Breakdown of the G3 & Christian Nationalism Controversy

Why This Conversation Is Happening

We are live on the Conversations That Matter podcast for a wonderful evening. I hope it's wonderful where you are. It's actually raining where I am, but we have some guests with us who they seem to be having a good evening.

Stephen Wolf is with us, who is the author of the case for Christian nationalism. And Stephen, you're enjoying a nice evening. I see you're outside smoking a pipe. And then we have Nate Fisher with us, who is the CEO of New Founding and the founder of American Reformer.

And Nate and I actually have gone back quite a few years. We've been friends for a long time. We have Josh Abattoy with us, who's the executive director for American Reformer. And then William Wolfe looks like he just joined.

William, welcome. William, I didn't get the chance to ask you since you just joined how you wanted to be introduced. So I'll let you introduce yourself. That was great. William Wolfe's my name. Glad to be here.

Okay, William Wolfe is here. All right. Well, let's start here. I think we wanna get into some specifics, but we wanna start with the why. Why are we having this discussion? And from my point of view, there's three main things.

The first one is that I think, especially for Nate and Stephen, I wanna give you guys an opportunity to respond to some of the insinuations that have been made by people who are associated with G3 against you guys.

And then I think the second thing is we need to clarify the issues so that people understand what is the disagreement over? There's still a lot of confusion over this. To be honest with you, I might even have a little confusion over this.

So hopefully we can clarify things as we talk. And I think Nate has some thoughts on how to handle moving forward social media disagreements like this, because this is a new dynamic that we are not used to.

And as Christians, we need to think through how do we treat people respectfully, but also hold our positions in high esteem and the God that we worship and his moral laws, we understand in a high esteem on social media.

So with that, I just wanna open it up to any of you guys. I mean, does that sound good? Is that why you're here? Do you wanna add anything to that? All right, we're all in agreement. That's a good way to start the podcast.

How the G3 and Christian Nationalism Conflict Began

Well, what I'd like to do then, if possible, is start sequentially and go through this. Because I think most people understand things better when you start at the beginning and you go through piece by piece.

And so I wanna start at the, this is a slide show that I prepared just with some representative things that have been said. It's not everything, you couldn't capture everything because this has been months.

But I would say in April, there were some insinuations and I don't know if you wanna call them attacks. I think Josh Bice was sensitive to calling these attacks, but there were insinuations that the people who were on the Christian nationalist side wanted a Protestant Pope or believed in integralism, or Stephen specifically was not doing biblical exegesis.

So his ideas could not have been biblical, that there was a racial component, which was very wrong and unbiblical and all of this. So I put a few representatives there. I don't know if you guys wanna focus on any of these or add to them.

But I mean, where would you see this whole debate starting.

Or on what issue, I suppose? John, could I set a historical marker even just a little bit further back?

Sure, your audio is a little staticky, but yeah, go for it.

Okay, well, is that, can you hear me all right or no? Yeah, I can still hear you, I can make it out. Well, look, I mean, I just, I mean, it's very interesting if we bring this conversation back to December of 21, November, I just got on Twitter in October and I'm writing a paper on Christian nationalism.

And nobody knew I was back then really. And I put a definition out there in early December, late November, and the definition was very positively responded to even by some people in the G3 orbit. I don't have to read the definition, I'm happy if you want me to.

And so it's very interesting if you go back even further to see how things have changed since then, because I would argue I haven't changed at all from that original definition by and large. So it goes back even further and something happens.

Yeah, and that's maybe one of the things we should explore. Any of you guys wanna weigh in on this? Where you think this, where this stems from, why this attack started in April? Because it was odd to me that it wasn't just one person, it was like, it almost seemed coordinated.

It was a bunch of people at the same time, many of them associated with G3. And whether you wanna use the word attack or just insinuating or casting shade on or whatever, I mean, it all seemed to happen.

Around the same time in April. Yeah, well, I mean, from my own part, yeah, I didn't even know who any of these guys were until they started, I guess, attacking me or attacking Christian nationalism. So, and I've been attacked from so many different people that it's hard for me to know when and what happened.

But yeah, I mean, they weren't even really on my radar. I guess I've maybe heard of G3, but it wasn't really until, I don't know. It seemed like the guy, basically our friends started to respond to them.

That's when I took notice. I guess it was in April, I don't know. It seems like these criticisms come in waves from different groups and it moves from one to the other. But yeah, I don't know what the motivation was.

Yeah, Nate, did you have something?

I was gonna say, that was my perception. I mean, I'm also maybe a little bit of an outsider to this world, I'm a Presbyterian. I wasn't sort of deeply familiar with G3's background. And it really seemed strange to me.

Like it seemed like just sustained ongoing sort of waves of Twitter, let's call it aggressive to hostile messages, whether they're directly attacks, they're at least sort of challenges. They're pretty aggressive challenges.

And a lot of them were questions, but they were sort of leading questions. And it was strange to me where it came from. It clearly seemed motivated by something. I mean, maybe they, my guess is they saw Christian nationalism gaining traction and decided it was a threat.

I don't necessarily assume that coordination is a bad thing, but yeah.

I think that just a lot of, I bet they were just asked questions probably from their listeners and readers. And they said, hey, what do you think about this? And I think that's happening across denominations in the country, either like in the reformed or reformed kind of adjacent world.

And I think it just came to a point where they thought they had to deal with it. And so I think that's probably the, maybe there was some things going on in the background, but I think it was just that there's a lot of young people or just people in general who are interested in this.

I've said before that we're in a time when people are looking for answers and not that, not the kind of the old, boring, you know, worthless conservative lines that the neutral world sort of rhetoric.

And I think people are open to other things, open to other ideas. And here we show up with quoting older guys, you know, the venerable dead, and it seems to violate the social dogma of the last few decades.

And so I think they tried to engage it or they have tried to engage these ideas.

Yeah, and I'm obligated to say this because Angel, I think this is Angel Garcia, if I'm not mistaken, but for $5, he says, the reason it seems coordinated is because Michael O 'Fallon gives them their talking points.

So I don't know if any of us want to confirm or deny that, but that's a theory, I guess, that is floating out there. And I've seen other people on Twitter say the same thing, but I mean, I don't really care where it comes from.

I mean, it's just what we have to deal with, I suppose.

Social Media, Leading Questions, and Public Response

Yeah, I won't touch on that, but I do think there was some unified messaging across various different accounts, John, and you highlighted some of this, but they were questions, but they weren't entirely good faith questions.

They were sort of leading. So there was a question that, for instance, asked how many Christian nationalists would like to be following a Protestant Pope under the banner of Christian nationalism, or how many would be happy with integralism?

Like these are not questions that if you read Stephen's book or if you read some of the stuff about Christian nationalism on American Reformer, you read William's stuff, you wouldn't really pick those concepts up in any of that writing.

Like it's kind of argumentatively, and I would say unfairly framed from the start, which is probably why it caused so much heat from the start. I'm not sure it was necessarily anybody on this call, but certainly a lot of people immediately recognized those questions as being sort of unfairly or argumentatively framed from the very beginning.

Yeah, and I have some of them on the screen. I'm not gonna read all, but you have the integralism, the question about a Protestant Pope, but you also have things like, you have like Nathaniel Jolly implying that Christian nationalism usurps the role of the gospel and replaces it with legally imposed moralism and political activism.

You have Virgil Walker saying that building your own brand is difficult. When you're trying to grow followers, it's easier to leverage the previous success of others. And he's talking about some people, I know William was part of this, who put a statement together on Christian nationalism.

So there's a lot of things like this. I actually had to really narrow it down because there were so many, but this is where I think it started. And I think it's important to point that out, that it wasn't, at least from my point of view, trying to watch this whole thing, I didn't see Christian nationalists start attacking G3 out of nowhere or saying that they were terrible or anything like that.

It seemed to, it was a few weeks of that kind of thing that I just showed you on the screen that took place before there was really much of a response. And I think I was with you, Josh, with your dad as well.

We were in Kentucky when this all started. And I remember we were talking about it a little bit and it was very much, well, maybe there's confusion. Maybe we, and I think I emailed Scott and Neil right then and said, hey, would you come on a podcast or can we talk about this?

Because I think you and I both thought, well, maybe this is just a misunderstanding and we can work it out. And we're so downstream from that now, which is sad to me.

I think, I mean, they're not gonna like this comment, but I think one of the problems is that they simply had never actually dealt with the arguments from magisterial Protestantism or classical Protestantism, whatever you want to call it.

And they had a, they, yeah, they had the sense, they had a sort of Baptist narrative. I mean, apologies to the Baptists here, I'm not trying to, but there is this like, this typical Baptist narrative where like the, you know, the Presbyterians or Congregationalists or Anglicans were forcing the faith upon them and violating rights of conscience and all that.

They had this sort of narrative. And so that when they read or see screenshots of my book, they think, okay, this is like, you know, Baptist drowning 2 .0 or something like that. And so instead of initially taking the time to understand the arguments historically and also in my book and others, they just kind of went from what that, that sort of Baptist narrative, I think hoping that it would capture the attention of fellow Baptists who are, have been kind of socialized into that narrative.

Yeah. And I think it, I think what they realized eventually that they couldn't just do that. And so they had to kind of regroup. So it does seem that there was at some point they had to kind of figure out, okay, what the arguments are.

I'm still not entirely sure they grasped them, but there was, I think initially this, hey, we could just, you know, Baptist drowning 2 .0 sort of narrative against Greek nationalism. Good point. John, is my audio any better?

I took the headphones out. Yes, yes, it is much better. Yes.

Wow, the AirPod Pro is no good, but just speaking out loud is great. How's that for technology? Look, I'm not gonna get into naming names, but I think there's no doubt there was a coordinated effort, right?

Because again, you know, I'd publicly, you know, posted and been engaging on Christian nationalism for months when, you know, when I had no followers, no platform whatsoever. And so the continued effort to push for Christian nationalism is not, you know, a platform building exercise for me.

It's because I came to a belief that this is actually the right system to consider for our present moment. But I think that there was a coordinated effort to try to sort of label Christian nationalism as wokeism from the right, and really try to paint it into the box of integralism, which is really funny to me as well, because I had also in my time in seminary written another paper denouncing integralism and all its work, all its works.

You know, I denounced the Anabaptists as well. And I proposed, you know, something else in between, which is sort of akin to Christian nationalism. So I think that as Christian nationalism was gaining steam on the right, and particularly percolating into congregations and working class individuals and constituents of various ministries and churches, then sort of a bat signal went out that sort of said, how can we get on top of this?

How can we counter this? How can we label this in such a way as to, you know, paint it into a box? And it's unfortunate because that's when it seems that the sort of good faith disagreement, or even honestly the interest in it from this crowd went away.

Yeah. And I think for Nate and myself and maybe Josh, you know, we're just kind of painted and we're friends with you guys. So we're kind of just in the same, lumped into the same group. Because I don't know, Nate, Josh, you guys haven't, as far as I know, taken that label upon yourselves, have you?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Never. I've certainly been sympathetic to aspects of their aims. American Reformer has been associated, it's published pro-Christian nationalist pieces, but I've always been clear that I'm not, I'm not settled on various aspects of that, both including the prudence of the label, and even convinced of every aspect of the program.

I'm not unconvinced of it. And what I noticed was interesting is I, there were a lot of demands that I denounce or repudiate things. And it's kind of like, my view is not settled on this and you're demanding that I denounce it.

That's, I'm not gonna do that. But it was interesting. Even being open to it, really exploring. I mean, my position is, I'm not an expert on a lot of this stuff. I came from more of a business background.

I learn a lot from these discussions. I learn a lot from every American Reformer article I read. I'm figuring out a big part of my mission with starting American Reformer was, I wanna see some good discussions about what a Christian vision could look like.

Discussions and debates. And we've published anti-Christian nationalist pieces as well. And it's a debate, it's a discussion that needs to be had. And it seems to me that even being open to discussion of these issues was something that was apparently beyond the pale for them and demanded denunciation.

Yeah, it's interesting. I had retweeted a Nathaniel Jolly tweet, who's associated with G3, at least he's written for them, from January, where he said, there's good people on both sides of this debate and it's a discussion that needs to be had, just like you just said, Nate.

And something changed. Obviously something changed big time since then. And it hasn't really been all that long. I did wanna show everyone just a few representative tweets. This continued and I would say the temperature got higher in the discussion through May and June and July.

And the accusations and insinuations, I should say more so, about Christian nationalism, Christian nationalists were perhaps more serious or at least more damning in our current secular framing regarding racism accusations or kinism, I should say.

I think that was the term used. And starting to question even, I have a tweet right here from Josh Bice. This was, I think, from last week where he was questioning Joel Askell's commitment to the G3's ministry to local churches.

Like Joel Askell doesn't really care about ministries that help local churches or something. And stuff like that just started to pour in. And this is where I think it became more difficult, in my opinion, to have a discussion about these things because whatever window of opportunity was present to maybe do a public discussion was gone when you start demonizing the other side too heavy.

I don't know if maybe this is getting into maybe your thing, Nate, about handling these disputes online, but that's the challenge that I see now is there's been such a demonization, it's hard. And I think we're still willing to, I wish they were on this call with us.

I mean, I've invited Josh, I've tried to get and Virgil and Scott, but they're not that interested and this is what they're saying online. So any thoughts on that? Yeah, getting to my point about the nature of these social media things.

I think one common response we've seen is, and I think it's not an unreasonable question is, well, why do you have to engage? Why can't you just let it slide, be the bigger man, whatever? And I think that's often the right move in a debate.

But I think social media creates this interesting dynamic that doesn't leave that an option. It leaves that an option after one or two often. If there's one or two sort of jabs, you can just ignore them.

But when there's a sustained volley, especially a sustained volley by fairly high follower accounts, it kind of leaves a couple of options. One is it just brands something. If it's unresponded to, it brands something.

You've seen this in a lot of political cases. You've seen a lot of times one candidate will launch a lot of negative things and the other won't respond and they just don't recover from that. It's just the nature of reality is you do need to respond.

Now, there's a lot of different ways you can respond, but if it's gonna be sustained, it will have an impact on how people perceive things, especially if it's coming from people they see as good Christians.

And then secondly, the other nature of social media is people will respond. There will be a response. There's a lot of people on our side. There's a lot of energy on our side. And by our side, I'm using that, not just Christian Nationalists itself, but sort of broadly people are open to these discussions.

There's a lot of energy there and people will respond. And so there is going to be engagement on social media. And it's going to, if they want a fight, they will get a fight. And again, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I think that we're called to vigorously make the case for what we do. So then the question is simply, are we gonna be involved in that or not? And since obviously a lot of the questions ultimately go to things where we're seen as, for whatever reason, we're seen as leaders, even if I haven't accepted the label.

In the case of, I recently sort of brought into it personally, then it makes sense for us to get in there and talk about it. It's kind of like people are wondering, well, what are we going to say? And I think coming in and actually responding with the questions that I have in mind are helpful.

But the main point that I wanted to make was it's not, in social media, just staying out is not an option when something's sustained. There's a group of people and some will respond. Yeah, and that's a new challenge in a way.

I think that's hard for people who haven't been on social media and some who still aren't to understand. And some of the folks in this audience aren't really, they're not on Twitter. They don't have time for those kinds of things.

And so I think that's helpful to explain the nature of this. You can paint a movement in very dark tones if you want. And if they don't respond, then that label does stick. I mean, my first response was largely, let's have a conversation.

Let's jump, this is a complicated issue. There's a lot of content here. There's been a lot of discussions. There's been a lot of discussions going on for a long time between a lot of, and among a lot of the people involved.

And there's really many aspects of it too. There's sort of the political philosophy angle. There's the, how do we respond to the current regime angle? There's the, what's the vision we're ultimately aiming for?

And those are really three, those are really different questions. And I think there was a lot of conflation of those. And the simplest way to address that is often gonna be to jump on a longer form discussion like this, where we can really, we can hash it out.

We can at the very least clarify if there was an area of misunderstanding. And so my first instinct was just to offer that, just to offer a conversation. And you did that actually publicly. I have the screenshot right here where you asked Josh if he would come on a recorded Twitter space with you after he attacked you.

And I have Josh Abatoy, you did the same thing, Josh, invited them to a public discussion. I know Steven, you said, I think you've done this a number of times. Hey, have me on your podcast or I'll discuss it with you.

And then I put some private messages from myself to Scott O 'Neill in April, and then a recent one to Josh Bice. I wouldn't show their end of it, but these are the messages I sent them in response to some, the second was in response to a message that Pastor Bice sent me.

But in every single case, there was an unwillingness. I'm unfortunately sad to say on their part to make something like that happen. And I mean, I could get into details, but I don't know if that's necessary for me to do that.

I know it's not just us though. AD Robles was supposed to join us for this call. I know that he had some personal conversations. They did not go well. You know, William, I don't know if you wanted to share.

I think you were involved in some behind the scenes trying to get a public discussion going or some kind of offering an olive branch in some way.

Why the Public Conversation Broke Down

Yeah, well, I wanted to make a comment about the framing here more generally and like how to facilitate conversations because if somebody enters the public arena with like loaded and frankly misrepresentative questions towards people, it's almost signaling there's no desire to have a conversation.

And so then we try to respond asking for a conversation, but we have to sort of realize that's essentially trying to climb like a steel wall. There's no handhold there because if you're gonna lead with saying, how many Christian nationalists want a Protestant Pope or Christian nationalism is ethnocentric in a scary negative way.

And then people like us go behind the scenes and we say, no, no, no, it's not that. Like, can we have a conversation, clarify that. It's almost as if we know that's not going to happen. And unfortunately, that's sort of what's played out here.

I mean, look, there's a certain degree to which nobody owes anybody a public conversation, no doubt about that. But I do think that there is a degree of manliness and courage to if you're going to engage ideas that people are associated with or then people themselves and present them in a certain way that then you have the willingness to engage them in a conversation to hash those things out.

And I just don't know if that's materialized at any point yet here.

Yeah, I think you're unfortunately right about that. And there's been resistance to the discussion online. I think this is where the rope kind of broke and snapped. Like Josh Bice was, he told Joel Askell basically, I'm done talking with you or others who engage in childish unbiblical behavior while hiding behind masks, which everyone I think has known Joel Askell's Twitter handle.

But Scott O 'Neill also made a whole paragraph, a whole post about how he's not gonna have public conversations with individuals who have been unwilling to be respectful in private, have acted belligerently in private, have proven in public settings to be manipulative and deceptive, or have a martyr complex.

And there's more examples of this kind of thing. I know for me, that was Josh's objection to me. Personally, having a conversation was that I had, he said misrepresented G3 and I messaged him back and I gave him basically, here's what I said.

And I think it's provable. I'm not trying to malign or anything. I'm just, explain to me how this is a misrepresentation or slander and nothing. He hasn't engaged at all in any of that. And so I just, there's really nothing left for me to do.

And I think maybe we're all in that same boat that we've made every effort and we've just had the door kind of slammed in our face. I mean, that's how I feel. I don't know if I'm speaking for all of us on that.

Yeah, I'll just say that like for my part, I guess I've been in general kind of like ambivalent about the whole thing. I mean, obviously have engaged them and I've tried to, for the most part, provide my little short arguments and replies to what they, and they usually ignore it.

I mean, it was one of the interesting things that I'll essentially ratio them. I'll get dozens more likes than they would on something and they don't actually engage it. And it's kind of frustrating. And you just come to realize that they have a certain audience.

Our ideas, or at least my ideas are the sort of ideas that you can, you don't actually have to show that they're, demonstrate that they're wrong or an error. You just have to say that they're scary. That's what it comes down to.

You can quote me and say that's scary. And that's probably generally speaking enough for their audience. And I think that for many years that that sort of audience has been kind of socialized into that kind of rhetoric.

And so like from my perspective, I don't expect to be able to convince these guys of my position. So I've just tried to kind of plug away at their arguments the best I can on Twitter so that other people can see it and hopefully be convinced by it.

But ultimately, I don't have, I think that it's, I mean, this also comes back to some private conversations I had with Owen String or his last name, where I just came to the conclusion that there's no way to dislodge at least him from using the worst form of rhetoric against me no matter what I say.

I don't know if that's true for the rest of the G3 guys. And so I just have to come to accept it and then just plug away. I mean, I think that if we just have the better arguments, we have the better historical support, people are gonna see it.

And then the right people are going to come to our positions or at least my position. So I think that's the best thing we can do. You guys in your worlds might have a more, might be kind of in that world more than I am.

So there might be different tactics you take. But for me, it's just, if they say something I think is wrong, I'm just gonna provide as best I can a short argument against it.

The Kinism and Ethnocentrism Accusations

Well, I'd like to give you, Steven, and then Nate opportunities to specifically respond to some of the claims that have been made. I flashed a few of them on the screen, Steven, about from Owen Straund basically saying that you're, or implying I should say that there's this Kinnis problem that I guess you have.

And I, or at least someone has it. I'm assuming it's you. I'll jump in and I'll just say that's, it's been the most troubling thing. One of the most troubling things to me, like I even don't even mind the direct attacks at me as much but a lot of these, especially coming from Owen are sort of general sub tweets where there's not a named person.

And they're often pretty, they're often like pretty vile insinuations. They're ranging from sort of just negative. People have done horrible. They've been nasty in private or whatever to all the way to much worse things.

It's kind of like, I don't even know who they're referring to. I'm about as in the game as most people here and I don't know who they're referring to. And it clearly gives a sort of impression. It's designed to, or it certainly has the effective in a sense sort of making accusations that are insinuated against everyone in the movement.

And I think that's just a really, and then refusing to name names when asked. Let me read one of them. And then, Nate, you can go on. I just wanna give people an example because I have a few of them up here.

There were so many with Owen, but he says, if your pastor has been radicalized and now preaches paranoia and a false gospel of ethnocentric nationalism, you need to pray, ask to speak with him and graciously raise major concerns.

It may be time to find a new church home because the pulpit is no place for fear mongers. Now, something like that motivates real people on the ground who listen to Owen, who go to G3 to then interrogate their pastors, which I have no problem with applying a biblical standard to what's preached in the pulpit.

But I think, as you said, Nate, this is what Russell Moore did. This is a vague, there's this very scary big group of people out there who are preaching this horrible false gospel. I mean, I'll send people to hell, I guess.

And I mean, this is what I'm talking about. So if I were to respond to Owen and be like, dude, if you just read what I talk about ethnicity, you'll see that it's not kinist as kinism has been understood for many years, but particularly in the last 15 years, as it kind of grew in popularity in certain Facebook groups back, some of you guys may be aware of some of that history on Facebook.

So there was an actual group of people who claim kinism. It was a particular thing. And the way I present ethnicity is opposed to that form of kinism. But does it really matter to him that I could point that out and show that I don't affirm that?

I think it'd be pointless to try to convince him otherwise, even if it directly, despite the fact that like in one of my chapters, I say that intermarriage is good in creating a more like solid, more solidarity amongst a culture.

It doesn't matter that that's in there. It doesn't matter that my book says nothing about interracial marriage or interethnic marriage. It doesn't matter that I define ethnicity more along cultural lines than I do genetic lines.

It doesn't matter. So when he says ethnocentrism, he's tapping into a sense that ethnicity is a entirely genetic thing. And so then people should align around common genetics, even though if you read the chapter, I don't argue for that, argue against that explicitly.

But again, it doesn't matter. So that's like the frustrating thing is I can't have, you can't have a rational conversation with him or these people generally, because they want to use certain terminology understood to their audience, and then use it against not only me, but then broadly to anyone who claims Christian nationalism or anyone kind of in the Protestant right.

And yeah, and that's what I think, I mean, that's what Owen is doing. Like he says ethnocentric nationalism. So yeah, in my book, I do think ethnicity matters, but I define ethnicity not according to a genetic, as if you could do the genetic tests and say who's in and out.

I define it according to a common culture and a connection to people in place that is not linked. I explicitly say that we're not, like a nation is not a family of sort of cousins by genetic line. But again, it doesn't matter.

Like they'll just keep using the term, but not take into account how I present it. And it's an easy way, it's unprincipled, it's irresponsible rhetoric given what I've said, but it is effective. So if they want to win, like if they want to use powerful rhetoric to win, they could certainly take advantage of that.

They could take sections of my book where I say, yeah, like I think the Magistro reformers were right that in principle you can, the civil power can suppress gross heresy. I think Calvin was right about that.

I think all the reformers were basically right about that. I think everyone is right about that for a few hundred years and they can screenshot that and say, look, he Wolf wants to throw you Baptists in prison.

That's despite the fact that in dozens of places I say I'm not interested in that, that I want the Baptists on my side. It doesn't matter because they can screenshot the section that says, oh, you affirm that civil power may use its power to suppress heresy and that's enough.

And then they dream up visions of being drowned. But they could use that rhetoric because it's scary like someone else mentioned before. And so that's the frustrating thing that if you, that once you claim to be a principled kind of interlocutor, but then you don't actually deal with the very substance of the argument and the way I define my own terms, so.

I think you and I both know, Stephen, from our shared experience that the Lutherans are the only denomination that we have to worry about if they get into control persecuting us.

Yeah, exactly the case, yeah.

I wanted to show that when you were talking, Stephen, I pulled this tweet up from Virgil Walker. He's responding to Tom Buck and there's a guy named Corey Moller speaking of the Lutherans who says interracial marriage is tantamount to murder.

And Tom Buck had asked, if there were Christian nationalist proponents who would publicly denounce this, tagged William Wolfe, tagged Joel Webben, A .D. Robles. And Virgil Walker responded, I could care less if they denounce it.

I'm not surprised that Stephen Wolfe follows this guy. So it's like, it doesn't really matter what you say. I think as you just said, Stephen, and there's Virgil Walker confirming exactly what you just said.

It does not matter what you say. He could care less. Yeah, I mean, one of the things they don't realize is that there were people who were like traditional kinists who have been kind of convinced out of that by me.

So I'm not gonna like wear that as a badge of honor, but that's kind of the irony here is that I'm supposed to unfollow, repudiate these guys, which I don't actually do. I don't, you know, I haven't, I don't actively repudiate people on Twitter.

That's just not something I do anyway, but. Yeah, yeah. Again, it's like that I follow him. I must therefore agree with everything Mahler says. I mean, I absolutely don't agree with him on those things.