Understanding “Race Realism” (w/Nick Fuentes) - NXR EP8

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes Repost
Host: WANGHAF
Episode: Understanding “Race Realism” (w/Nick Fuentes) - NXR EP8
Date: February 19, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth discussion between host WANGHAF and controversial political commentator Nick Fuentes on the topic of "race realism." The pair engage in a candid and often provocative back-and-forth about the realities of race, the meaning of prejudice, cultural and genetic differences, biblical perspectives, and the political and social implications of racial diversity in America. The discussion is pointed and frequently crosses into territory many will find objectionable, using frank language and explicit generalizations about various racial and ethnic groups while also debating the moral and practical consequences of these viewpoints.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining “Race Realism” (00:07—01:55)

• Nick Fuentes (B) self-identifies as a “race realist,” defining this as an individual who believes race is a “biological and genetic phenomenon” and not just "skin deep."
• Critique of colorblindness: Fuentes argues that mainstream pushes for ‘colorblindness’ are misguided; genetic and behavioral differences exist between races and impact culture and society.
  • “Race is a biological phenomenon, it’s a genetic phenomenon… It does reflect other genetic, biological differences in appearance, in behavior, in culture, in mindset.” (B, 00:23)

2. The Nature and Morality of Prejudice (01:56—06:09)

• Prejudice, discernment, and judgment: The hosts dissect the concept of prejudice, noting that distinguishing between prejudgments based on experience/data and sinful, malicious prejudice is critical.
• Appeals to the Bible: WANGHAF (A) highlights how biblical verses are often used out of context (“judge not”) and distinguishes between judgmentalism and legitimate judgment.
• Practical examples: Use of statistical reasoning and past experience to inform expectations of individuals/groups (“If 98 of 100 employees under 25 have stolen from me…”).
  • “There’s a way of doing that without being mean spirited… but it's simply exercising pre-judgment.” (A, 05:17)

3. Group Dynamics and the Limits of Individualism (06:10—09:58)

• Fuentes critiques radical individualism: Asserting that people are shaped by their family and larger racial/ethnic groups, not just as autonomous individuals.
• Race as an “extended family”: Shared origins and group identities underpin racial differences and shape behavior.
• Stereotypes as economy of information: Stereotypes help navigate social reality, but can unfairly limit individuals who break the pattern.
  • “You don’t know everything about every person… we make assumptions, generalizations based on a variety of things.” (B, 08:55)

4. Stereotypes, Exceptions, and Social Navigation (09:58—14:08)

• Importance of context: Stereotypes may be based on behavior, dress, and class—not just skin color. For example, an African American Uber driver is prejudged differently from an African immigrant driver by their manners and speech.
• Dangers of rigid stereotyping: Hosts agree that refusing to recognize exceptions or maintaining stereotypes in the face of contradictory evidence is wrong.
  • “The problem is when you treat people unfairly based on that or you don’t give people a chance, or somebody breaks the stereotype and you won’t let them.” (B & A, 11:40–11:51)

5. Degrees of “Race Realism”: Not Essentialist, Not Determinist, But Realist (14:09—20:38)

• Rejecting ‘race essentialism’ and ‘race determinism’: A claims to prioritize religion/faith over race and believes racial characteristics can change slowly over time.
• Biblical support for generalization: Reference to Paul’s letter to Titus and his validation of a negative generalization about Cretans; argument that such group-level judgments do not preclude individual exceptions or redemption.
  • “I think the Bible actually has a category for that, all Cretans. So I’m not just being… And I can say those things and not say. And therefore I hate them or I wish them harm…” (A, 19:15–19:35)
• Fuentes’ maxim:
  • “Race is not everything, but it isn’t nothing.” — Attributed to Pat Buchanan (B, 20:45)

6. Double Standards, Power, and Historical Context (22:42—29:05)

• Prejudice versus power: Discussion of ‘prejudice plus power’ definition of racism; critique of one-sided application (i.e., “only white people can be racist”).
• 500 years of white/European dominance: Fuentes argues that current race relations are shaped by the legacy of European power and societal development, not just animus.
  • “Whites were more developed… able to inflict on other people because of their technological prowess, their organization, their societal development…” (B, 26:36)
• Other groups’ capacity for oppression: A points out that all groups are capable of oppression if given power.

7. The Winding Path of Racial Integration in American History (29:36—37:38)

• Historical amnesia & changing standards: Hosts note extreme views of race and white superiority held by revered U.S. figures (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln), contrasting them with modern standards.
  • “Anybody who’s labeled as a racist today is pretty much like a liberal by comparison to just… 100 years ago…” (A, 32:46)
• Integration and reparation: Discussion of alternatives post-slavery and the perceived privilege of living in America for descendants of slaves.

8. Demographic Change and the Future of America (37:39—39:40)

• From majority to plurality: Concern over America’s shift toward a non-white majority and the loss of a dominant cultural/national identity.
  • “It was sold as like whites plus white country with some diversity… But the question is, what happens when that neighborhood becomes 90, 10 in the other direction?” (B, 36:58)
• Loss of white “ethnic heritage”: Fears about the disappearance of white-only spaces and the death of America’s founding group identity.

9. Explaining the Origin and Disparities of Race (40:58—51:05)

• Biblical model: Fuentes and A link the derivation of races to the Biblical story of Babel—God’s desire for nations to spread and diversify, and the resulting creation of language and cultural differences.
  • “God wants actually for there to be nations. He created the nations…” (B, 41:17)
• Practical/geographic explanations: Fuentes ties racial disparities to geography and historical conditions (e.g. northern climates require future orientation, planning, leading to higher IQ and development).
• Role of the Curse of Ham (Genesis 9): A blends a biblical and naturalistic account for racial hierarchy, arguing the curse has been broken in Christ but had historical impacts.

10. Candid Acknowledgement: Younger Generations Know Race is Real (51:05—53:16)

• Shift in social consciousness: Both hosts note that younger audiences accept the reality of race and disparities, and the ‘colorblind’ stance is increasingly seen as naive or dishonest.
  • “The toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube… the verdict has come back in. Like, the kids are aware that racist reality.” (A, 52:15)

11. Nuances of Racial Hatred vs. Tribal Preference (53:00—60:51)

• Condemning racial hatred: Fuentes differentiates between race realism and racial hatred, insisting he opposes “racial hatred” and affirms the importance of not reducing everything to race.
  • “…It’s a completely different thing to say that we live and die by our race… I am adamantly against racial hatred because I’m against hatred.” (B, 55:20–56:08)
• Innate tribalism: Both hosts accept that people of all groups prefer to be among their own for reasons of familiarity and shared values, defending in-group preference as natural.

12. White People as the Exception (60:17—61:00)

• Hostility to white in-group preference: A and B argue that every other group expresses preference for its own, but whites are uniquely discouraged—"we’re the only people who are our own out-group."
  • “Every group has an in-group preference except for white people. It’s crazy. We're the only people who are our own out-group.” (A, 60:17)

13. Nick Fuentes on Past and Present Rhetoric—The Use of the "N-word" (61:00—67:18)

• Evolution of speaking style: WANGHAF questions why Fuentes used to use racial slurs and why he has allegedly reduced this practice; Fuentes claims he still sometimes uses irreverent/racial language, seeing taboo words as challenges to political correctness, not as endorsement of hatred.
  • “It was never about being a shock jock… I just decided like, I don’t play that game. Like I’m a real person. I’m not politically correct at all.” (B, 65:09)
  • “It’s treated more like a blasphemy than like a swear word.” (B, 63:51)
• Double standards in speech: Fuentes argues the policing of the N-word for whites but not anti-white speech for others is an injustice.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Prejudice and Judgment

• “Not all judgment is sinful. There’s a way of being like judgmentalism versus judgment. What is discernment other than judgment?”
  — WANGHAF (A), 02:37

On “Race Realism”

• “Race is not everything, but it isn’t nothing.”
  — Nick Fuentes (B), 20:45

On Stereotype and Generalization

• “There’s almost nothing wrong with [stereotyping] in itself. The problem is when you treat people unfairly… or you don’t give people a chance.”
  — Nick Fuentes (B), 11:00

On Racial History

• “Anybody who’s labeled as a racist today is pretty much like a liberal by comparison to just… 100 years ago…”
  — WANGHAF (A), 32:46

On In-group Preference

• “We want to be with people who look like us because we want to be with people who are like us.”
  — WANGHAF (A), 58:17

• “Every group has an in-group preference or is their own in-group preference. Except for white people. It’s crazy. We, we're the only people who are our own out-group.”
  — WANGHAF (A), 60:17

On Use of the N-word

• “This is the only word. It's treated more like a blasphemy… than like a swear word… to me, it almost enforces a severe negative attitude about white people.”
  — Nick Fuentes (B), 63:51–64:36

---

Key Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:07–01:55: Nick Fuentes defines “race realism” and critiques colorblindness.
• 01:56–06:09: Discussion of prejudice and the morality of judgment from biblical and practical standpoints.
• 06:10–09:58: On the failure of radical individualism and the role of family, tribe, and race.
• 09:59–14:08: Stereotypes, their social function, and pitfalls of rigid generalization.
• 14:09–20:38: Differentiating race essentialism, determinism, and realism; biblical rationales.
• 20:39–29:05: Power, historical double standards, and the “prejudice plus power” definition of racism.
• 29:36–37:38: The evolving American racial landscape and historical amnesia.
• 37:39–39:40: Demographic changes and loss of white majority; case studies.
• 40:58–51:05: Explaining racial origin/disparities: biblical and geographic arguments.
• 51:05–53:16: Younger generations’ reckoning with the “reality of race.”
• 53:00–60:51: Rejecting racial hatred but defending tribalism and in-group preference.
• 61:00–67:18: Discussion of use of racial slurs, rhetoric, and double standards in public speech.

---

Tone and Language

• Direct, informal, and often candid.
• Unapologetically controversial and provocative, with both hosts engaging in explicit language and sweeping generalizations.
• Occasional attempts at nuance, especially in distinguishing “race realism” from “hatred.”
• Frequent references to Christian scripture and tradition as both justification and intellectual substrate for arguments.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated

This episode provides a window into the “race realist” perspective as articulated by Nick Fuentes and his interlocutor. The conversation moves from theoretical—and frequently theological—justifications for recognizing group-level racial differences, to critiques of modern social norms, colorblindness, and demographic change. Race is understood primarily as an extended biological and cultural family, and, for these hosts, open recognition of racial differences and group preferences is defended as legitimate and normal, though hatred and rigid essentialism are denounced. The episode is also notable for its explicit challenge to current taboos and language policing around race, particularly regarding the use of the N-word and double standards in public discourse.

Listeners seeking a critical engagement with this material should be aware that much of the discussion involves ideas and language deeply at odds with mainstream norms, and is likely to be found offensive and objectionable by many.

Transcript

[A]

All right, here we are. Blacks, Jews, and whites. What does Nick Fuentes think about race?

[B]

Hmm. Well, as far as race is concerned, obviously very touchy subject. Big subject. I would say that race is real. I would call myself a race realist is where I would start. Because I think that on the right now, even maybe more than the left, we have come to this consensus that race is not real. And the message that's pushed is colorblindness is supposed to be the way that we look at each other and the way that we govern the country. But I think that's a mistake. The reality is that race is a biological phenomenon, it's a genetic phenomenon. And there's this narrative people talk about or a word that people use. They say that race is skin deep.

[A]

Hmm.

[B]

And when we talk about racial differences or racial disparities or racial politics, people like to say things like, well, why should the color of a person's skin matter? And I think the record of the past 60 years in America, with the Civil Rights act, with the multiracial politics, is that we know that for a fact race is not just skin deep. It's not just different shades of different colors. We, to the extent that there are different colors, it's a result of a genetic biological difference, and it does reflect other genetic biological differences in appearance, in behavior, in culture, in mindset. And that, I think, is at the center. That question is at the center of politics today. As America has become a multiracial nation, is a country with all these different, fundamentally people living together. How exactly are we going to get along, and how great are the differences, and what are they?

[A]

Right. I've heard some people say, what if it was the contents of character all along? And not to say, in a universal sense, each and every single individual. But that's what we're always doing. When you think of prejudice, it's to prejudge prejudice in the negative connotation I think really is. I think it's immoral, but in the technical sense of, like, we're constantly making judgments all day long. And we're also, you know, making prejudgments. And some of those prejudgments can be arbitrary and can be sinful, but then some of them are based off of patterns and statistics and all these things to. To give us an idea of an expectation of something that's foreign or strange to us. So I don't know, but I'd like to have an idea ahead of time. And so I'm going to rely on past experiences. I'm Going to rely on averages, those kinds of things. You know, the, the favorite verse of every liberal who ultimately hates Christ. But like, you know, I don't believe your Bible. The meme I don't believe your Bible would never follow it, but perhaps I can use it against you. You know, like the favorite verse is Matthew, chapter seven where it says, you know, judge not, you know, you know, and that's all they do. But the first five verses are about not judging. But then the immediate following verse Matthew, chapter 7, verse 6 is do not give to, do not cast your pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs. And the irony is, so Jesus is commanding us, his disciples, not to give sacred things to those who will not appreciate them, which requires to not to obey that command and to not, you know, give pearls to swine. You have to make a judgment. So five verses about not judging and then a verse that commands us to do something that holds as a prerequisite, making a judgment. So obviously I think the interpretation is don't make sinful judgments. But not all judgment is sinful. There's a way of being like judgmentalism versus judgment. What is discernment other than judgment? We're called and commanded, expected to be, be discerning and to make righteous judgments. So then the only question left, so there's good judgment, bad judgment, righteous judgment, sinful judgment. So then the only question left is prejudgment. But when it comes to prejudgment, it's again not inherently sinful to say, well, you know, like, you know, I run a business and you know, I've hired. Over the course of the last 20 years of running this business, I've hired, you know, 100 employees under the age of 25 and 98 of them have stolen from the company. Like if that guy says, you know, like he decides, from now on I'm not going to hire, you know, kids, you know, I'm going to hire guys who are older. Like we wouldn't say that that's sinful, right? Well, but not all 22 year olds, you know, steal money from the company, of course, you know, like, you know, help. I'm being overwhelmed by ants. Not all ants, you know, so they, so there's a way of doing that without being mean spirited, without being hateful. And yet still it is technically prejudice, but not in the sinful negative connotation of mean spirited or unjustifiable universal hatred towards an entire class of people. But it's simply, it's simply exercising pre judgment. And I Think that we can do that not just race would just be one category, but you can do that in a number of cases. And I think that in instinctively without even realizing it. We all do. We already do that.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, and so then to come up with some kind of propaganda that says so you can do this thing that everybody's instinctively doing all along, but you can't do it in this one category and that one category. It actually kind of matters. It kind of matters that you be able to follow your better judgment. And like, yeah, I'm not going to go to that side of town at this particular time of day. Um, in, in a way it seems like even a recipe for a liability, you know, like Irena really shouldn't have been on that train.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know.

[B]

Well, and I would say that the, the grave error is the individualism that I think the germ of the problem is in individualism where it says that individualism is the way of grouping people. And it says that society. How is society constructed out of what composite. It's constructed out of a composite of individual human beings, the individual which is sort of like an abstract quality. And it says that an individual inherent in individualism is that you're a grown up because you rational and can make decisions and have responsibility. But it also says that you're not deeply influenced and connected to other people. And so for me, I think from the point of view of race, we have to depart from individualism, starting with the family, which is to say that you know me, I'm a 27 year old man. But I didn't, I wasn't born an adult man. I was born a baby to two parents, to a mother and a father, just like they were born to a mother and a father. And our mothers and fathers imprint on us, our habits, our way of speaking, certain characteristics. You know, if you see a tall person, what is one of the first questions you say? If you see a really tall person, your parents must be really tall. A very smart person or musician. Who are your parents and is not race but kind of a collection of people that descend from the same forefathers.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And have these kinds of cultural groupings. Like. And there's something interesting about prejudice, which

[A]

is all the families. The Bible, there's like all the families of the earth. Right, right. Like they're like the nation is an extended family. So like in some sense you can say that races are different families writ

[B]

large, extended families and. Yeah. And it only makes common sense because they come from the same place. They're ultimately, the races, the white people come from Europe, and within the white people, the Nords come from northern Europe. The Meds come from southern Europe. The Slavs come from. Slavs come from Eastern Europe. The Asians come from Asia. The. The black people come from Africa. Even the black people in Haiti, Dominican Republic, they come from Africa. So. So it is, in a sense, an extended family. And I would say that even as far as prejudice is concerned, there's something else interesting that happens, which is I find when I order an Uber in Chicago and I get a black driver, they have the same skin color, they're of the same race. But how they dress and speak is going to change what my prejudice is. Because if they speak in African American vernacular English, and if they're dressed like a Chicagoan from the south side, I know I'm going to maybe be in for a bumpy ride. We might be driving on the shoulder on the way to get where we're going, but if they start speaking in an African accent and they're wearing different clothes, I have a completely different prejudice. And I say, you're probably a student. You're probably the child of a doctor or something on a visa. And I think that as far as these kinds of stereotypes are concerned, I've always thought of it as economizing on information, which is that you don't know everything about every person that you come into contact with. We make assumptions, generalizations based on a variety of things. And, you know, that speaks to the fact that it's. It's not necessarily the color of that person, but it's kind of like the behavior of their tribe.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So to speak. And if you see a. An African American, it's kind of funny. We talk about race. We jump right to. If you're walking down an alley at night and you see a black person, you know, but that. That's. Naturally, we. We tend to associate race with rac. Sensitivity around race, to prejudice. When we see black people, it's not their skin color. It's. It's a number of things that indicate you're part of a certain cultural milieu, you're part of a certain tribe. Because I think anybody recognizes that. If you see, like I said, a black person from Africa, it's a whole different set of stereotypes and expectations. Even if you see an African American and maybe they just are wearing different clothes, you might say, oh, this is maybe a different sort of a person. And I think that.

[A]

Or if they're wearing glasses, there was a. There was a curb. Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry has a black friend and he discovers like that if he puts on fake glasses, he can get into like any, any room where everyone immediately starts treating him differently.

[B]

So, yeah, or wearing a backpack or, you know, a polo shirt or whatever. Um, and, and I think that speaks to. I think it elucidates when people. There's this preoccupation in the country with racism. You have to actually break down what we mean by that. And prejudice is always associated with that and stereotyping and generalizations. I think at this point, everybody recognizes there's. There's almost nothing wrong with that in itself. There's nothing wrong actually with stereotyping by itself. The problem is when you treat people unfairly based on that or you don't give people a chance, or somebody breaks

[A]

the stereotype and you won't let them. You won't let them break the stereotype. You know, it's like this person really is remarkable, really is an exception. And I just refuse to allow for any exceptions.

[C]

Warning. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical society. Real society has always stood on three magnificent pillars. And caffeine to kick things off, alcohol to smooth the edges. And nicotine, which is the true gentleman's secret weapon. See, in its glory day, nicotine fueled the greatest minds, the boldest leaders, and the quiet legends who simply got the job done. But somewhere along the way, we lost the plot. Effeminacy began to creep in. Men traded their duty for comfort. And now big tobacco sells us nothing but compromise. Knick knack raises the old banner again. This is nicotine elevated, honest and intentional. Manufactured here in the United States by a family owned company that refuses to compromise. See, Knick Knack is a fully dissolvable nicotine lozenge made with just six premium ingredients. They're all clearly listed on the back so you know exactly what's in it. There's no smoke, no pouch, nothing. Hidden essential oils for real flavor in 3 to 6 milligrams. So get [e-mail] Again, that's knick knack.com and use code JOEL20,!. Joel20,/. To get 20% off or use the store locator to find knickknacks near you. Raise a standard, reject the slope. Join the pursuit of the good, the true and the beautiful. Knick knack crush your vice.

[B]

Right? And that speaks to how we are part of groups. We also have a capacity as individuals to, to Be independent and to have kind of a unique taste or whatever. So. So I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive in that way. People think it's all or nothing. Either somebody walks into a shop and we're gonna say, we're so race blind. I don't. I don't even know what color that person is. I have no idea what to expect versus, oh, I see a person of a certain color. I know exactly what they're about. I think everyone recognizes there's. There's a position in the middle.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which is realistic.

[A]

Agreed. So I, you know, I've come to the point where I tell people I'm not a race essentialist. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, you know, Judaism, like, those things would be more important to me. So religion would trump race. So I'm not a race essentialist. I'm also not a racial determinist. I don't think things change in 15 minutes. But we talked about this offline. But I do think that things can change over time. And so I'm not fatalistic that it's set in the stars, that every race will be exactly as it is today for all of time. I think that people can change, albeit slowly. Albeit slowly. So not a race essentialist, not a race determinist. But I think race realist is probably the best term that I've heard so far. I think there's. Even with that there's some baggage attached that ways that I would want to distinguish myself, but I think I'm. I'm fairly comfortable using that label. And, you know, for. For myself as a Christian and a pastor, like, I always want to be able to account for things biblically, you know, and one of. One of the passages that I think of, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this, I'm sure you're probably familiar, but in Titus, the very beginning of, you know, Paul's letter to Titus, kind of like Timothy, another young man in the faith, he opens up by saying, this is why I left you in Crete, the isle of Crete, to put what remains in order, appointing elders in all the churches. And he goes in the first chapter into the qualifications for an elder in the church. And then a little later in the letter to Titus, this is all in the New Testament. Paul, he doesn't actually say it himself, but he's quoting one of the Cretan prophets. He says, one of your own said, all cretins are gluttons, liars, lazy beasts. But then he does say, and this is true. It's like you know, based Apostle Paul, you know, so, like. But here's the thing. I think you have to hold intention to be fair. So the quote from a Cretan prophet is, hey, I'm cretin myself. But let's. Let's be honest. You know, cretins suck, you know, and they suck in particular ways, not just generally, but they're known for these particular things. They're lazy, they're beastly, so maybe low, like impulse control, you know, they're. They're impulsive and they're gluttons, you know, so indulgent, you know, and dishonest, you know, so these kinds of things. And the Apostle Paul validates that and says, he nailed it. This is true. Yet holding an intention at the very same time. The opening to the letter is, this is why I left you in Crete to put what remains in order. Appointing elders in all the churches. And here are the qualifications for being an elder, a pastor, a bishop in the Church of Christ. Well, who is Titus going to find to meet these qualifications to appoint as elders in Cretan churches? Cretins. So I. I take that to mean, like the Apostle Paul on the one hand, is saying in general, right, which is different than universal. But in general, the Cretans as a people collectively are not great. And not just in a general sense, like generally, but not in a vague sense, but in these particular areas, there. There are particular sins that are besetting and generally true of the Cretan people as a whole, not just this one Cretan as an individual. But no, you could actually describe the Cretans collectively in these negative ways, and you would be generally right. And yet, one, because that's general, not universal, there will always be exceptions. And two, because of the power of the gospel, Christ actually changes hearts. I think that there will be some Cretans that will be fit to. To be ministers. And this is why I left you there to put that. And I feel like we can do. And I can do that, honestly, I can do it with Europeans. And I wouldn't say historically, I wouldn't say King Alfred is what I'm about to, you know, describe white people. But today, like today, I would say. And I could say all people. And you have to understand the disclaimer, all people, a generalization. Of course there are exceptions, but in a general sense, I would say all white people are suicidal, toxic empathy and cowardly, and that's why the west is falling apart. And then I feel like I could also say all black people are impulsive. Lazy. Like I could list some particular sins. And again, in general, of course, there are exceptions. I'm not thinking of Thomas Sowell, you know, not thinking of Clarence Thomas. And I think I could also, to go one step further, say all Jews are subversive. And, you know, there would of course be some exceptions there as well. But the point is, I think the Bible actually has a category for that, all cretins. So I'm not just being. And I can say those things and not say. And therefore I hate them or I wish them harm or I would mistreat them as a lower class of, you know, or deprive them of certain rights. But. But I can still prejudge. I know that among these people because the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. There's. It's just. Race is a tribe, it's an extended family. And I know that this family has these kinds of characteristics, both good and bad. Here are some of the bad ones in particular. And so if this is a black man who's a member of my church and a friend, I'm not thinking about any of that. I'm thinking about what I know at the individual level because I individually know him. But if it's a perfect stranger and I've never met before, then I'm thinking of. And I do this with white people. I meet a random white person in 2025, and I'm thinking, this guy's probably a cuck. Mike is probably cowardly, probably, you know, this, that, and the other. And I have a fairly high statistical chance of being right.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, so I don't think that that's mean. I don't think that's a sin.

[B]

No.

[A]

You know, what do you think?

[B]

Yeah, I think that, you know, my favorite quote is from Sam Francis. I'm sure you heard me say this, but he's. Or I think it was Pat Buchanan, actually. He said race is not everything, but it isn't nothing.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think everyone recognizes that it's at. Somewhere in between. Because it would be ridiculous to say that we can't make any generalizations because you can make generalizations about anything. You can make generalizations about people from different generations, boomers, millennials, zoomers. You make generalizations about people that live in California. You can make gen. You know, and yes, that also applies to the races also as a distinct group. And we have layers of identity, you know, as Americans, as people of a certain generation, people of a certain ra. And of course, there are certain attitudes that come with that. Attitudes Behaviors. And at the same time you'd recognize it would be ignorant to say that that, like you said, applies universally to every single member.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And that is so vilified. Then if you make any generalization, they're saying you're ignorantly applying that to everyone in all cases with no exceptions. And you're doing it in a hateful way, irrationally because of some base xenophobia.

[A]

Because you're lying. Yeah. They say two things. One, you're dumb and ignorant, but also you're mean and malicious.

[B]

It's hateful and pointed. Yeah. When it really isn't. I mean, on some level we have to audit our society if we wanna make things better for anyone. And every group has their strengths and weaknesses. Every group has their, you know, things that. It's just how they do these things, you know, like you would say with white people, clearly white people have lots of problems. And you're able to say that very freely. You know what you just said. Yeah.

[A]

The first part was easy.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

The next part, even Nick Fuentes, I noticed you're like, what's he gonna say?

[B]

And what's funny is because what you said will be clipped.

[A]

It will be.

[B]

Not the part where you said whites are cowardly.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

But the part where you said blacks are lazy.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

Why? We all know why. But it's true. You could say that whites have a lot of problems. Blacks obviously have a lot of problems, Jews have problems, Muslims have problems. But we exist also, but not the same problems.

[A]

Which is kind of part of what I was getting. It wasn't just all cretins are bad.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But in these particular ways. And it helps to know.

[B]

Right?

[A]

It helps to know.

[B]

Well, because they're descriptive, they're qualitative, it's not a put down and saying you're bad, you're less than, you're inferior. But it's saying that. And I like to use the word sin because I do think that they are kind of like concentrated sins.

[A]

They are particular sins that are sadly generally accurate in describing a particular people.

[B]

Right. Yeah. And I don't think it does us any good to ignore those things. But the reason it is the way it is, these like double standards. Because that, that's also where we enter in on the subject of race, is we talk about race. Naturally people talk about racism. How is it wrong to acknowledge race? How is it wrong to talk about race? And then it naturally leads into how the particular races are treated differently. And some say that there's racism against the non whites. By the whites. Increasingly, people say it's in reverse, it's gone so far in the other direction. But I think what is glaring is the historical context, which people often miss. Maybe on our side, people don't talk about or they refuse to acknowledge is that we're coming up on maybe the end of 500 years of preeminence by Europeans, by whites. That's sort of the elephant in the room that like non whites, that's their preoccupation. And whites, because we are white, don't maybe even realize the gravity of this. But this has not always been the way of the world, right? Because at various points in time, the Ottoman Turks were the pinnacle of civilization, or the Islamic caliphate or the Chinese. And at various times the relative distribution of wealth and power was different, meaning that maybe there was some parity between the Orient and the West. And of course, these uncontacted, more primitive civilizations like Africa and America didn't have to deal with white people. But we're talking about 500 years of whites because of the Industrial Revolution, because of the Enlightenment, rapidly gaining relative power and then imposing that power on other people and systematizing that power. And it's in this context, this is where you get this Marxist definition of racism, where they say, well, it's prejudice plus power. And the power is sort of critical. Right, because.

[A]

Which is why, like a black person, a minority, can't be racist, right? Only, only white people can be racist.

[B]

Well, because they say, well, you can't inflict these, like, attitudes on people using power either overtly or in a more subtle way. And I would say that, you know, that is, that's just kind of like rhetoric. I mean, to me it is obviously true, and it's even also true to this day that that European civilization predominates, but it doesn't make it any less true. What's happening with these other people, the black people. And by the way, I would say to the contrary, it almost proves what we're saying about these groups or the disparities between them. Because the sensitivity lies in that black and brown people and even Asians on some level, have been under the heel of the whites for 500 years. They. And the way they say it is like they drew the short end of the stick. It's because whites are violent or whites are cruel. I would say it's because whites were more developed. That's really, that's the elephant in the room, right? And nobody wants to. Because where even do you get the power dynamic? It's that whites were Able, that's right. To inflict on other people because of their technological prowess, their organization, their societal development. And these other civilizations were weak. You know, Columbus Day, we're shooting this around Columbus Day. It's not that they weren't willing to inflict that they couldn't. That's right. And they couldn't because they didn't have our level of development.

[A]

And with anyone that they could, they did exactly right. Like it wasn't missiles, but it was rocks or whatever. But I mean like you think of, you know, historically Africa. It's not like a bunch of Europeans were running through the jungle, you know, and capturing people. They were lined up on the beach to be sold by other blacks.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, so. So everybody has been oppressive.

[B]

Right.

[A]

White people just did it exceedingly well.

[B]

Yes, yes, excel that organized violence, which is the highest, it's basically in terms of human activity, it's the highest aspiration. You know, Patton had a quote like this. It's the highest thing that a person can aspire to because I mean that's ultimately what, what the history of humanity is, is conflict, organized conflict between groups. And so there's a reckoning now about this. And you know, the browns and blacks are saying, well, we have been subjugated and we have drawn the short end of the stick. We have less, less resources, less power. And that means that our lives and organizations been dictated to us by whites. And whites are saying, well, there's a reason for that. And you sort of see these things now playing out within America, now that we have a very diverse country. And I think that regardless, this is an inflection point for the history of the world because it's always been a clash of civilizations. But now I think for the first time the clash is happening on the interior, it's happening from within, it's happening inside the border through politics.

[C]

I've taken methylene blue because it actually works. It cuts through brain fog and it gives me clean, steady energy without the crash that you would expect from coffee. Coffee and energy drinks. Now this company Nutracel is a family owned and America first company. Unlike big pharma, they actually care about your health and not just their profits. So that's why for a limited time you can use promo code NXR to get 15% off your order by going to Nutracel store.

[B]

And so it's sort of a difficult, it's a difficult way to look at it because our generation of, well, we're from different generations but closely together in the grand scheme of things. You know, we've been brought up with this rhetoric that's been meant to soften the edges of the racial divide. And so I think we're coming at it with, like, basically an ahistorical perspective. Because the other thing that people don't want to acknowledge is that everyone for all time, except for the past 30 years, was like a vile racist according to our standards.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Even George Washington, even Thomas Jefferson. Even Abraham Lincoln.

[A]

Yeah, Abraham Lincoln. He was absolutely a white supremacist. There's, like, no debating it. And was really uncharitable in a lot of ways, like R.L. dabney and guys who defended, you know, the Southern Presbyterian Christian men. And, and I, and I believe they were good men. And I'm not going to apologize for my Christian fathers, but, you know, they were defending this slavery, but not the slave trade. Like R.L. dabney, he thought that the slave trade was a breach of, like, Exodus chapter 21 and certain biblical principles of man stealing and those things. But he had ways of, you know, it wasn't just arbitrary. Like, he had arguments, so he had ways of articulating, well, okay, you know, the man stealer is punishable, According to Exodus 21, by death anyone found in possession of someone who was stolen. But that, that's kind of like a one degree of separation. What do you do when it's the third generation of people who. Their grandfather or even fourth generation great grandfather was stolen by these people, this tribe that defeated this tribe and sold them to this other tribe, then they sold them to Jews, then Jews sold them to Europeans, you know. And so he was basically saying, like, at this point, many of the slaves in America, they only speak English. They're Christians now. They've been catechized. They're actually participating in these white churches as members. Brothers in Christ. Yes. Monday through Saturday, there's still a master slave dynamic. Ephesians 6 talks to this. It's in the Bible, but they are our brothers in Christ. They're. They're in the church. They only speak English. Where are they going to go? You know, Abraham Lincoln was like, you know, maybe we can drop them off in Africa. You know, like. Which is actually really inhumane. I mean, they'd be dropped off, you know, like three generations later, probably thousands of miles from where their ancestors were taken. Can't even speak the language. Have no. Like, I mean, it's. It's really cruel. And so then the question is like, okay, well, if we free the slaves, but we're not also, you know, sending them Back across, you know, the ocean. Then. Then where do they go here? And, you know, there were some guys who suggested, well, we can send them out west, you know, and give them. And Abraham Lincoln. And some of the Northern guys were like, no. And they were like, why? Because we want to settle that area and we don't want them as neighbors. So they were like, so they were. They have to be freed and they also still have to stay right next door to all the Southerners. And, you know, and so the south was like, wait, what? You know, like, I don't understand. It's like, why you're like, you really love black people, right? And they're like, no, that's not our position. We hate them. We just don't want them to, you know, to be enslaved. And also we don't want you to guys to succeed. Succeed. So there's that. But the point is, like, you look back and it's like anybody who's labeled as a racist today is pretty much like a liberal by comparison to just, you know, just 100 years ago, what the average person thought. I don't think there's a racist, like, true racist alive currently.

[B]

Yeah, I agree with that. And if there are, they're. They're exceedingly rare.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And. And a lot of people don't even know that history. They think that, that it's sort of like with World War II and the Holocaust, like many people think we went to World War II to stop the Holocaust in the same way that people think we went to war to free the slaves, you know, for the good of humanity.

[A]

It's cute.

[B]

And yeah, it's a nice story.

[C]

You almost don't want to pop the bubble for them.

[A]

Just leave them there, let them think it.

[B]

Yeah. But no, and, and I like that you said that people don't even know Abraham Lincoln was committed to creating colonies where we could send all the black people in either Africa or Central America. And the only reason it didn't happen is because he died when he was trying to do it. And there was very contentious inside the government. But that was the original plan. And then even beyond the plan to repatriate them for hundreds of years, all the president said, there will never be legal, social equality, political equality between the whites and the blacks in the same political. The body politic. They just said that's just never going to happen. And what has happened since is basically out of white guilt, we have come up with now this suicidal ideology where. And by the way, it's not even sufficient that we integrate the people that were forcibly brought here, which arguably might be some form of a reparation. Arg. I'm not making that argument. But some might argue, well, these people are brought here against their will. Now you have to integrate them.

[A]

Okay, real quick though, what you would say, what's the real reparation? You get to live in America.

[B]

Right, Right.

[A]

God bless. Like what a privilege. Privilege for me, privilege for you. Like the richest black people on God's green earth are African Americans.

[B]

Yeah. Would they rather live in Haiti? Africa? I mean, take your pick.

[A]

Go ahead.

[B]

But, but yeah, no, arguably we would have to do that. But now what we're talking about is making America a majority non white country. Who thinks that's a good idea?

[A]

Right.

[B]

Is there one person who thinks that America will get better? And for who? Certainly not for the native people living here, not for the white people. Probably not even for the black people.

[A]

Right.

[B]

The only people this is good for is the foreigners themselves. And what's really interesting also is that you were in this post racial project out of an abundance of white guilt. We feel sorry for the colonized, the, the indigenous, the poor of the world. We're bringing them here. It makes white people feel better about themselves to have that around. And I think though, that, and this is an important distinction, a lot of the people that propagated this, it was kind of sold to them as not actually what it is. Because what it is is that there's going to be no majority, no dominant cultural force. No, there won't be hegemony, a plural plurality of any group. It will be completely diverse. But it was sold to them as like whites plus white country with some diversity. And I think even that would be acceptable. And I was talking about this, I think with Gavin McInnes. It's like if you're in a neighborhood of all white people and one black family moves in and they're nice and well mannered and respectful, would anyone really have a problem with that?

[A]

No.

[B]

If it was all whites and some black people? I don't think so. Not as long as everybody was following the laws. Or for that matter, an Indian family or a Chinese family or Mexican family. I don't think so.

[A]

Like the Fuentes.

[B]

Right? Like the Fuentes clan. We're nice enough. You know, they were, they were, you know, the Fuentes were drug addicts, grandfather's a heroin addict. So maybe not the best, but over generations. Right. But you know, and, and maybe it's two families. Okay. It's not so bad. I mean, it's 90% white. But the question is, what happens when that neighborhood becomes 90, 10 in the other direction now, not so comfortable. And that's really the way that I like to frame the race issue in America. Historically, it was whites with some blacks. Now it's gonna be all non whites with some whites. And that's a whole different story. That's a whole different country. That's. That's a different dynamic. You can't call that immigration. And you start to say that, well, we now are actually losing something that we're entitled to, which is the ability to have our way of life represented. And you think about a future where there will be Chinatown in America, there will be little India, little Haiti, little Cuba, whatever. Will there even be a single separate city or suburb that is meaningfully European or white where they actually have any kind of ethnic heritage, cultural heritage? I think the answer is no on this timeline.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And that has already happened, by the way, in Canada. Yeah, in Canada, they have imported like, 50% of their population the past 25 years. And it is entire cities and towns that have been taken over where there are literally no white people. And that is, by definition, the suicide of a country. So, you know, there. There's a lot that could be said about race. Excesses of racism or identitarian thought, identifying too much with race. And we. These things are not quantitative. You know, you can't say how white is a person. You could go to their genetics. But people have a different phenotype, right? Different characteristics and. And things like that. So it's qualitative and it's. It's rough. But we could say that certainly we're not racial enough, let's put it that way. Nobody would argue that we should be a completely racial society. Whites only, we only want. And everyone that isn't white, we don't like. I don't think anyone's saying that, but people are saying the country's becoming not racial enough. And white people in particular do not have enough of an affinity or pride in themselves to even protect the identity of their nation. That's really the issue.

[A]

That's very well said. So let's spend maybe the second half of the episode, but one final big idea. So we've talked about, you know, we've talked about race. But I'd be really curious because I've heard some of those things from you before, and I pretty much agree with all of it. Like, sometimes you're in the final segment of the show, it's the super chats, you're on your Seventh hour and getting a little loosey goosey. And so you'll word it in ways that I wouldn't word it. But I think your position I agree with. But race aside, let's now talk about how do you. Because I don't hear you talk about this as much. How do you account for race? How do you account for why are there different? As a Christian, you believe the Bible, right? But you're also like, you're not a Neanderthal. You believe the Bible. You also, you know, have your sense perception and reason and science and those kinds of things. Like, so I'd just be curious. You're a bright guy. How do you account for race? The fact that we have different races, different strengths, different weaknesses, some have fared better than others. How do, how do you, in a way that, you know, holds the Bible, doesn't contradict it, but then also accounting for other things, how do you account for race?

[B]

Well, I think the origin of the races is that you go back to the original people that were created by God and descended from Adam and they went out into the world. And I think they reflect the different tribes and different descendants. And as far as their relative position, well, first I would say that I always go back to the Tower of Babel. When people talk about the universalism of Christianity. I go back to the idea that God wants actually for there to be nations. He created the nations.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

There was a point where we're all coming together and then the people were scattered.

[A]

It wasn't good.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Like I always tell people, it was a judgment. So there, there were two sins. It says, let's, let's build, you know, a tower that stretches to the heavens so that we can be as God and make a great name for ourselves. So one sin, arrogance, pride, trying to deify themselves, be as God. And so God judges. There's a judgment. Babel is a judgment for the sin of arrogance. However, that's not the only sin. It also says they finish and say, lest we be scattered over the face of the Earth. And I do think that that actually represents the second sin. First sin, arrogance, tower that stretches of the heavens, make a name for ourselves, be as God. Second sin, not be scattered over the face of the earth. Well, the dominion mandate that was given to Adam in the garden was be fruitful and multiply and subdue the whole Earth. Like the original plan was not just that there would be a lot of people, but that these people would ultimately spread out and fill up the whole earth. And so then the Tower of Babel you literally have them saying the very thing that God commanded Adam to do. Let's not do it. Let's build this tower and make this great name for ourselves so that we can congregate and stagnate and bottleneck and not fulfill the very thing that God commanded our ancestor Adam. Adam to do so that we would not be spread out over the Earth. So I think two sins. One, arrogance, let's be like God. Two, let's not fulfill the dominion mandate and spread out. Because I actually think that without the Tower of Babel, God's providential plan likely would have resulted in different dialects which would have evolved into different languages. And, you know, some people would live in the mountains and some people in cold regions and hot regions and seafaring people. And over time, just the. The different distance distinctions of the geography itself in different places and different climates and. And being, you know, separated from people, you know, would. Would have. Would have lent to it. It all would have snowballed into different languages, different cultures, different peoples, different people. So the nations were God's plan. And you literally have a group of people saying no. And so, so I think, you know, when God confuses their languages. The way that I teach this, you know, in our church and, and as a pastor, is that you have a judgment for the sin of arrogance. And the second sin that I think people miss, the sin of not wanting to be fruitful, multiply and spread out and fill the earth. And in that sense, it's a judgment, but it's a judgment that conceals, because God is exceedingly kind. It's a judgment that conceals a hidden mercy. Like within this judgment of confusing their languages so that they would disperse. There's also a mercy. And the mercy is. You guys are trying to get off the rails from my original plan, and I'm going to judge you for that sin of rebellion, but in such a way that it actually functions as a catalyst to more quickly fulfill my plan, which is all the plans of God. A good plan. You're welcome. Yeah. So back to you.

[B]

Yeah, that's interesting. I've never heard that angle before on the Tower of Babel.

[A]

What do you think? Crazy or no?

[B]

I think that's true. True. I think that there's a lot. There's a lot in that story, and I agree with that. But I would say that as far as the. The disparities, a lot of it does come down to geography. I think that's a huge part of it. And it is, you know, there. There's been many theories on this, and one of the most prominent theories is that the people of the north, because they have the winter, have to plan for the future.

[A]

Right?

[B]

And ultimately that is what separates in terms of IQ in terms of development. It's that long term planning, right, seems to be the difference maker because where you have warmer climate and you don't have to plan for the winter, you just have game year round. You, you never actually move beyond a nomadic society to an agrarian society. And without that you, you don't even have a concept of the future. You know, for a long time there was like a famous post on 4chan that went viral and who knows if it was real or fake, but it was a person who claimed to be someone who worked in Africa and said they literally do not have a word for the future. And we would give them money, we try to get them to plant seeds, but they, they just had no concept of sowing and reaping, you know, no concept of kind of like delayed gratification. Delayed gratification, right, that time preference. And of course, if people are just hunting and gathering all the time, there's really no need actually ever. It's all cyclical rather than progressive in a certain sense. And so this is why they say the Europeans develop the highest IQ because they face these cold, tough winters. And they came with other things too. They had these very like tight knit clans. And there's other selection biases there, but they say they basically use a geographic determinism. And one, here's another example which I heard recently, they say that one of the reasons the American Indians practice so much cannibalism is because their diet consisted largely of corn and they were starved of protein. Actually, because their diet being mostly maize, it actually has no nutritional content. And so what they needed was protein from flesh. I guess they couldn't get it from animals. So that's, that's why they developed this like blood thirst. I heard that on Twitter. I don't know if that's real or not, but.

[A]

Well, you heard it on Twitter, so

[B]

it must be, must have some basis in reality, but. So I think it almost always goes back to nutrition. It always goes back to geography. It goes back to the basics.

[A]

There actually are basic explanations is what you're saying. So I think that's entirely true. The only thing that I would add to it, and I just want to hear your response is I would also, you know, put some stock in the biblical narrative, just like we did with Babel. But then, you know, that's on the heels of of also the three sons of Noah. So, you know, a global flood in which everything that had the breath of air in its lungs was wiped out is what the Bible says, Genesis 9, 10. And except for Noah, his wife, three sons and their three wives, eight persons in all, saved through the ark and the passage of water. And, and you know, when the ark finally comes to rest, one of the sons is, you know, he uncovers his father's nakedness. Now, I take that to mean that you look at Leviticus, you shall not uncover your father's nakedness. It's not like dad's naked and you point and laugh. It's to uncover your father's nakedness is to sleep with his wife. So I think it was a sexual immorality. And, and it seems as though Noah recognizes this around the time that his grandson is born, Canaan. And he says, cursed be Canaan. And I think part of the reason he says cursed be Canaan is I, I think there was probably something physical like visibly detectable that Noah saw his grandson was like, you slept with mom, you know, like something like that. So that's not explicit in the text, but I think it's a plausible inference. Exegetically, it's, it's allowed. It's not heresy. But, you know, he, this son is his. Well, technically, the grandson, Canaan is cursed. Now, guys exegete different ways. Some guys say that Ham, the father, Noah's son and the father of Canaan, was generally cursed and Canaan particularly cursed. And, and that of course comes to pass in the fact that Joshua, you know, centuries later, wipes out all the Canaanites. Like, obviously Canaan really was cursed and, and really did pay a heavy price. All the Canaanites wiped out by the Israelites. But then maybe a general curse for, for, you know, the father and all his other sons besides Canaan, the Hamites. But even if that's not, you know, because some guys will say, no, but it doesn't say cursed is Ham. And, and that's fine. I like, I, I think that that's plausible also that it was just a curse for Canaan the grandson and not for him. But what we can say for sure is even if Ham was not cursed, he wasn't blessed. Whereas the other two sons of Noah were blessed for doing the right thing and not uncovering their father's nakedness and actually correcting and rebuking their brother, you know, when he did this wicked thing in the sight of the Lord. And, you know, so one of them is particularly blessed, Japheth you know, and the other, you know, Shem is, is partially blessed. And, but him is either cursed or at least not blessed. And that automatically is a hierarchy of blessing from the Lord and so then their descendants and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, so on and so forth. And so I think there's some stock there. I, you know, I, I think that in the finished work of Christ though, I think he levels the playing field. So I really do think that in the finished work of Christ that, that, you know, he comes to make his blessings flow as far as the curse is found. And so if there was a curse of Ham, I don't think there is any more. I think that, that that's been broken. However, another one of those scenarios was like, you gotta let him cook. Like if, if Ham and his descendants were cursed or even just his two brothers were exceedingly blessed and he was not. But that was the state. That's a prophetic word from the Lord spoken through Noah, their father. If that was a state for, you know, centuries and centuries and centuries until Christ came, that has massive implications. And then, and then if, you know, descendants of Ham, you know, this curse is broken. But it wasn't even broken until 2000 years ago. And it had all of its effects for centuries leading up to that. And even though it's broken, a lot of places in sub Saharan Africa didn't even hear the gospel. Like Jesus came 2000 years ago, but the gospel didn't come to certain regions until 200 years ago.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So it just, it takes time, you know what I mean? So I think there's the geographic way of accounting and I think there's true, I'm kind of of both persuasions. So I think there's practical temporal explanations like you articulated. I think you did really well. And then I think there's also some biblical merit. But notice in the, in my exegesis and the way I use the biblical merit, it doesn't necessitate that you say all descendants of Ham are in fact cursed and forever. So, so I don't even that I think it allows you to be a race realist, recognize race, recognize disparities in these things and disparities necessarily create hierarchies of some sort. But you don't have to be a fatalist. You don't have to say, and it'll be this way forever. You can say the debt could shuffle in the providence of God, but if it does, it would be slowly in the same way that white people developed slowly.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I just think that like that's giving a biblical and practical account for something that we can see with our eyes, you know, and people can say you're being mean or you're being racist, but it's like, dude, I talk to young men. You talk to young men. The. The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Right. I mean, it's like the verdict has come back in. Like, the kids are aware that racist reality.

[B]

Yes. You know what I mean?

[A]

They're aware. And. And so then. So then I feel like the goal for me, like, being a pastor and being older, and I think you with. Because you have so much influence, you have a responsibility, a moral responsibility, okay? Race is real. So with my followers, I'm gonna try to help them. I'm not gonna lie to them and say it's not real. Of course it's real. But I'm gonna help them. One, to account for it why? And to do so biblically and reasonably. And then two, how to live in light of it and to live in light of it wisely, shrewdly, with discernment, but also compassion, kindness.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, fairness. And what other position are you going to take? I'm telling you, dude, like, it's not like, oh, 10 years from now, six months from now, we're going to be losers. We're going to be total moderates. The kids are going to think that we're lame. Yeah. Like, this is. This is not a crazy position.

[B]

No, not at all. And unfortunately, it does seem that, you know, with a lot of this stuff, it. The older that I get, it's. It's sort of interesting. When all of this started, let's say, like 10 years ago, when the really woke, Politically correct stuff started around race, it was very common for people like us to say, well, hey, I'm not racist. All I'm saying is this. Because things that are common sense or even just blunt were called racist and hateful, and it went so far so fast, and it was disorienting. I remember being in school and saying, you know, you'd be like referring to somebody, oh, that. That black guy over there, and they'd say, that's racist. And literally, it's literally black. Literally. Yeah. And I remember growing up and being like, are you kidding me? Like, we're gonna ignore that guy's a different color than everybody. Like, what am I supposed to. That guy with glasses. There's two people with glasses. This some other, like, okay, he's the black one, you know, but people would say, that's racist. And and implying that's hateful. You hate them.

[A]

Right.

[B]

For acknowledging that they're a different color. Right. And so it started out, I think everyone can relate to this. We all started out from this point of view that we were all liberal, basically on race.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Deeply liberal, right?

[A]

Yeah. No, dude, I, I, I'm convicted all the time. I'm like, I'm still kind of a liberal.

[B]

Many whites are, even of our persuasion. Yeah. Even me on some level. It's just so deeply.

[A]

It is, it is. It feels weird. I'm like, I can't think that. And then I'll try to think about it objectively, Biblically. And I'm like, actually, that's true. Why do I have such an aversion to something that's clearly true?

[B]

Right.

[A]

Because I'm a lib. That's why.

[B]

Well, and you start out that way and you say, I'm not racist. I, All I'm saying is this, all I'm saying is that. And what I have noticed, though, in the past 10 years is I do legitimately see that there are people that are filled with hatred.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And it's rare, but we, we have to be honest and call spade a spade. I do see people that have become emboldened and they're riled up and they're not the brightest, but people that are like, no, I, I am a racial idolater and race is everything to me. And I hate these other, all these other groups are blah, blah, blah. And that's why it's, it's important to be nuanced about. And I hate the word nuance, but, like, you have to be precise about what you're talking about. And I am adamantly against racial hatred because I'm against hatred. I don't hate individuals, I don't hate races. And I, I would say it's not even that you dislike them. It's just a recognition that the world is comprised of peoples and the peopling. It matters. It means something. It's real, it's biological. But it also means something to us, like to be black, to be white. It means something to black people. To white people, it means something to each other. So it's sociological and is real and we have to account for it. And we code switch. We talk to black people, we talk differently. We talk to other groups. More sensitivity. You know, maybe we mirror some of their mannerisms or something. And that's one thing. And it's a completely different thing to say that we live and die by our race and our race is our Uniform and, you know, we're going to bat, you know, because I think about this a lot, and I think about how, you know, you can spend a lot of time with someone from another race and really have a good relationship with them on account of they're a good person. And you can admire that they have character and integrity. And you really find you can grow a deep bond because you. You respect a person morally, you respect their faith, their character, et cetera. And so there is something deeper than race. There is actually something deeper that's universal. At the same time, that's a gap that you may never fully bridge. Because at the end of the day, there are certain things when you're going to be reminded we look at things differently because of who we are, because we're white and they're black or Hispanic or whatever. At the end of the day, we do tend to favor being with our own kind. We don't like to feel like aliens. We want to feel familiar. And so it's like, it's tough to kind of balance between a primitive racial hatred and like, what you would call xenophobia, just hatred of those that are not like you. At the same time, there is something, in my opinion, natural and actually good about tribalism in itself that look, we like being around people that look like us. It is that simple for me, right? And people ask me about, well, because

[A]

we like being around people who look like us because the people who look like us have the highest likelihood of being like us.

[B]

Right?

[A]

It's the skin color, the outward, visible. You know, extremities are not arbitrary. They are visible, external markers of a certain kind of person. And, you know, again, always exceptions. But it's like, yeah, this person who looks exactly like that person, chances are not just with their physical appearance, but with their behaviors, with their. Their values, with this, that and the other. There's probably some similarities, right? We want to be with people who look like us because we want to be with people who are like us.

[B]

Right. Well. And, you know, nobody wants to be a minority.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

At the end of the day. And what's funny is, like, we think about black people. They've been a minority in America forever, and that's why they have the black community. They want to go somewhere where they are the majority, right? They're in a neighborhood where it's all black faces and so. Or a church, right? And in. In a neighborhood, in a church. Because I think there is something like I the thought of living in a community of people where I'm the Only one that looks and acts like me. Even, by the way, if I were, let's say in the south, because I'm like a Yankee, a northerner, I'm Italian, I'm an American ethnic, I'm a Catholic, even among, even among southern white people, I would feel like a fish out of water. And that would, there would be something deeply disconcerting because I love my home, I love where I came from. But would I prefer that over being in a community of all Indian people where they all speak with an accent and aren't even Christian? Like, of course. So there's, it's like a gradient on some level. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being around people that are like us. We have to stop being shy about that. And by the way, every other non white group feels exactly the same way.

[A]

Every group has an in group preference or is their own in group preference. Except for white people.

[B]

Right.

[A]

It's crazy. We, we're the only people who, who are our own out group.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Isn't that crazy?

[B]

And it's, it's like, it's not even race. It's like ethnicity. Koreans want to be with Koreans, Chinese want to be with Chinese, Arabs want to be with Arabs. Whites, we're like, no, we don't even want a home to call our own. We want every country to go away. And it's like, I be careful what you wish for. I think we would all hate that. I don't like that at all.

[A]

Agreed. Okay. Very end. So I agree with everything you just said. I think it's well said, I think it's thoughtful. I think it's perfectly reasonable. There's nothing extreme about it. You know, leftists will say whatever they want to say. Well, let's be honest, conservatives will say it too. But once upon a time, and not even that long ago, you know, in terms of your position, I think your position was mostly the same. But your rhetoric, like I mentioned earlier. So two questions. Why, why did you used to speak about race? You know, N word, things like that, like the way that you did. And then also second question. Why'd you stop? Because it does seem like you've stopped. Like you're, you're pivoting, like you're the same guy. I'm not saying you've sold out or anything like that, but you know, you, you used to talk a certain way. And just for the record, I've told you this, you know, personally, but I'm, I wouldn't have done that. But I, I'm I am sympathetic in the sense that you're a 17 year old kid, your life is blown up with less than a thousand Twitter followers, everybody hates you, you're single, you're not beholden to anybody, and so you lean in and play the heel. I can, I can see that calculus. I feel it sometimes. One of the things that keeps me from doing is I have a wife and five kids in a church, you know, but like, if I was, like, if I was 17 and single and everybody says I'm a monster, I'd be like, I'll show you a monster. You know, like, like, I get it. I'm sympathetic to that. And then I think there was also kind of like a shibboleth, like a, like a, a litmus test of sorts of like when in a world that's completely fake and gay, you know, by saying a single word, you know, you, you're like, it's not even that you believe it or that you mean, you know, but it's just like, it proves, like, I'm not bought, I'm not beholden. I'm not. I'm. I'm real. You know, so I, I can see why you did. And, and then also you can just get carried away and it's funny and people are laughing and you, you know, and like, so I can see all the reasons, I guess, why, but it does seem like you've pivoted.

[B]

I don't feel that way.

[A]

Okay, explain.

[B]

I feel like, because I still make some pretty irreverent jokes and I still say the N word. Okay. A lot. And.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

You know.

[A]

Well, I saw one clip where you're like, we want to be a serious operation, so we're going to start. So that's what I'm basing it off of because I, you know, I've tuned into certain parts of the show from time to time, but I'm, you know, I'm not watching every episode.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

So I, so this is news to me. So everything I just said, I guess discounted. But you're still an inward aficionado.

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And, you know, and so then, then

[A]

let's go to the first part of the question. Why?

[B]

Why say the N word? Yeah, Because I think it's just a word.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I think it's because I say a lot of swear words and racial slurs on my show, and to me that's just how you communicate. I mean, not, not that I go around calling people racial slurs, but what I didn't like about the N word is it, you know, this is the only word. It's treated more like a blasphemy. Yeah. Than like a swear word.

[A]

It's like religious.

[B]

Because people on tv, you can blaspheme Jesus Christ.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

And that was my first realization that something was terribly wrong. Because it's like you can worship the devil and blaspheme Christ. And you can, by the way, even if you're not religious, you can say the most filthy, abhorrent, scatological things, sexual things, perverse things. And that's fine. You could have the filthiest mouth like Goodfellas 170F bombs in a movie. But this one word, we're now going to act like we're in preschool and say the N word. We're not even utter it well.

[A]

And for this show, we are going

[B]

to be in preschool.

[A]

I appreciate you being respectful and all.

[B]

Yes. Because it's your platform and I recognize the weight of it. But, but it really bothered me that it was an imposition that you can't utter it. Even context dependent. You cannot even utter the syllables. Or else we will like fire you from your job. Your wife will leave you. Like you'll, you'll get hit in the head with the skateboard. Like this is the kind of thing where it's like he's, he uttered the word. He signed his death warrant.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And to me, I just decided like, and to, to be perfectly honest with you, it was never about being a shot jock. It was never about making a point. It was just saying, I don't play that game. Like I'm a real person. I'm not politically correct at all. And you know, for a time when I got started, I avoided saying that because I didn't want to get canceled any further. Actually was the opposite. But at a certain point I said, you know what, Screw that, who cares? And I try not to use it to be an edge Lord, because honestly, it's not edgy anymore to say it, you know, so it's not, it's not funny a lot of times for that reason. But I just try to speak in an unfiltered way and if the situation calls for it, I'm going to say it. If I'm talking about that word, I'm going to say the word. And if it's for a joke, I'll do it with the soft A, you know, to be funny or something. But I just hate this because to me it almost enforces like a severe negative attitude about white people. This, like, but you can't say that who told you you can say that? It's like, excuse me, you can say it, but I can't. Why? Because I'm white and that I hate. Because there's nothing like that for whites.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And by the way, for all of the sanctimony about the word, do whites really care about. Or, excuse me, do blacks ever care about offending white people? No, Never. Never. They'll. The stuff they say on TV is like, wipe away your white tears and do the work and find out why your ancestors are evil. I mean, literally, like many, not all, but many of them explicitly openly hate us. And we can't utter a word devoid of context. Why? Because it might offend them. I say, you know, I'm an American. I can say whatever I want. So it wasn't even about making a point. It's just like, I'm not playing that game, and I'll pay the price.

[A]

All right, cool. Thanks for the episode. Appreciate it.

[B]

Yeah, thank you.

[A]

All right, for those of you who

[C]

may not be aware, I have the immense privilege of also serving as president for a sister organization to NXR Studios, which is a nonprofit, 501C3 Christian organization called Right Response Ministries. Our focus with this organization is to train and equip pastors and congregants in the Protestant church, primarily the Evangelical church, right here in America. What are we trying to train them in? Well, let's just say we're trying to help evangelical Protestant churches in America to stop being so insufferable, to stop being Zionist shills, to be engaged, not apathetic, but activated the realm of politics and culture, the things that you've been hearing in this series that myself and Nick Fuentes are talking about. We want to see Protestant churches right here in America apply these things to get in the game to win our country back. We want to see evangelicals and Protestants in America actually be America first. Not serving a foreign country at the expense of our own interest, but serving Christ and serving Americans. If you'd like to support us in this mission, we could greatly use your help. You can give a tax deductible donation by simply going to write Response Ministries. Forward slash donate again. That's right. Responseministries.com forward/donate. God bless.