The NXR Podcast - CN Weekly - The Monstrous Regimen Of Women w⧸Dale Partridge

00:00:00.000 So as you all know, we recently had a terrible ruling from the Supreme Court in regards to

00:00:05.620 birthright citizenship. And as you could just about expect, the vote was divided between the

00:00:12.580 nine Supreme Court justices down the middle, not quite the middle, enough for us to get the ruling

00:00:18.420 we did not want. Five Supreme Court justices voted to uphold birthright citizenship. Now,

00:00:24.760 all five of them were spiritually female, four of them biologically female, and this is not a

00:00:30.840 surprise. You have nine Supreme Court justices, four of them are biological women, and all four

00:00:37.380 of them vote with their empathy, with their hearts, not their heads, so that every single

00:00:44.300 foreigner who comes and visits Disneyland for three days and happens to have a baby during

00:00:50.620 their vacation, that child will be a citizen of the United States, anchoring, an anchor baby,

00:00:58.080 that phrase, that terminology is used for a reason, anchoring in their mother, their father,

00:01:03.300 and eventually, as they work the system, their great aunt and great uncle and all of them will

00:01:09.780 be on some form of welfare, and you will be paying for it. If you remember the scene from

00:01:15.420 the Matrix. There's a moment in the first movie where Neo is asking Morpheus, so what are we if

00:01:23.720 we're just powering robots? If we're not really in the real world, our corpse is sitting there in a

00:01:29.060 pod in the real world. Meanwhile, everything that we're experiencing is some sort of syndication.

00:01:34.980 What is humanity in reality? And Morpheus holds up a battery, right? A lot of people are asking

00:01:41.900 these days, what is an American? Well, there's a lot of theological, political, cultural,

00:01:48.760 national answers to that question of what an American should be, right? The answer of what

00:01:54.740 American should be, but in terms of what an American is, actually is, in the year of our

00:02:00.440 Lord, 2026, you are a battery. You energize the world. You are a tax farm. You are a slave.

00:02:08.740 You're living in some degree, some measure of comfort and placation, sitting in front of Netflix, living in your pod, your condo or whatever it is, working, producing, being overtaxed in order to fund the entire world.

00:02:26.540 And what we're going to be talking about in today's episode is why.

00:02:30.820 And yes, there are a number of answers to that question. 0.58

00:02:34.580 Part of it is Jewish supremacy. 1.00

00:02:36.840 Part of it is feminism. 1.00

00:02:39.320 Part of it is third-worlders wanting to take and take and take. 1.00

00:02:44.140 But we do want to hone in on that second answer that I just provided, feminism.

00:02:49.740 It is not a coincidence that four out of the nine Supreme Court justices, all biological women, all voted the same way, and the one person that we really want to draw our focus in on today is Amy Coney Barrett.

00:03:05.460 She was in a Trump appointment, in a lot of ways kind of a Mitch McConnell appointment, and so that kind of checks out, but Trump signed off on her. 0.99

00:03:15.900 She was supposed to be right-wing. She was supposed to be conservative. She was supposed to be Christian and based and all these things. 1.00

00:03:22.360 and here's the big idea that I want to convey to you in today's episode. She was and is. She is a

00:03:30.820 conservative woman. She is, I think, a Christian woman. She is right-wing, but a woman. And my

00:03:41.100 point is that even a conservative woman is still, politically speaking, a liberal. Is she conservative 0.92

00:03:49.920 in God's appointed role of mother? Does she behave as a conservative mother? I think that 0.97

00:03:57.500 she would if she would go home and be with her kids and not serve as a Supreme Court justice. 1.00

00:04:03.200 The fact that she has multiple children, that is a conservative virtue in motherhood in that realm. 0.88

00:04:10.220 The fact that she even adopted two interracial—they have an interracial family from another

00:04:15.500 nation to children from Haiti. That is permissible, biblically speaking, and given the circumstances

00:04:21.760 and the context, it can be not only permissible, it could even be commendable, and perhaps it is

00:04:27.600 in her case. So for a woman to have womanly affection for her own children, and even affection

00:04:34.380 that overflows from her role of motherhood to other children, and bringing them in, adopting 0.53

00:04:40.560 them, even from another culture, another nationality, another race, and nurturing them,

00:04:46.020 caring for them, all these things. It's not that that's liberal. That is conservative,

00:04:51.060 but it's a conservative mother. It's a conservative woman. The problem is not actually Amy Coney 1.00

00:04:57.860 Barrett. The problem is the context. She never, ever, as well as the other three women on the

00:05:05.820 Supreme Court justice should have been placed in that role. Why do you not have a country? Why do 0.91

00:05:11.560 you have to, as a parent, look your children in the eye and tell them that their inheritance will

00:05:16.820 be stolen from them, is being stolen from them? A number of reasons, but we cannot skip over this

00:05:23.720 one, because we are ruled by foreigners and women. It is the monstrous regiment of women that John 1.00

00:05:31.680 Knox, the late great reformer, wrote about. As a Scottish reformer, he said that the rule 1.00

00:05:39.240 of women is tyranny, not because they're mean-spirited by nature, not because they're

00:05:44.800 liberal always, but in the role of leadership, any form of leadership in the home, in the church, 1.00

00:05:51.180 or in the state, they will lead poorly. That's our episode. Let's dive in now.

00:05:56.800 radical christian nationalist pastor joel webin joel webin i'm going to talk about joel webin

00:06:05.080 joel webin is an accident

00:06:07.300 All right, we are back with another episode of Christian Nationalism Weekly. It is Monday,

00:06:30.720 July 13th, and our very own Wesley Todd is out of the studio today. He is traveling,

00:06:36.560 be praying for him. He'll be back in the studio very shortly, in just a matter of days. In the

00:06:41.860 meantime, we actually have Pastor Dale Partridge joining us, and he is on our network. He leads a

00:06:49.560 show, hosts a show on Tuesdays called American Glory, so he's on the NXR network, and we have

00:06:55.560 him in the studio today, which is perfect because we're talking about this monstrous regiment of 0.98

00:07:01.580 women. And you're actually writing a book on that precise topic that will be coming out later this 1.00

00:07:07.000 year. Yeah, I'm working on 19 Reasons to Repeal the 19th Amendment, which is going to be a book

00:07:12.120 broadly on feminism, and specifically about a political invasion of women, as well as the

00:07:19.480 broader topic around the 19th Amendment itself, the history, the rationale, the reason to repeal

00:07:25.080 it. When you were talking during your Open, I was thinking about the reason women—well, 0.85

00:07:33.220 I'll back up a little bit. There's a situation that goes on. Women tend to side with the 1.00

00:07:38.700 tyrants. They tend to side with who is perceived to win in a particular battle. And they do that 1.00

00:07:45.880 because of fear, right? Women are wired for avoiding fear, avoiding harm, avoiding anything 1.00

00:07:52.740 that might put them into a particular situation of danger. They are wired for peace. And so for 0.97

00:07:59.620 the longest time, maybe 40, 50 years, they have realized that the one who loses in this cultural 0.59

00:08:08.040 battle is white Christian men. And as a result, she is siding with what she thinks the populace 0.56

00:08:17.620 will side with because there's danger in opposing the populace and opposing that giant body of

00:08:25.940 people that has been historically against the other side. Now, I will say in feminism, what 0.94

00:08:31.840 we've seen is an optimization for harm reduction. That's what their life is about. It's this 1.00

00:08:37.920 optimization of harm reduction. And it's why feminists essentially get themselves in a situation 1.00

00:08:43.340 where they find themselves alone, right? Marriage is an opportunity for harm. Children is an 1.00

00:08:47.900 opportunity for harm. So essentially, you find these cat women that are alone by themselves, 1.00

00:08:53.060 that don't have any kids, and they're doing that out of harm reduction. But in a political 0.53

00:08:58.040 state where you have fear all around you because it's a warrior coliseum, it's a battle,

00:09:05.140 and there's lots of people that you could upset to be frustrated with, to be in a position of

00:09:09.480 of danger. I think these women are making decisions purely based off of the biological 1.00

00:09:15.200 reality that they desire peace. And so it is difficult to trust a woman to make a difficult 1.00

00:09:20.560 decision that will cause her to have great enemies, to have limited peace, to have much

00:09:25.960 threats come at her. And when the alternative is to, you know, vote for birthright citizenship. 0.97

00:09:34.840 Yes, that's a great point. I was just going to say, I know, Joel, you've said this in the past

00:09:37.740 in terms of women being NPCs,

00:09:39.840 meaning naturally, I think, pursuing consensus. 0.98

00:09:43.420 I think that's kind of the flip side of the coin.

00:09:44.780 There's a non-player character element,

00:09:48.040 but the better way is naturally pursuing consensus.

00:09:51.800 Which is the other side of the coin

00:09:52.960 that Dale's talking about. 0.95

00:09:54.160 So I don't want to be a rabble rouser.

00:09:56.560 I don't want to affect the piece. 1.00

00:09:59.380 And so as a consequence,

00:10:00.260 I'm always going to go with what's popular,

00:10:03.480 what's the more safe path,

00:10:05.440 the path that's been taken.

00:10:06.980 And I actually find that interesting in the context of a Supreme Court decision like birthright citizenship because – and a lot of our listeners will know this, but this decision was predominantly made on the basis of what's called in the legal context stare decisis.

00:10:20.940 It's a Latin term that means to stand by things already decided.

00:10:24.900 It's essentially – it's an operatus that the Supreme Court's operated under for at least a century.

00:10:32.820 It's basically we are going to stand by precedent, right?

00:10:35.900 So if you have the 14th Amendment and you've had 10, 15 court cases that have ruled on that already in some particular context, we're going to stand by the thing already decided with respect to the 14th Amendment. 0.88

00:10:47.320 And yet at the same time, so you're right, there is a sense of the woman's instinct is to go along to get along.

00:10:53.380 To be fair, though, to Amy Coney Barrett, there was another decision where the precedent for 50 years was overturned, namely Roe v. Wade.

00:11:05.280 And what I would say is that as much as there is that NPC, naturally pursuing consensus, go along to get along instinct in a woman, there's also, I think, an even greater mama bear, right? Maternal instinct in a woman, especially in a woman like Amy Coney Barrett, who probably is, again, as a person, as an individual, she's probably a great mother.

00:11:28.620 I would just like to see her in that role more and in leadership of our country less.

00:11:34.560 But her as a mother figure, all women, but especially her, you can see in her family

00:11:39.800 life, her living that out, it actually makes perfect sense that in her mind, she's being

00:11:45.780 consistent.

00:11:46.740 So in the angle that you're taking in terms of going along to get along, what's the path

00:11:52.380 of least resistance?

00:11:54.080 Well, in one case, she sticks with the status quo, but in the other, she overturns the status 0.92

00:11:59.700 quo. 1.00

00:11:59.960 But there's another element of women, the maternal side, and that element, she's being

00:12:04.940 painfully, and it quite literally is painful for our country, consistent, or at least what

00:12:10.560 she perceives maternally as consistent.

00:12:12.940 In other words, Roe v. Wade, voting for babies to live.

00:12:17.300 In this, birthright citizenship, voting for babies to live well, to have a good life.

00:12:23.480 right? So in both instances, in her mind, pro-baby. Pro-baby. Not necessarily pro-America.

00:12:31.140 The art world has completely abandoned beauty. What used to point people towards truth now

00:12:37.140 celebrates chaos, ugliness, and radical individualism. That's not an accident. It's

00:12:43.840 the fruit of a culture that has ultimately rejected God. See, art is not neutral. It disciples 0.60

00:12:50.300 people. Jacob Dinman of Dinman Originals is working to reclaim fine art for Christ and for

00:12:58.100 America. His paintings aren't just decorations, they're statements. Pieces like A New Manifest

00:13:05.260 Destiny and Heritage Revival present a vision of an American Renaissance rooted in Christian faith,

00:13:13.060 ordered liberty, and the inheritance our fathers handed down to us. And there's something for

00:13:19.560 every budget. You can start with high-quality art prints for just $40. You could purchase

00:13:26.420 hand-drawn original sketches for only $100 or invest in a one-of-one original painting,

00:13:33.640 each of these representing hundreds of hours of work. If we're serious about rebuilding

00:13:39.480 Christian civilization, we should surround ourselves with the things that remind us

00:13:44.580 of what's true, what's good, and what's beautiful. Check out the link in the description below to

00:13:50.620 see the full collection from Denman Originals. So my thought is, if the consensus in the culture

00:13:59.140 was against birthright citizenship, and she believed that in her own world, her own orbit,

00:14:05.140 her own relationships that are closest to her were against birthright citizenship,

00:14:10.760 would she have still voted that way or would she have voted against it and my theory is that

00:14:16.320 i think that at this point she was still convinced that there was to fear more people against her

00:14:24.580 than the people for her and i think that generally with women you know men are privileged to ask the

00:14:31.660 question is this true is something true because they're courageous they're willing to say i don't

00:14:37.040 care the consequences. If this is true, then I will put my name on the line. Women often care,

00:14:44.520 if I believe this, what will people think of me? That's the driving factor behind those decisions. 0.99

00:14:51.860 And so I'm wondering, in Amy's position, what people around her pressured her? Because that's

00:15:00.420 how you make a... Including her own children. So it's not just what will the people collectively, 1.00

00:15:05.420 The people of the country or the people of the world, you know, or Time magazine or some, you know, liberal reporter, what will they think of me?

00:15:13.760 Obviously, I'd like to think as a Supreme Court justice, even though she is a female, she probably bears some kind of resilience to just the opinions of the peanut gallery.

00:15:23.620 However, I guarantee it is very pressing on her, the opinions and the feelings, the emotions, the mental well-being of her children, including her two adopted children from other countries.

00:15:40.480 Like, what kind of strain, potentially?

00:15:43.800 And I understand that this is speculation, but this is not far-fetched.

00:15:47.020 And these are the kinds of questions that we need to be honest enough with ourselves to be able to ask.

00:15:51.700 Is there any scenario where there would be some degree of familial strain, not from the world or from the liberal news organizations, but from her own children, perhaps her own husband, in her own house, right?

00:16:07.280 Would there be a tension, a division in their family if she's saying, no, children born in this country, strictly by mere virtue of being born here, does not make them belong?

00:16:21.700 And then turn around in the same breath and tell her two Haitian children, but you belong.

00:16:27.440 You belong to me.

00:16:29.100 You belong to this nation. 0.63

00:16:31.240 You're just as American as anyone else, which they're not. 0.89

00:16:34.620 They're not. 0.56

00:16:34.920 That doesn't make them bad people.

00:16:36.560 That doesn't mean that they're not made in the image of God.

00:16:39.640 It doesn't mean that they're not Christians.

00:16:40.980 It doesn't mean that they're not viewed by God with dignity and all these things.

00:16:46.280 But we have to be able to say her two Haitian children are not American. 0.82

00:16:51.060 And I'm okay, and I know you're okay, Dale, and you, Antonio, we're okay with having, and not just okay, we think it would be ideal if we could speak more categorically and have multiple tiers.

00:17:03.860 Like, I would like to be able to say Amy Coney Barrett's adoptive children, by virtue of their adoption, have residency, right?

00:17:11.860 They have some form of, and I'm doing, if you're listening, citizenship, but they are not American by blood.

00:17:19.980 Correct.

00:17:20.420 To be American, just like being Scottish or being English or being Ugandan, it has to mean something.

00:17:28.760 And we all acknowledge to be an American is more than just lineage and land, right?

00:17:35.240 Blood and soil.

00:17:36.680 But it can't be less, because the moment it becomes less, then it simply becomes a matter of propositions.

00:17:45.040 If I can learn the language of English, if I can come to appreciate Thomas Jefferson, if I eat, you know, pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving and shoot fireworks on the 4th of July, then anyone can be an American.

00:17:58.960 But if anyone is an American, then no one is.

00:18:02.560 Correct. 0.98

00:18:02.980 And this is, we're going to go just a little sidebar for a second here because, you know, World Cup's going on.

00:18:08.320 And I want to talk about this because it's-

00:18:10.240 World Cup. 0.96

00:18:10.700 You mean when today's American citizen Algerians are facing tomorrow's American citizen Algerians? 0.97

00:18:18.540 So this is what I've seen is that- 0.94

00:18:19.840 Have you noticed globalism actually ruins everything, but also national competitions,

00:18:26.820 whether it's the Olympics or whether it's the World Cup? I actually want to see the French 0.86

00:18:31.560 face the Germans.

00:18:33.580 Yeah, 23 of the 26 players on France's team. I could have that wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's 23. 0.62

00:18:39.440 uh are three and me are yeah 23 are african descent right and england is similar maybe

00:18:47.380 at least half and again we have national teams that we should be having people represented by

00:18:53.860 the ancestral actual nation reality because yeah it does it creates a great experience

00:18:59.000 of because then even if france wins the french did not win no it's right now it's not the world

00:19:05.720 Cup. It's the Africa Cup, which is how many guys from Africa can we get to our team? I had somebody

00:19:11.480 recently say, oh, you know what? But they were born in England, and that makes them English. 0.98

00:19:18.700 And again, this conversation is going to get higher and higher in the echelon of political

00:19:24.240 discussion because it is important. And this birthright discussion is very important. I would

00:19:29.180 say if you adopt children, then they could be citizens. You could even go that far to say,

00:19:34.520 If you adopt, that's very different than someone that comes over on a trip to Disneyland or is over on an H-1B visa for a two-year period and has children here.

00:19:45.260 That's very different.

00:19:46.140 And again, going back to these tiers real quick.

00:19:48.320 So like when I said they're not American, that is being an American is different than being an American citizen.

00:19:56.000 Correct. 1.00

00:19:56.660 So what you're saying is if they just came here legally, and a lot of our legal immigration, 0.99

00:20:03.380 we have to, we have to undo. Yeah. So, I mean, it's not just illegal immigration. That's the 1.00

00:20:07.760 problem. Uh, at least half of the problem, if not over half is the legal immigration. It's just way 0.99

00:20:13.480 too much period, no matter how you slice it. But let's say just hypothetically that we lived in a

00:20:18.320 sane country that, that wasn't traitorous and trying to destroy its native population. So let's

00:20:23.240 just say that our leaders, not even that they loved us, that would never happen, you know,

00:20:26.960 but they didn't purely and with an unadulterated pure hatred want to destroy us. So let's just

00:20:34.800 pretend we had leaders that were neutral towards their people instead of just pure hatred. I know

00:20:39.940 it's hard to even imagine, but if we could for a moment, if we had that kind of leadership and

00:20:44.080 therefore sane immigration policies and the legal immigration we had was not suicidal and it was not

00:20:50.760 to our detriment, it was mitigated and it was permissible and it wasn't going to destroy the

00:20:55.120 fabric of our nation. In that case, your legal immigration, work visa, student visa, whatever it

00:21:02.640 is, they would have residency, but would not be citizens. They could, some of them with a strict

00:21:08.940 criteria could apply and theoretically achieve citizenship. Then they would be legitimately

00:21:16.120 American citizens, but you would have a, I'm a Nigerian who is an American citizen. I'm Algerian

00:21:23.660 who is an American citizen, but they would never be American. In the same way, if I moved to Uganda 0.98

00:21:30.180 and gained citizenship, the Ugandan people would still say, oh, he's, oh, there's Mr. Webin,

00:21:37.660 our American friend. Everyone's watching missiles and fighter jets, but the real bottleneck in

00:21:44.220 modern warfare is our supply chain. Almost every advanced weapons system relies upon

00:21:50.360 tungsten. And the United States has not commercially mined this mineral in nearly

00:21:56.080 a decade. Washington knows that that's a problem. That's why the Pentagon has invested millions

00:22:03.080 into restarting domestic tungsten production. And the Trump administration has just launched

00:22:09.340 something called Project Vault, a $12 billion initiative to rebuild America's critical mineral

00:22:16.580 supply chain. That's where Vault Strategic Mining comes in, trading under KNXFF in the U.S. and

00:22:25.400 NOX, KNOX in Canada. Vault is acquiring historic American tungsten mines and bringing them back

00:22:33.980 into production using modern exploration techniques. As America moves to secure the

00:22:39.960 materials essential for national defense, companies positioned to supply them could

00:22:45.580 become increasingly important. So to learn more about Vault Strategic Mining and its projects,

00:22:52.520 check out the link in the description below. And a special thanks to Vault Strategic Mining

00:22:57.420 for sponsoring today's episode. Yeah, he's a, you're a countryman. I'll always be an American.

00:23:03.140 You're a sojourner, you're a visitor, you're, again, to be treated well, but you're never

00:23:11.320 going to be one of them.

00:23:12.340 Right.

00:23:12.600 Because to be one of them...

00:23:14.220 And that doesn't mean I would never be loved by some of them.

00:23:16.280 Correct.

00:23:16.700 Yeah.

00:23:16.920 So remember, we know that ancestry is connected to blood.

00:23:19.960 The way that you would be one of them is if you intermarried with their people and your

00:23:23.440 great-grandchildren...

00:23:24.380 My great-grandchildren, or even grandchildren, 75%.

00:23:27.940 Yes.

00:23:28.340 Then, okay, my grandchildren could be Ugandan for all intents and purposes.

00:23:32.480 this is not crazy. This is literally David. God sees fit for David to be not just a citizen of

00:23:38.560 Israel, but king of Israel, the second king after Saul, and to be arguably the best king that Israel

00:23:44.080 ever had in a man after God's own heart. And it's not, I know you guys want to say that this is

00:23:48.780 somehow unrelated or it's inconsequential. It is not. It is not a coincidence that this David,

00:23:54.860 who was fit in the sight of God to be anointed as king and arguably the best king in a man after

00:24:00.160 God's own heart, was also 87.5% by blood Israeli, Hebrew.

00:24:07.220 Yes.

00:24:07.800 Right? 1.00

00:24:08.100 Because Ruth was a Moabite. 1.00

00:24:09.760 Yep. 1.00

00:24:10.160 They beget Ruth and Boaz, beget Obed, Obed begets Jesse, Jesse begets David.

00:24:16.900 So it's not until the fourth generation, from Ruth to Obed to Jesse to David now, so

00:24:22.700 exactly what you said, because you said something, and it biblically holds up, this is a great

00:24:28.460 grandson of a Moabite. And my great-grandson, if I moved to Uganda and married a Ugandan,

00:24:34.240 which I'm not going to do, I'm happily married, but if I did, hypothetically,

00:24:38.220 great-grandchildren could be fit to be the president of Uganda. Me, they shouldn't do that.

00:24:43.900 Yeah, that would be the theonomic, the general equity of that position to apply to political

00:24:50.220 law. Now, the other thing, everybody always says, oh, but look, there's interracial marriage all 0.73

00:24:55.620 throughout the Bible, look, you know, Boaz and Ruth.

00:24:59.260 Someone from Tennessee married someone in Kentucky.

00:25:01.660 Yeah, so the reality is this, 0.99

00:25:02.880 is that Ruth and Boaz, Ruth is a Moabite, 0.99

00:25:09.440 which means that she's a Shemite, and so is Boaz. 0.99

00:25:12.660 And it also means that she's about 60, 0.99

00:25:14.540 she lived her entire life.

00:25:16.740 60 miles away. 0.79

00:25:17.520 About 60 to 80 miles away.

00:25:18.820 Yeah, so they look exactly the same.

00:25:20.680 Yes.

00:25:21.060 This is not what we're talking about

00:25:22.680 when we're talking about the distinctions.

00:25:23.720 this is not wesley snipes and uh and that chick from what's that show i never watched it because

00:25:29.160 it's it i it seems cool but it's too many degenerate pieces but the uh the dragon lady

00:25:35.180 who tames him and all remember there's like this scene where like all the um all the black and 0.71

00:25:41.280 brown people are carrying her across yeah yeah she's like she's like white as snow king of all

00:25:45.940 the browns you know or queen you know i don't know the dragon you're talking about yeah the 0.90

00:25:50.460 dragon show i know you're talking about house of dragons no no game of thrones game of thrones

00:25:54.260 game of thrones yeah there you go yeah i think that sounds right is that it yeah probably yeah

00:25:58.700 yeah okay ballpark this is how literate we are on my if it was that chick right then my point is 0.96

00:26:04.600 she's white as the driven snow yeah that chick and wesley snipes yeah that's not roof and and

00:26:10.920 uh boas no it's just not the same yeah so this idea around national identity right we know that 0.98

00:26:17.760 it messes up things like our soccer teams. We also know that it messes things up like our,

00:26:23.760 you know, our military. Because when you have people that are not nationally identified by

00:26:29.500 ancestral realities also connected to this land for multiple generations, they're not going to

00:26:34.400 fight in the same way that they would and represent the same way they would had they been actual

00:26:40.420 ancestral citizens or, you know, having a blood connection. Now, I think about this kind of one

00:26:47.080 size fits all approach to anybody can become a citizen is kind of a connection to anybody can

00:26:53.260 vote. There's just kind of this, again, open the floodgates. There is no distinctions.

00:26:58.200 Distinctions are racist. Distinctions are bigotry. Distinctions are evil. We're not allowed

00:27:04.000 to notice the realities between men and women, between different races, between different

00:27:09.020 ethnicities, between different loyalties, between different loves.

00:27:12.040 Between different economic classes.

00:27:14.360 Yes.

00:27:14.580 We're not allowed to, even if both people are male and both people are white, I've been fond of saying, it's the idea that egalitarianism has ruined everything all the way down. 0.75

00:27:27.020 Egalitarianism is applied to sex. 0.59

00:27:29.040 Men and women are not the same.

00:27:30.620 It's applied to race.

00:27:31.760 It's applied even to individuals, even within the same sex and the same race, like Elon Musk and Joel Webin.

00:27:40.620 I can sit here and say that he's no different than me.

00:27:43.100 he's a little different than me right like um right now i'm closer to being a billionaire

00:27:48.960 than elon musk yeah but not the way that you would want that to you know i have closer to

00:27:55.680 a billion dollars than elon musk has to 999 billion dollars so he's he's brilliant and and

00:28:01.840 he's he's different so i the way i've said it is you'll appreciate this i've said johnny and

00:28:06.940 Jackie are not the same, but also Johnny and Jack are not the same, and also Johnny and Jamal are

00:28:14.580 not the same. There are differences all the way down in every case. Which it feels, you could

00:28:20.460 probably speak to this, but it feels worsened in the modern West because of this conflation,

00:28:24.880 but just in our legal framework between citizenship and nationality. It strikes me that

00:28:29.660 that wouldn't be the case historically, that you would think of a citizen of Rome being the same

00:28:33.740 as someone who is Roman, right?

00:28:36.700 Like you would historically have always recognized

00:28:39.120 some kind of distinction there,

00:28:40.400 but we just happen to live in the West

00:28:42.180 where there's a legal framework,

00:28:43.360 which says, if you're a citizen,

00:28:45.140 you're afforded the same rights.

00:28:46.520 You're afforded all of the same privileges

00:28:48.080 as someone else who's actually from here,

00:28:50.120 who's lived here,

00:28:50.780 whose families have been here for generations.

00:28:52.600 And I think it's that specific point

00:28:54.400 because people might ask,

00:28:55.340 well, why are you getting up into arms about citizenship?

00:28:57.940 Why does that matter?

00:28:58.620 Well, it matters so much 0.97

00:28:59.720 because citizenship has replaced

00:29:01.960 any notion of nationality, of ethnos, of lineage in my people. It's all been supplanted by this

00:29:09.380 legal framework. It's just paperwork. That's paperwork, exactly.

00:29:12.520 It's funny, like you say, citizenship, even a bifurcation of not just citizen, non-citizen,

00:29:19.340 but a bifurcation between citizens. How is it that you came to attain that citizenship? And

00:29:24.000 I can't help but think of one of the biblical examples of a Roman centurion when Paul had

00:29:31.340 been taken captive. And Paul appeals to Caesar. He says, I want a trial before Caesar. And the

00:29:37.960 centurion is kind of mistreating him and treating him as less than. But then he gets kind of scared

00:29:45.520 out of his wits when he realizes Paul reveals to him that he was a Roman citizen. And he says,

00:29:49.960 how is it that you came by to attain your citizenship? I had to purchase my citizenship

00:29:54.960 by a great price. And Paul says, yes, you attained citizenship, but I was born with it.

00:30:00.540 And right there, you can tell by the response of the centurion in this biblical passage that not only was it shocking, was there some kind of reaction to just knowing that Paul had citizenship, Roman citizenship, period, but even more so, there was a higher echelon, a higher degree of credibility that came by manner of the fact that he was born with it.

00:30:26.580 It's like, oh, you didn't just purchase this or attain it.

00:30:30.100 You are truly a Roman citizen.

00:30:32.600 So think about this also with Paul.

00:30:35.080 He also, though he is a Roman citizen, he is not a Roman. 0.67

00:30:39.340 That's right. 0.70

00:30:39.700 He identifies himself as a Jew. 0.50

00:30:41.260 That's right.

00:30:42.280 And his kinsmen according to the flesh when he says that, I desire that they be saved.

00:30:47.940 And so there again, we have this reality that just because you're born with this particular

00:30:52.360 citizenship doesn't mean that you're actually Roman.

00:30:54.540 In fact, Paul models that.

00:30:56.200 He's not identifying himself as a Roman, but he's identifying himself with his ancestral line.

00:31:01.220 And part of the reason that wasn't confusing, and this kind of gets into our topic at hand,

00:31:05.400 but part of the reason that wasn't confusing is because everyone understood Rome at that time not

00:31:09.740 to be a nation predominantly, but rather to be an empire. So the idea, so I have no doubt that

00:31:16.340 this soldier experienced no confusion over the fact that, well, I was born as a Roman citizen

00:31:23.660 while still knowing, I'm sure he had knowledge, that the Apostle Paul was a Hebrew. So he knows

00:31:29.820 by blood, by tribe, by kin, he's a Hebrew. By legal citizenship, and in his case through birth,

00:31:37.820 he was born into the empire. So a Hebrew, but also a Roman in terms of citizenship by birth.

00:31:45.280 And here's the thing that we just have to acknowledge, and it's a very tragic thing,

00:31:50.000 and a thing that if God would be so kind through a lot of work, a lot of sweat, and probably

00:31:56.560 no small amount of tears, mostly coming from women, we need to reverse this thing. 0.73

00:32:04.220 America today is very much like Rome, meaning that if we're honest, we have all but ceased 0.98

00:32:14.240 to be a nation and very much are now an empire. A global empire? Well, we found out through the

00:32:21.020 Strait of Hormuz and everything going on in Iran, we don't carry quite as big of a stick as we once

00:32:26.320 did. The American global empire, military strength, economic strength, kind of peaked in the 1990s,

00:32:33.160 if we're honest, and we've kind of been on a decline since then. So I don't necessarily mean

00:32:39.060 a global empire, meaning every nation on the planet is subservient to our rule. The American

00:32:47.060 dollar is weakening, the petrodollar, all these different things, and we see this. But when I say

00:32:51.980 an empire, the fact that we may be retreating in some ways, economically or militarily, or we're

00:32:58.540 supposed to be, globally does not mean, hey, America, we're so back, you know, nationalism is

00:33:04.880 in and globalism, and therefore empires are out. No, we are just like Rome. Rome wasn't a planet

00:33:13.200 encompassing empire. It simply encompassed the known world at that time. There were whole

00:33:19.260 continents that didn't even know what a Roman was. And so too, in the same way, we are currently a

00:33:25.960 geographically centralized empire. And what I mean by that is in our own country, on our own land,

00:33:34.300 And rather than being a nation, we are a geographically centralized, landlocked empire made up of many nations, many of those of which hate each other and are currently in competition with one another.

00:33:48.820 We know that multiculturalism is a synonym for civil war because it essentially ends up there as a result of different ethnicities and cultures fighting for governmental power and influence that it's not whether but which, right?

00:34:03.360 we know that. It's not whether the state's going to be religious or if the state's going to coddle

00:34:08.740 a particular group of people or to elect certain individuals that will pander to the needs and

00:34:15.800 desires of that particular group. It's which ones, which religion will dominate America, which...

00:34:21.160 It's not whether they have preference. Which preference will they have?

00:34:24.540 Correct. Which laws will be passed?

00:34:26.040 Right now, it's pretty much every and any preference other than white people. 1.00

00:34:30.000 Correct. And again, it gets us back to that full circle, is that when you are a woman and you have seen over and over again that the person that's winning are not white Christian men, then they side with the people that they fear the most. 0.84

00:34:43.100 And so building back a resurgence in our country is going to require the courage of strong Christian men, especially strong Christian white men, to reverse that to get our women back. That's going to be a big thing is that the women need to believe, oh, that's actually the winning team over there.

00:35:01.980 And I think we're actually seeing that. We know that the vast majority of liberal women are ugly, 1.00

00:35:06.680 and the vast majority of conservative women are actually very beautiful. And that's seen over 1.00

00:35:11.340 all the memes and different things that are going on the internet.

00:35:14.600 But we actually-

00:35:15.220 On the inside, right? That's what you're talking about?

00:35:16.720 Yeah, yeah.

00:35:17.540 And the outside.

00:35:18.300 And the outside.

00:35:18.900 It turns out that-

00:35:20.700 They're not completely unrelated.

00:35:22.340 Person's inner virtue does actually shine. There is something to be said for physiognomy. You can't

00:35:27.640 take it too far, quick disclaimer, Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. So it is quite

00:35:34.700 possible. We've all read the stories. There is something profound about the witch being a hag

00:35:40.480 and having warts all over her face and a long, ugly nose. There's something true to that, 1.00

00:35:48.200 ugly on the inside, and it can't help but boil over on the outside. You see that with liberal

00:35:54.220 women. It's absolutely true. Their weight fluctuates and usually goes up and all these

00:35:59.340 different things. At the same time, though, I do want to caveat the physiogamy point, which

00:36:03.840 I'm a physiogamy appreciator. I think there's some merit to that argument. But keep in mind,

00:36:09.100 there are also plenty of stories, and not just since the 1970s, but in antiquity of the bad guy

00:36:16.240 concealing himself in a cloak that is aesthetically, some kind of veneer that's aesthetically

00:36:23.380 pleasing so when i feel like that's historically you see that more in men than women but i think

00:36:27.860 that women in terms of disguise themselves in light yes men are deceivers that way and can be

00:36:34.320 evil in that way where women often it seems like that they can't help it and i think that there's 0.91

00:36:39.560 this element of i said earlier that women are optimizing for harm reduction and when you think 1.00

00:36:44.820 about that yeah the blue hair we talked about the poison frogs you know the the the septum ring 1.00

00:36:51.080 cutting their hair short removing their glory uh gaining weight those are all again optimizations

00:36:57.840 for harm reduction they they don't want to be associated with men and again how this all

00:37:02.460 connects yeah they see men as a threat so now they're taking themselves off the board so now

00:37:07.820 i'm never going to get cat called correct and now i'm going to just i'm going to have i'm going to

00:37:12.600 be a lesbian right and i'm going to i'm not going to worry about the the the risk associated with 0.81

00:37:18.140 this terrible other sex, the male sex. In some sense, it's rejecting men before any of them 0.95

00:37:24.280 have a chance to reject you. So rather than saying, I actually am trying to be beautiful

00:37:29.420 and I'm not doing a very good job. It's like, nope, I'm voluntarily opting for ugliness.

00:37:35.200 You can't fire me. I quit. Correct. Yeah. And femininity is beautiful. It's a good and godly

00:37:43.400 thing, but women are avoiding that. And I think they're avoiding that because this is all connected 1.00

00:37:49.320 to many things, but let's just bring it to the 19th Amendment. So you have, prior to the 19th

00:37:57.240 Amendment passing, you had a very masculine political nation, right? You had men fighting 1.00

00:38:01.460 wars, and yes, men were fighting wars, the unnecessary wars, and also just wars. You had

00:38:07.120 violence, you had sin that was still there. But when women aimed for suffrage and the ability to 1.00

00:38:15.380 vote, this has produced so many effects upon the feminine sphere. It's almost impossible to even 1.00

00:38:26.400 discuss them all. But I want to go back just to talk about the history of that for a little bit,

00:38:31.800 because I think as I'm studying and researching for this book, one thing that I found that was

00:38:37.460 so fascinating to me is how many women didn't want the right to vote. When you look back pre-1900,

00:38:46.740 you actually get to see what women are like, because we've lived in such a hellhole generation 0.95

00:38:53.460 that we've very rarely met a good and godly and historic christian woman and so that's not been

00:39:03.100 tainted by feminism and all of its claws and everything that's happened in you know we're

00:39:08.660 swimming it's the water we swim in it's the air we breathe we're feminists whether we like it or 1.00

00:39:13.040 not it's been so saturated into our blood now um but when you see these women back before the 1900s 0.99

00:39:22.720 it's kind of reminds you that we're in a time of retrieval. We're in a time of recovery.

00:39:27.200 We're a time of reformation. We're trying to get back to a time where order and distinctions

00:39:33.460 were appreciated and understood. And these women, I'm reading their arguments. There's a woman, 0.93

00:39:40.460 her last name is Johnson. I can't think of her first name. She wrote woman and the Republic.

00:39:46.060 And she argues in there that at this point in history, women have attained a very noble position. And to burden them with the political realities of the civil sphere would essentially steal and rob from them and distort and pervert their role. 1.00

00:40:05.260 And she was right. She even wrote another book later, along with another woman that wrote a

00:40:11.740 catechism against suffrage. And so there were lots of women at this particular time that were

00:40:17.640 fighting to stay home. Anti-suffrage. 1.00

00:40:22.840 Anti-suffrage. And so that was one of the most fascinating things. But from this movement to

00:40:27.600 women voting, and then voting in policies that would completely change the entire American 1.00

00:40:32.160 culture and would essentially make way for all the things that happened in the 1960s,

00:40:39.240 it is an amazing thing how you can directly connect the state of our world with the 19th

00:40:45.460 Amendment. And so I think when you unravel that, when you start to look at every reason,

00:40:49.080 it becomes a very reasonable reality to reject it. You go, wow, if there's one button that I can

00:40:54.840 press that does the most impact, I think repealing the 19th Amendment is one of those buttons,

00:41:01.260 like kind of like mass deportations is another giant button. Like if you can deport a hundred

00:41:06.340 million people, that changes and fixes so many of our current problems. It's unbelievable. The 0.71

00:41:12.160 same thing is if you can, if women stop voting, it immediately solves a vast number of problems. 1.00

00:41:18.320 And so I think these two issues now, do we think that the 19th amendment will get repealed? My, 0.98

00:41:23.920 my theory is this people go, Dale, why, why are you talking about this? Because it would require

00:41:28.820 what, 38 states to pass this incredible amount of conversations. And while you're convincing

00:41:35.600 all these people that are conservative women to not vote, then all these liberal candidates are

00:41:40.100 getting in because... So there's all this rationale. And just for the record, my wife,

00:41:44.680 right? I'm not telling you what to do, but it's my suggestion. It's what we do. I see it as our

00:41:50.220 household vote and that half of my vote was stolen from me in women's suffrage. And so my wife votes, 0.92

00:41:57.640 but she votes alongside me. Correct. She votes my vote because what she's doing is as a woman 0.57

00:42:03.860 who fears the Lord and as a submissive wife, she's saying, evil men stole half of your vote 0.93

00:42:11.760 and gave it to me and I'm giving it back. So until we win, we can't afford to purity spiral,

00:42:18.500 to be autistic, or actually we can't all have Asperger's. So what are we going to do in the

00:42:24.440 meantime. My suggestion, not trying to wrongfully bind your conscience, but my strong suggestion

00:42:29.740 is that for good, solid Christian men married to good, solid Christian women,

00:42:34.380 that you and your wife get in the booth and vote, and you vote together, because she is exercising

00:42:42.280 half of your household vote. And when the time comes to vote, to repeal the 19th Amendment,

00:42:47.980 it. She'll vote with you. And this is my thought, is that if America balkanizes politically, 0.83

00:42:55.820 changes, you know, borderlines, whatever it may be, I believe that that's why this conversation

00:43:01.900 is important. If there was to ever be a new nation, a new republic, a new monarch, a new

00:43:08.100 whatever it is, these conversations might take a decade. But in the formation of some sort of

00:43:14.580 balkanization. I want this conversation that may not pass across all 50 states in this current

00:43:19.560 United States, but I want it to be a discussion that was laid for whatever is coming down the

00:43:25.840 line, because there is something coming down the line. And whatever that may be...

00:43:29.860 My prediction, if I had to guess, I think the conversations about repealing the 19th

00:43:35.680 are fruitful. People will roll their eyes so far back in their head that they see gray matter

00:43:40.760 and say, you guys are just LARPing, and this is just all a joke, and you're not serious.

00:43:46.380 Well, one, we are being serious, and we're not just being provocateurs for the sake of it.

00:43:51.620 We're appealing to biblical principles, and we're appealing to our own American history.

00:43:58.600 So this isn't ridiculous.

00:44:00.820 Two, in terms of, okay, but what's the real effect in tangible ways?

00:44:04.820 Do I think that the 19th Amendment will be repealed in my lifetime?

00:44:08.040 No.

00:44:08.840 But what I do think that this conversation does is, one, I think it glorifies God because

00:44:13.340 it's true.

00:44:14.440 Two, I think practically and strategically it serves as cover fire, and like, well, that's

00:44:20.040 crazy.

00:44:21.380 Where then something else, a midway point, a halfway house that's still a massive success,

00:44:27.340 is then viewed as more reasonable and actually has a chance of passing.

00:44:30.740 For instance, I don't think we get rid of the 19th Amendment.

00:44:33.760 What I do think that we actually, in our lifetimes, by the grace of God, could be able to overcome is simply the notion of universal suffrage.

00:44:42.660 The idea that anybody and everybody, so long as they're 18 years old and have citizenship, gets to vote. 1.00

00:44:50.940 So do I think that we'll get rid of all women voting? 1.00

00:44:55.200 Probably not. 1.00

00:44:56.260 Not anytime soon.

00:44:57.860 But does that conversation help as kind of just one leg in the stool to build this larger

00:45:03.460 argument that basically says, look, the idea that everyone gets an equal vote is not actually

00:45:09.280 feasible.

00:45:10.120 That's not a sustainable notion.

00:45:12.780 There are some people who contribute more.

00:45:15.020 There are some people who don't contribute at all, but simply take.

00:45:18.900 The fact that this guy who's living off of welfare would get to vote for someone else's

00:45:24.560 stuff is not just.

00:45:26.260 So I'm hoping that this conversation pushes the ball forward into reasonable discourse where at a happy compromise, at a happy medium, at least what can be accomplished is that there are at least some higher, stronger, more robust criteria for who gets—I would love to see an IQ test.

00:45:51.720 I would love to see, are you a net positive taxpayer test?

00:45:57.120 No felonies.

00:45:57.620 No felonies.

00:45:59.040 So right now there are some criteria.

00:46:01.680 Basic civics test.

00:46:02.980 If somebody's been in prison, they're not supposed to be allowed to vote.

00:46:06.320 There's some criteria, but I think the criteria is incredibly low.

00:46:12.740 Yeah, I think that we are, again, we're in recovery, we're in retrieval, we're in reform.

00:46:19.120 That is the season.

00:46:20.080 we have essentially deconstructed America's immigration policy and America's voting policy

00:46:26.380 into absolute egalitarian hellhole that has no distinctions whatsoever for anybody to be an

00:46:34.460 American or anybody to vote. And as a result, we have the nation that we have. And so, correct,

00:46:42.660 you know, people, I just made a video about this, but people often say, you know, any of these

00:46:46.600 distinctions, you're basically a Nazi. And I go, are you really a Nazi or are you just basically

00:46:52.080 a Christian man from the 1700s? Because every Christian man from the 1700s would understand

00:46:57.480 these things. Every Christian woman from the 1700s would understand these things. Everything

00:47:01.000 from the 1800s would understand these things. All the way, I mean, even in the 1910s, 1920s,

00:47:07.980 you had women's suffrage by that point. But still, even at that point, there were plenty

00:47:12.980 of Christian men and Christian women who thought we shouldn't. I mean, I just was looking this up.

00:47:17.820 In 1895, there was a referendum in the state of Massachusetts on whether or not women should be

00:47:22.660 given the right to vote. And only 4% of women in Massachusetts, so this is as liberal as it gets 0.97

00:47:28.080 at the time, in the Northeast, only 4% of women were proponents of women receiving the right to

00:47:34.640 vote. That means 96% were either opposed to it or relatively indifferent. That's how far we've

00:47:39.880 coming. In a lot of ways, the 19th Amendment, this was a quiet revolution. 1895? 1895 in the

00:47:44.740 state of Massachusetts. It was a revolution. That's what it was. This giving women the right

00:47:49.720 to vote was an overhaul of the framework that our founders established, not only with respect to

00:47:56.420 voting, but just with respect to who can hold off is, what rights are citizens given, who is

00:48:00.780 considered, like all of these things that were established within 120 years, they were completely

00:48:05.940 overturned. Right. One of the best arguments, like, again, if you're thinking like what's

00:48:09.500 feasible. So the idea that someone who doesn't pay taxes and gets your taxes with welfare,

00:48:15.020 that they shouldn't be able to vote, that's a feasible argument. It's winnable. The best, 1.00

00:48:20.600 I think, winnable argument on the 19th Amendment is the idea of a draft. Now, we have to be careful

00:48:26.160 because we have such godless, sinister, wicked people who currently lead our nation that they'd

00:48:32.100 say, oh, okay, well, I see your bet, and I see where you're going with that. I'll make it equal.

00:48:36.400 well, now women can be drafted. And we don't want that. We don't want our daughters, our wives to 1.00

00:48:41.980 be drafted into meaningless wars or even good wars. Women should not go and die for men. Men 1.00

00:48:47.980 should go and lay down their lives and be willing to die for women in just wars. But my point is 0.99

00:48:53.860 that the very notion that one half of our country can cast their vote for a politician who can make

00:49:04.320 the decision collectively with other politicians that would force, right, through coercion. It would

00:49:11.460 actually draft her brother, her father, her son into a battle where he could lose his life,

00:49:18.340 but that she would be immune to that, right? So he gets to cast a vote that might force him into

00:49:25.900 war. She gets to cast a vote that will never force her. That is not equality. So right now,

00:49:31.420 So all the feminists that talk, and we know it was never about equality, it was about the matriarchy, it was about feminine rule, and feminine superiority, feminine preference, it always was.

00:49:41.400 But just to say it out loud for the few people who are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and naive enough to think that feminism was actually about equality, what a laugh.

00:49:50.620 But if any of you actually bought into that lie, even women voting to this day is still not equal. 1.00

00:49:58.200 You say, well, women have to pay taxes. Yep. But they can't be drafted into a war. And men can. And who you vote for absolutely has a direct effect on whether or not that actually happens. 1.00

00:50:09.700 And or laws that you pass. Yeah. Antonio, what you were saying about the history of women's

00:50:16.820 suffrage in 1895, Stanton and Susan B. Anthony actually said themselves in the history of

00:50:23.580 women's suffrage, they said, if it was up to women, we would not be able to pass this law, 0.97

00:50:29.480 which gives you... There's more involved here, which is what I'm going to be talking about in 0.80

00:50:33.900 the book. But this is creating a bigger conflict between the sexes, right? So we know that there's 0.59

00:50:39.740 so much conflict in the world right now that needs answers and biblical order to it. We have

00:50:44.300 a sex war between men and women. We have a further war in terms of between patriarchy and feminists. 1.00

00:50:51.120 We have a race war that's emerging between the races. We have religious wars between Christianity, 0.65

00:50:57.800 Hinduism, and Islam. We have political wars between the left and the right, and more

00:51:02.960 closely the conservatives, the Republicans, the Democrats, et cetera, we have so many

00:51:12.440 wars around us right now that the fault lines and polarity are about to get greater than they

00:51:18.980 already are. And I think that people go, Dale, why are you guys so provocative? Why are you so

00:51:24.900 controversial? I think what we've done is you used to be able to stand in the middle and kind of go,

00:51:30.740 well, you know what? I lean on the right on these things and on the left, I lean this way.

00:51:35.240 And you could stand in the middle and you kind of would be viewed as a moderate. Well, in the

00:51:40.260 times that are coming, the polarity is going to get so stark that you standing in the middle is 1.00

00:51:46.720 just going to make you look like an idiot. And so you need to choose a side, but choosing a side 1.00

00:51:51.360 for many people that are squishy in the middle seems extreme. And so right now, I think we live

00:51:57.020 in a time of agitation that requires holding lines, and there's going to be early adopters,

00:52:03.000 people that are having conversations around the 19th Amendment, people having conversations about

00:52:06.120 race, people are having conversations around nationalism, people having conversations about

00:52:09.600 religion. And it's our duty to have these conversations in a biblical way. I always

00:52:14.140 tell people, if we don't have these conversations as Christians, the pagan, godless, evil world will 1.00

00:52:21.260 have these conversations, and the form of nationalism or the form of religious persecution 0.77

00:52:27.740 or the form of actual misogyny will be so intense because they're doing it without Christ.

00:52:34.640 And so it's our duty to have these conversations while even the church is screaming at us,

00:52:38.680 why are you talking about the 19th Amendment?

00:52:40.060 This isn't...

00:52:40.380 No, you don't understand what's about to happen.

00:52:42.660 We're about to have a massive divide, fault lines everywhere.

00:52:45.880 Pick a side.

00:52:47.480 And I know these positions seem extreme right now.

00:52:51.260 But in fact, in five years, they won't be extreme. Think about 10 years ago, it was 2016 and homosexual marriage, marriage with the quotes, had passed. Think about how far we have shifted since that particular time. And now it's like a hockey stick.

00:53:09.340 And peaked, exactly, and peaked, so a big shift, but not over all 10 of those years.

00:53:14.600 It was a big shift for about seven of those years, peaked in about 2022, and has actually

00:53:19.860 been declining.

00:53:20.620 Like, we saw the tweets, you know, this last June with Sodomy Month, you know, there was

00:53:26.400 people, you know, liberals who are pro-sodomy posting, this was the most homophobic Pride

00:53:34.040 Month I've ever seen, you know, and it's like, praise God.

00:53:38.900 yeah that's like that's that's wonderful news yeah um let's see if we can those are rookie

00:53:43.480 numbers let's pump them up you know but but like so it already is um changing back but you're right

00:53:49.040 hockey stick so it's you know seven years of just crazy crazy um progressive ideology and only

00:53:57.060 really two three maybe three and a half years of coming back down some and only coming back down

00:54:02.700 on some issues and my thing my you know we had this conversation privately but this is i think 0.64

00:54:08.300 what we're doing is we're repealing slowly but surely every single piece of the post-war

00:54:12.440 consensus. And people worry, go, hey, where are the brakes on this thing, Dale? Where are the

00:54:16.600 brakes on this thing, Joel? You guys are going far right, far right. Where are the brakes on

00:54:19.540 these things? And I think it's a good conversation to mention is that, well, we started off with,

00:54:25.320 let's say, like abortion, right? We started talking about abortion in the church, and then

00:54:28.720 we moved on to feminism, and then we started talking about maybe Israel, and then we started

00:54:32.780 talking about Islam, and then we started talking about race, and race seemed to be the most

00:54:38.860 sensitive topic. How do we deal with this biblically? How do we talk about this as Christians?

00:54:43.320 How do we look that we have equal values, but we still have distinctions? And people think,

00:54:48.860 oh my gosh, are you going to go all the way down the line into hell? No, the reality,

00:54:52.720 the brakes actually, I think, stop right there. And the fact is that I don't think we're going

00:54:57.220 any further right, now our job is to bring the middle, the squishy middle, with us. And this is

00:55:05.680 a very important work to do. And for anybody who thinks, well, that line seems arbitrary. So how

00:55:11.140 did you determine, how do I know that you're not going to move the line again? What are the exterior

00:55:19.020 boundaries, the common denominator that actually says that the goalpost won't continue to move?

00:55:27.240 And to me, the answer is, first and foremost, the eternal, immutable Word of God.

00:55:31.500 What does the Bible actually permit?

00:55:33.300 What does it esteem first, right?

00:55:35.580 Commend, but then also what is permissible?

00:55:37.980 And then two, in our context, right?

00:55:40.860 We're not just citizens of the world.

00:55:42.560 We have a citizenship in heaven.

00:55:44.180 We're dual citizens, citizenship in heaven, but also here on earth, right?

00:55:48.160 Two kingdoms.

00:55:49.000 There's the kingdom of grace, but also the common kingdom.

00:55:51.580 and in this common kingdom, I am a citizen of these United States. So what I'm going to appeal

00:55:58.120 to is I'm going to appeal to the Word of God, but I'm also going to appeal to my American heritage.

00:56:03.700 And there is no view when people say, like, well, you're Nazis, or you're this, or you're that.

00:56:09.080 None of these things that we're talking about are, not only are they not extreme, in many cases,

00:56:16.940 they would be viewed as moderate or even slightly liberal with our own American founders.

00:56:22.700 Correct.

00:56:23.080 If George Washington was sitting at this table and we told him, hey, this is the percentage

00:56:27.380 that our country is sending in tax dollars, and we're also thinking about formally uniting

00:56:31.860 our military with Israeli IDF, formally uniting our two militaries together, this is what

00:56:39.460 we give them in tax dollars for no reason whatsoever.

00:56:44.920 What do you think about that?

00:56:46.300 he'd be like, that's insane. Or that we've killed this many babies, or that we have women voting,

00:56:51.680 or that we have immigration policies that are absolutely insane. So I think you're right, 0.85

00:56:56.760 is that what helps me, and I think what might help you if you're on this journey of going,

00:57:01.760 you're reforming right, but you're also afraid because there's risk involved. And Joel, myself,

00:57:10.160 and Antonia, we've all taken risks of being associated with this particular movement.

00:57:13.540 you have to ask yourself, what did, I think people that we all revere, balanced forefathers of our

00:57:21.620 country believe? What did John Adams believe on this? What did George Washington believe on this?

00:57:27.560 What did the Puritans believe on this? And what makes us think that as members of our own

00:57:32.380 generation that has murdered 70 million babies in the womb, that has gay pride parades, that has 0.95

00:57:39.860 transgenders um and gay furries what like this is one of the things that you have to you have to 0.99

00:57:47.200 get over because for the longest time what we were told by our own spiritual fathers in the church 0.96

00:57:52.800 you should be reading jonathan edwards you should be reading calvin you should be oh oh their

00:57:58.820 political theology uh no um oh their views on race no oh their views on patriarchy no just

00:58:08.520 there's soteriology yeah and and what i've come to at this point is you really you really only

00:58:14.760 have two views of history right you can believe what your ancestors said about the jews or what 0.98

00:58:19.720 your jews said about your ass not that uh but that too um but what i was gonna say is you can 0.99

00:58:25.100 you can view your ancestors your great-grandparents as racist as misogynist as uh you know all these 1.00

00:58:35.440 terrible things, but keep in mind, they would have never dreamed of murdering babies in the womb. 0.98

00:58:41.980 They would have never dreamed of gay pride parades. And this is what—John Piper, I'll just 0.91

00:58:47.580 throw his name out, right? I don't hate John Piper. I think he's done a lot of good stuff,

00:58:51.240 and he's done some things that are bad. His politics are not very helpful, but he's done

00:58:55.840 some good stuff on desiring God and just the glory of God and these kinds of things. But John

00:59:01.840 Piper is, I remember learning this from him and others like him, is you need to be Jonathan Edwards

00:59:07.660 Maxine and John Calvin Maxine and all this kind of stuff. And inevitably, the question would always

00:59:13.980 be posed, whether it's from a black rapper like Lecrae or whoever, is, yeah, but didn't Jonathan

00:59:19.940 Edwards own slaves? Didn't so-and-so, George Whitefield, didn't he own slaves? Or what about

00:59:26.440 Robert Dabney? Wasn't he pro-slavery? Although he was vehemently against the transatlantic

00:59:31.480 slave trade, but wasn't he okay with slavery? And that would always be the objection and the

00:59:36.500 answer from your John Pipers and these people who were commending older spiritual fathers to be read

00:59:42.720 and to be believed by us was always, yes, but everybody had their blind spot.

00:59:52.280 They're inconsistent.

00:59:53.400 They were inconsistent. And so yes, they believe this, but they were really good on this other

00:59:58.340 thing, they were just blind here. And I've finally come to the place where it's like,

01:00:02.240 what is the more plausible belief? Like, if I'm really thinking about, is it more likely

01:00:08.980 that we, with abortion, with transgenderism, with sodomy, with exorbitant forms of usury, 0.95

01:00:16.200 with feminism, with globalism, with all the things that we've embraced as normative, 0.92

01:00:21.920 and many of those to even be celebrated, what's more likely? That we embrace so much compromise

01:00:30.000 but are a beacon of righteousness on the issue of race? Or these guys who are right and better

01:00:37.860 are superiors on dozens of issues across the board, is it more likely that they were right

01:00:43.780 about everything minus one thing where we got it right? Whereas we're wrong on everything except

01:00:49.620 for that one thing? Or were they just right about all of it? And the way that we've been blind to

01:00:56.520 these 17 things, maybe the 18th thing we're also blind to.

01:01:01.340 Yeah. I would look at it and I'd go, yeah, they were probably, if we had to split it out,

01:01:05.780 they were probably right about 90% of the things and were about right about 10% of the things.

01:01:11.240 Right. But with that, that's kind of my very point is I want to be careful with that because

01:01:16.040 the listener will immediately say, and the 10% that we're right about, is it Haitians are the 1.00

01:01:24.900 same as... Oh, correct. Yeah. You know what I mean? Everyone, if there's any issue more than 1.00

01:01:30.840 the patriarchy issue, more than any of these other, it's the race issue. They're going to 0.90

01:01:36.200 want to say, yeah, so they were right about 90%, wrong about 10, we're wrong about 90%,

01:01:41.880 right about 10, but that 10% where they were wrong and where we're right is race. And they're

01:01:48.260 going to fill the gap with that. We have to remember, these were some of the best theologians.

01:01:52.600 I mean, George Washington was a lifelong Anglican, church every Sunday, devoted people always say,

01:01:58.300 oh, he's a deist. He was a Mason. The guy went to a... He said, I went to a Mason Lodge two to

01:02:03.860 three times in the last 30 years. It's, again, everybody projecting upon Washington who he was

01:02:09.860 in order to create a version of him that we can reject. But the matter of race,

01:02:17.600 especially when we look at the way that even those men that we talked about treated those slaves,

01:02:22.180 they were against chattel slavery. They were against the transatlantic slave trade.

01:02:27.760 They were... Now, but again, we know that slavery is biblical. It is permissible. 0.99

01:02:32.540 Right.

01:02:32.940 If it has to be done in a way that is honorable and righteous, and...

01:02:38.280 Right. It's never held up as an ideal, but it is permissible in scripture. What's not permissible,

01:02:42.720 what's condemned even unto death is man stealing.

01:02:46.340 Well, correct. And the reality is that some form of slaveries were actually considered pro-life

01:02:50.380 in the fact that if you had somebody who maybe is going to die or was going to starve to death

01:02:54.900 or was going to go to war and certainly faces death, and someone said, you know, I will take

01:03:02.560 you on for a price of indentured servitude that you come work for me instead of dying in that war

01:03:07.220 Or instead of dying from starvation, I will come and save your life, and yet you owe me

01:03:11.660 your life.

01:03:12.520 And if that relationship was done in a manner in which that it was righteous, there was

01:03:17.340 actually a—you treated this person as they were part of your household, you cared for

01:03:21.060 their needs, you met their demands, in the way that Paul explained that there should

01:03:26.640 be, in Philemon, a relationship there.

01:03:29.220 But again, no one's fighting for slavery.

01:03:31.560 The reality is that there are distinctions of races, there are distinctions of sexes,

01:03:35.400 There are distinctions of ethnicities, and this taxonomy is so offensive to everybody

01:03:41.440 and is the reason why we do what we do and why the books need to be written. 0.74

01:03:48.020 Not only am I writing the book on the 19th Amendment, which I think I'm a better writer

01:03:52.900 than I am a speaker, but I think that there's a book that I'm working on on race as well

01:03:59.420 to try to bring back these biblical distinctions because nobody is willing to have this conversation.

01:04:03.200 I just did a sermon series on race, nations, and Christian nationalism at our church, and it was

01:04:12.000 difficult to walk our own church. It was difficult for me. I mean, I'm talking as that it was hard

01:04:16.660 for me to come to the conclusion of when you're reading the church fathers, when you're reading

01:04:20.280 the medieval theologians, when you're reading the reformers, when you're reading the Puritans,

01:04:26.100 and you realize that this cohesive position, or at least like generally cohesive position,

01:04:32.780 on race and nationality that is so radically different from ours, it's just, it's compelling.

01:04:40.020 And so we do, we need to get back to a place where we can look at distinctions

01:04:42.800 and be willing to recover, reform, retrieve the truth.

01:04:47.920 Which is just as an exhortation too, to the listener, it's like, this is just step one,

01:04:53.740 like understanding where you went wrong, right? You talk about the 19th Amendment,

01:04:57.200 we need to investigate what exactly happened, what were the forces that went into this

01:05:00.740 quiet revolution that completely transformed our entire country, that's step one. Step two,

01:05:07.760 the harder part is charting a path forward, actually, because what you get, and I think a

01:05:12.640 lot of men, even myself, were susceptible to this, right, is, well, it was better in the 40s,

01:05:17.320 or it was better in the 30s, and so we need to fight back to get to the 30s. That's never going

01:05:21.300 to happen, actually. So here's the hard work for you, is actually you need to go back in the past,

01:05:26.580 figure out what went wrong, but then from that information, create something new,

01:05:31.920 create something that's a synthesis, both of where you're at, a synthesis of what's achievable,

01:05:36.860 and getting back to the consistency of biblical principles. And that's the hard work.

01:05:42.700 That's important because a lot of people, return, spelled with a V. We must return.

01:05:47.980 And the reality is that that's just not the way history works. We're not going to return.

01:05:51.880 Yeah. The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube.

01:05:53.600 you can't return. So it's not just, let's get back to the 1850s. We don't have the people

01:05:59.000 of the 1850s. We are a different nation, not just because of certain values and legislation. We are

01:06:07.980 a different people. That's why the Constitution, I love that people, you're against the Constitution,

01:06:12.240 I love the Constitution, but it was written for a particular people. The problem is not the paper,

01:06:17.300 the problem is the people. We no longer have the people who are actually conducive to be ruled

01:06:23.320 by the Constitution. So we can't just go back. Even if we got 100 million deportations, it's like,

01:06:30.460 well... It doesn't fix our problem. If we got 100, you know, housing would go down. It would fix a

01:06:34.760 lot. It would be an improvement. But if we got 100 million deportations, here's a problem,

01:06:39.620 and it's worth saying. It's not just all these brown people. If we were a nation where only the 1.00

01:06:47.040 white people were remaining, which is not what I'm advocating for, I think it should be predominantly 0.91

01:06:51.180 white, because that's true to our heritage, but not exclusively so. But even if we were somehow 0.80

01:06:55.940 to achieve that, the problem is we'd still have white people. And here's the reality. A lot of 0.98

01:07:04.780 people who are championing, cheering and jeering and laughing and mocking when Charlie Kirk was

01:07:11.320 killed, it wasn't just a bunch of Indians. It wasn't just a bunch of H-1B visas, and it wasn't 0.89

01:07:17.500 just a bunch of Jews. It was a bunch of white, European, could track their ancestry back to 0.55

01:07:24.220 Scotland for 14 generations, and yet they have the painted blue hair, and they're sitting there 0.97

01:07:30.020 doing TikTok videos, laughing and mocking when a husband and a father and a Christian

01:07:34.920 is martyred. So my point is, we don't have the people. Just to echo Antonio and what he just 0.76

01:07:42.960 said, we cannot go back. So it's looking back. We should look back to see what was better,

01:07:49.680 what went wrong, how it went wrong, but then synthesizing that with a real plan of action

01:07:54.740 moving forward. That's why I say like with the 19th Amendment, I think a more winnable 0.91

01:08:00.860 rhetoric moving forward is, look, the founders had nothing good to say about raw democracy.

01:08:08.260 And so raw democracy, when coupled with universal suffrage, is the death nail in the coffin of a

01:08:17.940 country, of a nation. And so we have got to rethink who gets to vote. And let's start with

01:08:24.240 some basic principles. Are you mentally retarded? Are you a net drain? Do you take more taxes than 1.00

01:08:34.540 you pay? Are you a felon? And then looking towards those kinds of things with re-immigration.

01:08:43.340 I think we should go all the way back to the Hart-Celler Act in terms of who should be here.

01:08:47.780 It's probably not going to happen. So, okay, where can we start? Well, illegals, every single one of

01:08:54.640 them for sure are gone. All right, now let's look at those who are here legally, every single one 1.00

01:08:59.900 that's committed crime. Let's get rid of them. And just working down who's on subsidies, who's 0.96

01:09:07.560 on welfare, you know, these kinds of things. And we could still get rid by doing it that way. We

01:09:13.240 could still get rid of millions upon millions. So looking at the past, but it's not really,

01:09:19.560 we can't return. It's just, I wish we could, we can't. So it's looking to the past, getting a

01:09:25.380 roadmap, figuring out the problems, figuring out some of the solutions, and then looking at the

01:09:30.960 present. Where are we today and which of these can be applied with past solutions to present

01:09:39.400 realities? So this is exactly the difference of the field. And I want people to pay attention to

01:09:47.500 this because we have a field and there are people warring in this culture of war. And there are some

01:09:53.560 people that are in the work of retrieval, and I would say part of my duty and job and calling

01:09:58.900 and what I'm gifted at is looking back at the past, looking at what people believed, how they

01:10:04.860 synthesized the scriptures back then, what is the biblical principle, and then bringing it back to

01:10:11.380 life for this generation. Now, what I might not be good at and or called to do is to make the

01:10:18.040 application. That's a different person in most circumstances. I might make some suggestions.

01:10:23.100 here's my report, here's what I suggest, but we need multiple people to say, okay, someone has now

01:10:30.980 awakened the conversation about distinctions in race, a universal understanding of objective

01:10:36.760 reality in prior generations, but we have forgotten this truth, and someone has shown a biblical

01:10:42.220 argument for this particular perspective, or for removing women's suffrage. There is a biblical

01:10:50.460 argument for this. It's strong. I believe it now. Now what? And again, I might make some

01:10:56.860 suggestions in the book. Repealing is not a suggestion. That's like, okay, great. Repeal.

01:11:02.640 Wonderful. That's the principle of the book. But how it gets played out with, okay, let's roll it

01:11:13.260 back. Let's roll it back. My hope is to get these books on race, on feminism, on the 19th Amendment

01:11:20.140 into the hands of the right people, because those people, the political players, the lawmakers,

01:11:26.060 the legislators, those people need to have somebody, because that's the problem. I don't

01:11:31.120 think that any of our legislators right now have a biblical understanding of race or of feminism

01:11:37.320 or of the 19th Amendment. There may be good Christian guys that have maybe read a little

01:11:41.840 bit about it. They had a podcast that they listened to once. They saw Rachel Wilson on

01:11:46.200 Rogan, whatever it may be, but they don't have a robust biblical, and what we need as men to go,

01:11:51.640 hey, I will go back and retrieve George Washington's position on this stuff, or the

01:11:56.920 founding fathers, or the early church fathers' position. Here it is. Make the policy that best

01:12:03.040 reflects these general principles that have retrieved from our earlier nationhood.

01:12:06.100 And that's actually feasible. And here's the ideal, right? Politics is the realm of the

01:12:13.200 possible. Here's the ideal. Now get us, synthesize this, and accomplish as much as you can from it.

01:12:21.740 And we know it's not going to be a one-to-one ratio of just taking something from the 1850s

01:12:26.500 and drop shipping it in the year of our Lord, 2026. But here's what they did. Here's the general

01:12:33.360 equity of that, the undergirding principle. Here's where that principle was not just rooted in our

01:12:38.440 history, but also it's synonymous with what the Bible would say is a universal principle. Now take

01:12:45.400 that and get us, implement as much of this as you can through legal mechanisms today. And so it's

01:12:55.000 like, okay, nations are one people. We've got a whole bunch of people. Like, okay, how many can

01:13:01.300 we deport? And how can we do this justly? How can we do this legally? The government is going to be

01:13:08.120 buying people's houses back. We're not just stripping it away. Fair value, this is what

01:13:13.200 you paid for the house. I'm sorry you can't be here anymore, but we're going to give you your

01:13:16.720 money. And then the government can resell those houses, but has to sell them at 70% to 80%

01:13:24.940 what non-governmental houses go for to American citizens who should be here.

01:13:31.180 This is off the top of my head, but it's finding feasible ways. We're not going to repeal the

01:13:37.820 19th Amendment, but we are going to add, you know, seven different more criteria and narrowing who

01:13:44.160 can vote. Yeah, correct. Like, so you have this book, 19 Reasons. You might take 12 of those

01:13:48.240 reasons and go, we can apply eight of them now. And that's the point. There's one person that's

01:13:54.160 the researcher, that's the academic, that's going back in history. And then there's another group of

01:13:59.620 people that are applying this. But none of it can happen if the researcher doesn't go out there and

01:14:04.920 does that work? You need the blueprint. And that's what we need the retrieval for right now is,

01:14:10.120 I don't need Hitler. I got Washington. I don't need Hitler. I got Adams. I don't need Hitler.

01:14:14.920 I got the Puritans. You just go back to these great and godly, the reformers,

01:14:18.940 the early church fathers. We don't need any of these modern men. Again, there are some great

01:14:25.920 nationalistic realities, the stuff that came out of Germany in that period of time. But the reality

01:14:31.480 is this, is that our guys are good. Our guys are good. Our Christian brothers that are

01:14:36.820 thoroughly Christian and wrote some of the best theology, they have touched on some of these

01:14:42.040 things. This generation has hidden them. So we need somebody to go back there, find it, 0.92

01:14:47.340 so that we can wake up this generation and the people that are the legislators,

01:14:51.600 that are the politicians, go, hey, I read this book, and now it's going to inform how I lead.

01:14:58.780 Yep. Thanks for tuning in. We hope that this episode has been helpful for you guys. It's been a blessing for us to be able to have Pastor Dale Partridge with us actually here in the flesh in the studio. We will join you next time. Let's see, it's Monday, July 13th, so our next episode tomorrow will actually be American Glory with Pastor Dale Partridge. We hope that you tune in. God bless.

01:15:28.780 conservatives believe that Trump could reverse America's decline. But after Trump, the right is

01:15:35.020 now fractured, exhausted, and losing ground. Endless infighting and electoral losses have exposed a

01:15:43.060 deeper problem that politics alone cannot solve. A nation that rejects Christ cannot be restored

01:15:50.720 by mere personalities, grandstanding, or Christless conservatism.

01:15:56.480 So NXR Studio's first annual conference, America After Trump,

01:16:02.520 brings together pastors, politicians, commentators, and Christians

01:16:07.280 that are committed to strength, cooperation, and a durable future for the American right.

01:16:14.120 Complaining is not a strategy, and despair cannot be an option.

01:16:19.500 Christ is King.

01:16:20.920 Let's live like it.

The NXR Podcast - July 13, 2026

CN Weekly - The Monstrous Regimen Of Women w⧸Dale Partridge

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript