definitely use that to try to. 0.88

00:59:07.000 The point is, we actually have that magisterial document, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you've heard me interpret it, I think, in a very sensible way that we can guard against what we believe.

00:59:19.000 Using magisterial texts.

00:59:21.000 Whereas, you know, you could potentially, maybe as a Catholic, have a much softer position on immigration.

00:59:29.000 But the point is, we are not obliged in any way to advocate for open borders.

00:59:35.000 That's not at all mandated by the magisterium.

00:59:38.000 Exactly.

00:59:38.000 I know, even St. Thomas Aquinas, he has this other quick passage where he says that.

00:59:50.000 The reasons why countries might not, nations might not want to admit immigrants is that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of the nation as soon as they settle down in its midst, many dangers might occur since the foreigners might not yet have the common good firmly at their heart and might attempt something hurtful to the people. 0.77

01:00:09.000 So there are even St. Thomas Aquinas guards against open borders thinking. 0.96

01:00:13.000 So it's simply not a good argument to try to use certain off color remarks that the Pope said as a way to bludgeon us against the head.

01:00:21.000 It really doesn't work.

01:00:22.000 Right.

01:00:22.000 Well, yeah.

01:00:23.000 I mean, and you can read the catechism, the official word.

01:00:26.000 And it's interesting because not only on immigration, I'm getting a little echo.

01:00:29.000 Is that you?

01:00:31.000 I don't think I changed anything.

01:00:34.000 All right.

01:00:36.000 Well, but I mean, that's the big trick the catechism because once you read the official and the only official word on this in the church, you get a clear idea that it is subject to many restrictions, many qualifications once you interpret the language.

01:00:51.000 And so once you realize that and you look at the vast history of Of the Catholic Church, which was not an open borders church until, you know, very, very recently, you understand that this has, this is not a part of the religion at all.

01:01:04.000 And there's actually a great amount of debate that can occur about the subject.

01:01:08.000 And also, I would also add there's a great passage in the Catechism as well on the topic of social justice.

01:01:14.000 And I forget the chapter and verse, but it effectively says on human equality that the only human equality that is affirmed is in dignity before God, which is such a great thing because.

01:01:25.000 You get so many people who will say, Well, there's that one passage where it says we're all equal, and exactly, and therefore we have to throw out IQ science and we have to throw out epigenetics and all the rest, which is not true, which is not true at all.

01:01:40.000 The only sense of, in which we are all perfectly the same, is in our fundamental human nature that we all have a rational soul.

01:01:48.000 And that does afford everybody a dignity, don't get me wrong.

01:01:53.000 Everybody is equal in that sense before God and is.

01:01:59.000 And they are all ordered toward heavenly beatitude, and we should hope for all of that.

01:02:03.000 And we should be charitable to everybody.

01:02:04.000 However, it's also important to recognize that charity does begin at home.

01:02:10.000 St. Thomas Aquinas, when he talks about one of the fruits of charity, beneficence specifically, he says that beneficence begins with those who are most proximate to you.

01:02:26.000 Whether it be trying to attain your own natural and supernatural end first, and also putting your own immediate family first.

01:02:40.000 Before your own needs and having charity toward them, before you have to extend beneficence to people outside of the country.

01:02:49.000 That's also an important principle, and it's affirmed by St. Thomas himself that beneficence does begin with those who are most proximate to you.

01:02:56.000 Exactly.

01:02:57.000 Well, yeah, and there you have it, folks.

01:02:58.000 I mean, I think for people that are interested in the subject, there's a lot of shilling that goes on, there's a lot of attacks unwarranted by demons or by pagans and atheists, the like.

01:03:12.000 But if you are interested in the subject and you're interested in the truth more than that, you'll find, I think, that Catholicism is number one, it's the truth, but number two, it is not a senseless, liberal, polemical, like people like to say it is, because of Pope Francis.

01:03:30.000 So I really appreciate you coming on to explain these issues from a classical theistic point of view.

01:03:36.000 And tell us where we can find your channel.

01:03:38.000 I know you're going to start making some more content this summer.

01:03:40.000 So tell us where we can find you.

01:03:41.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:03:42.000 I've made a few videos recently, actually.

01:03:44.000 Well, my main channel is, you know, Classical Theist.

01:03:47.000 If you type that in, you'll find my avatar and you'll be able to find it that way.

01:03:52.000 My Twitter is at classicaltheist minus the T at the end.

01:03:59.000 Someone else took it, and I guess I should have put an underscore, but it's C L A S S I C A L T H E I S or I E S. 0.64

01:04:11.000 No, E A S. All right.

01:04:14.000 Well, thank you so much and wish you the best.

01:04:14.000 Very good.

01:04:17.000 Have a great rest of your evening.

01:04:18.000 All right.

01:04:18.000 Absolutely.

01:04:19.000 You too.

01:04:20.000 All right, take it easy, big guy.

01:04:21.000 Talk to you later.

01:04:22.000 You too.

01:04:22.000 Absolutely.

01:04:23.000 Bye bye.

01:04:24.000 Very good.

01:04:25.000 Well, there you have it, folks.

01:04:26.000 Big, exciting guest appearance by my friend, Classical Theist.

01:04:30.000 Finally, you know, the best part is always taking the headphones off, right?

01:04:35.000 Sad to see him go, but we got it.

01:04:36.000 The headphones, they make my ears and my head hurt.

01:04:39.000 But a great guest appearance by my good friend, the Classical Theist, talking to us about none other than Classical Theism.

01:04:47.000 And it's always great to get an insight from somebody who. knows what they're talking about on those details theologically, philosophically.

01:04:56.000 And you have to be very careful on a subject like metaphysics because the language carries a lot of weight.

01:05:02.000 So when you hear us talking about and using terms like actuality, the infinite regress, these kinds of things, the language means more than, you know, we're not just speaking in the vernacular.

01:05:15.000 We're not using very loosely, very imperfectly these words.

01:05:18.000 They are precise words used to describe very specific things.

01:05:23.000 And so it's always good to get somebody who Wields the language, I think, masterfully and in the way that it ought to be.

01:05:30.000 So it was good to have him on the show, but don't go anywhere.

01:05:33.000 We're going to get to our Streamlabs and Super Chats and see what the mass is saying about the Catholic faith or about SCOTUS or anything else.

01:05:43.000 We're going to start with our Streamlabs donations, which you can still get one up on the screen if you donate using that link.

01:05:52.000 And then after we do that, we'll be taking our Super Chats.

01:05:56.000 So, just give me a moment here.

01:05:58.000 It's taking a little bit longer than it should to load here.

01:06:02.000 Maybe I'll take the super chats first while we wait for the Streamlabs to load.

01:06:07.000 Yeah, I guess we're going to have to do that. 0.93

01:06:10.000 We got VGEDR who says, You must renounce your Kawaru stance on best girl.

01:06:16.000 I'll never do that.

01:06:17.000 I'll never do that.

01:06:18.000 I think Kawaru is the only one who cares about Shinji.

01:06:22.000 And they're not really great options, okay?

01:06:24.000 Misato and Rey and Asuka, none of them are really fantastic options.

01:06:30.000 So we're going to have to go with Kawaru.

01:06:33.000 What is going on here?

01:06:36.000 The Streamlabs OBS is just all over the place today.

01:06:39.000 I don't know what's going on here.

01:06:43.000 Philip Fry says, What if Trump bargains that seat to Democrats for a wall? 1.00

01:06:49.000 That would be a very stupid gamble. 1.00

01:06:49.000 That wouldn't happen. 1.00

01:06:52.000 I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll use the seat as leverage either over Republicans or Democrats or even voters.

01:06:59.000 I think that could happen.

01:07:00.000 But using that as a trade, that would be a pretty asymmetrical trade.

01:07:05.000 The trick is this I think Trump will use this to great.

01:07:09.000 Effect because there is a lot at stake right now.

01:07:13.000 There is a lot of chaos.

01:07:14.000 There are a lot of things that need to be resolved, whether that's immigration, and there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty regarding the election.

01:07:22.000 So, Trump may say, Well, we might get a stronger majority after the election in the Senate, certainly a possibility, maybe even a likelihood.

01:07:31.000 So, maybe I'll give a more moderate judge in exchange for XYZ because you have no guarantee you'll keep the Senate.

01:07:37.000 And so, maybe we can appoint the most extremist person we can find if we get 53.

01:07:43.000 Senators, or 55 or 57, some say is possible.

01:07:47.000 So, it could be used that way.

01:07:48.000 It could be used on the electorate to say, pick the good senators, go out and vote so I can confirm somebody who's right on these issues.

01:07:56.000 There's a lot of ways he could play this.

01:07:58.000 So, this is actually a gift because the way to look at it more fundamentally is the appointment is something that only Trump can do.

01:08:08.000 So, once again, he regains the initiative on the deal making process.

01:08:12.000 With other things, it's in the hands of the Speaker of the House.

01:08:16.000 To carry a bill to the floor to whip the votes, or it's up to the Senate majority leader, or it's up to the judges.

01:08:22.000 With Trump, this appointment puts the ball back in his court where he can make the appointment when and if he's ready and give his blessing to whoever it's going to be.

01:08:31.000 That gives him the initiative on whatever deal he could try and make with that, whether that's a rhetorical push for people to get out the vote in November, or whether that's for immigration, or whether that's for anything else.

01:08:43.000 So it's a good thing, if not for anything else, but that this puts the ball squarely back in Trump's court.

01:08:49.000 He gets to decide the direction from here.

01:08:51.000 So, very good on that front.

01:08:53.000 Enforcer88, great username, says, Thanks for the white pills, Nick.

01:08:58.000 I've been black pilled this whole month.

01:09:00.000 Oh, and lift weights, eat veggies, and take cold showers.

01:09:04.000 Well, you're welcome for the white pills. 0.86

01:09:06.000 I'm always, you know, I'm eternally white pilled, and I'm always right. 1.00

01:09:09.000 I was right about Syria. 1.00

01:09:11.000 I was right about Syria again.

01:09:13.000 I was right about DACA. 0.65

01:09:15.000 I was right about DACA again, and then a third time.

01:09:18.000 I was right about the judges.

01:09:19.000 I mean, you can look at my record.

01:09:21.000 The only thing people say is iffy is, of course, Roy Moore, who I eternally hold in contempt.

01:09:29.000 No, he's a good man, but I hold him in contempt for challenging my record.

01:09:34.000 It's not technically a challenge because I said very clearly barring an act of God, barring a miracle, in other words, outside of tremendously extenuating circumstances, he should be the favorite.

01:09:47.000 And it was extenuating circumstances.

01:09:50.000 The Democrats had, the numbers were out of control.

01:09:53.000 28%.

01:09:53.000 Percent black turnout.

01:09:55.000 They got 96% of the turnout overall that they got in comparison to 2016. 0.82

01:10:01.000 It's a fluke.

01:10:02.000 It does not count.

01:10:03.000 I was right about everything.

01:10:04.000 So people get real cocky in the replies.

01:10:07.000 Oh, well, what about Roy Moore? 1.00

01:10:08.000 Yeah, well, what about your gay? 1.00

01:10:10.000 How about that? 0.98

01:10:12.000 Philip Fry says, or I missed the second part of that one, which is lift weights and eating veggies and cold showers.

01:10:18.000 I get my vegetable intake when I go to IHOP and I get the hamburger because you've got lettuce, tomato.

01:10:25.000 Onion, if you get an onion rings, it's a bonus.

01:10:28.000 You get your dairy because there's cheese on it.

01:10:31.000 You get meat because you've got protein, grain because of the bun.

01:10:35.000 So, really, if you have a hamburger, you're getting your food groups.

01:10:38.000 If you go to Pizza Hut, if you get, I don't know, maybe you get green pepper on there, there's your vegetable content.

01:10:47.000 Lifting weights, you know, I haven't been doing so much of that lately, but, you know, it's a tremendous effort to sit here and do this show because I'm waving my arms around.

01:10:58.000 And it's a respiratory exercise because I'm talking to you.

01:11:02.000 I have to sit up straight, so I'm working out my back.

01:11:05.000 So I think this is a pretty workout five nights a week.

01:11:08.000 So, you know, some people they work out two days a week and they go really hard.

01:11:12.000 I kind of, it's a more laid back exercise five days a week, you know, lifting weights.

01:11:17.000 And the cold showers, I just got to rule that one out.

01:11:20.000 I just got to straight away.

01:11:23.000 The only time I do the cold is when I shave.

01:11:26.000 I shave, I rinse my face off with warm water.

01:11:29.000 And then if you hit it with cool water right after, It keeps your face from getting tacky.

01:11:33.000 This is a tip for the young men out there.

01:11:36.000 Sometimes when I shave, my face gets kind of like sticky or something.

01:11:39.000 You ever get that sensation?

01:11:41.000 Or it gets kind of, it just doesn't feel quite right until maybe like a day afterwards.

01:11:45.000 But to prevent that, to keep your face from getting kind of goofy after you shave, you rinse with the hot water and then you rinse with cold water and it keeps it 300.

01:11:55.000 So that's the only time I do the cold.

01:11:57.000 I just, look, you know, my life is hard enough.

01:12:01.000 The content creator always in the kitchen.

01:12:03.000 So, the warm shower and the hamburgers.

01:12:06.000 This is my vice. 1.00

01:12:08.000 Joshua Larson says, Little seat, thick ass equals classical theist anagram. 1.00

01:12:16.000 That actually made me laugh. 1.00

01:12:18.000 Little seat, thick butt is an anagram for classical theist. 0.96

01:12:23.000 Very good. 0.91

01:12:25.000 Joshua Larson says, Hi, Nick. 1.00

01:12:28.000 Say, what do you call a sleepwalking nun, a roaming Catholic? 1.00

01:12:33.000 Great show tonight, big guy. 0.99

01:12:34.000 Very informative.

01:12:35.000 Take care, Ace.

01:12:36.000 Well, thank you for the great jokes.

01:12:38.000 Always great to have the humor.

01:12:40.000 Philip Fry says, Quit the big brain talk and get back to owning the progs.

01:12:46.000 You know, look, I like to have a variety on the show.

01:12:49.000 You know, it can't be every day the low hanging fruit kind of stuff. 0.99

01:12:55.000 You know, it's fun when we go after immigrants, it's fun when we go after Muslims, as we did earlier this week, but we've got to have some high brow 250 IQ stuff every once in a while.

01:13:06.000 And it's funny because I always get people in the comments. 0.95

01:13:10.000 Or in the chat saying, Nick is afraid to talk about Jews.

01:13:14.000 He's always afraid to talk about it because he sold out and blah, blah, blah. 0.91

01:13:18.000 And I said this the other day to my buddies in Discord if you're not talking about the Israel lobby or the Jewish lobby, if you're not talking about that every second of every day, if you're not talking about that in the exact moment, people will tell you you're afraid or you're cucking or you're dishonest or you're bought.

01:13:39.000 It's like if you're spending a single moment on camera not talking about that subject, people say he never.

01:13:44.000 He's never once talked about it.

01:13:46.000 He will never, ever, you know, which is so convenient.

01:13:49.000 Of course, it's very dishonest, but we like to have a variety on the show.

01:13:53.000 Some days we talk about immigration.

01:13:55.000 Some days we talk about the Israel lobby, Jewish influence.

01:13:58.000 Some days we talk about, hey, some days we talk about Kanye West.

01:14:02.000 Life is beautiful and diverse and rich, and we like to take our time on everything. 0.99

01:14:08.000 Mark Naneman says valid popes can err when not teaching dogma to the whole church, but a heretic can't hold office in the Catholic Church.

01:14:17.000 Paul VI taught in com ex apostolata. 0.79

01:14:23.000 I can't read that Latin word.

01:14:25.000 I got to take my Latin class.

01:14:26.000 Somebody said they were going to send me a book on how to learn Latin.

01:14:29.000 Never happened, so you can't blame me. 0.64

01:14:31.000 But they said in an encyclical to reject heretics as anti popes if elected. 0.99

01:14:37.000 Well, you have to show me when a heretic has ever been elected.

01:14:40.000 Jake Destabia says, and he says he typed out it was a fourth, Paul IV, not Paul VI. 0.86

01:14:47.000 Jake Destabia says JBP Bible lectures can increase even a devout Christian's understanding of the significance of the stories.

01:14:54.000 They are built into us as children of God.

01:14:58.000 I mean, the trick is this.

01:14:58.000 That's true.

01:15:01.000 He is changing a lot of people's minds, opening people up to the fact that Christianity may have a significance even if you're not a believer, which may get people on board with it.

01:15:13.000 And we can acknowledge that, but at the same time, as me and classical theists talked about, also understand that to deny the divinity and the realism of God may be beyond the pale in the sense that there's a ceiling as to how productive that is.

01:15:29.000 That message is in getting people over to the faith.

01:15:32.000 So don't get me wrong.

01:15:33.000 I see the utility of it.

01:15:34.000 I've defended Peterson before, although he's every time.

01:15:38.000 It's like I like him, and then he does something that really pisses me off.

01:15:41.000 And then he does something that I like, and then he does something that pisses me off.

01:15:45.000 So it's tough.

01:15:46.000 But I understand the utility to an extent of those kinds of things.

01:15:49.000 And it's a great resource even for religious people.

01:15:52.000 But if we're trying to proselytize, if we're trying to get people over, there's only so much we can do with the Jungian stuff. 0.99

01:15:59.000 Philip Fry says, Quit feeding the trolls and talk big brain, you cock. 0.98

01:16:03.000 There you have it, right? 0.99

01:16:06.000 We'll take a look at our super chats now.

01:16:06.000 Let's see.

01:16:08.000 I'm going to have to migrate the microphone over because it's on my other monitor here.

01:16:12.000 Got the dual monitors working.

01:16:13.000 Very good.

01:16:15.000 So let's see.

01:16:16.000 Problematic White Knight says, I wanted William Pryor from Alabama before Trump picked Gorsuch.

01:16:22.000 What do you think, Nick?

01:16:23.000 From what I've seen, I like William Pryor.

01:16:25.000 I like William Pryor.

01:16:26.000 And if you looked at his original list of justices, his short list that he released even during the campaign, They were all winners.

01:16:33.000 I mean, some were better than others, but they were all winners.

01:16:36.000 Young, strict constitutionalists and conservatives.

01:16:39.000 So I like them all.

01:16:41.000 But William Pryor, I've seen some very promising things from him.

01:16:45.000 Let's see.

01:16:46.000 Mike Litoris, interesting name, says What are your thoughts on the infiltration of the big water lobby by the Coca Cola company via the smart water product?

01:16:56.000 Well, you know, I love Coca Cola.

01:16:59.000 I love what Coca Cola represents.

01:17:03.000 Unfortunately, I went to Coke World in Atlanta, Georgia recently, and I was very upset, okay?

01:17:10.000 Because Coke World in Atlanta, it started in Atlanta, which I was surprised to learn.

01:17:15.000 They have like a museum where they have exhibits and there's like a big tour of it and they like show you the history of Coke.

01:17:21.000 And then there's a store.

01:17:22.000 I didn't want to pay 15 bucks or whatever it was, 25, to go through the tour.

01:17:26.000 It was also getting late in the day.

01:17:27.000 So I just went to the store.

01:17:29.000 And let me tell you, from that experience alone, I was kind of just turned off.

01:17:32.000 First of all, there was no Coke anywhere.

01:17:35.000 I go to Coca Cola World expecting I could get some exotic flavors or maybe some free samples.

01:17:40.000 There was a free sample card in front, but it was giving out little Dixie cups.

01:17:44.000 But there was no, there was only vending machines where it was like you get Coke regular, Coke cherry, the usual stuff.

01:17:50.000 And then I go into the Coke store, and it's just all these belligerent people.

01:17:55.000 I'm sure it takes some real imagination.

01:17:57.000 All these belligerent people at the Coke world in Atlanta, Georgia, who are loud and obnoxious, and they ruin my whole experience.

01:18:05.000 And of course, I'm talking about young children and nobody else.

01:18:09.000 And then additionally, okay, I will also say this I went to the truck where they're giving out the free samples, and this is so typical.

01:18:16.000 People are so obnoxious.

01:18:19.000 I go to the little truck, and they have like Coke, blood orange, Coke, raspberry, like all these cool flavors in those little Dixie cups, just like little samples.

01:18:27.000 And I see this one guy who gets up and there's like six flavors.

01:18:30.000 He's taken every single one.

01:18:33.000 He's got his hands full of like 10 different cups.

01:18:36.000 And that's so typical to me.

01:18:38.000 I'm disgusted by that kind of behavior.

01:18:39.000 People ask me, who should we deport first?

01:18:41.000 It's people like this. 0.99

01:18:43.000 You know, take one, be considerate, drink it, throw it in the little garbage, and be done.

01:18:48.000 You know, people are, I'm going to get all these and they're taking pictures and stuff.

01:18:52.000 Enough, enough.

01:18:53.000 Learn how to act in public.

01:18:54.000 It was a white guy, too. 0.81

01:18:55.000 So I was like, of course, of course, white person, you know, ruining everything all the time. 0.74

01:19:04.000 We've got, let's see, a couple more Streamlabs here. 0.58

01:19:09.000 Zaz Mail says, so glad World Report is back.

01:19:11.000 Everyone should sign up.

01:19:12.000 Content is top quality.

01:19:14.000 Very true.

01:19:15.000 World Report is my favorite show to do, probably because I'm most interested in it.

01:19:20.000 We did a great episode about Turkey yesterday.

01:19:22.000 So be sure to check that out.

01:19:24.000 We got one from yesterday we didn't get to from Knicker Nationalist, which says, Do you think our guys should go to leftist protests like the Families Belong Together one going on this Saturday?

01:19:34.000 If so, what is the most optical way to deliver our anti immigration message?

01:19:39.000 You know, I would steer clear of these things.

01:19:41.000 I may go to one because I'm a streamer and it'll, you know, maybe it'll turn into something.

01:19:46.000 But for the most part, people should stay away only because there's really nothing to gain there.

01:19:51.000 I mean, it's going to sometimes it could get ugly, it could get violent.

01:19:55.000 If Antifa's there, it's a problem.

01:19:57.000 And also, you're not going to get through to these people.

01:19:59.000 And even if you can, what do you talk to one or two?

01:20:02.000 So I usually just steer clear.

01:20:03.000 It's usually the lowest common denominator type people.

01:20:06.000 If I wouldn't go there to like periscope these things, I wouldn't go at all.

01:20:11.000 So, but if you do go, remember to just be a normal person, dress like a normal person, and present arguments that are not ambitious.

01:20:18.000 You know, people try and do this thing where they show up to a rally or they talk to people and locked and loaded, they have arguments that take a long explanation or that are really outside.

01:20:32.000 Mainstream thinking.

01:20:33.000 And it's sort of like a wrestling match.

01:20:36.000 Like, if you're not very good at wrestling, you don't go in there and try and be a showman and throw them off the ropes and suplex them off the turnbuckle.

01:20:44.000 You're just going to go for the basics.

01:20:46.000 You're going to go for a flying clothesline.

01:20:48.000 You're going to go for a leg drop.

01:20:50.000 You know, that kind of thing. 1.00

01:20:51.000 I'm talking about professional wrestling too, not the gay wrestling. 1.00

01:20:54.000 And when people show up to these kinds of things, they try and convince people about IQ. 0.92

01:21:00.000 Or they try and convince people about why all these crazy things, not crazy, but.

01:21:07.000 Very ambitious arguments to get over on liberal people, you should start with the arguments that are the quickest, that are the easiest, the simplest knockout shots.

01:21:16.000 Only one in the chamber kills, these kinds of things.

01:21:19.000 So instead of saying, well, what is race?

01:21:21.000 Race is real, it's important, you know, and that kind of thing, which might be useful in a debate for someone who really knows what they're doing, you know, go up and say, well, you know, why should we bring in any more people?

01:21:33.000 Why should we even have immigration?

01:21:34.000 You know, how does that benefit Americans? 0.90

01:21:37.000 For people to say, oh, it's good for our economy.

01:21:39.000 Say, well, if unemployment.

01:21:41.000 Is still 4 or 5%.

01:21:43.000 Why should we bring people in if we still have unemployed kids? 0.97

01:21:45.000 If the youth unemployment for black people is this high, why do we need low skilled labor from another country? 0.96

01:21:50.000 You could bring up one of these statistics that says that for every increase in immigration, you get a decrease in black wages and an increase in black unemployment. 0.80

01:21:59.000 Why would you support something like that? 0.95

01:22:01.000 You know, these are the kinds of arguments that will challenge their premises as opposed to introducing them to ours that I think are the most effective in these kinds of settings.

01:22:13.000 Hula Man says, Thanks for the great red hot.

01:22:15.000 Catholic content.

01:22:16.000 You should check out The Young Pope on HBO if you haven't already.

01:22:20.000 I will check that out.

01:22:21.000 I've watched a few excerpts from that show and appreciate you.

01:22:26.000 Al Sabadi says, Perfection has four parts, according to Aquinas, but classical theist ignores this in his understanding of God.

01:22:33.000 It would behoove him to explore this because it certainly can illuminate one to the human purpose, which is one of the parts of perfection.

01:22:41.000 Well, there you have it.

01:22:42.000 I'm not going to intercede in a very philosophical type conversation.

01:22:47.000 I'm not really qualified to jump into it.

01:22:51.000 I don't know, classical theist point on this one.

01:22:54.000 Maybe you got that from his Twitter, but maybe he'll bring you on his channel.

01:23:00.000 Bakelite Respecter says Great discussion, fellas.

01:23:04.000 Theological discussion is well mannered and healthy.

01:23:07.000 God is the only way.

01:23:08.000 CT is a smart guy and a great guest.

01:23:11.000 Much love from Orthodox Twitter. 0.92

01:23:13.000 The schism will be resolved through East West conversion of Twitter pagans. 0.90

01:23:16.000 God bless.

01:23:18.000 Much appreciated, big guy.

01:23:19.000 God bless you too.

01:23:20.000 And yeah, I mean, pagans will either convert or they'll be ignored, basically, right?

01:23:25.000 You know, I'll be debating Greg Johnson tomorrow about paganism and Christianity, and we'll see how it goes.

01:23:32.000 You know, he's an educated guy, but I've read his two contentions against Christianity.

01:23:37.000 He argued in an article not too long ago that Christianity has led to the destruction of the West because it puts Jews in very high esteem and also it celebrates weakness.

01:23:50.000 And this is the Nietzschean argument it's slave morality.

01:23:52.000 And if that's what he's going to show up with tomorrow, It's not going to go well for him, but we'll see what happens.

01:23:59.000 Eternal German says HH White Brother, Nick, what do you say to people who suggest that the only true corrective response to things being shifted so far left and egalitarian is fascism?

01:24:11.000 You know, it's not a totally wrong argument.

01:24:15.000 It's simply, well, here's my perspective on it.

01:24:19.000 You need a vanguard to transition from one order to another order.

01:24:26.000 In the sense that you look at Vladimir Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping.

01:24:30.000 This is the argument I made in my podcast yesterday.

01:24:33.000 You need a vanguard, a strong leader, a strong central government, consistent, and delivering a country from one phase in their history to another for real transitions to happen.

01:24:44.000 You know, you can have a revolution, but a revolution does not succeed unless its reforms are institutionalized.

01:24:51.000 And so you could see many great revolutions have happened, where you had a revolution in Russia.

01:24:56.000 In 1917, you had a revolution in Germany in 1933.

01:25:00.000 You had a revolution in France in 1789.

01:25:02.000 You had a revolution in America in 1776.

01:25:06.000 You had one in Iran in 1779. 0.88

01:25:09.000 I'm sorry, in 1979.

01:25:11.000 But in each of these cases, we can discern where they are a success or a failure by how they were institutionalized.

01:25:17.000 And to be institutionalized, you have to have a vanguard, you have to have a ruling party which is pragmatic as opposed to principled and which is able to hold the reins of power long enough that they can see these changes take root.

01:25:28.000 It happened in some cases, not in all.

01:25:30.000 It happened in Iran, where their revolutionary government took charge.

01:25:34.000 And in contrast with the very fundamentalist, extremist sentiments and feelings of the revolution, they elected a government or put in place a government, installed the government more properly, that was extremely pragmatic and understood the different factions, understood the military and the judicial system and the religious leaders and all the rest.

01:25:57.000 And they put together a government that had longevity.

01:25:59.000 And there was Khomeini.

01:26:02.000 Or, how do they pronounce it?

01:26:03.000 Hominee, who led from 79, I think, to 89, was it, that Khamenei came into power?

01:26:10.000 And he was able to transfer the government from a Shah's government to an Ayatollah's government. 0.64

01:26:15.000 Very different in the Soviet Union, very different in Nazi Germany, very different in revolutionary France, where these governments didn't last very long. 0.80

01:26:25.000 And so you could say that a fascist system would be effective or expeditious in getting a vanguard into power and leading a transition.

01:26:33.000 But I just think it's supremely unlikely.

01:26:35.000 That's when I get all these revolutionaries who don't really understand this about history.

01:26:40.000 You know, there's very excited people, very, you know, there's a lot of fervor and all that.

01:26:46.000 I understand it.

01:26:47.000 I understand the excitement.

01:26:48.000 But that often leads to this kind of fantasy thinking where it'll be different this time.

01:26:54.000 We don't have to think about practical considerations because we're right and what we believe is true.

01:26:59.000 You know, and that way these people are no different than the Marxists you met in college who thought my strain of Maoist Leninism is going to make everything perfect.

01:27:08.000 We just have to get people to read enough, you know, whoever, whatever their pet author is.

01:27:14.000 It's just silly.

01:27:15.000 We have to be pragmatic.

01:27:16.000 And to understand that, or to be pragmatic, we have to understand that the best way to achieve our reforms, to put in place a vanguard, is through the party system.

01:27:27.000 It's much simpler to work within the existing structure than to invent a new one.

01:27:31.000 That's a very difficult task.

01:27:32.000 I don't think people understand what goes into it.

01:27:34.000 Destroying an old order and then creating a new one is impossibly difficult.

01:27:38.000 Much easier.

01:27:40.000 To wield existing levers of power, which are open for anybody to get into and start moving things around.

01:27:47.000 Trump, in a very similar vein to Turkey and to China and to Russia, has taken the same steps they have to institutionalize their power.

01:27:54.000 Erdogan went after the press, the courts, and he shut down a coup in the military.

01:27:59.000 This is how he beat back any kind of coup attempt by liberals or reformers or anything like that.

01:28:05.000 Vladimir Putin did effectively the same thing.

01:28:07.000 He didn't have to worry about a coup from the military so much, but he brought the oligarchs to heel, he crushed the media.

01:28:13.000 And he reformed the Constitution so that it was centered around the president.

01:28:17.000 Xi Jinping made his country basically a dictatorship as opposed to it was kind of that way before, but maybe you could say there was some more debate and maybe an oligarchy with the Standing Committee and that kind of thing.

01:28:30.000 Trump, in a very similar way to these three leaders, has gone after the press by delegitimizing them.

01:28:36.000 He has controlled the courts by getting the federal judiciary conservative, the Supreme Court conservative, the military, he's gotten their loyalty by putting in generals, respected people in his cabinet.

01:28:49.000 And in terms of the oligarchs, he is showing that the bully pulpit is very powerful against companies like the NFL, among others, businesses through trade.

01:28:57.000 So I think if you look at the way other modern vanguard leaders are leading their countries in this transition away from ideology, away from liberalism and globalism towards ethnicity, towards national identity, towards tradition and religion, Trump is taking advantage of the same things.

01:29:17.000 There's structural weaknesses in our system that those systems don't have, but he's doing it very well.

01:29:22.000 Very skillfully.

01:29:24.000 Let's see.

01:29:25.000 Nick Fan says, good name, by the way, says, LMAO, your catechism says Jews and Muslims are saved. 0.93

01:29:31.000 Love my Catholic brothers and sisters, but you should stop trying to claim superiority over Protz.

01:29:37.000 Prima Scriptura, Protz actually have an orthodox systematic theology that's very detailed.

01:29:43.000 You know, look, Protestants, this is so typical, of course, of Protestants. 0.57

01:29:48.000 Well, and then not so much Protestants, but, you know, people who don't really see the real enemy.

01:29:52.000 I don't attack Protestants.

01:29:53.000 I don't go out of my way to attack Protestants.

01:29:56.000 I don't go out of my way to attack Orthodox.

01:29:58.000 I merely affirm.

01:29:59.000 The superiority of Catholic doctrine, of Catholic dogma.

01:30:03.000 But Protestants, you know, you shouldn't go out of your way to attack people and then attack people, by the way, who can demolish your arguments about the Bible, about the faith.

01:30:14.000 I don't go out of my way to attack Protestants, but if you're going to try and pull out this sola scriptura kind of stuff, I will point out that remember in the scripture that you are such a fan of, that you think can stand alone and all the rest.

01:30:29.000 It says that Christ builds his church on the rock of Peter.

01:30:33.000 I don't understand how you escape that.

01:30:35.000 I don't understand how you escape the premise that Jesus Christ in your Bible says that he is building a church on the rock of Peter.

01:30:44.000 He gives Peter the keys to loose and bind and the keys to the kingdom and all the rest.

01:30:49.000 I don't understand how you can reject those parts of Scripture but say that you're, oh, it's just about Scripture and not about the church.

01:30:56.000 And by the way, all the early church fathers recognized That the church was legitimate, the church in Rome was legitimate, so you've got none of the early church fathers.

01:31:06.000 You have 500 years of tradition as opposed to 2,000 years of tradition.

01:31:11.000 So, to me, it just makes no sense where the Protestant kind of stuff comes from.

01:31:15.000 And you say, oh, well, on a couple of political things I disagree with, you're not all the way there. 0.94

01:31:21.000 But of course, it's just silly.

01:31:23.000 Christ came to build the church, he left us with the church, not with just a text.

01:31:28.000 You know, how could a Protestant differentiate between the Schofield Bible, for example?

01:31:32.000 How about the Schofield Bible?

01:31:34.000 By what authority do you say that that Bible is less legitimate than yours?

01:31:38.000 By what authority do you say that Universalists are less legitimate Christians than you are?

01:31:42.000 By what authority?

01:31:43.000 Because of your opinion?

01:31:45.000 Because of your interpretation of Scripture?

01:31:47.000 How do you even know which books to read?

01:31:49.000 Who put together the books?

01:31:50.000 The church.

01:31:52.000 Unless you're telling me that you alone also have the authority to say which books constitute the Bible.

01:31:58.000 Give me a break with this kind of stuff.

01:31:59.000 It's just totally incoherent. 1.00

01:32:01.000 So, look, I have no problem with Protestants. 0.99

01:32:04.000 I have no problem accepting them as brothers in Christ.

01:32:07.000 You know, just because they're not in communion with the church doesn't mean they can't be saved.

01:32:11.000 But when they come at me with this kind of stuff, it's just like, oh, I have this little thing to nitpick.

01:32:17.000 Okay, well, your whole thing is just incoherent, makes no sense. 0.64

01:32:22.000 I saw a debate the other day between a Mormon and a Protestant.

01:32:27.000 And the Mormon, or the Protestant said, well, Mormons believe that all people will become gods.

01:32:32.000 Well, in the Bible, it says that God is, there's only one God.

01:32:36.000 You know, there's not, people are not going to become gods.

01:32:38.000 It says in Scripture that that's not going to happen.

01:32:41.000 And the Mormon said, Well, maybe I interpret it differently than you do. 0.93

01:32:44.000 And I just had to laugh out loud. 0.98

01:32:46.000 Because here's a Mormon and a Protestant saying, My interpretation is correct. 0.97

01:32:50.000 No, mine is correct. 0.99

01:32:51.000 Gee, wouldn't it be great if Jesus Christ established some authority through succession that would be the sole authority on matters of doctrine?

01:33:00.000 Wouldn't it be great if there was some, I don't know, vicar of Christ on earth who could mediate these kinds of disputes and make an ultimate decision to prevent eternal and perpetual wars of religion? 0.63

01:33:12.000 Or no, maybe your one Protestant sect out of hundreds is the correct one. 0.99

01:33:16.000 You know, we're all going to hell, but the Anabaptists in this particular strain, they're the ones that have got it right. 0.91

01:33:24.000 Or you could be like the Protestants who say, we're all equally a little bit wrong, and in which case you have no respect for the Word of God or God Himself. 0.99

01:33:32.000 So, this kind of stuff, I'm no expert, but I mean, you look at these principles, it's like it's incoherent.

01:33:39.000 It's built on sand, it's built on a pile of sand.

01:33:42.000 Well, my book says this.

01:33:44.000 Okay, well, without a church, your book is not going to last very long.

01:33:47.000 The Constitution barely lasted.

01:33:50.000 200 years.

01:33:53.000 And that's a legal document.

01:33:54.000 Your religious text, without a church to uphold it, without a church protected from error to interpret it, it's not going to last very long.

01:34:02.000 I know in scripture it says, my words will never expire, or they'll carry on until the kingdom of God and all the rest, but he also set up a church to ensure that that happens.

01:34:12.000 Let's see. 0.97

01:34:14.000 Bill Baggs says, as someone who is enlightened on the topic of Jewish people and their impact, if Muslims deserve to be banned, why don't they buy the same token? 1.00

01:34:23.000 You're doing God's work, Nick. 1.00

01:34:24.000 Keep it up.

01:34:26.000 Well, we don't want to ban anybody.

01:34:28.000 We just want everybody to come and live in harmony, of course. 0.99

01:34:31.000 We're a country built on Judeo Christian values, of which include tolerance for people who either don't believe in the divinity of Christ like Muslims do, which isn't so bad, or Jewish people who, according to the Talmud, say that Christ is burning in excrement and semen. 0.99

01:34:46.000 Look, I didn't make that up. 0.99

01:34:47.000 Not my words.

01:34:48.000 That's just the Jewish holy book.

01:34:50.000 So it's just kind of weird because Protestants, or I'm sorry, not Protestants, but like white evangelicals, And a lot of conservatives will say we have to ban Muslims because Islam contradicts Christianity.

01:35:02.000 But I mean, even Muslims say that Christ was a holy figure.

01:35:07.000 They don't say he's the son of God, but I mean, even they afford him a lot of respect.

01:35:11.000 Some might describe Islam as a Christian heresy, but you know, Jewish people say in the Talmud that Christ is not only not a holy figure, but is a well, they say some nasty things in the Talmud.

01:35:22.000 They say first he's in hell, they also say all his followers are going to hell. 0.86

01:35:26.000 They say that they look forward to his followers going to hell. 0.99

01:35:29.000 They say that Jesus is not only in hell, but he's boiling in excrement and urine and semen. 0.99

01:35:34.000 It's all boiling. 0.98

01:35:35.000 It's a very unfortunate situation.

01:35:37.000 They say Mary, his mother, was somebody who slept around, an adulterer.

01:35:42.000 They say he was an adulterer.

01:35:44.000 They say he's a usurper.

01:35:45.000 I mean, they say some nasty things.

01:35:46.000 So, I don't know.

01:35:47.000 It's just kind of weird.

01:35:49.000 I'm just saying it's a little maybe not consistent that they say this category, even though they like our religion for the most part.

01:35:56.000 I mean, they think Islam will dominate the world and they believe in the Dar al Islam and all that.

01:36:01.000 But they're not so nice on the other side either.

01:36:04.000 So maybe we should take a more holistic approach.

01:36:06.000 Of course, we love Jewish people on the show.

01:36:09.000 We would never say anything anti Semitic, of course, because it's all Judeo Christian values, folks.

01:36:17.000 Swift says the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is just as subjective as any Protestant's and has changed constantly through history.

01:36:23.000 Both rely on clergy.

01:36:25.000 That's just simply not true.

01:36:26.000 I mean, that's just simply a falsehood.

01:36:28.000 The magisterium has never reversed anything on doctrine, they've made minor adjustments, but there has never been a reversal.

01:36:35.000 There's never been one instance that you can point to in the history of the Catholic Church where they made an interpretation of doctrine where they said this is the way it is and then reversed it.

01:36:44.000 It simply hasn't happened.

01:36:47.000 And of course, it's not subjective because Christ said he prays for Peter's faith.

01:36:51.000 Christ himself protects the papacy, protects the church from error when they are contributing to the magisterium.

01:36:58.000 So the idea that a Protestant whose interpretation of the Bible is entirely his own, is entirely an individual, versus the interpretation of the vicar of Christ on earth protected from error.

01:37:10.000 Descended from Peter, which Christ said was the leader and the rock on which the church is built, is just simply disingenuous, not true.

01:37:20.000 But I understand. 0.91

01:37:23.000 Look, Protestants, just come back to Rome. 1.00

01:37:26.000 Come back to Mother Church. 1.00

01:37:27.000 We want to have you. 1.00

01:37:29.000 I love Protestants. 0.52

01:37:30.000 I love all brothers in Christ, all of them.

01:37:33.000 And certainly, I prefer Protestants, atheists, pagans any day of the week.

01:37:37.000 But number one, you can't be nasty to Catholics because then we're going to throw out the arguments and it's not going to work out well.

01:37:43.000 So, We welcome you guys into the Catholic Church.

01:37:46.000 We want you guys to become in communion with Christ's church.

01:37:50.000 It's big enough for everybody.

01:37:52.000 But you got to stop with the sola scriptura stuff, folks.

01:37:55.000 I mean, Martin Luther, come on, 500 years ago, that's your faith.

01:37:58.000 Ours goes back thousands of years.

01:38:00.000 We go back to Christ himself. 0.97

01:38:02.000 Where's the apostolic succession for Protestants? 0.97

01:38:04.000 It isn't there. 0.99

01:38:06.000 But that's ours.

01:38:07.000 But we love you, folks, anyway.

01:38:08.000 We love everybody.

01:38:09.000 You'll know we're Christians by our love.

01:38:11.000 Isn't that so great, folks?

01:38:12.000 Even though we disagree, we still love you at the end of the day.

01:38:15.000 We still love everybody.

01:38:17.000 But that doesn't mean we will permit error into the divine wisdom.

01:38:21.000 So it looks like those are all our super chats and stream labs.

01:38:25.000 And hey, that's a lot, folks.

01:38:26.000 We've been on the air for an hour and 45 minutes.

01:38:29.000 So we're going to call the night.

01:38:31.000 It has been a great show.

01:38:34.000 And we're excited to have classical theists to talk about the faith.

01:38:37.000 You know, tomorrow we'll resume.

01:38:39.000 Well, actually, it'll be a religious debate tomorrow.

01:38:41.000 But Friday we'll resume political stuff.

01:38:44.000 But thanks so much for watching.

01:38:45.000 If you want to check out America First Premium, go on our website.

01:38:50.000 My website, who's R?

01:38:51.000 My website, Nicholas, R refers to the Jewish community of which I preside over.

01:38:58.000 No, just joking.

01:38:58.000 Go to my website, NicholasJFuentes.comslash membership, and sign up for America First Premium, five bucks a month.

01:39:06.000 You get the World Report podcast, the 2018 Election HQ podcast, you get the podcast audio only format of this show, and lastly, you get a special role in our Discord server.

01:39:17.000 So be sure to check it out.

01:39:18.000 We'll have another big episode of 2018 Election HQ dropping tomorrow.

01:39:22.000 So, we look forward to that.

01:39:24.000 Remember to subscribe to our channel.

01:39:26.000 If you like what you see, give us a big thumbs up.

01:39:28.000 Leave a comment below.

01:39:29.000 This is a show for people that were asking about Catholicism.

01:39:29.000 Be nice.

01:39:32.000 This is not an affront to anybody, it's not an attack on anybody.

01:39:36.000 I missed a super chat, it looks like.

01:39:39.000 For future reference, I'm not, you know, if people donate a super chat after I start the outro, I'm just going to read it the next day.

01:39:47.000 So, please no interruptions.

01:39:49.000 We're in the outro, we're in the homestretch.

01:39:51.000 If you throw up a super chat at 8 45, there's not a whole lot I can do for you.

01:39:57.000 Let me see.

01:39:58.000 Did I miss one?

01:39:59.000 Here we go.

01:39:59.000 Philip Frye, who says, Serious question this time.

01:40:02.000 Do you believe in the theory that communism and fascism are mortal enemies?

01:40:06.000 It seems that every time in history, when one ideology appears, the other will rise to counter.

01:40:10.000 Well, they both didn't exist before 1848.

01:40:13.000 So I don't know if they're eternal or mortal enemies.

01:40:17.000 Communism began in 1848 with the Communist Manifesto.

01:40:21.000 Oh, no, but actually, socialism came before.

01:40:25.000 You know, these are two modernist ideologies.

01:40:28.000 They didn't exist before modernism.

01:40:30.000 You could say they existed in.

01:40:31.000 Maybe early forms throughout time, but fascism and communism, as we know them now, are pretty recent, pretty modern.

01:40:41.000 But anyway, so I wouldn't agree that they're mortal enemies.

01:40:46.000 I believe that the forces they represent, order and chaos or egalitarianism and hierarchy, I believe the forces underpinning them are cosmological, or maybe they're much greater than more superficial political forces.

01:41:01.000 They have always existed, always had expressions.

01:41:03.000 In history, but fascism and communism are very new, modern political ideologies, haven't existed forever, but the forces they represent are forever.

01:41:12.000 So perhaps.

01:41:15.000 And let's see.

01:41:17.000 All right, I think that's everything now.

01:41:18.000 I think we've got everything.

01:41:21.000 So remember to leave a comment.

01:41:22.000 This is not an affront to Protestants, not an affront to Orthodox people.

01:41:25.000 People ask about Catholicism.

01:41:27.000 I tell them about it.

01:41:28.000 That's all.

01:41:29.000 So I hope you enjoyed.

01:41:30.000 Click the notification bell to get notified every time we go live.

01:41:33.000 We're on the air Monday through Friday, 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

01:41:38.000 I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.

01:41:39.000 This was America First.

01:41:41.000 As always, thank you guys for watching.

01:41:42.000 Thank you to Classical Theists for joining us tonight.

01:41:45.000 Thank you to our Streamlabbers, Super Chatters, and our Premium members, as always.

01:41:49.000 We love you, folks.

01:41:50.000 And we'll see you tomorrow for the big debate Me versus Greg Johnson, the final pagan Catholic showdown.

01:41:56.000 It's going to answer all the questions, shut down all the haters.

01:41:59.000 It should be a good time.

01:42:00.000 So we hope you'll join us.

01:42:02.000 Until then, have a great rest of your evening.

01:42:04.000 We'll see you tomorrow.

01:42:08.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

01:42:15.000 It's going to be only America first.

01:42:17.000 America first. 0.99

01:42:18.000 The American people will come first once again.

01:42:24.000 With respect.

01:42:53.000 America

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - June 27, 2018

Who is God A Catholic Perspective feat. Classical Theist | America First Ep. 189

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript