wavePod

Understanding “Race Realism” (w/Nick Fuentes) - NXR EP8 - America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes Repost | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes Repost

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

America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes Repost

Thu Feb 19 2026

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.

Loading summary...

Transcript

A (0:00)

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

B (0:07)

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 (0:51)

Hmm.

B (0:52)

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 (1:56)

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.

A (14:08)

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.

A (30:19)

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.

A (41:33)

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.

A (47:02)

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 (55:20)

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 (60:51)

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.