08 May 2026 (Q&A)

0:00 Just tech issues, just as it goes. Anyway, it is the 8th of May 2026. I am Cory J. Mahler and this is at any cost. So yeah, we love OBS and other problems as well. And the mood lighting that is going on with the background lighting, but not my front light, because apparently my front light has just decided to disconnect from my Wi-Fi and I there's no manual button, because that would make sense. But at any rate, things were slightly delayed today because I was intending to record remotely because I had a location in mind. That did not pan out because the location that had Wi-Fi closes at eight. The location that didn't close at eight didn't have Wi-Fi. So that did not pan out, so I am back in my

0:54 study because I have Wi-Fi and my study doesn't close at 8. At any rate. Before we get into the questions and the reason that I was going out and driving is that as I was unloading groceries earlier earlier today, Gizmo got into the car and refused to get out. And so I decided to take him for a drive and sort of did multitasking and checked out some locations while I did that. That didn't pan out, but Gizmo enjoyed himself and I had a beer, so not too bad. But before we get into the questions tonight, not really housekeeping, but I would like to sort of give a recommendation for everyone. This is something that I would say take it or leave it, but this is really something that you should take it.

1:44 This is something that would be good for you. You should listen to this little bit of advice. And so you need to find an album that you enjoy. And note specifically that I say find, don't pick one you already like. At least probably don't pick one you already like. But find an album you enjoy. Plenty of ways to do that these days. There are plenty of various algorithms and things that will suggest music for you, you can probably find something you'll like. So go ahead and find an album and then don't listen to that album. After you determine, of course, that you like it. With one exception. And the exception is what the sort of psychological trick is and why this is something that's worth doing.

2:31 Listen to it when you are on your way to not back from but on your way to something you enjoy. Pick one, two, three things, it doesn't matter. Just don't pick too many obviously. In my case I pick hiking. But listen to that album while you are on the way to this thing that you enjoy. What you're doing is you're building up a psychological connection between that music and the psychological state lower stress, lower blood pressure, just a general sense of calm that you naturally get from that activity. And so of course I d by activity you like I don't mean something that is really high octane as it were. Pick something that's a little a little more sedate, a little more relaxing. And then what you can do is if you find yourself

3:19 in the future in a situation where you are extremely stressed, you can listen to that album and you will get the stress relief effects. Now obviously you can't do that too much because every time you do it in a stressful situation you are weakening that connection that you've built up. But this is very worth doing. So just a little trick for those of you who are willing to invest a little bit of time and effort into something that will help you psychologically in the future. But that being said, I think I will go ahead and get right into the questions now. Let me pull up my notes. The first question How do you help a young man deal with lust when he is not old enough to be married? And then the reasoning given for it.

4:10 Many of us are adult converts who missed or sinfully dodged this lesson in our teen years. For those of us raising Christian sons, we have no practical advice for our sons. So this is a very real problem because of course we have sort of a disconnect with regard to how Christian our society has been over the past handful of generations. We had Christendom and then it dropped off with the boomers and their parents and their grandparents and now we're sort of trying to restore things, right? Part of the problem is of course structural, and that you can't really address, because you can't change the fact that promiscuity is no longer significantly frowned on in society. There are a lot of problems that you cannot personally fix.

4:57 But I'm gonna turn down this side lamp because that that lighting is just crazy. But the things that you can address and the things that you can control are the ones that you should indeed address and control. And so one is removing temptations. This is the same for men generally and for those raising sons, right? Don't have a personal computer in your room. It makes a lot more sense. It's a lot better for you to have not a family computer because I recognize we're not living in that era anymore. For the zoomers and younger, you think family computer, what even is that, right? There used to be one computer in the house, and everyone had to take turns using it. And it was in a common area, that's how it worked.

5:41 That's not feasible these days, but you could have a computer room or you can have a place where you use the computers. Removing that temptation, or at least easy access to that temptation, is helpful. Your children are probably going to object, they're probably not going to like your plan. But it works. And that is one thing that you can do in order to help your sons to avoid some of those temptations because it really is just avoiding the temptation. One of the recommendations of scripture, of course, is to flee temptation, particularly sexual temptation. And the way to do that is not to have it with you 24-7. It's to remove it as much as is possible. You mentioned marrying or really being too young to marry, and that's

6:31 going to depend, right? Different cultures, different ages. For Americans being largely Western European descended, the average age of marriage, it's not in the late teens, as some influencers online will try to tell you. It is more early twenties for women and mid twenties for men. That is the historical norm. So Mary young. That resolves the problem. Maybe even marry a little younger than that. There's nothing wrong with that. I happen to agree with Luther and a number of other commentators who have said that sort of as this world progresses and the consequences of the fall compound and we're really moving away from God in a certain sense, human humanity and human nature gets weaker. And so the temptations are more pressing.

7:25 The temptations are more difficult to resist. We give in more easily than some of our ancestors. So take the medicine that God recommended, because what did God say? God said the cure for sexual temptation is a wife. So every man should have his own wife. There's nothing wrong with marrying young. In fact, marrying young is going to keep you away from a number of these problems. It's not going to get rid of all of your problems. It's not a cure all. Of course it's not. But it is certainly going to fix some of these. Because the temptation the sexual temptation specifically, the only cure in scripture, the only thing God recommends is marriage. Let each man have his own wife because of the temptation to

8:11 sexual immorality. That's the only solution that God gives, and we shouldn't look for other solutions where God is given one. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't do things to guard ourselves against these temptations, but given the reality of the era in which we live and society, until those things are changed and removed, one of the best things you can do is arrange for your children to marry young and then avoid all those temptations that would hit them hard in their early 20s through, you know, early 30s. That's really sort of the the peak for that. And obviously a little earlier as well, but there's only so much you can do, right? So basically in sum, remove the temptations and take the medicine that

8:55 God has given. That's the best that we can do. Question two. Does the office of hegemony, which is to say empire, come with duties to our subordinate states similar to how a king would have a duty to his subjects? Then the reasoning for it God gave America an empire, and I would rather not have my nation sin by having it forsake its station if the offices or if the office comes with duties we must fulfil. So for me this is very easy to answer, as some of you undoubtedly already know, right? I'm an imperialist. I do believe in empire, I believe in what we're really dealing with here is suzerainty, right? You have the suzerain, which is just French for above sovereign, that's all it is, sous sovereign.

9:50 And so that is the imperial authority. And then under that you have the vassal states. And so the vassals are internally sovereign to a certain degree, usually with regard to things like their culture and maybe their internal politics, but their foreign or international politics is controlled by the suzerain and their economics to some degree. I think that is a fine system. I think that's one of the best systems. And I happen to think it's also one of the only ways you have anything like a lasting peace. I do believe in the hegemonic peace theory. I'll link that in the the show notes for those who are unfamiliar. But I do think that we have certain duties with regard to our position as the hegemon, because God has given us authority, he's given us

10:40 power, he has given us headship over others, and anytime you have headship, you are expected to exercise it in a way that is consonant with God's law, with God's plan, and brings those who are under your headship into into the kingdom. That is what we are required to do. And so one of the requirements of the hegemon would be to see that those under him are Christian. We are certainly not doing that. We We certainly failed with regard to World War II, and even at the end of World War II, because there's the obvious example of not converting Japan to Christianity, which, regardless of the wickedness of what happened in World War Two, not converting Japan to Christianity given the opportunity to do so is another level of wickedness compounding the

11:37 sin. So these days, the US is not as much of a hegemon because we are sort of returning to a multipolar system instead of a monopolar system for a very long time, relatively speaking, international affairs anyway, the US held a sort of supreme authority that has been unrivaled in history at almost all times. With the exception being certain empires in certain areas of the world at certain times historically had that level of power and control. No empire ever exercised what the US had from the fall of the Soviet Union, and really for a decade or so before that, but certainly from the fall of the Soviet Union until really the last handful of years, where we're returning to a multipolar system.

12:32 And yes, a multipolar system always ends up with chaos. That's how we wound up with world wars and other things. In part, obviously, there's more to it. But given that we are no longer the hegemon, then we are going to have different considerations because we no longer have the same level of control, but it's sort of the same just on a larger scale, as when you look at an individual person, right, God expects you to do what you can with what you've been given. This goes back to ties back into that first question, right? You can't change all of society overnight. God doesn't require that of you. He hasn't given you that power. So you do what you can with what you have been given. The same thing is true of nations, the same thing is true

13:17 of the hegemon. And so we should do what we can as America with the power entrusted to us, entrusted to our control, to bring things in line with God's desires. And yes, that does include being a hegemon, being a suzerain and having vassal states that are subordinated to us because we have more power. We've been given that by God. A lot of this is going to have to play out over the next handful of years because some of this is up in the air, right? China is trying to compete, Russia is trying to compete. We have competing powers that are vying for that title of hegemon. Russia's not much of a serious competitor, but China is seriously competing. Question three. The declining birth rates in the West, or the declining birth rate

14:17 in the West, is well known, and now it seems much of the third world is starting to follow suit. From what I've read on this and my own experience, shows the only groups that are having children any numbers are more conservative and religious. Thus the next generation will at least come from this more conservative and religious stock. My question is do you believe that this imbalance in demographics and birth rates Will lead to a resurgence in Christendom in the West. This assumes that parents do not let their culture subvert the raising of their children. So, this is in large part true, generally speaking, when you control for other factors, which is sort of the key here, when you control for other factors, those who are more religious, more conservative, are

15:05 going to have more children. The problem is controlling for those other factors, right? Because currently, for instance, in the West, we have large numbers of foreigners invading our countries having large numbers of children. They're not conservative really in the sense we mean here. They are religious, to some degree, unfortunately, it's generally demon worship, but they're religious. And so when you don't control for something like that, which is to say race in this case, then it doesn't hold. Because you have these other groups having huge numbers of children who are not more Christian, are not more conservative in the sense we mean when we use the term. And so it would hold if you had a homogeneous with regard

15:59 to race, United States, or any other country, the more religious and more conservative would have more children, and over time things would shift in their direction just because of the nature of numbers, right? If you have more people, you generally have more control. Even if you're not in a democracy. However, again, because of the fact that we have all of these foreigners in our countries, it is not doing that. It is not benefiting us in the way that it would. And so those problems have to be addressed, because if you don't address the immigration and other issues like that, you can't do anything about these sorts of problems, right? If you don't address the immigration, if you don't it's not even

16:48 right to call it an immigration. If you don't address the invasion, then it doesn't matter that within our portion of the population, our people are trending more conservative and more religious. And there's also the fact that it's just going to take too long. This is a multi-generational problem. We have to solve a lot of problems within our generation. So does this benefit us to some degree? Yes. But it doesn't benefit us enough that it's going to really help us in the overall fight. A second question from the same person, so this is question four. Do you have a preference for tobacco? The answer is no, because I've never really done much in terms of any kind of smoking. I occasionally take a knick-knack.

17:36 Obviously I'm not you know sponsored, I don't get anything for saying that. I just like them because they're all natural and don't have weird stuff or come from India. Bonus points for that. But I don't really smoke. I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm not saying I never have smoked I've ever smoked any illicit drugs drugs. But I've smoked a handful of cigarettes over time. I went to law school, plenty of people smoked. You occasionally get handed a cigarette. So and I've smoked a few cigars, but I d not enough. I don't know enough about it to have any real opinion on like this region is great or this plantation has the best tobacco. I just don't know enough about it, and I probably never will.

18:16 Although I do have a handful of people who keep trying to push me to take up smoking a pipe. I guess we'll see if that happens. Question five and then I think I'll take a minute to note down some questions from the chat. If God blessed you with children, how would you prepare them in material, monetary or non faith matters? Faith matters are covered through scripture, church, the early church fathers, stone choir, etc. And then the reasoning for it, the silent greatest and boomer generation, so the three I mentioned earlier, screwed the rest of us. That's that is true. Which is to say millennials and beyond must break that evil chain. I want to refine the work I do for my children and get more Christian men taking practical steps to improve their children's lives

19:03 since they are the future of the church. Now yes, they are the future of the church and you should care for your children and scripture is very clear that a good man lays up wealth and good things for his children, his grandchildren for future generations, right? The problem is that in modern parlance we hear that and we think that it is just money. We have this tendency to think, well that means that he creates a trust account and that all the the everyone else in his line never has to work again, right? We think we sort of hear that. That's not necessarily what's in view, because there are many other things you can do that are in a way more important. So the overarching goal is to create a better tomorrow.

19:57 It's to create a world where your children, grandchildren, on into whenever God comes back, right? So all of those individuals can live in a better world and live better lives. And that is accomplished many different ways. It's not just money. Money is not unimportant, but it's not everything, right? You can leave them a house that's in good repair, you can leave them land that has been maintained, you can leave them tools, you can leave them various goods and things, you can leave them clothing, you can all of these different things. You plant trees. Think of the proverb, right? There are all sorts of things you can do to create a better world for future generations. Not all of them are just passing down some sum of money.

20:46 Now, saving up money for them and passing down some money is good, because that helps, obviously. It's much nicer to have that security, that safety net, than not to have it. But it's not everything. So our goal needs to be to create a better society in total, not just necessarily protecting our own little corner because you can't really do that, right? If you pass to your children a great nest egg and everything around them collapses, that nest egg isn't worth anything. Now, some physical things can still be worth something because if you've passed you know land and tools and things like that, animals these things have value, inherent value. Whereas money necessarily does not have inherent value.

21:33 It has a sort of decided value by those who have decided to use it. That doesn't mean that you care for, you know, the world at the expense of your own, but it means that we have to recognize we have a duty, a higher duty, to our own, to our family, our extended family, friends, others, right? But we also have a duty to try to create our society and to shift our society into being more in line with what God wants, into being more in line with the moral law, removing the wickedness from our society and thereby creating a better world for these future generations. And so these future generations will benefit from that. And it's not just purely that monetary benefit, it's the benefit of living in a better society.

22:25 Because ask yourself, would you rather be an extremely wealthy man living today or a man who was moderately well off living in Christendom pick your favorite century? I'm fairly certain most men in the chat would pick Christendom moderately well off versus extremely wealthy today. Because the only reason you pick extremely wealthy today is if you want to do something wildly degenerate with your life, because those options are on the table today. They weren't really on the table back then. So creating that overall better environment, obviously, this is all systemic stuff, right? We can only do what we can do with what God has entrusted to our care in our own time and place, but working toward that better future when and where the opportunity arises.

23:17 But yes, obviously, don't do it the boomers did. Don't drain all your wealth, and then the famous boomer saying they all love, I want my last check to bounce. Don't do that. That's evil. That's wicked. That is directly contrary to what scripture says about good men. Going to copy a couple questions from the chat here so that I can answer them. And And the future? In the future in terms of this episode, not in the future in terms of you know next time. That's the goal anyway. Someone asked about the audio equipment I used, which is almost a little ironic after having audio issues, but yes, the audio equipment is all quite good stuff.

24:17 It's just there are gremlins in the software and it was an ongoing issue during Stone Choir, and I think most audio guys will tell you that they always sort of have some problem with audio. But Okay, I think I have copied down all of those questions so I can get to those at the end. The next question, question six, asking about Ohio. Which I'm supposed to hate Ohio, right, since I went to University of Michigan. I don't hate Ohio, I never got into that. As an Ohioan, it is apparent we are under God's judgment. I will continue to pray for forgiveness in a Christian leader and encourage my brethren to join me. While we do this, do you have any particular pieces of scripture

25:17 to help give us wisdom under anti Christian princes? Really the wisdom literature, which, unsurprisingly, it's the wisdom literature that will give you wisdom on these issues. So Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, you should be reading the Psalms daily. You can listen to the daily devotion, you can listen to me read them daily if you'd prefer, but these are things you should read all the time. And part of living in a fallen world is that we will not always have Christian rulers. We will not always be ruled by good men. Many times we'll be ruled by evil men, and particularly when we are living at hopefully the tail end of a number of generations of wickedness and suffering the consequences of that generational wickedness.

26:06 Because certainly there shouldn't even be an Indian in Ohio to run for any sort of office in Ohio, and yet we all know what's happening there and elsewhere, right? That's the result of the wickedness of our forefathers. They are the ones who created the conditions that permitted all of this to happen. We should not be living in a society that is inundated with foreigners who are hostile and violent and otherwise detrimental, and yet we are, because our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers completely failed to deal with these issues, and so it falls to us. So insofar as scriptural wisdom is concerned, absolutely just read the wisdom literature. Plenty of places in the Old Testament as well.

26:54 Large chunks of the Old Testament are just history, but obviously not all. There are many where God is teaching us something via that history, right? But definitely I would say read the Psalms every single day, read Proverbs, read Ecclesiastes. Those are probably the top recommendations. And then always keep in mind that lens of we live in a fallen world. Things are never going to be perfect here. But just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they can't be better. There are too many who make that mistake. They think that because we can't make a perfect world here in time, we should just give up, and that's completely ridiculous. Nothing we do is ever perfect, it doesn't mean that we never

27:38 try, right? When I handwrite my notes, my writing's not perfect, as anyone who's seen my handwriting can testify. It doesn't mean that I stop, right? That'd be completely ridiculous. Your marriage will never be perfect. It doesn't mean you stop trying to improve that relationship with your wife and keep building that most important relationship in your life, other than the one with God, obviously. Just because it won't be perfect doesn't mean you don't try. But when you read you know Ecclesiastes, and obviously Job is also included in the wisdom literature, so I'll explicitly say that, when you read something like Ecclesiastes or Job, it's not meant to be a cause for despair. You're not supposed to read it and go, well, I should just

28:25 give up. You're supposed to read it and recognize that even if you are righteous, even if you are good, even if you obey God, there will still be trials and tribulations in this life because we live in a fallen world, and we live around and amongst wicked men. And they will continue to be wicked, and in fact they will be more wicked toward you if you are a Christian, because they recognize there's something different about you and they don't like it. So don't let it be a cause for despair, but recognize the reality that we live in. Recognize that there is going to be persecution, there's going to be tribulation, and we cannot avoid it. in this life. But ultimately, and also here in time, God willing, we do win.

29:15 So Problem with not having that front facing light is that every time I change the computer screen my face changes because dark mode versus light mode. But what can you do? Question seven. Are Christians permitted to partake in medical slash health practices that originated from pagan religions? Specifically Eastern religions. The two practices that come to mind are yoga and acupuncture. I have no desire to do yoga, that makes two of us, but I have severe allergies and was told that acupuncture may be able to help with those. My position would be do not participate in yoga. Because yoga is indeed a worship sort of thing. It's connected to religious practices in Eastern religions.

30:19 And so I would say that is unacceptable for a Christian to participate in that. In so far as acupuncture is concerned, is that tied into some of the spiritual beliefs of some Eastern peoples, say the Chinese conception of Qi, right? Yes, it is. But at the same time, the modern practice of it has become so disconnected from that stuff that at this point it's basically just a pseudoscientific practice. That's also worth mentioning. Don't expect any results necessarily or go into it firmly expecting them and hope for the placebo effect, I guess, but there's no evidence showing that acupuncture actually necessarily does anything. The placebo effect is very real. That may work, and of course now that I've said that, it's

31:15 not going to work as well for you, which sort sort of irony there, but If you happen to be one of the people where somehow it helps, and I'm not saying it never helps, I'm not saying it can't help, I'm just saying we don't have enough firm evidence to say yes, this is good we should do this. If we did we'd be doing it more. It's not uncommon, granted, it's a pretty big industry in some places. But we just don't have the sort of data we would want to say that this is conclusively something that can cure X, Y, and Z. If in your case it helps, great. If in your case it doesn't help, then all you've really done is waste a little bit of money and some time and got stabbed with some tiny needles.

31:58 That's not so bad. And for the opportunity of it maybe helping, maybe it's worth it. But in so far as something like yoga is concerned, just do Pilates. Pilates was just created by a German guy whose name was indeed Pilates, who wanted exercise. There's no reason to do yoga. Yoga is mostly a meme for women with too much time on their hands. Question eight Are Japhethites forsaking a duty with roots in Genesis by refusing to enslave the Hamites and bring them back to Christ Christ. The last few lines of your article seem to point to that conclusion, but it is not explicit. I do that a lot. Obviously this does not mean keeping Hamites among the rest of us but having us rule them. And then he quotes part of my article on the curse of

32:58 Ham. Declaring a Hamite uncursed does not in any way whatsoever change his fallen, wicked, corrupt, and accursed nature, but it does conceal the one way scripture gives as a sanctifying path for him enslavement as a pies oikites, which is to say a household slave, in the house of his elder brother Japheth. So my answer to this, I guess I would give it sort of two levels or two parts. The first would be I guess as an aside initially would be, yes, obviously I'm implying very heavily that that would be the case, that they would be more Christian if they were enslaved, and that enslaving them would be good for them. I believe that I've stated that bluntly, so that's not really adding anything to the article there.

33:47 The overwhelming majority of the sons of Ham who will be in Paradise will be there because of the fact that they were conquered by sons of Japheth. And they were civilized, they were enslaved to varying degrees, and they were Christianized, right? That is why many of them will be there, of the ones who will be. We could debate how many will be there. But at the same time, our duty to them, and so interpreting the prophecy from Father Noah, is not without conditions. You can think of this in a similar fashion to the fact that the promises that God made to the Israelites, the Old Testament Israelites, were not unconditional. Now, there is the one that is that the Messiah would come from their line, and I don't mind using that one term because

34:37 the New Testament uses it too, so the Christ, the Messiah, interchangeable. Those promises had conditions. If they didn't do certain things, God would not do the things he promised to do, because the promise was conditional. This is very common in contract law and things like that. The same is true for us. We don't have this unconditional duty to try to repeatedly deal with the sons of Ham and bring them into the kingdom via chains, regardless of what they do. And at this point, I think our duty is complete. We took the gospel to them, we enslaved them, fulfilling the prophecy, we made many of them Christian. There are many in paradise, fewer than Europeans, of course, but there are many in paradise because of the efforts of Europeans.

35:33 Ultimately, obviously God gets all the credit, right? The work is the Holy Spirit's, not our work, but He used us as means. I don't believe that we have a currently existing duty. I don't believe we have a continuing duty to do so because of their behavior, what they've done. They have done nothing but rebel and reject, and that's reject our rule as well as God. And plus, on top of that, there's all of the violence and other problems attendant with having them around. I think that their wickedness at this point has risen to a level where we do not have any further duty toward them. If we were so inclined with some of the Some of the cream of the crop, as it were, some of the better ones to rule over them and make them Christian, okay, fine.

36:21 Maybe there's some percentage of them where you could do that. But by and large, I think our duty is fulfilled. And the prophecy it with regard to that is fulfilled because he was indeed a household slave. He did indeed, to some degree, come to Christianity because of that, and there are some of them in paradise because of those facts. So I think the prophecy and our duty both are fulfilled. Question nine, little change of pace here. Tangential relationship, which some of you will recognize and find funny, but at any rate. As a Christian, I find female bodybuilders repulsive, and this muscular trend is growing in our Christian circles. How should the church address it and explain why it contradicts God's

37:13 design? So personally I haven't seen it growing in Christian circles. I'm not saying it's not. Maybe it is in some places. It's just I have not seen that. But what I would emphasize would be that it runs afoul of all of the various rules in scripture where God is very clear that He has drawn a distinction between the sexes. Men are not women, women are not men, men cannot become women, women cannot become men. It is in fact an abomination to God for men to behave like women or women to behave like men or even to dress like the opposite sex. God speaks of a man wearing the clothing of a woman or a woman wearing the clothing of a man as being abomination to God, not abomination to the Old Testament Israelites and so prohibited to

38:08 a specific people for a specific time, but rather prohibited to all flowing from the fact that it is a transgression, a violation of the moral law. So even the fact that clothing has converged to the point where men and women wear very similar clothing these days, we shouldn't permit that either. You should be able to tell, at a pretty good distance, that's a woman, that's a man, and not just if they have a beard. Hopefully the man, not the woman in that case, but we should not permit this narrowing of the sexual dimorphism of humanity, because that is something God prizes and something God wants us to preserve It is a curse for the various races of this planet that have less sexual dimorphism than Europeans.

38:58 We have the highest. They are degenerate insofar as they lack that, they have fallen from what they were meant to be. We should not follow after them. And that includes with regard to our culture, with regard to our dress, with regard to behavior, all of these things. And so obviously what I'm building up to here with regard to female bodybuilders is that what they are doing is effectively transgenderism, right? Now probably get penalized in some way for saying that naughty word on stream, but It is transgenderism. It is a woman pretending to be a man, or at least holding herself out to be after a fashion masculine. That's impermissible. That is wicked. That is not something a woman should do.

39:43 The same as a man shouldn't hold him out as be himself out as being feminine. We are right to condemn men who wear makeup. We are also right to condemn women who attempt to look physically like men. Plus on top of the fact, you can't be a bodybuilder as a woman unless you're taking substances to help you do it. Women do not have the biology to look like that. They're taking testosterone. It's literally transgenderism. Granted, they're taking it in the form of steroids, but they're doing the same thing. And I suppose it should be stated as well that almost all of the women who are doing that, and it may very well be all of them, I give the caveat because maybe there's an exception somewhere, they have mental issues.

40:34 Probably due to some sort of abuse in their past. So that's another aspect of it. They probably need counseling and some sort of help, but it still should not be tolerated. It is certainly something Christians should not be tolerating. Thankfully, again, it's not something I've really seen, but if you have seen it, if that's happening in your circles by in no uncertain terms, that needs to be condemned. Women should not be doing body I hate women's fighting sports as well, we're on the topic. I think that it is perverse to want to watch women engage in physical combat. I have mixed feelings on men doing it. I don't really care that much, but women doing it is perverse. That is not something women should be doing.

41:18 Question 10. I recently heard a pastor claim that in the Psalms David acted in direct contradiction to Christ's teaching on blessing your enemies rather than cursing them. Obviously this is pitting scripture against scripture, so where is the line, especially in more personal circumstances like that which David faced? The The particular example that was given was Psalm 55, 12 through 15. Let's see if Lagos will cooperate. And of course I want Psalm fifty-four twelve, I assume. Yes. Oddly enough, just sort of as an aside, sometimes in Logos, if

42:22 you type in the numbering from the Masoretic text in the Psalms, it takes you to the corrected numbering in the Septuagint, and sometimes it doesn't. And I have no idea what the logic is behind when it does and when it does not. It's very strange. But at any rate. Because if an enemy had reproached me, I could have borne it, and if he that hates me had bragged against me, I could have hidden from him. But it is you, my fellow human, my leader and my familiar friend, who made food sweet together with me, in the house of God we walked in harmony. Let death come upon them, let them go down to Hades alive, because evils are in their sojournings in their midst. There are a number of layers to this one, and I think

43:10 really three important ones I'll say. This is a wisdom call, first off, is sort of the starting point, and it is not an easy wisdom call. This is a hard wisdom call. This is This is one where if you can't find the line yourself, then don't try, right? If you find that you have trouble saying, I firmly believe that this is a situation where if I were to call down curses on this person, I would be in the right. If you can't firmly say it, then don't do it. Because like I said, this is a wisdom call and it's a difficult wisdom call. And you don't necessarily ever need to do this. Now, maybe there's a man where you have a duty, you know, you're a prince, you're in control of a nation, you're Your nation

44:02 has enemies, different considerations for that man. But for the average person, maybe this is something you never need to do. It's probably sufficient for most men to just pray the imprecatory psalms and sort of leave filling in the names as it were up to God. He'll get it perfectly right. Human beings make mistakes. So there's no sort of general rule here, I can't give you a mathematical formula that says if x then y, but only for values in excess of, you know, whatever. I can't do that for you. But I can say that you will always be safe praying the imprecatory psalms because you're praying God's Word, as He has invited you to do so, you will always be safe cursing the enemies of God, who are obvious enemies of God, which the obvious ones are

44:49 easy to find, right? The ones who hate God, the ones who openly curse God, the ones who believe in demons, the ones who worship demons. You can always curse those individuals because those are God's enemies, not your enemies, which is one of the points I want to make here. It's that difference between the personal enemies and the public enemies, and I get into this later, I believe I will anyway, because someone asked about turning the other cheek. In fact, I think that's in a couple questions here. Your personal enemies, you forgive. Your public enemies you can't forgive because they're not really your enemies. They're public enemies. They're either enemies of God or enemies of the nation.

45:30 In neither case are you the person empowered to forgive them and it would be wrong for you to assume that role. You can't do that. So for your personal enemies, the general rule, and I'll get into that more with the upcoming question, is that you forgive them. You're not calling down curses on them, you're not asking God to destroy them, you are forgiving them and then commending their outcome to God. He will do what is perfect. And you want to make sure that you are not the unworthy servant, right? You are the one who has been forgiven much. You must forgive the very little that is owed you by this other servant, this other slave. The master forgave you an infinite debt regardless of the size of

46:15 the debt of this personal enemy, it's nothing compared to the infinite debt that was forgiven you. So don't be the unworthy servant. But at the same time I recently did this, the equivalent of this, with the baby boomers, because I essentially just wrote a version of one of the impregatory psalms, but swapped out for the various things there, the baby boomers. Let me see if I can pull that up real quick. See if I can remember a line that will come up quickly Yes, I can pull that up. So I felt comfortable doing this. I felt that what I was doing was perfectly permissible. I was doing it in a way that was aligned with God's desires and aligned with what a Christian should and should not do. So aligned with what a Christian should do and against what a

47:16 Christian should not do. And so I said of the aboomers, the various things that we see in the imprecatory Psalms. But it's because of the wickedness they have done that is contrary to God, not because of the personal harm they've caused me. If it were just a matter of personal harm caused me, I would forgive them and let it go. I am not going to call down curses on my personal enemies. I am not the anointed of God to rule this nation, and so my personal enemies do not rise to the level of being enemies of God. You know, I am not going to call down curses on the head of the LCMS because he particularly dislikes me, which is true he does, for many reasons. But in his office, as one of the leaders of a major

48:06 church, I am absolutely going to pray the imprecatory psalms against him, because what he is doing is evil and he's doing it in the name of God, and so he is God's enemy. Insofar as he is God's enemy, I will pray those psalms against him. Insofar as he is my personal enemy, I've let it go. it is what it is. Part of that's personal disposition, but part of that is because that's what God calls us to do. So the baseline and the basic rule there is basically to use that word a lot, pray the imprecatory psalms. And if you are uncomfortable going further than that, then leave the names up to you. He knows who deserves that treatment and he will get it right. But yes, cursing is in this sense. Cursing is certainly part of the Christian life, right?

48:58 The sort of extreme example that I like to give people to drive the point home is that you don't get to forgive Satan. God does not call you to pray for Satan. Praying for Satan would be sin, because you would be praying for God's enemies, which is praying against God. So obviously there are those for whom we do not pray, in the sense of them being forgiven or brought back into the tent, whatever it happens to be. Satan is one, the demons, those who are so hard hearted that they are beyond redemption because their conscience is seared, their heart is stone, and they will never repent, right? They've committed the unforgivable sin, sort of thing. So, yes, cursing is a part of what it means to be

49:48 a Christian, but it's a wisdom call and be careful. Grab a couple more questions here from the chat so I do not lose them in the scroll Of course, the forum software decided to copy some images too, which I do not need. Someone mentioned in the chat that the original Chinese practice practitioners of acupuncture thought they were casting out demons. That was certainly part of the praxis, certainly part of the I

50:49 guess the theology of it. At some point, very far in the past, it really has sort of lost that even in the modern Chinese mind. At this point, it really is sort of just a pseudoscientific health practice. Which is not to say that you know it's entirely innocuous, but there are things that can lose their nature as theological or religious over a period of time. So there are certainly things that we probably do in our society that at some point in Point in the past may have had religious connotations and literally no one alive remembers any of them, they're no longer religious. They've lost it. Yes, there are some aspects of things related to demons that can be ex opera operato, which is Which is to say by virtue

51:39 of doing the thing you accomplish something. But I don't think God is leaving landmines all over the place where we accidentally perform some action, you know, it summons a demon. I don't think God organized the world to do that. So I don't think that acupuncture is going to endanger your soul. Unless you happen to think it's a religious practice, but that would come back to you know you have the various passages in scripture saying that you don't do something if you're the person for whom you believe it's a religious sort of act and so it endangers your conscience. You have a conscience. Listen to your conscience. It so It's you know you can think of eating meat, right? Usually in scripture that's in the context of meat having been sacrificed

52:24 to an idol, because it'd be sacrificed to the idol, but not burnt up and then it would be sold in the meat market, and so you could buy it, but this had been sacrificed to an idol, and so if you were someone who had worshipped those idols, perhaps you had a guilty conscience because you thought of it as worship of the idol, whereas someone with a stronger faith might think, hey, cheap meat, right? I'm not going to be worried about the meat sacrificed to an idol because the idol is nothing. This meat isn't bad because it was sacrificed to an idol. It doesn't endanger my conscience or my soul, but for someone who would have a guilty conscience, he shouldn't pursue that Another little change of pace here.

53:13 Next question about presuppositional apologetics. So a little more technical, perhaps. I spent some time studying it last summer and wanted your view concerning this approach So for those who don't know, presuppositional apologetics focuses on, unsurprisingly, presuppositions, which is to say foundational assumptions usually with regard to worldview. And this can be effective. Personally, I would say it has utility for a certain subset of men, a particular type of man, and I am thinking largely of the reformed here, but also professional philosophers. Men who are trained in these things, it can be very effective. But it is not going to be effective with most men. That's not to say you can't take things from it, because you

54:17 can certainly take tools from an overall approach where the overall approach would not be effective, but the tool might be of utility So, I've done similar things, for instance. I will say things or take an approach to knock someone off balance. Because if you knock the person off balance, then he has to think, he has to do something in response to being knocked off balance, as opposed to just continuing merrily along his way. Which is sometimes the greatest challenge, right? You have to try to get someone into a state of mind where he's where he's willing to listen to you. And if you can't do that, then he won't listen to you. Pretty obvious there. So if you can use something like Apologetics

55:06 and get him to you know with presuppositional apologetics specifically if you can then get him to actually seriously think about his worldview and the gaps in it and maybe open a door there to continue the conversation about creationism, about God. There's utility in that. Certainly there's utility in that. I just think that with the average person you're not going to get very far because it takes a very sort of not necessarily cerebral but a very academic approach. It is very much a philosophical approach, and so it's worked with philosophers. There have been debates where philosophers have employed this and won the debate in a room of professional philosophers. So it's not wrong, but insofar as sort of a practical approach

55:56 is concerned, I think classical apologetics is going to be more effective with most men. But this is certainly a tool to have in your toolkit, right? An arrow to have in your quiver. There is potential utility here, particularly among certain kinds of men. So if you spend a lot of time around academics, particularly those who are versed in philosophy, definitely something you should know. Because it's going to work with them. Perhaps it might even work better with them than classical apologetics. But if you're dealing with laymen who have no training in philosophy, no training in theology, you would You would probably be better served learning enough of this to use it to knock them off balance

56:39 and then take the classical approach. That's probably going to be more effective for the common man. The next question is the one that I said was coming up about the Sermon on the Mount and Turn the Other Cheek. So question twelve. Will you share your exegesis of turn the other cheek? So commonly these words are used by pastors and others to imply or insist that Christian men should be weak, vulnerable, and winsome. I am certain that was not Christ's intent and would appreciate your thoughts. This is one of those cases where you have individuals who take a passage and then run with it because the they can get it to kind of say something they want it to say. It doesn't say that. But they can convince you that maybe it says that, right?

57:38 That's the goal. It's the atheist meme guy, right? I despise your religion and I hate it, but maybe I can use it to manipulate you. That's the exact tactic being used here. So The first part you have to recognize is what I brought up earlier with that previous question. There's a difference between a personal enemy and a public enemy. Turn the other cheek applies to personal enemies. Turn the other cheek never applies to public enemies, never applies to pub to enemies of God, to enemies of your nation. It also doesn't apply to enemies of people who are entrusted to your care, right? If someone breaks into your home and punches your child in the face, if you turn the other cheek, you've just said you're not

58:22 a Krishna is what you've said. Because you have a duty to defend your child, a duty to defend your family. And you can't set Scripture against Scripture. So in order to understand this rightly, it has to be consonant with the rest of Scripture. There are plenty of places where God commands us to defend those entrusted to our care. Abraham is called a righteous man. He raises his own army, pursues after those who had taken his cousin captive, and frees him, and slaughters a bunch of people in the process. That's righteous. That's godly. That's what men are supposed to do when the times call for it and when you're in the position to do it. So anyone who tries to get you to use turn the other cheek and use that as a political tool, is an enemy.

59:11 That man is speaking with the mouth of Satan. You should never listen to anything he has to say. Because he is using this scripture and twisting it in an attempt to manipulate you to use God's word as a weapon against a Christian. We have a word for those who do that. It's called a demon, so never listen to a man who does that. Christian men aren't called to be weak and vulnerable and winsome. I hate the word winsome at this point. Winsome doesn't even have a meaning at this point in the modern context. It literally just means that whatever modern pastors think is not manly, is not all the things they hate, that's winsome, because you're being winsome when you're a floor mat, basically. And Christians aren't called to be that.

1:00:01 Look at all of the men who were praised in Scripture. They weren't weak men. None of them were weak men. Look at the disciples, look at the apostles. Did Christ pick physically weak men to follow him. Was he being followed around by a bunch of academics who couldn't lift a fifty pound rock? The answer is no. He was being followed around mostly by men who worked with their hands. Yes, of course you had the tax collector who would have probably been physically weaker, but by and large, physically fit men. This ties into another issue when you get those who try to say, Well, meekness is an aspect of being yes, meekness is an aspect of being a Christian man, but meekness understood properly is strength

1:00:47 under control. Well what does that require? You can't be meek if you're weak. You can only be meek if you have the strength to keep under control. And so necessarily to be meek you must be strong. Christ is meek, because Christ is strong, but keeps it under control. So being a wild crazy person going out and picking fights all the time and just being destructive because you have the physical strength to do it is not being meek. It's not being Christian, but being weak is not being Christian either. You cannot be a weak man and be a Christian. Unless obviously there's the exception for someone who has physical ailments or something where you literally can't be strong, right? But pursuing weakness

1:01:32 and abhorring strength is anti Christian, it's an inversion, it's satanic. Because to be strong, to be physically fit is a good thing. That is to use the body that God has given you in a way he intended for you to use it. So the turn the other cheek thing is so incredibly transparent that generally speaking, just ignore the men who try to use it as a cudgel, they're evil men. You're not going to get through to them. You're not going to accomplish anything. The only men where maybe they deserve a response would be those who don't know really anything about Christianity. And so they have a false understanding of Christianity. And they have been told this is what Christianity is. So for those men you probably have to go through and build

1:02:23 up the argument and explain, no, that's not what it means. The men who said that are evil. They're trying to mislead you because they don't want you to be a Christian. But turn the other cheek is not pacifism, obviously, because Christianity is not a pacifist religion. The same Christ who said turn the other cheek said sell your cloak and buy a sword. Not a very good pacifist. But But the enemies by and large just cherry pick various things in Scripture and expect you not to know anything about Scripture and so they expect you to fall for it. Because if you don't know the context, if you don't know the other verses in scripture that have to be consistent with it, it is going to be very easy to mislead you.

1:03:10 That's what they're banking on. Because most Christians have a very shallow knowledge of the faith. But no, Christian men are not called to be a doormat. Let me make sure I didn't miss too much of the chat in the scroll there. Let's see. Take a sip of tea while I read through the chat. The next question as soon as this page is done refreshing so I can actually read it. Question thirteen from the chat

1:04:13 Why did Satan allow the maintenance of high moral standards in Muhammadan civil law? Minus cousin marriage, which was clearly for dysgenics, was it simply for deception? So insofar as the Muhammadan or Islamic civil law is concerned. There are some moral standards that are high, and there are some that are extremely low, right? And you mentioned, of course, cousin marriage, which is rampant in really most of the world except for here. The issue in Africa is slightly different, but India and the Middle East, the Near East have first cousin marriage runs rampant. In Jewish communities, uncle and niece marriages are common. They've actually changed the law in some US states in order to accomplish that because obviously it was anti Semitic not to permit it,

1:05:07 right? But insofar as the Muslim civil law is concerned, it was for the purpose of deception. You can think of this in the sense of if you want to accomplish something subversive or destructive, you don't just approach it head-on, right? If you're trying to destroy some group, right, you don't go up to the group, apply for membership, and say, I'm here because I'd like to burn this to the ground. What are the odds you'll succeed if you take that approach? There's zero, right? You won't you won't win. You will not succeed. Satan isn't stupid. Satan has had a very long time and a lot of practice. He knows what he's doing, and so what he's going to do is he's going to make something look appealing in some way, and

1:06:02 then hide all the bad stuff under the rug. Because the goal, it's sort of the camel's nose analogy, right? You get the camel's nose in the tent, the whole camel's coming in. That's Satan's goal. If he didn't make didn't make the system appealing in some way, he would never get people to believe it. Now granted for relatively low IQ populations it was less challenging, and for many of them he just sold them on well, you get loot and women, that was enough. In some cases, you don't even get the women until you die, right? So you have the same thing in many places where you have deception, where you have some particular actor desiring to destroy something. The most obvious example is sin, right?

1:06:50 If sin didn't have a superficial appeal, would anyone sin? Probably not. If the only sales pitch, as it were, for sin was, hey, you want to spend eternity in a lake of fire? I think most people would probably say no. In fact, I think everyone would say no, except maybe if there's someone who's completely insane he would say yes, but is he really saying yes if he's completely insane? No, the reason that people sin is because the sin looks attractive. And they don't run the calculation, they don't follow through the logic, they don't say, Yes, in the moment this seems great, but what are the consequences long term? What are the actual consequences of this action? It's the same thing with these various wicked systems that Satan and

1:07:40 his demons have set up. In some cases it's just a matter of perverting things slowly over time, which is also in in view here, because all of the people who spread out from the Ark, right, had some knowledge of the moral law, had been taught by Noah, who had been taught by his ancestors all the way back to Adam. And so they knew the moral law to some degree, and what the demons did is they corrupted it over time little by little. You don't have someone coming in and all of a sudden instituting the moral law from this low point, and then, well, you hold this for a while and tape- No, you have people tapering off in certain areas in certain ways at certain times. And so you have a loosening of this law here and that

1:08:32 law there. Over time that builds up and you wind up with a degenerate system. But what you can't do is just bring in a radically new system of supposed morality and then try to impose that. People will probably not follow you. Maybe you'll make a small cult, but you probably won't be very successful. To be successful it has to look like what everyone already knows, but a little better in some way. Arguably a little better. It's probably not. It's going to destroy things in other ways. That's how Satan works, and he does it because it works, because you can mislead and corrupt and deceive people in that way. You can't do it if you just bring in, you know, the the fullness of the morality morality of hell all at once.

1:09:23 You have to bring it in a little at a time. You have to let the corruption seep into the system instead of being there from the beginning in its fullness. Question 14. What do you say to those who use the boomer generation as an argument for heathen levels of wickedness being much more a function of circumstance and taught culture than genetic. So insofar as morality, which it's nice that this ties into the previous question, but insofar as morality and things like those, like that are concerned, part of it is genetic, but not all of it. Because a huge part of it is indeed culture. But culture is also downstream from genetics.

1:10:23 And so I guess in some way the question is asking to run the thought experiment, right? Of if you took a bunch of children from a bunch of different races and then stuck them in controlled conditions, would you Would you have different outcomes just on the base of the genetics with regard to morality? I think the answer has to be yes. Obviously we can't run that experiment. It would be wrong. The IRB would never approve it. But I think obviously you'd have different outcomes, right? Because we know that culture is downstream from race. But culture is not 100% a product of race. For instance, there may be people listening to this right now who are not American or European and yet are wearing blue jeans.

1:11:15 You have part of a culture of a different culture, but you've made it your own, right? To a certain degree. So that aspect of it, I think. I think that you have to tie the two together without discounting either one excessively. Because you can certainly have wicked aspects of a culture that are brought in externally, but unless they can find purchase in the genetic foundation of the people, they're not going to achieve anything. Take a sip of tea before I continue. And so I could tie this into the previous question. First cousin marriage is rampant among Muslims. It's not among Europeans. It's not among Americans. And so if Satan had tried to introduce that foreign cultural element

1:12:20 into the West, it would not have succeeded, because there is that genetic racial apprehension, that racial objection to it, that was not present in the parts of the world where he introduced it. He of course knew this, it's why he did it. So you do have both. But the more important thing here, I think really, is that this is related to the question of beauty and some other things, where people get so weird about things that I've said. Much of this is longitudinal. It is generational in terms of centuries, thousands of years in some cases. So it's not like you have one generation goes off the rails and everything is forever destroyed. One generation can do a lot of damage. Absolutely. We've certainly seen that, although it was really three or four.

1:13:17 But one generation can do a great deal of damage. But you haven't lost that capacity with regard to genetics, the racial biological capacity to achieve good things again. IQ is the most obvious example. I get tired of it because it's the one that's used all the time and it makes people weird, but it's the easiest one for people to understand, right? To some degree. If you lose twenty IQ points out of a particular group, so you know, one and a third standard deviations, as it were, for at least European numbers. If you lose that, you can't regain it. It's gone. Because the genetics are gone. You have destroyed them, you've lost them out of the population. So no matter how long you left Africans alone, if you just

1:14:10 cordoned off Africa, left them there, when you come back, they will not be smarter than when you left. Because we're not trending upward. Yes, there's the Flynn effect, but that's not really a change in genetics. It's that's been explained. So if you want to know the explanation for that, by all means, you can look that one up. It's been explained ad nauseum at this point. Human IQ does not trend upward. Human IQ can remain essentially level in a population if you do not do dys things that are dysgenic, or if you do things that are dysgenic, it can trend downward. But it doesn't go up. Because what you're doing is losing capacity. There's no method, there's no means by which to gain capacity.

1:14:57 This is a fundamental problem with neo-Darwinian evolution or whatever system it is, modern synthesis, whatever one you want. We have not demonstrated a gain with regard to the creation of novel information. There's plenty of transfer of information between usually it's bacteria at that case, although viruses, there's that aspect for human beings. You see recombinations of pre-existing information, not the creation of novel information. Now, could you change this perhaps with things like CRISPR? Maybe in the future. But generally speaking, and naturally speaking, if you lose that capacity, it is gone. And so that's where the real problem crops up, right? This sort of generational wickedness and degeneration compounds over time and

1:15:52 you continue to sink lower and lower and lower, and so you no longer have the capacity to rise back to that level of the better and higher behavior, the more moral behavior. Europeans have not sunk so low yet that we can't rise back to that level. The handful of previous generations before, you know, millennials, and obviously I'm including Gen X split in the middle, millennials and boomers. As I've mentioned many times. If you look at those handful of generations and the harm they caused, it is not yet sufficient to make it impossible for us to rise back to the level of our ancestors. If we continue in the same vein doing what they're doing, yes eventually we'll end up there. And for better or worse, when it comes to this, it is

1:16:42 essentially sexual immorality that is the deciding factor. So cousin marriage, it's convenient, that was mentioned because it's one of the, and by cousin marriage, we of course mean first cousin marriage, not fourth cousin or fifth, because that's optimal. That's how God designed the system. We're talking about uncles marrying their nieces. That sort of thing. If you do that for a very long period of time, over many generations, you wind up with so much degeneration biologically speaking, so much degeneration in terms of your genetics that you can never return to what you once were, what your people once were. This was a one-way street, you've destroyed yourself. And it is sexual immorality that does that.

1:17:29 One of the reasons it's so condemned so strongly in Scripture, from the beginning of Scripture to the end of Scripture is condemned because of the consequences. They are terrible consequences. I mentioned the difference between say the Near East, the Middle East, and India versus Africa. The difference there is that in Africa, promiscuity was so rampant and is still so rampant that paternity is unknown. And so what happens is unknowing incest. You have instances where siblings wind up having children because neither sibling knew his father, his or her father. That's one of the reasons that the Africans have so many problems. The promiscuity that is running rampant in the West will result in

1:18:18 problems like those. It is not as bad as Africa yet, but the trend is certainly not positive. Granted, there's a little bit of an upward trend with regard to the younger generations right now. It's not necessarily due to moral concerns, but others. But this is biological. You get the benefit even if you don't have the right mindset, as long as you do the right thing. So if we continue down that path, we will wind up as bad as everyone else. This is something that many of those in the NeopAK and other camps don't understand because they all think of this upward trajectory. They think that we're getting better and that if we just do the right thing we can become superhuman. We'll all have an IQ of 350 and we'll be able to

1:18:59 fly, right? That's not how it works. It's a one-way street, downward. You can maintain or you can degenerate. Now, can you improve the fitness of the overall population of course. Because you can remove those from the population, not in the sense of active euthanasia, but in the sense of removing them from the reproductive portion of the population, so sterilization. You can remove some of those bad genes and therefore raise the overall average level, but what you have not done is raise the cap, right? That's the fundamental difference. The Africans, because of their wickedness and many others, have lowered their cap so far that they can never rise again in this life to the level of behavior God intended for them.

1:19:51 We have not gone as far. We have not fallen as far. We should be very careful that we do not do so. It is one of the reasons that these issues are so important. One of the reasons we touched on them so often in Stone Choir. Because if you ignore these things, you will wind up like everyone else. Africa should be a warning to us because we could become that, not us personally, but we don't want our great great great great great grandchildren to be that. However many greats it would take, we should try to solve the problems now and not keep treading down that path. Question fifteen, and then I think I'll look at the chat again for a second to make sure I try to make sure I didn't miss questions.

1:20:40 Obviously, I will probably miss some questions, and if I do, by all means submit them in the various places you know to submit them. Question fifteen. A friend is being misled by teachers that teach dispensational salvation. Do you recommend any concrete places in the Old Testament where I can show people being saved By the proto-evangelium. So when it comes to dispensationalists, you really have to determine first what kind of dispensationalist. If it is someone who is a hardcore dispensationalist like pro Israel Israel, love the Jews, have you know a Star of David necklace, don't waste your time. You're bang your head on a wall, it's going to be more productive. But if you're dealing with the average person who's in a

1:21:37 non-denominational church and the church just teaches poorly, and so he really doesn't know anything, that man can be saved. You can help that man to understand actual Christianity, become an actual Christian and do something important for him. He's worth the effort. the crazy guy is basically lost. His conscience is is seared. So So this man does not sound like that. He sounds like someone who is just attending a bad church, has bad teachers, but is not beyond the point where he can be redeemed, right? He can be brought back into the tent So where you start here isn't by showing places where Excuse me, some particular man was saved in the Old Testament by you can call it the Proto Evangelian, Proto Evangelium, whichever one you

1:22:33 prefer, or you can just call it the Gospel, because it is the Gospel, right? The Gospel is before Christ, the Messiah, the Christ who is to come, and after the Messiah, the Christ who has come. It's just a matter of where you fall on the timeline. It's not really a different gospel. It's all the same gospel. And so where you start with these people, though, is you say, can anyone be saved without Christ? If he says yes, you have bigger problems. And then you have to start with the basics of the Christian faith, what Christianity is, what Christ, who Christ is, what Christ claimed, you have a lot of work to do. But if he says no, now you can say, okay, then in what way are the Jews chosen? Right? Because to be chosen ultimately means to be elect, means to

1:23:30 be saved. Well they aren't. Because they don't believe in God. They hate Christ, and I can say they don't believe in God because he who denies the Son denies the Father. You cannot have the Father without the Son. Scripture is abundantly clear on that, and you can point to verses that explicitly say that. So So if they aren't saved, if they aren't elect, they're not chosen in any way that means anything. And then you can of course point out, they were chosen in the Old Testament to be the people, to maintain the line from which Christ would be born. That's it. Did they have promises? Yes, actually they do. Go look at the promises. Read the promises with this person and note that in almost every

1:24:16 case where you have the promises, the very next section is if you do not. Because what it says first is if you obey me, if you follow my statutes, if you obey my rules, if you adhere to my precepts, whatever it happens to say in the particular part scripture, then all these blessings. And then the very next section says, if you do not, and then God basically says he's going to destroy them, set them on fire, send diseases after them, and have foreigners come and conquer them. And that's the good option. Because then they go to hell. So you have conditional promises, but they're conditional. And they're not always just for Old Testament Israel. In many cases, they're for any nation that will obey God, that

1:24:58 will be faithful. If we were faithful, we would receive the same thing. Faithful nations are blessed by God because God is consistent, God is true, God is unchanging. And the other part that I would bring up here, don't bring it up unless he does, he probably will. You have the promises to Abraham, right? The way you deal with that is you point out, Paul very clearly teaches, the promises were to the seed one, not many. Quote from Paul, very clear in the New Testament. The promises to Abraham were first to him personal. He had promises in his person, second to Christ, and in and of Christ, and fulfilled by Christ, because all the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ. And so Christ is the one who fulfills it, and so if

1:25:57 you are outside Christ, which is to say if you are an unbeliever, you don't benefit. The Jews are unbelievers, they don't benefit. But that's sort of the brief overview of how you deal with dispensationalism. It's going to depend on what sort of dispensationalist, it's going to depend how deep he is into it, how committed he is to it. Many hold it very lightly, and so maybe you can get them out of it pretty easily. Part of it is just getting into a better church. Because as long as you're sitting in a church that's all you know, rooting for Israel nonsense and send money to Jewish widows and all that crap. You're just poisoning yourself by being in that church. He's just receiving poison every Sunday instead of the word of God

1:26:48 and God's flesh and blood, which is what he should be receiving. So you need to get in a better church. He needs to get in a better church. I assume you're not attending this church. So but yes, the issue is not a particular person being saved by the proto-evangelian because every man who has ever been saved was saved by the gospel. Because Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. There's no other way. And so Adam, all the way up to the last man on earth, although Abel because he died first, he counts as first. So Abel to the last man on earth. Every single one saved, saved by the blood of Christ. Nothing else, no other way. And if you can get the man to at least admit there's no other way to God, there's no other path to salvation, you're

1:27:35 on the right path, and that is a major step. If you can't, like I said, it's a whole different problem and you got a lot more work. Question 16. Will you ever consider doing some kind of political lecture series as your breakdown on the effects of demon worship through Asia was very insightful and it would be a great help for young men. I hadn't really considered doing a lecture series. I've taught classes before and I've done lectures, but it's mostly been law and theology, not politics. I did a little bit of philosophy. I I don't object to it. I don't have any firm plans to do it. I would have to think about that and what exactly it is that I would teach and what would be of use to men. On a tangentially related note, it's not really answering the question, but

1:28:29 it is related because it reminded me of it. I have thought of bringing back the Tish Raiden podcast, which is a more entertainment podcast than just you know, Stone Choir is hard information, this is questions and answers and more serious. Tish Raiden was more having some beers and having a fun discussion. People seemed to like it. I thought about bringing it back. The challenge is that in order to do that, I need to find at least one and preferably two or three like-minded men, that's easy, who are local, already done, but but are public with their views because even if it's audio only, which it would be audio only, you can be identified by your voice these days, right? You think, oh, well, just use a voice modulator.

1:29:25 Okay. It's a public place still, unless we're doing this in my backyard or something, right? There are logistical and difficult questions that have to be answered in order to get that sort of thing up off the ground again. And you know, if we have it at a local brewery, there's always the chance that they'll ban you for life, right? Ask me how I know. Not necessarily for life, but you know they'll ban you. that happens. Because they get harassed. They start getting threatening phone calls from Antifa and others and they don't want their staff to be harassed and I understand. I understand why people would not want to be associated with that sort of thing. But at the same time, progress isn't made unless men start to

1:30:05 stand up and tell Antifa and others, you know, go pound sand. It helps if you make friends with the local law enforcement so that they can deal with issues if they get out of hand, but tangentially related note, but I have thought about doing that. I certainly don't object to it, at least. Question seventeen. You mentioned briefly on an ex post about exorcism. What is the Lutheran position, how do they handle it, and why is the perception that Catholics are the best at it? It seems like there is a necessary ontological and anthropological framework you must adopt to be effective, that Chemnit seems to lay the groundwork for. I think the reason I'll answer this sort of in a random fashion, as it were.

1:30:50 I think the reason that the Roman Catholics are perceived as the most effective with regard to exorcism is that they have the most ceremony. Ceremony is important. It's one of the reasons that we have a liturgy and that we have clothing that you wear to church and clothing you don't wear to church, and yes, you should be wearing appropriate clothing to church. Please don't wear sandals and Bermuda shorts. Please do not do that. I won't say I've never done that. I certainly did many, many years ago when I was, you know, in high school. Not Bermuda shorts, but you get the picture Ritual and liturgy and formality and the aesthetics, those things are important. Rome and the East are not wrong when they claim that aesthetics

1:31:43 matter. They are wrong when when they try to tie being right to being aesthetic. Those are related. There is a relationship there, but just because something is aesthetically pleasing does not mean it is right. Now, at the same time, all else being held equal, something that is aesthetically pleasing that is beautiful is more right in so far as it is more aesthetically pleasing or more beautiful than another thing. But what we're dealing with under that level, or above that level, everyone look at it, is doctrine and dogma and theology and praxis. We're looking at more than just the surface level. Even if, yes, aesthetics and things like that go below the surface, we're not looking at that alone.

1:32:35 We're not looking at that in isolation. But when you see the man in the robes and all the crucifixes and the gold and the pretty colours and, you know, the big hat, and he's chanting in Latin, because if you chant in Latin, it means you're serious, right? If I were to recite some Latin right now, people would think oh you're you're more serious. Armirumquegano, right? I the first three words of the Aeneid, it doesn't mean that what I'm saying is more serious or more important. I memorized the first, I don't know, twenty lines of it for Latin class in high school, and it will be with me till the day I die. But that works and it gives a certain impression. Doesn't mean that it's more effective're dealing with demons here.

1:33:20 Do you think demons are impressed by human pomp? Do you think demons are impressed by whether or not you know how to tie a double windsor? I don't think so. I think they're pretty much not impressed by that at all. And so is that stuff unimportant? I don't think so. I think it's important because I think it serves as guardrails to keep you in line with what you are doing. But I think when they place the sort of emphasis on, you know, Latin as the chosen language, or certainly the prayers to Mary and things like that, they're missing the point. Just like when you have the people who try to say that the church service should be in Latin because it's more dignified or no, the church service should be in the language of the people

1:34:04 sitting in the pews. Because you're supposed to understand it. The Christian faith has intellectual content, it has knowledge, and you cannot acquire that if someone is trying to teach you the Christian faith in a language you don't understand. That's absurd. It's actually an it's an enthusiastic claim ultimately. A discussion for their time, perhaps. But I think that's the reason you have that perception, and then the other part of that reason, sort of the I guess subsidiary part, but an important one. You just don't really have exorcists in other denominations, in other traditions. We largely abandoned it. And that is Lutherans included. There are some Lutheran exorcists, not very many of them Many of

1:34:48 them. And good luck finding a non-denominational exorcist. I've literally never heard of one. Right? I don't think I've ever met a Presbyterian exorcist. I don't think they have a particularly extensive theology of it. There is some theology of it for Lutherans, and there's certainly a lot for the Roman Catholics, but for the Roman Catholics a lot of it is nonsense. Because like I said in that post, some of it they have taken from demons. They've literally asked demons questions and then written down the answers and made that part of their practice. That's completely absurd. There's an aspect here that also feeds into the Roman Catholic approach to it, because they build up this giant edifice on very little

1:35:42 foundation, but it's that very little foundation that tends to be a problem for some men. God didn't tell us a lot about demons. God didn't tell us a lot about how to cast out demons. All he really told us is that we can cast out demons in his name by his power, he's the one doing it obviously, and that fasting and prayer are part of it. In some cases, at least. That's about all we know. That doesn't sound very impressive to the average person, right? You want something that is this grand ritual of candles and chanting and incense and that appeals to human beings more so than just saying you have to just read the gospel and you have to use the name of Christ to cast out the demon, you read the word of God, you pray and you fast, and you rely

1:36:37 on God. That's not very impressive. That doesn't appeal to the senses in the same way as the pomp. And so it leaves those who want to be truer to God's word and what God has told us we can and cannot do in a weaker position with regard to the average man. But this is not something the average man should be seeing. This is not meant to be a public spectacle. It's important. We need to do more of it. I think we should have basically performed an exorcism on every square foot of this continent when we were done conquering it with what the Amerindians were up to worshipping demons, not mentioning all of the child sacrifice in many places, just rampant human sacrifice. And we really do ignore the demonic in the modern church.

1:37:30 And I don't think that the Roman Catholics are necessarily better off with regard to this. Yes, they have some exorcists who are dedicated exorcists, they have some theology, some other things, some of it good, some of it bad. They have that. But I think the average person sitting in the pew still doesn't really take the demonic seriously. In fact, I think you probably have some over in the Protestant camp who take it more seriously, because you have a very sort of light touch approach as it were for many in the Roman Catholic pews, because they're going through the motions. Partly because their theology tells them that's sufficient. Ex oprioperato. You did the thing and therefore you received the thing.

1:38:13 That's not how God works. God requires faith. And so there's a different that's the key difference really between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants on many of these issues. But we absolutely need to take exorcism more seriously. And I think the only way that we can do it is to be entirely faithful to what little God has told us, and then judge based on results, not on what the demon tells you, not on the demon, you know, pretending or but look at real concrete results because you can absolutely look at this person was possessed, we did this, this person is no longer possessed, and then follow up, and the person's not possessed in a year, two years, five years, ten years, right? That's concrete proof.

1:39:06 There's nothing wrong with concrete proof. There's nothing wrong with a Christian as looking at concrete proof and giving it weight. God provided plenty of proof that Christ was God, right? He performed miracles, he rose from the dead, he did things that were concrete proof. So there's nothing wrong with concrete proof. But that doesn't appeal to human beings in the same way, in the same sort of visceral way, as all of the candles and the incense and the chanting. But I don't think we have any reason to believe that stuff does anything. Because Because Scripture doesn't say it does, and Rome has made such a hash of that theology and the dogma because of listening to demons and repeating things said by demons and the Mariolatry and other

1:39:58 things that you can't possibly sift the good from the bad at this point. We're almost starting over from scratch. Which is not a good position when we're dealing with rampant demonic oppression. Maybe not outright possession as much these days, but oppression certainly. So no, we need to make take this more seriously. This needs to be something that is very much an active and real part of the Christian faith, and Protestants have fallen short here. I the Roman Catholics have fallen short in their own way, but Protestants have fallen short by just essentially ignoring it. And And when you ignore the demonic, it doesn't make it go away. There's an aspect, yes, of course, you know, Satan does something

1:40:43 and go away. That's different, right? There's a difference between ignoring the temptations and the needling and the annoying things versus ignoring the person who suddenly knows how to speak Sumerian. That calls for something other than ignoring it. You need to address that issue, and we need to take it seriously. Look at how much of Christ's ministry in the New Testament was casting out demons. It's a very real thing. It's something that needs to be part of the Christian faith because it is part of the Christian faith. Deliverance from Satan and hell is the core of the Christian faith. That's what the gospel ultimately is. Satan didn't just give up after the cross. If anything, he redoubled his efforts.

1:41:32 And at some point, maybe it's now, maybe it's in the future, he will be let off his chain for a period of time. As Christians, we need to be ready for that, and part of that is exorcisms. Because demons are real, demonic possession is real. In fact, I know men who have come to the Christian faith because they've looked into cases of demonic possession. I'm not saying you should look into this stuff. Most men should not. But they looked into it and there are things that cannot be explained in a materialist or a naturalistic frame. Because they are supernatural. And if there is something that is supernatural, then the question is, well, what else exists beyond our realm? Right? There are many men who look full on into the face

1:42:21 of evil and go, if there's a devil, there's a God. And I think that's perfectly rational. But there is a devil. And so we have to rely on God in these exorcisms to deal with these issues, but we have to take it seriously at risk of ad nauseum. But this is not something that we have done. We have fallen short. Our four fathers and our forefathers fell short on this. We need to do whatever we can with what God has given us. And again, it's not very much. I know that. But He has given us enough tools to accomplish it because He said we'd cast out demons in His name. So we know that we can, we know that it works. It's a question of doing the work and then documenting it. I mean it's kind of the scientific approach almost for demons.

1:43:10 But it is what it is. God has given us sufficient tools to address the problem. We should use the tools God gave us and then be sure that we document what it is that we did so that future generations have more information than we do. Question 18, a little shift in gears again. What are possible biological explanations for pre-fall immortality? So there are really two aspects to that, right? There is senescence, which is just to say aging, and then there is obviously injury, right? So you can die either from old age or from misadventure, we could say. Senescence is the easy one, right? If you have perfect replication of your DNA and the various cleanup

1:44:12 systems in the body do a good job do a perfect job, right? Like, for instance, Alzheimer's. The current state of the research shows that part of the problem is a buildup of plaque and some other stuff in the brain, and that the cleanup systems in the brain are just not operating as well as they should in order to clean that stuff out. But we are learning ways that we can potentially boost those, probably tweak them maybe with some genetic tweaking other things and I don't want to get into all of that right now, but if we can do that, we can maybe even reverse Alzheimer's, and we can certainly prevent others from getting it and maybe other neurodegenerative disorders. So those systems are in place.

1:44:59 They're still in place, right? Like I'm not dead right now. My body is replacing cells. It's maintaining itself. It's cleaning out waste. It's doing all those various things. It's just not doing it well enough to make me still look like I did when I was twenty one. You know, I had hair at one point, despite what some people may think. So senescence is the easy question, right? The hard question is how do you deal with acute injury? Because you know, take the extreme example, right? There were mountains and things. What would have happened to Adam before the fall if he had climbed to the top of a mountain and just jumped off and fell five thousand feet? Assume it's a mountain that has cliffs.

1:45:45 I don't know how God would have dealt with that. I have no idea. I mean I could speculate, I could speculate for the next three hours on ways you could do that, but ultimately I don't know. God didn't tell us. All we know is that Adam would not have died. So would it been the case that Adam would have never made a mistake like that? Maybe. Would it been the case that God would have actively intervened and said, You're an idiot, but I will catch you? Maybe? We don't know. That is left up to God's wisdom. All we know is that will be the case in the new creation. We will all be immortal. We won't age. We won't fall ill, we won't have all the various problems we have today, right? I won't have a slight sniffle from whatever, probably you know, East

1:46:34 Tennessee pollen or something. I don't have allergies, so I don't what it is, but at any rate, we will not have these things. We will not be affected by these things in the new creation. God is the one who has to solve that problem, I don't. So I don't know, he hasn't told me. And I'm just not worried about it. Because Because what God will do is perfect, it is certainly better than any answer I could give. Question nineteen sort of a related question from the same person here. Is it plausible that soul generation has Lamarkian inheritance? It would explain how quickly moral degradation compounds nationally over generations. And for those who don't know, the we're really dealing with kind of two different systems here.

1:47:28 You have sort of Darwinian, we'll call it inheritance and Lamarchian inheritance and so Darwinian is according to your DNA. You inherit certain things and then you can have mutations and those mutations get inherited and though then the build up of those is what causes changes over time, right? That's the Darwinian case. Lamarckian is that you have intra-generational changes that are then passed on. And so you'll have an acquired trait by an individual, an existing individual, that is then passed on. So you can see the difference, obviously, right. You have the the difference is basically, conception is the transmission of the genetic information for the first system, and the mutations, the recombinations, things like that are what cause

1:48:19 those differences in subsequent generations versus an individual that is alive acquiring a trait in some way or some aspect of a trait and then passing that on. And so we know of course that it is the former one that generally happens biologically, although there's a little bit of the latter with regard to expression of genes and things like that, and you have. We got into the issue a little bit with various things about sexual immorality, for instance, right? But at any rate, is there an aspect of Lamarckian inheritance for the soul? There could be, but I think I would probably on the basis of twin studies and things like that conclude that much like biology, certain aspects of this are tied

1:49:16 much more strongly to what you are physically than what you have acquired from another individual in time. But with the important caveat, fathers tend to produce sons like themselves. And so an evil man tends to produce evil sons. That compounds over generations. And so you do have an aspect of a transmission of sin and evil from one generation to the next. With it being living individuals instead of during the generation of the soul, which I believe happens at the same time as conception. You can believe plus or minus a little bit, whatever you want. At any rate, I do think that there's sort of that aspect of a Lamarkian sort of inheritance with regard to the soul, because the evil of the fathers continues through the sons and the grandsons,

1:50:11 and so if you have a man who goes off the rails and becomes, you know, use an old timey term a rogue or you know a cutthroat or whatever he happens to become, this man becomes a particularly nasty criminal, and then raises his son, which, you know, whether or not he does that is an open question with that kind of criminal, but if he has that involvement in his son's life, he raises his son to be like he was, and then his son does the same. And so you wind up with a greater sort of progression of the degeneration due to that evil that is passed on focused on not just genetically, not just biologically, but culturally, because what they're doing is they're building a family or a lineal culture there.

1:50:55 So I do think there is an aspect of that kind of descent, that kind of transmission of information, that sort of inheritance. It's not exactly Lamarkian, but it is very much related to it, very similar to it. Question 20. I think I will at least answer maybe a few more questions here. I said I would go for two hours to make up for missing last week, and I think I'll try to hit that target here. Despite be despite starting a a little bit late there, although some of you got uh a little bonus audio at the beginning there since apparently my wireless mic decided to stay live on me since OBS was passing you the raw audio instead of the processed output. Do you think Judas was ever forgiven? This is question twenty, since he expressed remorse and regret before hanging

1:51:53 himself. I don't think so. And well actually I know so. Scripture's very clear on this one, and I'll I'll give the explanation of why I don't think so first and then why I don't know why I know it's not so. I don't think so because going out and hanging yourself, as Judas did, is an act of despair, is an act of just completely abandoning any and all hope. Which, if he had truly repented, if he truly believed that the forgiveness was on offer, it was possible for him, then he would not have done what he did. And so I don't think that he truly repented. I don't think he had true remorse. That's why I would say I believe he did not. But now the reason I know he did not is that Christ explicitly says it would be better for that one

1:52:54 with regard to Judas. It would be it would be better for that one if he had never been born. There's only one way to interpret that. Judas is definitely in hell. I think I will look through the chat now to grab a few more questions. Someone asked what is sort of a legal question, but I I guess I'm comfortable answering it. How do I make a trust to leave my house to my sons? Do I have to go through a lawyer? When it comes to issues like taxes and inheritance and trusts and things like that, to hire a lawyer. You can often get it done relatively cheaply, but it is worth hiring an attorney, and I'm not saying that just because I am an attorney I'm saying it because that area of the law, it's easy to make mistakes.

1:53:52 And it's not necessarily mistakes that will cause the outcome to change because laws for that, particularly when it's you know You know, parents to children, things like that. The defaults are usually decent. You can get a lot of tax advantages and other things if you don't use the defaults as it were and have an attorney actually craft various vessels, documents, things for you in order to pass that property on after you pass on. But what can happen if you make mistakes or don't do it right is that you can open it up to litigation and everyone always thinks, oh, that would never happen with these people and it happens. What you're doing, even if it's not something that is likely in your case, you're removing the temptation of someone might have to

1:54:41 sue. So involve an attorney. That's generally that's one of the few things where it's pretty safe to give le legal advice is when the answer is hire an attorney. So Question twenty two With the internet contributing to a global awareness of the Jews and their wickedness, how do you see this impacting events in the next decade. The biggest aspect of that I would say is actually generational more than informational because the baby boomers are the ones who love Israel because they just fell hook, line, and sinker, they fell hard for dispensationalism and all that stuff. Millennials and younger, and again, the Gen X thing, right, split between the two don't have that problem. And so I think the biggest factor is going to be as

1:55:37 the boomers age out, which includes, of course, dying, but also includes just being too old to hold any power anymore and actually wield the power. As they continue to age out, that's the bigger change. It's one of the reasons that the Jews are pushing things like the Iran War and the various bombings and trying to expand things. They know their time is short with regard to support from the un from the United States. They know that America will not be supporting them in the future, and so they know they have to push through as much as they can before they lose that particular support. But yes, I think in short, the the bigger change is the generational change. Question twenty three. Do you think the theory that whites and Asians had to plan

1:56:33 more for the future due to changing seasons led to generally higher IQs than for blacks and Hispanics. So in the case of Hispanics, it's largely a matter of what the admixture is because Hispanic is such a broad term, right? It's going to depend on how much African admixture and which Amerindian tribe, because some tribes are brighter than others. But to get to the actual question here, I think that it created a positive pressure in terms of preservation of of that intellectual capacity. Because again, like I've said many times before, I don't think that we're trending upward. I don't think that we have improved or acquired abilities over time to include additional capacity, as it were, for certain attributes, so additional IQ points.

1:57:21 I do think that it was a pressure for the more intelligent individuals to have more children, and so the average of the whole population could have increased without that ceiling increasing, as I explained earlier, right? But I do think that there was also a negative not sort of pressure, I guess, but that lack of a positive pressure. You had in the equatorial, the easier parts of the world to live where, you know, the weather doesn't kill you. They didn't have the same pressure to maintain that ability, and so they had the freedom, as it were, not to do so. The less intelligent could have as many children as they wanted because they weren't going to die in the snow. So So I think it's a combination of those things.

1:58:10 I do not believe that the weather caused an increase in IQ for Europeans and Asians, but I do believe that it created pressure that maintained IQ, whereas the lack of that pressure another part lack of that pressure in other parts of the world permitted them to have that downward trend. I'm actually going to take a sip of my Manhattan that's been sitting here and just melting. Could have it. Bonus question. Is it a sin for Christians to drink alcohol? The answer is no. But I'll not number that one. Question 24. I am currently studying for the LSAT. Would you recommend law school as a career path? I get asked this one a lot. I think the answer is

1:59:11 Law can be a very important and rewarding career. And obviously, if we do not have attorneys, we're in a worse position than if we have attorneys on our side. At the same time, you are going to be around terrible people all of the time, at least while you are in law school and then while you are in your first couple years, assuming you go into big law or something like that, and it is going to make immense demands on your time and your sanity and your stress level. The general joke is that the first year in law school, they try to scare you to death, the second year they try to work you to death. And that's not entirely false. That's kind of how it goes for most law schools and most programs, most men.

1:59:58 But if you are the sort of man for whom there is an appeal for being an attorney, and you have a pretty good set of potential paths in mind where you can build a career for yourself, then I think it's fine to pursue it. You know the LSAT's going to determine part of it, right? How well you do on the LSAT. That is actually important for law school, particularly if you're white. So I don't think that I'm going to discourage people from going into law, but I am definitely going to say that there are some very real considerations and there are some very real costs for going into law. And it partly also depends on what state you're in, right? If you're in a state like New York or California or New

2:00:42 Jersey, the bar is probably in the next handful of years going to try to come down pretty hard on guys who are you know far right wing. I see the writing on the wall. I know the California bar will eventually try to come after me, but that's just another thing to consider. Some states are better than others. I'll probably, you know, get a bar card here in Tennessee and avoid the California issue. Even though I like the privileges from California more because the attorney client privilege in California is the strongest one probably in the world, I think at this point. Maybe some little island somewhere as a stronger one, but the basic recommendation is if you are the sort of man who is fit for it, it appeals to you, you do well on

2:01:24 the L set, and you have a career path, by all means go for it. But that career path is pretty important. And the school you attend is going to determine at least the first, say, five to ten years of your career. So go to the best school you can. Let's see. Thank you for the person who just said blessings from New York. That does not make me necessarily like New York City. I have driven through it a few times and I've had a number of friends who live there, but just it's never appealed to me that much. I understand why some people like it, and I would like to see it restored to you know, it's former glory. But obviously don't hate big cities. I lived in LA and I lived in Berlin, but haven't lived

2:02:19 in a a big city on the east coast. Which is why I have coyotes outside instead of car noise. But I think that may be about it for now. I think I hopefully noticed all the questions in the chat or at least copied them over. So made up for that. Missed episode last week. Hopefully I can figure out how to maybe record this remotely, or maybe I'll just keep doing it in my study But I think I'll probably have to do a Starlink mini or something because I do now not live in LA. I live in East Tennessee, and Wi-Fi is not always a guaranteed thing at certain places. At any rate, thank you for everyone who submitted questions. As always, you can submit questions on the forum. That is the preferred way to do that.

2:03:13 The link is in the video description elsewhere. You can submit them via Telegram or X. I try to notice them there. I don't always notice all the ones on X. X does not always give me all my notifications. So if I don't reply to you, it may very well be that I just never saw it because apparently now our lives are dictated by Grok. But the best way, yes, the the forum definitely, because that's mine. I can organize it better. It's easier going forward for people to find things and see my answer to certain questions. That's the preferred way, but again, in the chat, elsewhere, comments on videos, those are all fine. So again, thank you for those who submitted questions. I'm always glad to do this and I try to do this

2:03:59 on Thursdays. I keep saying that, but it always winds up being Friday. At any rate. I hope you all have a great weekend, at least what is left of the weekend, since it's obviously Friday night. Go to church on Sunday, and I will see you all next week. Until then, God bless you.