News Roundup: Pope Francis, Walter Strickland's Gospel, Neotr, & More

All right. No sound. Thank you for letting me know. I guess I had that muted for the first part of the podcast here. Sorry about that. Let's let's get started now then about a minute into it. We're going to start with Jordan Peterson stuff and actually we'll end with that stuff.

We'll start with Pope Francis stuff and then we'll end with Jordan Peterson stuff. So thanks. SMH B bag notified me that the sound wasn't working there. So credit where credit's due. But I wanted to do a news roundup.

I wanted to do something a little comprehensive and I'm going to be leaving soon to go to the Christianity in the founding conference. But before I left, I wanted to leave you with something. I try to do one of these maybe once a week if I can.

Reconnecting Christians to a Conservative Past

And I think the first thing that oh real quick one announcement and then we'll get into the first thing announcement real quick. I am going to be doing something special some exclusive content on my Patreon channel that is designed to help build a positive Christian vision and this Christian conservative vision.

But it's really to reattach people to reconnect people with a forgotten Christian conservative past. I think we have forgotten it for the most part and I don't think we've learned. I don't say we in this audience, but collectively as Christians, we haven't learned.

I think the lessons that were supposed to be learned from wokeness and there's a number of metrics that I've seen that have proven that to me. It's still people who think that this is, you know, more or less a problem because it violated some neutral principle or it's a problem because it's just heresy, but they can't articulate.

Okay, what's heresy about it? And obviously I've written a few books on this to try to articulate that better. But I think part of the problem is we are so disconnected from our past and I think reconnecting those frayed threads is one of the most productive things that I can be doing with my time with the platform I have.

And so I'm going to be doing some exclusive stuff on Patreon, patreon .com forward slash John Harris podcast. The link is in the info section on this video, but on May 19th, this is going to be our first video, I guess.

I'm not sure if I'm going to do video drop or maybe a live discussion. We'll see. We'll see what the patrons want, but we're going to be discussing Edmund Burke's reflections on the revolution in France.

We're going to start there and we're going to work ourselves through the Anglo American kind of starting there, conservative canon of literature, conservative Christian canon of literature. And I want people to understand how rich of a past we actually have.

You don't have to reinvent the wheel on all these things. And there's so much confusion about what's on the right, what's on the left. I mean, our scale is pretty much influenced now by whatever 20th century liberalism says about that, those kinds of things.

And it ought not be, we ought to have a very robust understanding of a positive vision of what it means to be Christians, conservative Christians in the United States in 2025. And so we're going there.

We're going to go there. It's we're building guys. That's what we're doing here on the podcast. So I hope that you can join me. Maybe at some point we'll make those more widely available, but I've wanted to offer some exclusive things to patrons anyway.

And this is one of my ways of saying thank you to all those who support my work. So with that, all right, we're going to start doing the news roundup here. I want to start with Pope Francis, just a little commentary.

Pope Francis and the Future of the Catholic Church

Pope Francis obviously was a very progressive Pope. And there's so many examples of that, of this. His statements, and a lot of Catholics will say, this isn't really, this doesn't matter because there was an ex cathedra, but his statements were influential.

And he said a number of things that were just frankly kind of bonkers. He was the one that said that priests could give same sex couples a blessing. So they can't marry them, but they could just give them a blessing for their partnership, I guess.

He was the one who, he said that a divorced and remarried Catholics could receive communion on a case by case basis. Now for Catholics, this is kind of a big deal, provided they engage in discernment with a priest.

He was the one that, he said, I think it was an atheist. It was an, like some, I think it was a kid who had an atheist dad. And he said, he kind of assured the kid that, well, your dad, your dad's in heaven or could be in heaven because he's a good person, essentially.

I mean, crazy, right? For Catholic, for any Catholic to say that, let alone the Pope to say that. He pushed the envelope on woman's roles in the church. He said so many things even in his recent weeks of life that were against the immigration policies that were more conservative immigration policies of Donald Trump, but also in Europe, immigration policies that were meant to try to put up barriers to say, let's remain European.

Pope Francis has a long history of pushing the needle in progressive directions. And so, it's kind of ironic. J .D. Vance met with him. It's just, it's weird timing. And then if not even 12 hours later, he's dead and people are drawing all kinds of conclusions from that.

I don't think J .D. Vance killed the Pope now, but he wasn't doing well. He was in poor health. And the question now is what's going to happen next. And there's a lot of more traditional Catholics who are excited about this prospect because they think that the conclave is going to choose someone who is more conservative in the Catholic tradition.

And there is no one who has probably done more for converting people to Protestantism in recent times than Pope Francis or to Eastern Orthodoxy, frankly, because he was just so, is the Pope Catholic? You couldn't even say that anymore.

And so, I'll give you my assessment of this. And I don't know, obviously, the future, but just judging on past experience, if the conclave before picked Pope Francis, what's to prevent them from picking an equally progressive, if not more progressive Pope again?

Now, maybe the pendulum is shifting. Maybe they'll go back. But I don't know if you can go back from Pope Francis because in a hierarchy like the Catholic Church, where you have a central location like the Vatican, where you have a central figurehead who makes a lot of these internal decisions, or at least appoints people, has people around him who make these decisions, Pope Francis has left his mark.

And once progressives do leave their mark on a place, that place tends to carry that mark. It's very hard to revive, I know, revive an organization after they've gone down these paths. They might try to appease their audience and that kind of thing, but they're not usually interested in real change.

There's revolutionaries in the Vatican. So I'm not as optimistic as some on this. And obviously, I'm not a Catholic. And I think that the Catholic Church is primarily out of step with a biblical, robust Christianity anyway, because of traditions that have been added that are not in keeping with the biblical teaching.

But yes, I mean, from a political standpoint, cobelligerency with pro-life groups and this kind of thing. Obviously, I'm interested in if people are going to be Catholics, then I would prefer they're Catholics that actually believe some of the things that scripture teaches, which Pope Francis was taking stands against, essentially, he was undermining things in the created order.

So that's my two cents on the Catholic Church. I know people probably want me to say more on that, but there's not much more for me to say other than that. I wanted to give you some evangelical news before we move on.

Mark Dever, Jonathan Lehman, and Nine Marks

So Mark Dever is stepping down from leadership and Jonathan Lehman is taking his place. Now, this is interesting. I had someone recently tell me this might be a good thing. Jonathan Lehman might be to the right of Mark Dever.

And Mark Dever is a registered Democrat, or at least he was a few years ago. I remember Judd Saul found that doing the enemies within the church research. I don't know where Jonathan Lehman stands exactly, but I know Jonathan Lehman, he blocked me on X years ago.

I know that he is, or was, I'll put it that way, because I haven't paid attention to him lately, but he was pushing the needle in somewhat of a progressive direction. He was, as you remember, one of the first ones from the evangelical world to countersignal John MacArthur pretty strongly about opening his church up during the COVID stuff.

And he was also, I think, one of the main figures, more so than Mark Dever in my mind, at Nine Marks to try to reconcile critical race theory with Christianity. Even though he said that's not what he was doing, but he did this very long article on identity politics.

I did a very long review of it. And that's essentially what he does. And I think that guys like that have to, here's my thing. There's ways to come back. There's ways to have leadership and there's ways to be followed.

But step number one is you always have to admit those mistakes. This is for the Christian world. And I understand in the political world, people think this is different. The rules are different. Okay, whatever.

But in the Christian world, at the very least, I think this applies to the political world too, but you need to at least say, you know what, those are some pretty major things for me to goof on. And I repent of that.

That's not who I am. I disagree. And whatever damage I did, I want to undo that. And then to take the necessary steps to go against your previously held positions that you find to be damaging. If Jonathan Lehman is not willing to do that, it's a character thing in my mind.

He has to be willing to do that. And then I'd be the first one to want to welcome him in. Now, whether he should have influence or power, that's another story. But the road back to those kinds of things though, whether he should have those things immediately, but the road back to those things is through that gate.

It has to start there. And so that's my feeling on nine marks and kind of where they're going. And maybe this will be good. Maybe Mark Dever was keeping the shackles on Jonathan Lehman or something, and he's going to be now all conservative and stuff.

And I mean, he did support the law amendment in the SBC, right? So it's not all bad, but I've just cautiously, I don't even know if I'm optimistic. Some people are, but I'm cautious about this. We'll see though.

We'll see. One of the big headlines from the political world, and I want to just, I'm going to focus on this a little more next week. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but Trump moves to repeal disparate impact liability, a key civil rights tenant.

I think this is great. President Trump has taken steps to nullify a key component of civil rights act as he works to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. So he's going farther than just the stuff from the last few years.

And that's a good thing. One of the executive orders issues Wednesday dubbed restoring equality of opportunity and meritocracy would dismantle disparate impact liability, a legal theory codified in title nine, sorry, title seven of the civil rights act that holds agencies accountable for practices that have an outside discriminatory effect on protected groups, even when there is no intent to discriminate.

So in other words, if there's a disparity that exists and it can be traced back to some policy you have, even if it wasn't intentional, then you're on the hook for it. And Trump is saying no more. This is huge guys.

I don't know if you realize how huge this is. This is big. This is like, we are so back, uh, material here. So, um, really good on the Trump administration. I'm so grateful that this is happening. And, um, and I'll talk about that more next week.

Walter Strickland and a Truncated Gospel

Now, moving on to some stuff from the evangelical church, uh, specifically Southern Baptists, this, uh, this podcast from the gospel coalition, the triumph and tragedies of the black church three days ago was uploaded is now private.

I was going to review parts of it. It is now private. Now the audio is not though. So I don't know why they made the video private. Maybe it was to keep people from like me from looking at it. But if you want to listen to the audio, you can go to gospel bound, a podcast of the gospel coalition, and it's still there.

The triumph and tragedies of the black church. And professor Walter Strickland is the one who is being interviewed by Colin Hanson here. And they both have a number of things to say that I think are terrible, not great, consistent with all the, the woke stuff, but, um, uh, there was one I wanted to hone in on.

And so we're going to hone in on that. This, the audio is a bit low on this. So bear with me and we're just going to, uh, I'm going to summarize what you're hearing. The, uh, the juggalism. So what do you mean about.

This overly spiritualized faith? Yeah. You know, um, if we're looking at the great awakening, the broader context for the African-American tradition is that that's the moment when Africans in America begin to come to faith in Christ in large numbers.

So, uh, many of those were slave, some were free or manumitted at that time, but the question remained, okay, so, so what do we do with these African people of African descent who have become Christian?

Uh, and how do we not lose the, the economic system that has sort of undergirded the country. And that is to offer a faith that is good for saving the soul yet does not, uh, wet the whistle, so to speak.

For freedom for the body. Okay. So Walter Strickland saying what he's said for many years, he's consistent at least right with this. It's a liberation theology reading of the situation that uh, the Christianity that was given to slaves was a Christianity that was in the mechanism was entirely for, and intended for the subjugation of black people.

So it was a warped Christianity that was in that, that was the reason they were given this. Uh, so it was a tool of subjugation that that goes right along lines with even guys like Louis Farrakhan, right?

Uh, that the Christianity is a tool to enslave you. Walter Strickland basically agrees with that, but he's going to try to say, well, it was a warped Christianity. It was not the true Christianity. And so what happened was, is that even though I, and I'm going to stop there, even though it's, he admits, Oh no, the true gospel was there.

He, he sort of just admitted that like, Oh,.

It'll save the soul. There is a, you know, uh, Christ died for centers of which you and I are one. Uh, and then that is the, the real, that's the good, that's, that is good news. Uh, I would argue that the, that the good news goes farther in the sense of that.

Uh, and also because of this already not yet tension, we ought to, because of the, uh, the, uh, the kingdom that is sort of creeping in on the present, we ought to then live those kingdom realities out as best as possible in the here and now.

So the gospel is freeing us, yes, in our souls, which is what was given, but it also does a work with us as we exist, uh, in society, as we interact with each other. And that's where, uh, that, that break was made.

And so I, I'm not critiquing the fact that there is a gospel that was given that was, uh, one that was trying to ameliorate sin from people with the that's good and well, but I'm saying that there is a cauterization off of the implications of the gospel.

And so that was sort of intentionally cut off so that slaves wouldn't say, you know what this kingdom reality is one that we should pursue now. Yeah. I mean, the story of George Whitfield is one of the most difficult and painful to look at, and it, it forces everybody to make a basic decision.

You can conclude, well, George Whitfield was preaching a false gospel. That's hard to say as an evangelical, cause it cuts you off from your history. You could say that he wasn't a Christian at all because obviously he couldn't have held those beliefs about slavery and advocated for slavery and be a Christian.

Maybe that's true, but that would also eliminate a lot of other people in American history and far beyond that for a lot of history, um, different types of slavery, of course, or you can say that at least if nothing else, he preached, he preached a truncated gospel that did not reflect the fullness of Jesus's kingdom teaching in there.

Um, I incline in that direction. I want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you incline that direction as well.

Yeah. And so I wrote my, you know what, all right, we're going to stop there. So what you just heard is Walter Strickland talking to Colin Hanson and Walter Strickland says, look, the gospel was given to enslave these people, a truncated gospel, a God, an incomplete gospel of some kind, because it cut off the elements of the gospel that are meant to save people from slavery oppression.

So this work, uh, arrangement, and of course this would have been news to Paul, right? Uh, and Colin Hanson then clarifies and goes, so you're, you're saying, are you saying that this is a truncated gospel?

I don't want to put words in your mouth. And Walter Strickland goes, yeah. And then they start, he starts speculating on, uh, you know, uh, Edwards and whether or Whitfield, I think it was Edwards, whether Edwards is in heaven and this kind of thing.

And they go on and there's other stuff in the podcast, but that's the part, the theological part that I wanted to zone in on here. It, this is, I think a way to reconcile Christianity with the prevailing narrative that's out there in the educational and influential sectors of society, which basically says, yeah, Christianity is a net negative and it enslaves people.

And then it's to say, well, that's true, but it wasn't the true Christianity. The true Christianity really does, uh, set people free from these labor arrangements. And, uh, we just didn't have it. And, and it was, so, so you're, you're right.

You get to be right. And we also get to keep our orthodox theology somehow, but it's not orthodox theology because when you start saying that the gospel is truncated, you're saying there's an incomplete gospel.

You don't actually have the true gospel. You don't have all of it because you got to add something to it. What's the thing you got to add? Well, some kind of, uh, arrangement in society, some kind of work to, to free slaves.

If that work is not present, you don't have the gospel. And again, the gospel is the power of God is salvation. The gospel is what Christ has done. Strictly speaking, I mean, you could say the gospels as in the stories in the scripture, but, uh, or the teachings of, I mean, I, you could, I guess, say broadly the gospels of the teachings that are in the gospels, but Walter Strickland's making a theological point here, and he's been consistent doing this for years.

And it's the same point liberation theologians make that to have the true gospel, you got to insert these works that are human works and not Christ's work. And so I see big danger here. It's, it's a fusion.

I mean, we were just talking about Pope Francis and the Catholic church, and we got the same problem here in evangelicalism that the Catholic church has with their soteriology. Uh, it's just, um, cloaked in different terms, unfortunately, and then I hate to see it, but it's still happening, even though Walter Strickland's been corrected.

I don't know how many times on this. All right, moving on. Let's talk about Christianity today. Christianity today. Uh, they put out an article. The Bible doesn't say Jesus was nailed to a cross. One evangelical Bible scholar thinks the crucifixion may have been done with ropes.

And of course this got community noted even and ratioed so badly. Um, and the Bible explicitly, he refers to the nails in John's gospel, John 20, 25, Thomas said to them, unless I see the nail marks in your hands and put my finger where the nails were, I put my hand into his side.

I will not believe. Now, interestingly, the author of this walked it back later. I was not, I'm not a Christianity today subscriber. So I didn't read the whole article, but apparently said he messed up that barely ever happens.

But Russell Moore really should be the one taking credit, uh, and saying that as the editor that he was, he messed up. That's what I think should happen. This is egregious, but that's Christianity today.

And, uh, I'm not such a no brainer, but they unforced error right, right before, uh, Easter Sunday too, is when they put this out there. So if you wanted to know if Christianity today is compromised and more than just political ways, yes, very much so theological ways as well.

Colonialism, Deconstruction, and the Right's Gatekeeping Problem

Uh, let's, let's see, what do I want to go to first? Oh, this is kind of a minor point, but the Presbyterian church, church USA fires missionaries and ends their missions agency. And among other things, sites, um, colonialism is one of the problems with missions work.

So there you go. The PC USA for you. That's so sad. Uh, I mean, maybe not because the PC USA would have been preaching the same gospel that Walter Strickland is preaching, but not the true one. Uh, and in even worse, uh, the way they would frame it, but man, I mean that this is where this stuff gets you, you, you start, uh, reconciling yourself to this leftist stuff and that this is where it gets you missions ends up being colonization.

Uh, all right, let's talk about, I think I want to go, okay, I want to go here next. Let's talk about this real quick. I'm not going to play the clip, but, um, uh, Rhett McLaughlin from good mythical morning, which is a comedy show.

Uh, I used to years ago, they had like a, some kind of a Southern Baptist background. I think years ago I used to watch them. Uh, so they were pretty funny, but Rhett and link is, is, you know, the duo, they went total deconstructionist.

And one of the things that Rhett says is that Francis Collins helped him to down this path of deconstructing his Christian faith because Francis Collins convinced him evolution was true. And then evolution became like this, the true supposed truth of that became the thing that undermined his conviction.

And I, I think that just needs to be emphasized that look, the Darwinist stuff didn't go away when, when the woke threat came, we have multiple threats. Darwinism is one of them and it does undermine the creation story.

Uh, I want to talk about this last year. This is, um, an article that I wrote for American reformer. And, um, I talk about this in the odor principle. It's very misunderstood. I would encourage people to read the full article, but I talk about an interview I did with Charles Haywood who kind of popularized the term, no enemies on the rights or no enemies to the right.

And I point out three errors with this. And, and one of the errors is saying that there should be no gatekeeping whatsoever on the right. I hear this all the time. Like he's gatekeeping. He's well, we have to have standards.

If we don't have positive standards, then we don't have a movement. And any person can come in, any barbarian can come into the gates and claim that the city's his. And so I talk about this, that the whole point of the odor is you don't use the left's hammer.

You don't reinforce the left's framing. You don't rat out guys who are cobelligerence to the left. That's the whole point. It's not that, uh, you don't have any internal criticisms or, uh, even disciplinary measures, perhaps.

So like I think of a prison camp analogy, like you might have guys who are liabilities in the prison camp. Do you reinforce the guard's power though, to deal with them? No, you deal with them yourselves.

And so anyway, Charles Haywood said, and the odor doesn't mean we necessarily need to spend our time embracing literal Nazis or something like that. We can have disagreements on the right, but those disagreements should not be aired in public, which is done merely to benefit the individuals who want to Kato to the left.

Now, this is under a specific set of circumstances, I think. And he, and we're going to talk about that in a minute, but, uh, the, the, that's the first error though, is that like, Oh, we just don't have any standards.

The second problem is making the odor, this universal principle for all times and places. And this is something that Haywood says right now, the left has all the power. So let's say in the future, the power of the left will be totally broken.

And at that point, there will be enemies on the right. I'm willing to cooperate with all sorts of people now, but in terms of forming and running the new post left society, new divisions and existing divisions will arise and become important again, because there are plenty of people on the right who I would not necessarily want to be running society.

In other words, there's going to be fracturing, which I've been saying there is fracturing under the Trump administration, even, uh, with the cobelligencies that even existed in some of the alliances, they're not holding his firm.

And I think Charles Haywood predicted that that's to be expected because you have this big gorilla that's trying to eat all of you. And when that gorilla is put at bay, then those disagreements start to become more felt.

So anyway, it's not for all times and places it's for a specific situation where the left holds the hammer. Now the Trump administration does have somewhat of a hammer, right? So there, there is a change in, I think the left still has ascendancy in the hegemony, but there is a change going on.

And then error three is, um, if you deviate slight, slightly, you lose the neoter shield. So if you are, uh, just slightly to the left of someone in the minds of people who think they're authentically right, most of the time, they're not, in my opinion, most of the time, the people who think they're authentically right, then do have not done the reading and they're, uh, they're, they're usually like modernist type ideologues who are criticizing people who are actually more traditional and right-leaning in a conservative frame of an angle, Protestant, uh, context, but either way, let's just grant, okay, someone, someone who's slightly to the left of you or whatever, um, that neoter doesn't apply to them.

And the whole idea here for, from Charles Haywood, it was, it was those who oppose the left. There are no enemies on the right. Those who oppose the left, they get neoter protections. It doesn't mean that just the people who are as far right as possible are the only ones to get these protections.

And I I've seen this play out many times, even with guys who think that it's fine to leak private, uh, screenshots and subject people to the left's gaze and that kind of thing. Uh, because they're authentically more right-wing or something than someone who's slightly to their left.

And so they're not violating the odor, but if you respond to them, you are violating the odor. It's absolutely ridiculous. And it's a big problem, uh, for, I think, uh, not, not that specific, that specific, um, uh, chain of actions, but the, the problem of thinking that's what neoter is, is a big problem.

So I, I analyze why I think these misunderstandings are happening and, um, I'm not going to go into all of that, but you can read the article if you want to see that the, the main point, I think the main takeaway is like, look, gates are inevitable.

I've said this before, but gates are inevitable. Every movement has to have them. The only question is who's controlling those gates. That's it. Is it someone who has the best interests of the movement of mind?

Is it someone whose root is that someone who has a virtue most importantly, um, are those the people that are the elites they're going to, you're going to have elites, right? Elitism is not a bad thing.

You just want good ones. So we don't let the left control our gates. That's the whole point of and there's a lot of misunderstanding on this. It doesn't apply. This isn't about pastoral counseling. This isn't like, Oh my goodness, I have right wingers in the church that are doing sinful things.

I can't say anything because they're on the right and I'm a pastor. That's ridiculous. No, no. As a, you have a spiritual responsibility there. It doesn't, it doesn't mean that you can't as a business owner, make decisions to, uh, you know, try to make sure that you're, you're not liable for egregious behavior of employees or something like that.

Cause they're on the right. I can't do anything. It's literally just a political strategy for a particular set of circumstances. That's it. And don't, don't try to make more of it than that. And don't try to like make this a Cardinal universal rule, which is what I see some people doing now in that vein, I want to point this out.

And, um, this is a clip from Jordan Peterson. I'm going to play the clip and then we'll talk about it without a doubt. Yeah. Well, without a doubt,.

Jordan Peterson, Cluster B Traits, and the Woke Right

That's a terrible thing because the psychopathic types, they're always the death of everything. Like I'm seeing this come up on the right now. So imagine, imagine this, I've been working on a new, a new theory of political psychopathology and I like it quite a lot.

Is this where the term, the woke right comes in? Yeah. Well, Lindsay is pointing at that, but he hasn't got, he hasn't got the diagnosis exactly right. So it isn't woke. That's not the issue. It's not exactly, he's one level talking about is like similar types of behavior.

He is talking about that. Yeah. No, woke just lets you clarify in your head. Oh, it's like that. Yeah. But the problem is like Antifa. Absolutely. But the problem is, is that that argument is predicated on the claim that the ideas are the problem, like the woke ideas, for example, on the right or the left, but that's not the problem.

The problem is that four to 5 of the population, something like that is cluster B. That's the DSM five terms, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, or they have, and they have dark tetrad traits.

They're Machiavellian, they're sadistic. That's about 4%. Okay. So the question is how do these people maneuver? And the answer is they go to where the power is and they adopt those ideas and they put themselves even on the forefront of that.

Right. The ideas are completely irrelevant. Right. All they're doing is they're the Pharisees. They're the modern version of the Pharisees. They're the people who use God's name in vain, right? As they proclaim moral virtue.

Yes. Doesn't matter whether it's right or left or Christian or Jewish or Islam. They invade the idea space and then they use that, those ideas as false weapons to advance their narcissistic advantage.

Yes. And so then you have the problem and the right's going to face this more and more particularly because the left had to face it when they were in powers. Yes. How do you identify the psychopathic parasites, 4 of the population, who are clothed in your clothing and waving your flags, but who are only in it for.

Narcissistic benefit? Okay. Let's talk about this. This blew up the internet on the right. And you had a lot of guys, most of the guys I saw counter signaling this pretty hard, but then you had some guys who were actually taking this pretty seriously.

And I want to talk about this because I think Jordan Peterson is using language that I would not use, psychological language. And so he's going to analyze it that way. He's bringing it into a frame that he understands because he's a psychologist.

Obviously the tendencies he's talking about, people who are attracted to power are going to say and do what they need to do to get power. And they might not have the virtue that should accompany power.

I mean, this is true, right? This is just true. But I think, oh, sorry, I'm distracted. I see my ride for the conference is here. Let me just text that person real quick and let them know that I am in the middle of a podcast and cannot come and talk to them.

Give me a minute. Important things, important things happening. All right. Important commentary. All right. So here's a man, how am I going to do this in like five minutes or less? I'm going to try. So he's bringing it into the psychological, these psychological terms that that's obviously there's a truth, a kernel of truth in what he's saying.

I think the sensitivity comes in and people thinking that he's talking about me. He's talking about us. He's talking about you. He's talking about. And I'm sure Jordan Peterson, because of past experience, does have a very broad net.

Of course, he's citing James Lindsay here. And I think the woke right idea is just is utterly ridiculous, mostly because the woke quote, quote, unquote, right, as they're they're called are for hierarchy.

They're not egalitarians. And the ideology of the left is egalitarian. It's it's revolutionary. But I think there is something revolutionary possibly going on on the on the right in some quarters. And I've referred to it as ideology.

Different people are coming up with different terms and different ways of looking at it. I do think mine's the correct one, obviously, because I'm the one using it. But I do think it's ideological. I do think that it's rigid.

It is universal. It's abstract. It's looking at ideas and and being loyal to those and forming the brotherhood around those instead of like tangible relationships. And there's really it's not very conservative.

And I think it's attractive to duracinated people. And I've said so much more about this in the past. So if you follow the podcast closely, you know, I've already talked about this a lot. Even this last week, I think I had a podcast where I talked about this dynamic.

But here's the thing that's that's interesting to me. It's who shared this. And I think I think there's a point to be made. I think Peterson's tapping into something, but I don't think he's it's like the elephant.

I think it's a trunk. It's this. It's that. And a lot of guys who are ideological themselves because they're liberal ideologues, they they tend to see it from their own ideological perspective. And it's like it's not us.

So therefore, it's this. Well. I wanted to show you someone that the reason I even saw this at first was a guy named Patrick Casey, who I've had on the podcast before. I thought this was really interesting.

Patrick Casey, who has been accused of anti Semitism and all he's done. He does work for Chronicles magazine. He says people are dunking on this because Jordan Peterson, which I get. But he's absolutely correct that most of the main figures posting the Jew obsession stuff 24 -7 attacking people who don't are cluster B grifters motivated primarily by self-interest.

Lucas Gage was apologizing to rabbis in 2023, but then October 7th gave him an opportunity to become a relevant person again. So he's now calling you a Mossad agent for posting in support of Trump. He's one example of many this.

That scene is a grab crab bucket where doxing, blackmail, homosexual grooming and bad faith smears are the norm. Notice how these people can't even get along with each other every time a new person comes out of the JQ closet or gets a big media appearance.