LBC Denies Abolition, David Sills goes legal, Christian Cancel Mob

and we are live for the Conversations That Matter podcast, late night on Friday edition here.

I thought it might end up being a mega edition, but now, Eastern time, it's 1022, so I don't know.

We'll see how late I can stay up here. I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was yesterday.

Today's Black Friday, and I asked people online what the good Black Friday deals were, and most of what

I got back, maybe this says something about this audience, but it was all about Christian books and publishing companies, and I thought, my audience probably reads a lot, so it sounds like just about every

Christian book publisher, distributor, is having a sale right now, so hopefully some of you are taking advantage of that.

I wanted to highlight a few things as well here. A friend of mine, a friend of the podcast, actually has given me very valuable information in the past, wanted to let me know about a book, actually, his mother wrote,

I don't know why I have the European edition up here. Well, you can find it. It's called Demi Wiggin, and I actually,

I have a copy of it right here. It's a kid's book, and someone who's a friend of the show, and it's on sale.

I don't know why I have the, I don't know, what is this? I have the Irish, I think,

Kindle pulled up. I don't even notice that, but anyways, it's dirt cheap right now, so it's a kid's book. Someone that doesn't have a publishing company, but I said, yeah,

I'll let people know that your book is out there as well, and of course, for this time of year, nothing is perfect.

The holidays cannot be perfect without a Gold River tea set. I mean, it just goes without saying.

You have to go to GoldRiverCO .com to get yourself some Gold River green tea,

Earl Black tea, the 1776 American Breakfast Blend, whatever suits your fancy.

They have a number of different bundles here, and it's what I drink, and in fact, this is,

I won't, don't tell my relatives that I'm getting this for them, but for some of my relatives, I'm getting some of this for them, because it is that good.

I do believe in the product, and you can get gift cards too if you're not sure. Hey, what do my friends actually like?

What does my grandfather drink when he drinks tea? What's he gonna enjoy? Well, get him a gift card if you don't know to Gold River, and if you put in the promo code conversations, then you'll save 15%.

I believe it's 15 % on the product, and so that's been useful right now.

I'm actually getting over a cold, and it's cold, of course, in upstate New York right now. I was actually just out earlier today hunting.

I didn't see anything today. Kind of a new spot, and actually, I don't know if other hunters relate to this, but I was kind of happy about it.

You ever get happy that you didn't find a deer, or shoot a deer, because then you would have to actually do something with it, and I felt that way today.

I thought, man, I don't really wanna shoot a deer, but I'm gonna sit here anyway and enjoy outside, even though it's cold, and that's what

I did, and it was great. I love just sitting outdoors, and this time of year, I at least have an excuse to do it.

Maybe I should think about having an excuse other times of the year to just sit still outside. I mean, fishing, but yeah,

I mean, I don't know. I'm not as still, and hunting, you gotta be still, and you're in the woods, you know? It's just marvelous, so.

Anyhow, we have a number of things to talk about today. I have so much to share with you. I just have so much. I can't get to all of it today.

We're gonna have to save the 1607 project for another time. The trailer's up, though, and I'm gonna show it on this podcast.

If you don't wanna wait for that, you can go online and check out, just type in on YouTube, I guess, 1607 podcast, or not podcast, trailer video, and it should come up, but the 1607 project is gonna be happening.

We are gonna need your help. I'm gonna actually be asking you guys for your help to dig deep this year, if you can, on a number of different,

I think, important projects, and today's no exception. I'm gonna have a call to action at the end of this podcast for a friend who's in need, someone who's been on this podcast before, who,

I'll just be blunt, he lost his job on Thanksgiving Eve. I can't think of a worse time of year to lose your job but going into the holidays, when you have a family, when your wife is pregnant, and he could use our help.

Actually, I forgot to put the link in the info section, but I will show it. In fact, I'll show it right now if I can here.

Here it is. It's for Thomas Accord, and to support the

Accord family. In fact, they are, I'll refresh this to see what the current number is on this.

They are, wow, they have almost reached their goal. I guess the goal is now 15 ,000, so they're almost at $10 ,000, and I'm just so impressed with this.

And you can look, I mean, you have, obviously, a big donor here, but a lot of these donations, I mean, they're $50 or $100 or $25.

I mean, there's just tons of people pouring in support for Thomas. And if that's not a character reference,

I don't know what is. This is like that moment in It's a Wonderful Life to reference a

Christmas movie. And I guess it's not, it's a Christian nationalist movie, I guess. It's not a

Christian movie. But at the end of the movie, when George Bailey is in trouble, and I mean, he's ready to just end it all.

I mean, it's that bad. And then all his friends and the people he's helped over the years come in, and they just give money.

I mean, that's a beautiful moment in the movie. And of course, from the perspective of the outsider, someone who didn't see what

George Bailey was actually doing, he looks like a criminal. Like, Potter's accusations sound true, right?

George Bailey's a bad guy. He took out these loans.

He couldn't pay them back, whatever it was. He operated a business and embezzled the money.

That's what it looked like. And in reality, that's not what happened at all. And guess what? Even despite these accusations, the people around George Bailey knew that George Bailey was not the man that had the kind of character to embezzle money.

And that's what motivated them to give. Otherwise, he wouldn't have gotten anything. And I see a similar situation happening with this

Thomas Accord situation with his family. I mean, he's being accused of some terrible things on the internet, but the people who actually know him, they're digging deep into their pockets to help him out.

And so I just would recommend, and I very shamelessly say that I gave a little bit to this as well, because I believe in helping a family who's in need during the holidays.

So we're gonna work to what I'm talking about here. Some of you know, most of you don't, but we'll get into the weeds on this a little bit, because I think it illustrates something.

Even if you don't know who Thomas Accord is, even if you don't know some of the characters involved in trying to smear him are, which a lot of them are more obscure.

You're not gonna know who they are. This is an illustration of how the cancel culture mob works, even in evangelicalism, even in Christianity, Christian circles.

And it's frankly disgusting to me. I just, I can't get the bad taste out of my mouth. Before we get to that though, a bunch of other things

I just wanna highlight for you. Things I've been sitting on that I just know I need to share and I haven't yet, but the

Louisiana Baptist Convention met and this was October 10th. So we're talking last month now, but they put together a resolution on abortion.

And I'm not gonna read the whole thing for you, but in this resolution, they essentially praised the

Supreme Court and the state of Louisiana for effectively outlawing abortion, curbing it, you know, making a lot of progress for the pro -life cause, and encouraging

Christians to get involved in adoption and these kinds of things now that Roe v. Wade has overturned. And so this happened though at the event.

I wanna show this to you. And why is this important, John? Well, let me give you one reason. Where do you think the Southern Baptist Convention is gonna be held next year?

That's right, Louisiana. And the conservative line has been, well, we didn't win in California, but we can surely win in Louisiana because Louisiana is conservative.

Now, I'm not here to say whether that's true or not, but I wanna give you a little piece of evidence to determine whether or not you think this is the case.

So I'll let you make up your own mind. And this is adding to evidence I've already presented, namely that the,

I think it was the Louisiana Baptist Convention that also failed to condemn Ed Litton when that was brought up as a potential resolution.

So, or a motion at least. I don't remember if it was a resolution or a motion exactly, but that was during the time of that Sermon Gate scandal thing.

And Louisiana Baptist Convention said, we don't, we're not gonna do that. We're not gonna touch that. Well, here they are again.

This is recently. And here is an amendment that was offered for the resolution that I just showed you.

And I'll play it for you. But my amendment to resolution one is not to remove anything in the resolution. I don't object to any of the language.

It's very good. The problem with resolution one, it's insufficient. A person could read this resolution and come away with the idea that abortion has been ended in Louisiana or the idea that it's illegal for women to have abortions in Louisiana.

It is not, and I can demonstrate that later if we would like to have debate. But here is my amendment. I would like to add a resolution clause after the second resolution clause.

And the amendment, which would add this clause, resolved that we urge the

Louisiana legislature and the governor to fully ban abortion by enacting a law of equal protection for preborn children so that preborn life will be protected from the moment of fertilization by the same laws which protect born persons.

That's mine. Do you have a copy of that amendment? Could you, just a moment,

Brian. Commission, just stand at ease for a moment. Okay, so this is a lot of just fluff, a lot of waiting around.

I don't know if we have time. Let's see, let's play a little bit of this. We'll play, this is a pastor who opposes.

So after that amendment was brought up, there was some opposition.

It was ruled out of order, but then the person who brought the amendment said, I'm gonna motion that we overrule the, being overruled, essentially, and appeal to the body.

And so that takes its course. And then we get to this pastor who's gonna oppose it. And I just want you to listen to what he says, a little bit of it.

Or getting abortions, and I think that that's where this is headed. And I want to make just a couple of comments about this and why we should not go any further with this.

It's hard to argue with the reasoning with my brother, and I have nothing but respect for him. The mothers involved in this are clearly choosing to murder their children.

Do not argue against that reasoning, it is accurate. I appreciate my brother's passion, his strong stand for the truth.

I do want to say this. When the Apostle Paul was still Saul, he consented in acts of murder.

First Stephen. And then he went on a personal crusade, if you remember, attacking other Christians.

The scripture says that led to their destruction, destroyed many other families and Christians. Paul, many years later, reflecting on his actions, he said this to Timothy in 1

Timothy 1 .13. He said, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, an insolent man, but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief.

Paul believed lies about Jesus and about Christians. He was misled, he was misguided.

It caused him to make decisions that he would regret for the rest of his life. Paul caused Christians to be murdered, led to their deaths, but in his heart at the time, he was not a murderer.

The Christians, the church, they knew that he was a murderer, but in his mind, he was a patriot defending God. These are actions that he had to live with for the rest of his life, but he says that he did them in ignorance and unbelief.

And I would argue that these women who get abortions, they make decisions that they regret for the rest of their lives.

They've believed lies, they've been misled, they've been misinformed, they've been told lies. Christians, now as Christians, we all agree, we know that they are killing their babies.

They are ending life, but in their hearts, they believe that they are only ending a pregnancy. Someday, Lord willing, when they come to their senses, they're gonna have to live with their actions forever, just as Saul did, but I would say, if Paul found mercy in God's eyes because he did evil in ignorance and unbelief, how can we not proclaim mercy to those who end a pregnancy in ignorance and unbelief?

I do not disagree with the reasoning of those who are putting forth this action and are wanting to make this addition, but I disagree with the line of judgment.

I do not believe that this is a message that we want to send to an unbelieving world, that we want to imprison those who are, in many cases, impoverished and underprivileged.

We need to show mercy to those who are. I'm gonna stop right here. Here's the problem with all this. So, long story short, the body, the

Louisiana Baptist Convention decides to, they're not gonna accept this amendment. That's the bottom line here.

The reasoning given here, though, is that, well, look, Paul said that he was doing all these things in ignorance, and so Lord showed him mercy.

We need to, the parallel is we need to show mercy to these women who have abortions. They're doing it in ignorance, too.

Here's the thing, Paul knew he was murdering, or Paul at least knew he was, he thought he was doing what he was doing for the

Lord. There's no doubt about that, but he knew he was killing someone, or at least helping in that effort. It was obvious, and they were people, right?

And so, it's not like Paul, when he's doing this, is not sure that that's a person that they're going after.

The ignorance and the unbelief go together here. He didn't know the Lord Jesus Christ. He was doing this, killing

Christians, because they were Christians, and while, in the course of doing that, he didn't realize that what they believed was true and what he believed was actually false.

It was ignorance and unbelief, and now he believes. Now he actually agrees with those

Christians. Obviously, now he would never do that, right? And so, this passage is not held up as an example of how to form your civil laws.

That would be a misuse of this passage. It's taking it out of its context and appropriating it for something that it was never intended for.

And I would like to suggest that's what this pastor just did. No one, as far as I know, no one that I know, and myself included, makes a distinction, or fails to make a distinction,

I should say, between sins of ignorance, things people do that they're not aware are as bad as they really are, and then premeditated sins that people know are evil and are very aware of.

So, I mean, I think you can make that distinction. You can realize that some things are done in ignorance. It doesn't mean that it's not a sin.

It just means that it's not as serious because the motivations weren't as evil as they would've been if you were doing it knowingly, right?

That's all it is. So, and that distinction would not speak to this issue because if you have a woman, let's say, or a doctor, or anyone who's facilitating this procedure that kills a baby, any step in that process, if you have someone involved, and let's say they are under the impression this isn't a baby, right?

Well, they're wrong. It is a baby. And so the question is, what should our laws say? What should our laws reflect?

The problem that has contributed to this ignorance is the fact that our laws have made this such an open question.

Is it a baby? Is it not a baby? Is it a human? Is it not a human? Well, if our laws reflected that it's a human, wouldn't that clear things up quite a bit?

And I think it would. And if you treated babies in the womb the same way we treat people outside of the womb, if the legal system when it comes to murder would treat some murder of a human being in both stages the same way, then we wouldn't have as much confusion on this issue.

What this pastor is advocating for though is I think a greater confusion on it because we want to stop abortion, we want it illegal, we wanna punish it, but we wanna stop when it comes to the woman because it's ignorance.

And if it's ignorance, we shouldn't bring legal pressure somehow. We shouldn't have a legal penalty for that if it's the woman doing it in ignorance.

And I just would challenge someone who makes that case, where do you find this in scripture? And I'm not talking about passages in the

New Testament that are appropriated incorrectly, which is what he just used. So I don't think this logic flies at all.

This isn't a template for how to build civil laws, but this is the logic that was presented.

It's the only logic that I saw presented in this, this whole video and the whole body there, the

Louisiana Baptist Convention decided to reject this. And so my question is, can the SBC win in Louisiana even?

That's a scary thought for some of you because you think, man, surely Louisiana is conservative. I don't know how conservative they are.

I don't know. So I figured I'd share that with you. Another SBC item here,

David Sills filed suit against the SBC and 11 other defendants claiming his relationship with Lyell was consensual and he became a scapegoat in the

SBC sexual abuse crisis. Now I'm not gonna read this whole article. You can go read it if you want. It's at baptisnews .com.

But for those who listen to this podcast, you probably remember me talking about this because this is a big deal.

And most notably, this came up in the guidepost recommendations.

They had a whole report and in that report, one of the main cases they drew upon to justify their claim that essentially abuse is systemic in the

SBC is this guy, David Sills, who was a professor at Southern Seminary and what he did to Jennifer Lyell and it's a

Me Too moment, right? And I'm obviously summarizing. Those aren't exact quotes from the report, but David Sills loomed large.

Now they never called David Sills, according to Megan Basham. They never reached out to him. They just went with basically the narrative that Mueller had concocted about this whole situation.

And now that's falling apart thanks to Megan Basham's reporting and just crazy things in the

Lyell situation that don't make sense. Like why would you rendezvous with the person that's supposedly abusing you at a long distance and meet in the middle somewhere for abuse?

Like that doesn't make sense. There's things like that that don't add up. And now people are asking questions about it.

And now David Sills is taking legal action on this situation. So I think this doesn't look good for Al Mueller, the

Me Too movement in the SBC, and certainly the guidepost solutions report.

And it depends, I don't know where this is gonna go, but it just, you know, David Sills was just assumed to be this really guilty party in this.

And now he's saying, look, this was consensual. This was not abuse. This was, the way you portrayed me is wrong.

And so he's taking action. So we'll keep an eye on that, see where that's going.

Let's see, let's get into this now. I'll see if I can pull it up on here.

I don't know. Let's see here. I should be, yep, I think I can do it. So we're gonna start in on this stuff with Thomas Accord and what's happening on Twitter right now.

And I'll explain to the best of my ability as we go, as far as I understand it, what's happening.

And I'm a little bit at a loss of how to order this. So I'm gonna start with the attack, and then we're gonna work our way to some of the arguments that are being presented.

And then I'm gonna give you Thomas's side of the story. We're gonna read it, because he wrote a whole thing today on this.

And then we'll end with, I'll show you where you can go to support his family, essentially. Or you could buy

Stephen Wolfe's book, because Stephen Wolfe was gonna give his proceeds from the book, at least his royalties, to Thomas Accord during this holiday season when his family doesn't have an income.

So it starts here. This is a gentleman by the name of Alistair Roberts. Alistair Roberts.

And I'm not intimately familiar with Alistair Roberts, but apparently, in certain niche circles and in certain places, he's fairly popular.

I was not aware of this until very recently. I think

Theopolis, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the outlets that he's at. The Davenport Institute, I think, is another one.

It's like little think tanks that are semi -Christian conservative -ish. So anyway, it's immaterial, except for the fact that if what you're about to hear disturbs you,

I would say you contact those organizations and let them know that, especially if you're someone listening and you're affiliated with those organizations,

I would check into it. I would wonder why Alistair is doing this. So here is where this whole situation starts.

Alistair Roberts. He posts some screenshots from an account that is claimed to be an

Anon account or a pseudonym for Thomas Accord. Now, Thomas Accord has been on this podcast.

He co -hosts the Ars Politica podcast with Stephen Wolfe. He co -wrote a book called "'Who

Is My Neighbor?" with Daryl Dow. Trying to think what else. I mean, really,

I don't think there's a whole lot more to it. He works at a school. He was a headmaster at a Christian school up until recently because this situation has caused him to lose his job, essentially.

And what Alistair Roberts says is that he is citing a

Neil Shenvey thread that he thinks is really important, where Neil Shenvey is talking about, we can't import these problematic ideas under the guise of Christian nationalism.

And he says, I agree. There is a sort of Christian nationalism that is sort of identity politics that self -consciously develops itself with critical race theory as its foil and mirror.

This is Stephen Wolfe's podcast co -host Thomas Accord on the subject, and he posts these screenshots. Accord, who principally tweets, and he gives a

Twitter handle, has developed the idea of white anti -fragility and white identity consciousness raised through exploitation of the mirror of critical race theory in an article on the

Identity Dixie website. I wasn't aware, I don't even know what that website is, but he's saying he wrote this problematic blog.

It is quite possible that Wolfe, so Stephen Wolfe, who wrote The Case for Christian Nationalism, is number one book on the subject.

He's getting a lot of acclaim because of this. He says, it's quite possible that Wolfe disagrees sharply with Accord on the identity of the ethnos on whose behalf they are working, but it would be a little surprising.

And then someone comments and said, this is demonic. It's Darwinian racialism. And anyone who knows

Thomas Accord knows he's not a Darwinian racialist at all. But this is so horrible. How could

Thomas say these things? And I'll show you what those are in a minute. And Allister says, yes, yes, he affirms.

He's changed his account several times in the last week or so. He first changed it from 2AAD to Tullius Adland, which reveals his other account and a couple of articles he has written on white identitarian sites under that pseudonym.

Okay, so the evidence so far that this account that you're about to see some tweets from is Thomas Accord so far is that there are some links.

This account linked to some Thomas Accord stuff. And this name, Tullius Adland, this pseudonym has been used in other places.

And it looks like it's Thomas Accord. So that's what we have going for us at this point. I'll share with you some more evidence supposedly as we go through this.

Here are the problematic tweets, okay, that supposedly Thomas Accord put out there.

But again, we don't know this is actually Thomas Accord. This is someone named Tullius Adland.

That's the Twitter handle. And here is the tweet. An anti -fragile system is not one that foresees black swan events, but one that gains strength from them, like that Death Star ring in the fifth element.

Now, I wanna say, first of all, you don't even have to read anymore. This isn't

Thomas's writing. It's not his writing style. I noticed that immediately with this.

I thought that's really curious that Thomas would write this way because it doesn't sound anything like Thomas.

Thomas is very educated. I mean, he's a headmaster at a private classical school. He's an author.

He's, the podcast that he, the political podcast, social podcast that he does, you have to have some familiarity with classical, with the classical education.

You have to have some familiarity with Greco -Roman literature and things to even understand what he's talking about. He does not talk like this and he doesn't write like this.

And this was my first clue in my mind when I saw this, that this might not actually be

Thomas Accord. But so far, the claim is that he is. And because Alistair Roberts says so.

Alistair Roberts says this is Thomas Accord. So it goes on. Anyway, a robust race realist, white nationalism can be anti -fragile regarding cultural

Marxism, critical race theory, wokeism, BLM, et cetera, by accepting their premises of standpoint epistemology, systemic racism, white privilege, et cetera.

Now, here's another clue for me. I know Thomas Accord doesn't believe in standpoint epistemology. And Stephen Wolfe certainly doesn't because they've actually said things against this on their podcast.

They've actually, I mean, I think I've even had conversations. I don't, I'm not like a very close friend with Thomas at all, but I've interacted with him through like Facebook chat and things like that before on various things and, or social media chats.

I can't remember if it was Facebook, but this isn't, this doesn't reflect his views because I know that his views don't coincide with this because we've talked about things like this.

I've asked him questions about things like this. Anyway, yes, different groups see things differently and have different ways of knowing and perceiving.

Hence, we should separate our educational processes to allow white and black children to flourish best within educational methods and testing that best suit their epistemic standpoint.

So this is an argument for segregation. Yes, racism is interwoven into every facet of society, has always been and always will be because race is natural affecting everyone about our lives.

I'm gonna just skip ahead here. Let's get to the final thing here. White privilege exists because our ancestors were productive, strong, inventive, foresighted and concerned for their posterity.

This is natural and it's called social capital. A good man leaves an inheritance to his children and children's children, so does a good society.

Okay, so when you just look at this thread, what do you think? Let's pretend it's Thomas as Alistair Roberts says it is.

Okay, let's just pretend that for a minute. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but let's just for the sake of argument, it's

Thomas. If this is Thomas, is this an affirmation of white nationalism or an ideology like that?

Or is this just a reducto ad absurdum?

Is this someone saying, well, if we're gonna accept to a critical race theory, then I guess we could also accept white nationalism because man, they really do seem to sound very similar.

I mean, that's the whole premise of that viral video on YouTube of the racist and the critical race theorist agreeing on just about everything.

And it's a funny video, you can go look it up. And I mean, a lot of people have pointed this out before that, hey, this critical race theory stuff does sound a little bit like white supremacy.

It's just, it's flipped in some ways, but it's like the same, a lot of the same assumptions. So whoever this is, let's pretend it's

Thomas, just says a robust race realist can, the keyword there can be anti -fragile regarding cultural

Marxism, et cetera. So this could be just a hypothetical thread showing that, look, if you're gonna accept critical race theory, then this would also make sense.

So it may be an argument against critical race theory. And that's what some people thought initially. Here's Neil Shenvey, Neil Shenvey jumped right on this.

Neil Shenvey said, listen, this is not a guilt by association argument. I do not know if Wolf agrees with these tweets, but we can't pretend that some of the ideas that wrap themselves in the banner of Christian nationalism aren't precisely those we reject when they're promoted by critical race theory.

And he retweets Alistair Roberts on what I just showed you. I'm trying to be consistent here. I'm attacking ideas, not people.

I'm citing explicit statements. I'm not speculating about motives, but we should oppose these ideas no matter where they're origin, regardless of which tribe they're coming from for the health of the church.

Okay, but he's retweeting Alistair Roberts with, there's no filter here.

I mean, there's no challenge to the idea that maybe this is Thomas. It doesn't say Thomas Accord anywhere, but it's just, and the added assumption, not just that it's

Thomas, but that this is an affirmation of white nationalism somehow. So here walks in Nate Fisher.

Nate Fisher says to Neil, it appears to me to be a reductio ad absurdum to push on someone advocating critical race theory.

Have you yourself not made the point that some of critical race theory's claims align with those of white supremacists?

What leads you to assume that Accord actually advocates these views and that they are promoted as Christian nationalism?

That's a good question. It doesn't say anything about Christian nationalism. Neil Shenvey, he goes, see the article in Alistair's thread.

And so it's an article Neil Shenvey wrote about, it's a review of Stephen Wolf's book. Nate says, looks like a thought exercise exploring logical and rhetorical techniques to repel the sort of hostile ideological attacks we are bombarded with.

Neil Shenvey says, I want no part of it, either as a logical or rhetorical technique. So there's no evidence that actually comes out here about whether this is

Thomas, whether this is an actual attempt to advance white nationalism or supremacy or anything of that kind.

It's just assumed. And this is part of the problem is this just goes unchallenged.

People uncritically retweet this. You have this guy named Jacob Honeycutt who comes out.

And some of these people, I realize you're not gonna know who some of these people are. I think it's just important for me to give you at least some, there's a lot, but some of the main players in this.

Because the end result was a man who was working for a school is not working there anymore as a result of stuff like this coming up.

And these are the people that carried water. These are the people that shared uncritically this tweet from Alistair Roberts.

So here's one of them, Jacob Honeycutt. He goes, hey, Stephen Wolfe, did you know that your friend Thomas Accord, the co -host of your podcast, is an open segregationist and white nationalist and to boot makes weird pedophiliac comments.

Now, hold on, hold on. Now I'm supposed to believe that this crass language, this language that doesn't sound anything like Thomas, it's not his style, it's doesn't, advocating things he doesn't agree with, he doesn't agree with standpoint theory.

Now I'm supposed to believe that that account also, which advocates pedophilia or makes weird comments about it is

Thomas. Here's the new piece of evidence. And you're gonna see throughout this whole thing, new tweets from this anonymous account keep coming forward.

I hate to point out, but the cuties are ugly. This isn't a sexual comment. They're just not comely children.

They have horse faces and donkey teeth. They cast and scripted and produced all this, but got girls whom we all know will grow to be,

I don't, I can't read what it says there, fives at most, rating girls. That doesn't sound like Thomas.

I'm just telling you, this, and it's not just because of the content, it's the grammar. This is locker room talk.

Thomas is the headmaster at a classical school. He doesn't sound like that. I've never heard him like that.

And none of the people that are close to him that I've been able to talk to about this, to ask what's going on, seem to recognize who this guy is either.

It doesn't sound like the friend that they've known in some cases for decades. So Jacob Honeycutt, just uncritically, well,

Stephen Wolfe, did you know your friend that you know so well? He makes weird comments about pedophilia. I don't want to hear any excuses here.

I don't want to hear thanks for reading the book. I don't want to hear anything about how people are screeching and wailing on something.

What is up with this? Did you know? And if not, how are you going to respond? There is no universe in which any of what

Thomas said above is even remotely acceptable. It is a damnable, I mean, he just rages. He just goes, you need to repent.

It's just, but again, the assumption of all of this is Thomas is actually the one saying this. And there's, no one's at this point has reached out to Thomas.

There's been no communication from Thomas on any of this either. And then, Stephen Wolfe blocks him and Jacob Honeycutt says, well, this is how he's chosen to respond, immature and unacceptable.

Well, I would suggest to you, immature and unacceptable is uncritically passing off tweets that you haven't vetted.

That's, you gotta be careful with this stuff. I mean, it's not like the Bible is silent on this.

It's actually very serious. If I could just even read for you some things. Exodus 21 .3, you shall not spread a false report.

Okay, this is going, this is not just about you originating a false report. You shall not spread one. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be malicious witness.

Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets. Therefore, do not associate with a simple babbler. Proverbs 20 .19,

Proverbs 11 .9, with his mouth, a godless man would destroy his neighbor. But by knowledge, the righteous are delivered.

The Bible is full of this kind of stuff. I mean, and that's really the point of thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

It's not even just about lying. It's deeper than that. It's about harming someone by bearing false witness against them, lying to hurt, to harm.

And so, if you're carrying the water for that, if that's what's going on, oh, you better be very certain that that's not what you're doing.

And this is a very, very serious thing. And I hope everyone can see that. So, we go on.

Jacob Honeycutt adds some more evidence, okay? And this just keeps getting worse, I think, for the case that this is Thomas.

And these, add these to the collection of racist tweets from Thomas Accord. Here they are. And I'm not gonna read all these.

Some of them are honestly so offensive. I just, when I saw this, it was, I made up my mind at that point. I said, this isn't

Thomas. And I, again, I don't know him intimately, but I know him well enough to just know if he was going to articulate these reprehensible views, he would do so in a very articulate fashion.

He would do so in a way that would just be academic sounding.

You would marvel at it. It would, he would use big words. It wouldn't sound like Trump on Twitter, which is what this sounds like.

Things like, never accept a black doctor. Thomas wouldn't even say never accept. He would, he would, that's, it's a sentence that you're gonna find out in a minute.

I'm gonna show you, because I'm gonna read for you a blog from Thomas about this whole situation. And you just tell me if this is the way Thomas thinks.

White boy simp. And then, and then I'm not even gonna read the second part of this, but about black boys and what they do.

But it's, it's not, this is gutter language. This is a locker room talk.

I think some people are thinking, well, this is just what Thomas really is. And this is, this is how, this is the true

Thomas. It's like, so he's built up this whole facade about being this great academic and brilliant mind.

But in the background, he's really just a trucker who's, not to disparage truckers at all, but you know, he's, he's the kind of language you would expect from a lot of truckers.

I'm not buying it. And I'm not gonna read you all this, but there's F words in this. I mean, it's, so, and this is supposed to be

Thomas, and people are positive about it. That's how they're acting. A genuine question someone asked

Jacob Honeycutt. How do you know this is Thomas? That's a good question. Jacob Honeycutt says, a few things.

I know for 100%, 100 % sure, based on mutuals who know him, who have verified in personal interactions with him that until about a week ago, he was operating as, to add, a very similar name.

Okay, so here's the evidence we have. Thomas Accord had a pseudonym account that had a very similar name to this other pseudonym account.

So I'm 100 % sure, this is weak stuff. This is weak sauce. That doesn't, again, doesn't mean it's not him, but that's not the question.

The onus is on, the burden of proof is on those who are making this claim. That is, they have to overcome, they have to present the information in a positive way that is convincing.

And so far, I'll just submit to the audience, I don't think we've done that yet. Jacob Honeycutt.

This is evidently an older account that he hadn't posted on a while. Evidently, evidently. But if you go to it, also, you can see

Stephen Wolfe follows it, and the names, content, et cetera, are all similar to other stuff from Thomas Accord. Now, let me ask you, why would

Stephen Wolfe follow that account, you think? Why would anyone follow an account from a pseudonym that sounds similar to the one that, well, let me ask you this.

It'll make it personal for you. Have any of you on this particular live stream who are listening, have any of you ever been impersonated on Twitter or Facebook or other social media websites?

I have. Yeah, in fact, I have a Twitter handle impersonating me. I have seen many of my friends, especially on Facebook, have this happen.

And I friend -requested people and become friends with them for sometimes years. And it wasn't them.

And it's not until I get some weird message about wiring some Nigerian prince a million dollars that I realized, hey, wait, this isn't my uncle.

This isn't my cousin. Let's be honest, just about all of us have had this experience, haven't we?

Why would it be a mystery as to why someone with a similar name, if you have a close friend who knows, oh, that's the pseudonym, and it's just a little off, it sounds like it, why would that be a mystery as to why someone who's close to Thomas would associate themselves with the account if he was operating under a similar name?

There's no reason to think that people wouldn't, if Thomas was operating under a similar pseudonym, think that was also

Thomas. And it doesn't mean that all that stuff winds up in your newsfeed.

I know for me it hasn't. I've friended people and then, or followed them, and then I don't even see what they're posting because the algorithms don't work until much later.

I'm probably following accounts now that I think are actual people and they're impersonators. That's probably true of me right now.

So I don't think this actually proves anything yet, okay? So you all can put in the comments whether you're convinced by any of this yet.

In fact, we'll take a little break there and I'll see if any of the comments. We have 96 people streaming right now for this unannounced live broadcast.

Oh, let's see. Man, we have a lot of people are weighing in and mostly,

I think, in agreement with what I'm saying here. So, but if there's pushback, please. Look, I'm open to actual evidence, if you want actual, real concrete proof and you wanna put it in the chat, please feel free to do so.

I doubt you can handle the truth. Who is this? Let's see. I'm probably jumping in on the middle of a discussion in the live chat that I don't understand, which is probably better not, better not to do that.

So, okay, anyways. Let us keep going here.

Yes, yes. Quote, Jacob Miller says, real concrete proof. Yes, yes, in quotation, real concrete proof.

Yeah, give me some more evidence here. Evidence that would, this stuff isn't evidence so far.

And again, open to it, but let's keep going here.

So far, shame on these guys for engaging in this. Here's another guy named John Reasoner, who

I think is associated with Joel McDermott somehow. And I'm not gonna read through this whole thing, but it's another, it's just, some of these people are just, there's an obsession level thing they have with trying to connect almost anything on the right, especially

Christian nationalism to racism in any way they can. It's just an obsession. I don't know how else to put it.

I've read things like this from guys like this so many times. But he starts off with his whole screed about nationalism and kinism.

And then he uses to bolster his point about that these things are related, that Wolf is in a podcast alongside a guy named

Thomas Accord, who has an anonymous Twitter account. Oddly enough, Thomas is also a co -author of a book that defends kinist ideology, which

I don't know what, again, this is why Doug Wilson says racism, the term should be retired.

I think the term kinist should probably be retired because there are like 40 different definitions of this. I've read parts of that book.

I don't, how, how? I mean, he uses some quotes here, but I'm like,

I don't know. I don't know, that's not what I think of when I think of kinism, but. Anyways, he's using this and saying, look how bad this

Tullius Adlan guy is. Terrible guy, and so another person getting in on this, you have

Brad Littlejohn getting in on this. Brad Littlejohn, not quite as aggressive as others, but we can't blame people for getting worked up about this

Tullius Adlan account. Well, yeah, we can, yeah, we can. We can blame them if they're doing so, and they don't actually, they're making these claims that it's

Thomas, when they can't actually prove that it's Thomas. I think we can get a little worked up. And they haven't even contacted him.

They have, it's, is this the way Christians do things? That's my question, and some of you might be thinking, well,

John, isn't this what you do? No, it's not. In fact, this isn't even what liberal rags do.

Liberal rags don't even do this. If there's some hearsay about something, if there's a potential, a pseudonym account or something, they contact that person.

A journalist will do that, but even like a popular liberal talk show, I don't think they would trot this out there.

This just, this breaks a lot of rules. And when I'm, when I'm interacting with things, it's things in the public realm that have, that are from those people to whom the content is matched and that I'm critiquing.

And it's, it's content. I'm interacting with the ideas of actual people. So that is a lot different.

And it's not, I'm not saying that these people are wrong for opposing someone. I'm saying they're wrong for opposing someone when they don't have evidence for this.

And they're not presenting the evidence. I would even argue that. If they're not presenting the evidence to people, we can't verify that this is

Thomas. And those who are close to Thomas, even if you're not close, the evidence actually seems to overturn the idea that this is

Thomas. See, that's where I have a problem here. That's where I think it gets wrong. You're just passing this stuff off.

And one guy who's got some credibility, supposedly Alistair Roberts, maybe he's just blown it, but he posts this.

And because I think he probably has credibility, it's boom, boom, boom, boom. All these people retweeting it. All these people commenting on it.

Brad Little, John believing it's Thomas. Uncritically sharing this thing around. So if you do have a platform, be very careful because people do listen to you.

And I will make the case at the end of this, I think that any of these people who have passed this around,

I wouldn't trust them again on something similar to this. When they start accusing someone of racism, when they start pulling things,

I just wouldn't even go there with them. I just wouldn't, I would unfollow them. I wouldn't, that's just me. But they've blown their credibility if this is what they think counts as evidence.

All right, so Jacob Honeycutt says this though. And this is where the turn starts. And I want you to see this.

Remember he was saying all these aggressive things. For the sake of integrity, I must share that Thomas Accord, about whom

I made a few posts regarding racist and pedophiliac material from an account that most people thought was his, denies that the account was his.

And actually I agree there's significant enough reasonable doubt, uh -oh. This thread by Ruba Turabit alerted me to this.

Evidently Accord has been in contact with him and denies the account was his. And I think Ruba Turabit lays out a pretty compelling case for reasonable doubt here.

And I'm not gonna show you everything Ruba Turabit's putting out there, but he's getting into the details even more than this podcast about why he doesn't think this is

Thomas. Anyway, Jacob Honeycutt, I have felt sick ever since I saw this thread and the weight of what

I have done, I may have participated in, crashed down on me. This is the exact thing that people warn about in terms of Twitter being dangerous.

I was immature and unwise and I'm sorry. Everyone as the thread lays out thought it was Accord's because he uses the same pseudonym.

Even Wolf and Ruba Turabit did apparently and followed the account. And I trusted the judgment of other older, well -established men who shared it first, i .e.

Alistair Roberts and Neil Shenvey. And we're convinced it was Accord. But all of that is not an excuse for being too overzealous, unwise, trusting others who may have their own interests, not asking enough private questions first in accordance with what the scripture teaches and not being discerning enough.

A significant number of trustworthy individuals have been messaging me saying that I wasn't off base in the first place and that I may be being deceived now.

I put this thread out because there was too much reasonable doubt and my conscience was hurting, but this is messy. And I wanna just say, good for Jacob Honeycutt.

I think what would also go a long way here is giving to Thomas at this point. He's lost his job over this, essentially.

And it makes, personally apologizing, repenting and repudiating those who are still doing this and then showing a little good faith.

Maybe Jacob's already done this by giving to the family now that he's got a pregnant wife and children and no income for the holiday season.

Well, here's Neil Shenvey. How does Neil Shenvey react when the news is, and this is before Thomas has made his statement.

I'm gonna read you Thomas' statement, but here's Neil Shenvey, when it's leaked that Thomas has denied that that's his account.

"'Thomas Accord and I have exchanged direct messages. "'Please see this original response "'to my question yesterday.

"'I suggest everyone relax and have a happy Thanksgiving "'and pray for everyone involved.'" And he posts a screenshot where I guess

Thomas Accord's real account or his main account says, "'Neil correctly perceives that these musings,'' and he's talking about the screenshots

Alistair Roberts originally shared, the CRT one. "'Neil perceives that these musings on the topic of race "'are an exploration into the principles of critical theory "'applied to racial dynamics.

"'As a reductio ad absurdum, "'they are descriptive, not prescriptive.'" And he says, "'If

Alistair Roberts sought honest dialogue, "'he could have inquired directly.'" So you might say, and I did,

I actually, I messaged Thomas about this, and I said, Thomas, are you taking responsibility for this tweet?

Because all you're saying here is that Neil's kind of reading it wrong, at least, that this is, or reading it right,

I'm not sure which, but that he's, that the point of that whole thread was that critical race theory and white supremacy kind of work, or white nationalism, work along the same spine, if you will.

And Thomas basically told me, look, I was in the middle of a project when this whole thing started on Twitter.

I couldn't get away from it. I looked at it real quick, and he knew that he had made similar arguments before comparing critical race theory to white nationalism, as to basically debunk critical race theory.

And he just, on a quick glance, thought that if it was him, that's what he was doing. And it was, the name was a pseudonym that he had used, and so he just trotted that out there.

Well, this was before some of these other things that I showed you about pedophilia and stuff had been drug, had been made their way to the surface.

When that happened, he looked at those tweets, and then he took a closer look at that original thread, and he said, wait a minute, that's not me.

None of this was me. That's not my account. This is someone who's basically, it looks like, impersonating me.

And so that's why, initially, he made that comment to Neil, saying that that was the intention behind it.

And Neil is now hanging on that, though, to say that, look, basically,

I'll read between the lines here. Neil's saying, Thomas agreed this was his, so I was justified in agreeing this was

Thomas's account as well. And then Neil goes on. He says, yesterday, I questioned a thread, so he puts that up there, what

I just showed you, and he goes, Acord lost his job as headmaster of a Christian school yesterday. We exchanged direct messages this morning.

I will respect his privacy, but he denies owning the Adland account. As far as I know, his school has not released a statement.

I do not know what investigations they made. I did not contact them either yesterday or today.

I don't know the grounds of their decision or what evidence they had. I suggest we all allow them and Acord to make statements if they choose to.

And so people are giving him a hard time a bit, like Neil. You just passed off info. The guy lost his job.

And you're saying that, there's another tweet,

I don't think I know if I have it here, where he basically says, okay, well, actually,

I already read it. Actually, just everyone relax and have a happy Thanksgiving. And it's like, the guy lost his job.

He's not having a happy Thanksgiving. I mean, this is so tone deaf. This is so elitist that I don't know.

What else do you say about this? This is so out of touch with the suffering family that's just lost their job because of information that Neil passed around that wasn't true, according to Thomas.

And now Neil, he's not doubling down on it, but neither is, like, what's he doing?

He's basically just justifying himself. That's all this stuff is. Just Neil should be justifying himself. I don't see any remorse for the family.

Please give to the family. It'd be nice if these guys who created this mess and contributed, at least passed around the give, send, go for Thomas Accord.

There's no sense of ownership of this. It's amazing to me.

It's amazing to me. I mean, the only thing he says is, he gives a matter of fact, he lost his job.

I respect his privacy. I'm sorry you lost your job. Like, none of that.

This is so crazy to me, guys. I can't even tell you how crazy this is to me. Like, this isn't how humans in my circles interact with one another, especially

Christians. I don't get it. So he's putting up a shield to defend himself,

I guess. I don't know how else to read this. You have, you know, Honeycutt admitting that he was wrong.

Others, though, are doubling down. Alistair Roberts, I will say more about this tomorrow, but for now, the

Ninth Commandment is indeed extremely important. I take it very seriously. We shouldn't make damaging accusations against innocent parties without substantiation.

I made a claim and I stand by it. And then he says, I have written a fairly lengthy and damning case for the identification of Tullius Adlon with Thomas Accord, around 4 ,000 words.

Guys, 4 ,000 words. 4 ,000 words. 4 ,000 words.

It sounds like an obsession. With a great number of images and receipts, which taken together will leave little doubt that it is him.

This is a guy who's a headmaster at a Christian school. He didn't write

Stephen Wolfe's book. Stephen Wolfe did. Like, what's the energy to take this guy out?

Over -the -top energy, desperate energy coming from Alistair Roberts to take this guy out. Why? What are these guys afraid of?

That's the thought that's been coming to my mind. Like, what are they afraid of with this guy? He doesn't have a big platform.

He co -hosts a podcast that probably most of you haven't even heard of. Now you have heard of it, Ars Politica.

Now you're probably all gonna go download it. But before this, you didn't know what it was. Alistair Roberts, however, given the seriousness of the accusations that have been made and the institutional repercussions,

I am sorry to say that while key parties now have conclusive evidence and can act upon it, I won't be sharing anything publicly right now.

While I would love to share it now and completely vindicate myself against a continuing barrage of false and hostile allegations,

I guess that's me, this is a better way to handle things for the good of the church. Yeah, aren't you a great person,

Alistair? For the good of the church, you're going to withhold the information that backs up the accusations you made against Thomas.

That's great. So publicly made accusations, but no evidence to actually verify that this is truly

Thomas. But we just have to believe you that the evidence exists. We don't have any obligation to do that.

We don't, we really don't. And whatever credibility that you've had, I think is being burned through right now, if I can be so honest.

Now, John, was it Reasoner? Whatever his name is. John, I don't even know.

Anyway, the guy who writes for Joel McDermott, he put, update, Thomas Accord has published a statement, and I'm going to read that to you.

In the statement, he denies any responsibility, attacks those who have criticized him, and then portrays himself as an innocent victim.

I'll let you be the judge when you read it. He offers no evidence and goes so far as saying he is, he doesn't actually really have to.

They're the, the burden of proof is on these guys. They're acting like, this is like the Me Too stuff. It's like, we made the accusation, now disprove it.

I pity his family. I do not pity him. He is responsible for his family and should, this is, this guy is insufferable.

Okay. Okay. Let's do this. Let's, I'm gonna show you this,

I'm gonna show you some of the evidence back and forth, and then I'm gonna read you Thomas' statement. So here's some more evidence, potential evidence that this is

Thomas Accord. Here is a tweet from this Tullius Adland, and then it's cut off, so I don't even know if this is the same

Twitter handle, but I'm assuming it is. Tullius Adland. Spare me this garbage, it says.

Guys don't ever go to something like this. What's he talking about? It's a grief share group at the church that is associated with the

Christian school where Thomas teaches. Go outdoors, construct something, work out, build yourself, learn a skill.

Do not express your weakness. There's absolutely no benefit. So don't go to a grief share group.

Now, aside from this being just a very poor, if,

I'll put it this way, if it's Thomas, it would, you'd have to almost believe, if you know

Thomas, that Thomas must have had bumped his head very hard that day and forgotten how to speak in the way he normally speaks with longer sentences that are more coherent and just more sophisticated.

It also would be incongruent with the way Thomas, Thomas never says things like, do not express your weakness, at least publicly.

I've never seen, I mean, Thomas, Thomas is an art lover. He's actually, he's not a soft man.

I wouldn't say that about him at all, but he has a sensitive man to some extent, sensitive in the sense that he actually appreciates the finer things, very much so.

And those things can be very emotional. Do not express your weakness.

That's not Thomas, guys. I'm just saying, that's not Thomas. That's not the Thomas that I've followed on social media for, what, two years or more now?

So you'd have to, those who know Thomas would have to suspend the Thomas that they know, and they'd have to accept that this must be

Thomas based upon the fact that this grief share group meets at the church that's affiliated with Thomas's school based on a screenshot, based on a picture that was taken that has the image of the school.

Now, if this is an impersonator, someone who's trying to impersonate Thomas, this is a public building.

If it's someone who, I'm not suggesting this, I don't know, but if, possibly, if it's someone who goes to the school, if someone who is intimate enough with Thomas to know his pseudonyms and wants to make fun of him or mock him or put up a parody account, anyone, it's a public building, would have access to go in and take a picture of this.

Or maybe it was taken off of someone else's social media. I don't know, I don't know. I'm just saying, it doesn't necessarily mean, it's not conclusive evidence,

I wouldn't say, that it's necessarily Thomas. In fact, this very tweet has just as much as you can say the picture might link it to Thomas since Thomas works at the school.

You could also say the language in the tweet doesn't link it to Thomas. It makes you raise your eyebrow, gives you a degree of skepticism.

That's probably their strongest piece of evidence, I guess. But other than that, I mean, this is what they have.

Here's Patrick Miller doing a whole thread on the evidence, giving people's questions about whether this Twilius account is linked to a core.

The answer is yes, it's a known alias. Using the Wayback Machine, I was able to find that the

TooOdd account named itself Thomas Accord. Okay, but that's a different account. But anyway, the

Twilius Adlin account was previously linked to a Gab account associated with Accord. So, but then again, if it's someone impersonating, you could impersonate on multiple social media websites, so that's also possible.

Moreover, it appears he tended to use these aliases in rotation when stopped using

Twilius Adlin in August of 2021. Activity suddenly picked up again on the

TooOdd account. I believe he deleted the TooOdd account in part because people were identifying him.

So he's saying I believe, he doesn't know. I believe he deleted this account in part because people were identifying him.

If you wanna go looking through, he's got websites, and then he links to John Reasoner's screed on this.

Now, John Reasoner has this whole thing about, I'm trying to even boil down what his evidence is.

It's been brought to my attention. There's another article published under the same alias on a Neo -Confederate website with Kenneth's sympathies.

Again though, I'm gonna show you the questions. Did I put them on here?

I thought I did. Yes, I'm gonna just skip a few slides and show you this. If Thomas's paradigm that I'm about to read to you is true, if Thomas's story is true, if this was someone who was impersonating

Thomas and it was a parody account, then the question is not whether Thomas used a pseudonym. That's not the question.

That's the wrong question. Everyone knows Thomas used a pseudonym. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a parody account trying to copy it. Number two, the question is, it should say is not, it says is, the question is not whether others who thought an account was a

Thomas's were associated with it. So if someone's following it, thinking it's Thomas, obviously, if it's someone impersonating

Thomas or a parody of Thomas, some people would be taken in by that and think it might actually be Thomas. There's no mystery in that.

A lot of the evidence that we're getting is stuff like that. Like, look, the pseudonym was used here.

The pseudonym was used here. Right, right. If someone's using that pseudonym, and they're not

Thomas, and they're impersonating Thomas, then they're gonna use that pseudonym. Okay, so I wouldn't consider any of this stuff to be actual evidence at this point, but at the most, you could ask

Thomas. This would be the time when you ask Thomas, honestly. You'd see like, hey, there's this stuff posted. I don't know if you're aware.

It's kinda crazy stuff. Doesn't sound like you under another account. What do you think? Is this you?

And then find out. Get an explanation, but no one did that. They just wanna accuse.

So, here's some of the counter evidence, and there's a lot more of this, actually, but I just wanted to give you just one sample.

But this guy, Rabbit2Rabbit on Twitter has been sharing a lot of stuff. He says, it is possible that this alt communicated to a chord, perhaps under another name or person.

Again, who knows, really? And then he says, we only have written attestation that this alt person communicated with a chord.

We don't know how this alt person communicated with him and under what name. He could have communicated under a different name other than the

Tullius Adard. We just don't know. And so, he gives a detailed account from Thomas' side.

A chord does use the Tullius Adard, that name frequently on his main account, and frequently changes to variations of it there, but the account where the offending tweets are has the same name, but it is not his.

I won't be surprised, he says, if they actually communicated. The alt account, which was another person, is also responsible for publishing the articles on Faith and Heritage.

So there was some articles on a Faith and Heritage website that were supposedly offensive. And he says, look, in this article, whoever wrote this, this

Tullius Adland guy, says that he mentions that he spoke to Thomas Accord, which suggests that he's a different person and has contact.

And sure enough, you read this article, and in the article, whoever this Tullius Adland guy talks about having a conversation with Thomas Accord.

So I'm just telling you, that's a weird thing to say. Let's say if it's your account, if this is your name, and exclusively your name, and Tullius Adland is only

Thomas Accord, and would you write about yourself saying, I had a conversation with Thomas Accord, and here's what he said.

If you were trying to be anonymous, why would you ever mention yourself, first of all?

Secondly, if you weren't trying to be anonymous, why would you say you had a conversation with yourself? That makes no sense.

Absolutely no sense. And so Rubida Rabbit is rightly pointing out, yeah, there's some things that don't fit this paradigm.

Sounds more like it's someone who might know Thomas real well, and might be using the same kind of pseudonym he uses for another account for some reason.

But someone who's familiar with Thomas somehow. There's more counter evidence, and I made it so small that you can't see it, so it's not gonna help you at all.

I'll describe it, and you don't have to believe me. The reason I had to make it small, though, is because before I went on the air,

I was told basically not to share this stuff. Because it has sensitive information on it.

But here's the long and short of it. Thomas has tried to contact

Twitter about this pseudonym, this account, this Tullius Adland account.

Basically to get verification that it's not him. And he filed an impersonation thing, and all that.

And it's impossible to do with pseudonyms. But basically, he's at least gotten verification that his email address is not aligned with that account.

It never was. There's also, and there's actually more now that has come up since I put this out there, but there's been a number of attempts on various social media sites of Thomas of hacking for some reason, right now.

Like tonight. Like his Instagram, his Twitter, his Facebook, all these different social media websites he has being hacked, or attempts to hack them.

And he's saying, it's all of a sudden, this is happening to me, and is that strong counter -evidence?

No, it's not. I don't even know if I would put that necessarily in the same bucket as evidence, counter -evidence.

But it does at least raise your eyebrow if there is someone or someones who are impersonating

Thomas or trying to make him look bad, or something like that. And it would make sense that people like that would wanna hack accounts.

I don't know how to make sense of this information. I just figured I would give it to you and say, it sounds like someone's after Thomas.

Not just from the Twitter stuff, but from trying to get private information from him. All right. Let us read from Thomas' side.

Let's read from Thomas' perspective now, without further ado. So you can see what he has to say about all of this.

Here's Thomas Accord. And it's my story, it says. Interacting with social media is not without its consequences.

Sometimes the most scrutinous measures and good -natured assumptions are not enough to avoid controversy and slander. This is a cautionary tale.

Now let me stop you right there. Does this sound anything like the kind of tweets that you just saw on your screen from Tullius Adland?

Nope, not even close. This kind of, and this is where you get into textual analysis and stuff.

This is, in my mind, the strongest argument, that this isn't Thomas. Even the more sophisticated things from that Twitter account don't sound like Thomas.

This is how Thomas writes. My name is Thomas Accord. I am a husband of a wonderful woman and father to four daughters with a son on the way.

Since 2014, I have been involved in the Christian homeschool and classical school world. My education and network have led me into the area of political philosophy, where I began to meet friends and promote ideals and books among the right -wing community.

Things began picking up for me in 2019. I bought some land and built a house for my growing family. Around the same time,

I started a podcast called Ars Politica with a good friend, Stephen Wolf. In 2020, I became the headmaster of my now former school.

In 2021, I and another friend, Darrell Dow, published an anthology reference work on natural relations, family, house, friends, career, colleagues, books.

Things seemed to be going well for me. I had made a nice life for myself and my family. It was around this time when

I became a public figure, my headmaster role, vis -a -vis my headmaster role, and having published the anthology that I began to receive public criticism, typically of right -word attacks from left -wing activists, freeze, isolate, misread, smear, label, and so on.

Typical Saul Alinsky stuff. None of this bothered me much, and I paid it no attention, seeming, as it did at the time, to be minor reactions that generally happen from time to time online.

I want you to notice something else about Thomas's grammatical style here. Whereas most people in plain language would say, it didn't bother me,

I didn't pay attention, right? Thomas says, none of this bothered me much, and I paid it no attention.

It's subtleties like that, that if you read someone, you pick up on, and if you can't mimic those exactly, then

I think you're gonna have a hard time impersonating someone. You know, if you try to copy someone's accent and you can't do a

British accent and they're British, it's the same kind of thing. Whoever's trying to copy Thomas, if that's what's happening, they're doing a terrible job of it.

And if it's Thomas, then he's doing a terrible job mimicking himself. That's what I'll say. A friend tried to warn me early in 2021 that there were pernicious people out there who track and bait falsely and lie, and who generally try to destroy the lives of people they don't like.

I didn't take this seriously, not imagining that such motives animate real humans to real actions against others.

Would that I had, would that I had listened back then, listen to this, listen to his language, his grammar, his cadence, and had investigated things in those days, those early days.

Instead, I went about my life as though all were well and everyone interacting with me were sincere, honest people.

All of this changed in November, 2022, when these attacks intensified. A friend of mine, Stephen Wolfe, published a book entitled

The Case for Christian Nationalism, which immediately received critical retort. Most of these attacks were over social media and targeted the man, not the argument.

Unable to sufficiently tarnish Wolfe's reputation, these slanderous attempts began spilling over to those associated with Stephen.

Even Douglas Wilson became involved in warding off damaging claims against himself and Moscow, Moscow more generally.

With a series of posts and videos decrying racism and anything adjacent to it, anyone near Wolfe became suspect of evil political views and spurious witch hunts.

And thus it was that sudden revelations emerged of wicked things I, as Wolfe's friend, had supposedly said under a pseudonym on social media long ago.

It is true that I have used various pseudonyms over the years since 2015, one being Tullius Adland. This began on Telegram, Discord, Signal, and then branched over to public platforms such as Twitter.

The name changed over the years to various other monikers, usually classical and whimsical in reference, not unlike the founding fathers.

And by the way, I just wanna say this about using pseudonyms. I've used a pseudonym myself in the past.

I don't use them anymore. A lot of people do, and there is an honorable tradition of using pseudonyms.

Our founding fathers did it for the Federalist Papers. And in a time of political, we live in one, of great political upheaval when it's a great risk to your family and people you love to publicly attach beliefs that are true but unpopular to yourself, use a pseudonym.

And this is what Thomas is saying, he did. So there's nothing wrong with him doing that. I just wanna say that. I don't see it as engaging in a lie.

It is just a way of distributing information in order to try to do it in such a way that you're protecting yourself and your identity.

And it's honestly, if you wanna say it's a war tactic, you could say that too. I think we're in an ideological war. However, on Wednesday, November 23rd, people began posting

Twitter screenshots from a certain Tullius Adlon that we're claiming that came from myself. Busy with the bustle of the day,

I initially assumed the material being shared was something I had said long ago. But when

I got home, I went back into my Twitter account to search for these tweets, but I could find them nowhere. I then looked more closely at the account itself being posted and realized it was not one that I recognize.

In other words, he's saying he went through his Tullius Adlon account and it didn't match up with his other one. Puzzled, I tried to log into, but none of my emails, phone numbers, or passwords gained me access.

So he's saying, there's no way this could be in my account because none of my information is able to get me in.

I immediately appealed to Twitter for help for learning about this account, who made it without, who controls it, all of which details they denied me multiple times since no account of my personal information

I gave them linked to the account. In Twitter's view, the account is not mine and I can do nothing with it. The severity of the situation began to dawn upon me that many people on Twitter were posting this account as though I had made such statements while I myself had no reconciliation, recollection rather, of or access to the account.

Thus a new possibility came to mind that someone else created this account and has been using it to make phony posts.

I asked some friends about this who reminded me that fake accounts tracking impersonations and defamations are ubiquitous on social media, especially

Twitter. So I filed an impersonation complaint with Twitter support, which responded this time by linking to an associated made up Facebook page under the same pseudonym.

As well as a few phony email accounts all again using this name. I began to wonder what else will emerge.

I had no knowledge or access to any of this material, but here it is, existed a web of accounts under the name of a pseudonym

I once used and which were posting things seemingly on my behalf going back a few years. Furthermore, I have learned now that one of the email accounts as of yesterday still had an ongoing conversation with one of my mutual friends who thought he was conversing with me this entire time.

This is the point I made guys. I told you, how many times have you friended someone and you thought it was that person and it wasn't and you talked to them and it's not until they want you to wire money to Nigeria that you realize, wait a minute.

Shockingly, it became clear that these fake accounts were created and used over, but a short span to parody and slander myself.

I immediately petitioned a claim of imposter and defamation claims with these two social media companies which are currently under investigation.

Meanwhile, the Twitter mob continued to bandy about tweets from these false social media impersonations as though I had control of them and were saying such things online.

The content contained from what I saw in this account contradicted my own extensive statements and podcasts over the years, my own ethnicity and my political, moral and Christian convictions.

Some friends have helpfully pointed out to me that the very style of language in the tweets is not what they have known of me to speak over the years.

Nevertheless, the outrage has gone so far that my place of employment heard of it and called to discuss the matter.

I had a cordial mutual conversation with the board and we agreed that it would be best for me to resign this past Wednesday evening.

I love my now former school and everyone there." And see, this to me, this to me is evidence that that tweet of, you know, it's posted at the church, a picture of the church in a small group and he's mocking those people.

This is evidence to me, in my mind, that that doesn't add up. If Thomas really wanted, he could have go scorched earth against his school.

You know, he could say, look, this wasn't even me and my school now wants me gone. They don't want this drama. And, you know, they're a bunch of weaklings.

He could say all kinds of things about the school. They're compromisers, whatever. He doesn't say anything. He loves the school.

He doesn't want the school hurt in this. He doesn't want people who want to defend him to hurt the school. That is interesting to me because it doesn't add up with the

Tullius Adland, you know, guy, character. I want the best for them, which truly is to be free of the storm of slander and accusation.

I think it is the duty of a leader to shield his people from possible harm or trouble, even if it may stem from himself. However, I do want to clear my name and that of anyone associated with me.

I also want to support my growing and innocent family. In some, Twitter, Facebook, and some email accounts have been falsely associated with myself without justification, and Facebook and Twitter have validated that the accounts in question are not mine.

I wish no animosity towards those who share this info. I seek no legal recourse to anyone. Some may say it is not a good tactic, but I cannot evade the verses that say a disciple of Christ must forgive and show mercy as we have been forgiven and shown mercy.

I want peace, brotherly love among Christians. I want a good name. I want a good job. I want a good life for my family.

I want God to be glorified. Let this be a cautionary lesson to us all about the dangers of social media engagement and the importance of friends and the need for Christian charity and open dialogue,

Thomas Accord. And he put an addendum, and here it is. I will not be following up with anyone to defend or explain further accusations, evidences, or claims against me.

The people who are doing this seem to have infinite time and resources on their hands. No kidding. They seem honestly to enjoy digging up, making up, slandering, and harming.

They are good at it. My name is already defiled, I'm already jobless, and my wife and children and unborn child's lives are all now in jeopardy.

What else do they seek at this point? It is not enough. Must they beat a bloody corpse? I appeal to you, if not as Christians, then at least as fellow humans.

You have accomplished your objectives. Please now leave me be. Wow, and this is, you know, it sounds like someone almost in despair when you're reading this, and it's touching.

Here, I just wanna say a few things about this. Make sure that I show you, before I do my own spiel on this,

I at least should show you the ways to support the family here. Stephen Wolfe said, my friend

Thomas Accord has lost his job after bad and resentful people used his name in an attempt to discredit me and my books, so I'm announcing that 100 % of the royalties

I receive from now until Christmas will go to him and the family. So you can buy a case for Christian nationalism, you can go to the

GiveSendGo, type in GiveSendGo Thomas Accord on any search engine, it'll come up. So far, they've been able to raise over $10 ,000 for him.

GiveSendGo .com forward slash G9HF1, G9HF1.

And this is a way to help his family through this hard time and the holidays. So here's my spiel on this whole incident, if you will.

I'm gonna go back to what I started and opened the show with. For those who have seen the show, It's a Wonderful Life. In that particular movie, it's not a show, it's a movie,

George Bailey has dreams of traveling the world and they get derailed.

He ends up having to, it's fictional obviously, but he ends up at his hometown and he takes over his father's business.

He gives out loans to people who are in need, he helps people in need. He's known by the community because of that. Now, the elites don't like him.

Potter doesn't like him. The big moneyed interests don't like him because he makes decisions that really aren't even that beneficial for himself.

He sacrifices for others. He's not about the bottom line. In fact, there's a scene in it, right, where he gives out all his life insurance, not life insurance, his wedding money to people when there's a run on the bank, just out of the goodness of his heart because he loves his people.

Now, in the movie, if you'll recall, the villain Potter ends up accidentally the account manager who's a family member, probably not as capable, but out of pity,

George Bailey leaves him in his post at the building and loan company that he runs.

And he accidentally gives Potter a newspaper, but he gives in the newspaper an envelope of their yearly profits.

And Potter realizes he has this and that they're not going to be able to balance their books and they're going to be,

George Bailey's gonna be arrested and he lets it happen and tries to use it to his advantage.

Now, I want you to ask a question. What was Potter's motive in that, in that particular movie? Well, the motive of Potter was, ultimately, he was jealous of George Bailey.

George Bailey was cutting in on his business. George Bailey was more loved than Potter. People hated Potter. And Potter knew that George had things that he didn't have.

And he wanted, it pleasured him to put George Bailey in a position of subservience, to see

George Bailey wringing his hands, wondering what to do on the verge of suicide in that particular film.

It's such a good film. You need to watch it if you haven't. And at the end of the movie, at the 11th hour,

George Bailey, you know, through, he realizes that his life is actually worth living. That is why it's called

It's a Wonderful Life. And the thing that makes, this is where people normally cry in the movie, if they watch it for the first time, is all his friends, all the people he's helped over the years come back to help him.

And he didn't ask them to do it. And that was, in the movie, that is the strongest evidence that it wasn't him, that he didn't actually do anything wrong, that he was set up, that something else, there must be another explanation because this isn't the

George, how can all these people love George Bailey? How can he be the sacrificial man if he's embezzling money? The two don't add up and the evidence is right before your eyes when you have hundreds of people giving money, five bucks, 10 bucks, whatever, to help this man.

And I would like to suggest to you, I'm drawing a parallel here, that Thomas accords in a similar spot. He has been accused of something.

He's lost his job, essentially, over it. It sounds like it was a mutual decision, but it was,

I mean, he just wants people to leave him alone, his family alone. And these accusations are pretty bad, but I want you to look at the people that are giving, that are coming at the 11th hour to support the

Accord family when they don't have money. And you look at the donations, the last, let me read you the last few donations.

$25, $25, $50, $75, $50, $100. The largest one,

I think, a 2 ,000, 100, 100, 50, 200, 25. This, 20 bucks, 35 bucks.

This is what's going on and it's going on all day and it's been going on for two days. How many people have given, you might ask, right now?

I'll refresh it again. 87 people have given, 87 people. How many people have shared this 17?

How many people are praying? 34 are registered here, but there's a lot more than that. I'm gonna be curious to see if anyone on the board, and if any of them are listening,

I would encourage them, you need to put out a character reference for Thomas. If you don't think that Thomas, if Thomas wasn't the one who made these anonymous posts and it doesn't align with him, you need to come out and you wanna protect your family.

I get it, you don't want drama. You need to think about his family though, too. You need to trust the Lord and do the right thing.

And that's what everyone needs to be doing right now. How bad could it be? Could it be the

FBI or the deep state decided to impersonate Thomas? I don't know.

I will tell you this though. There's a part of me, I didn't have to spend a whole podcast on this.

For a guy, I don't even know him that well. I know him well enough to know that this pseudonym stuff, it sounds really spurious.

But I've been in similar spots. I remember in 2020, when people went after me for things

I had published, where is it? I have it somewhere in here. People went after me hard for things

I had published in this. Sacred Conviction, the South Stand for Biblical Authority by Joseph J.

And it doesn't matter how much you point out. I could go to the introduction and I could read the section where I literally say before you read the book that, if I could find the exact page, but none of this can be used to justify the institution of slavery.

Not for slavery, all of that. This book is not about justifying slavery. This book is about a disagreement between the

Northern and Southern denominations, which preceded the Civil War and led up to the Civil War. And it was more than just slavery.

The issue, even as it pertained to slavery, wasn't about the morality of slavery as much as it was the biblical teaching of it.

And I explain it all to you. But people didn't really read it. They mined it. They took things that weren't even quotes of mine.

People I quoted, attributed them to me. And I remember what that did.

I remember, I'll just tell the story. I've told it here before many times. But what that did was people in elite circles, institutional people, people who have boards they answer to, people who have to be accountable and respectable, those people are sometimes some of the biggest cowards you'll ever meet in your life.

I'm just saying that because I've had enough experience with a number of them. And they're so worried about their institution and their reputation and their image.

And even then you can't, even then some of them get taken out. And, oh man, they don't wanna touch me with a 10 -foot pole after that.

I remember in the middle of it, Founders Ministries, who had been supportive at least, at least

ASCLE was very supportive of the videos I put out there with Dr. Russell Fuller. It was around the same time. Backed off, didn't wanna be associated with it anymore.

I mean, it was just, I can tell you so many stories behind the scenes of people who said they were gonna be supportive and then backed out.

But I'll tell you what happened in that. During that time, the people who were not on those, not in boards, didn't have platforms, the little guys, they started flocking to my

YouTube channel. That's one of the biggest boosters I've ever gotten in subscriptions. I remember I was talking to Judd Saul the day after that people were going after me and saying that I had published this stuff under a pseudonym.

And I've explained all this before on the podcast. I had some professors who liked my research and I was conflicted about it.

They told me, you better use a pseudonym or else you won't have a future in academia because it's so woke. And I listened to them,

I probably should have. But this was years ago that I did all this. And anyway,

I don't think I did anything. There's nothing to apologize for that I know of. I'm open to correction. I'm always open to that.

But I haven't said anything that I think that needs to be apologized for. It's just research.

But the next day, I remember Judd Saul tells me, well, at least you can go be a pastor now. He even thought that I was done, that this was a can't.

And I wasn't, that's the thing, I wasn't. Because you know how many people resonated with that? How many little guys out there who get stepped on, who are constantly afraid of will they say the wrong thing?

And they resonated with what I, because they knew that this doesn't add up.

You're making this guy out to be a monster. Let me listen to him. He doesn't sound like a monster. Actually, his podcast is pretty good.

And I think the same thing's gonna happen with Thomas and Stephen Wolfe. The Case for Christian Nationalism book, the

Ars Politica podcast, I think they're about to get a boost from this. Because you know if these elite types and these cancel culture mob types and these cowardly types hate what they're doing so much that they gotta go to the desperate length of subverting all reason, all the things you would normally do to verify something is true.

They don't even do any of that. And they go to the gutter to find something, to sling at Thomas, to discredit

Stephen Wolfe's book, talk about an associational issue. These are the same people that sometimes say they don't, they're not fundamentalists.

I mean, give me a break. This association stuff is rampant on the woke side of things. And so anyway, what is it about Stephen Wolfe and what he's doing, and what maybe

Thomas Accord is doing that makes them so fearful? And if it's the government, the

Lord Jesus Christ is the one that's ultimately in charge, not the government. And I'll just say this. I'm of right sound frame of mind and I don't have any suicidal thoughts and I love my life.

And I just talked to Thomas today just to, because I told him I was gonna come out and do a podcast.

He didn't know what I was gonna say, but I just let him know. Told him I was praying for him. And he's in the same, he's down about this, but he's also of sound mind right now.

And he's not suicidal or anything like that. So if anyone's concerned about that, I'm not saying it's government anything, but in case, we're actually,

I'm having a good time. And I think Thomas is gonna have a good time real soon here. I think he's gonna land on his feet.

And I think that these guys, whatever evidence is in this 4 ,000 page, oh my goodness. You're gonna have to consider two different paradigms when you're evaluating any evidence from here on out.

The first paradigm is the one Thomas gave you. And that paradigm is that there's someone who is impersonating him to damage his reputation perhaps, who has done so with a number of different social media accounts, who happens to be somewhat close to him and knows a number of things about him, but can't seem to really copy his grammar and other stuff.

That's one paradigm that makes sense of the information. Or there's another paradigm. Thomas Accord is this terrible person.

And even though he shares publicly his political views, he had to make another account to share what he really thinks.

And then he used trucker language and F -bombs, and he really said horrible things about minorities. And he did that because he had to get it out somewhere.

And all his friends don't seem to know who that Thomas is, but that Thomas apparently is the real

Thomas. Listen to the people who don't know Thomas, not the people who do. You're gonna have to take that paradigm.

I'll ask you which one makes more sense to you, which one's more compelling to you. So that's what

I have to say about this. And I think if you're a friend of Thomas Accords, you need to come out and give him a character reference now, because this is the kind of stuff that if he tries to get another job on a similar level, it's gonna come back to haunt him.

They're gonna try to use it to cancel him. So give a donation if you can this

Christmas. If you can't, just pray for him. And I'm not afraid of saying these things. I know a lot of people are right now, and they don't wanna come out, they don't wanna get shot at by the same people shooting at Thomas.

They've already shot at me. I'm already canceled, right? And I'm still here. So if you wanna cancel me again, go for it.

That's what I say. I know what the truth is, and I will use whatever you guys say against me, if people do do that.

I don't know if they will, but I'm gonna use anything they say to further show as evidence how desperate these people actually really are.

And it's not gonna go well for them. I think Alistair Roberts, especially, and Neil Shenvey, the two biggest ones, I think that have blown credibility in this, in my opinion.

And it's just, at this point, like what can they do to get it back, if they're wondering? Yeah, right now, post a link to Thomas' GiveSomeGo page.

Make a donation to it. Show the screenshot that you did so. Encourage everyone else who copied your slander, your unsubstantiated accusation, we'll say.

Tell them to stop. And then apologize, in a very heartfelt and public way, to Thomas.

And then privately reach out to him. That's the way I think you save face in this. Not by shielding yourself. No one's buying that now.

All right. Whoever gets canceled the most times gets a trophy.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm hoping, I don't think this is gonna make it, but maybe

I'll get a nice, good hit piece written against me in the Atlantic or something. I mean, that could always bolster the podcast, right?

I mean, no one wants that, obviously. But at a certain point, when you are canceled and you survive it, you start to realize, you trust

God more and you start to realize this stuff is, you know, you have to face down a bully.

You can't just let these immature bullying people, these desperate people, these jealous people, you know, different attributes for different ones, but ignorant people in some situations, maybe a few who shared that were just ignorant, but they had the right motives,

I don't know. But you can't let any of those people dictate your life.

Anywho, that is the podcast today. I'm just looking through the comments and appreciate all of you guys.

Um, people are competing now for cancellation trophies. It's hysterical. Please send the gifts and go for this.

All right, so I will, I'll put it in the info section, but let me just put it in the chat right now for those who are streaming, if I can.

Let me see if I, we should have the technology. Let me see if we have the technology. I should have the technology to do this.

Yeah, there, okay. Here you go for everyone. The link is in the info section and it will be on the video soon.

Well, there are a number of other things I wanted to talk about, but I guess I'm not gonna do it. So here we are. You'll have to wait until next week.

I am hoping to, I should be able to get started on the Tim Keller stuff next week. I should be able to show you some 1607 stuff.

I got a really good essay, if I do say so myself, not to be too braggadocious. I have an essay that I'm excited to share with you.

I'm on the Proposition Nation and Christian nationalism. It's an angle I haven't seen anyone else take and I think it's gonna be really helpful for you guys in explaining what's really the threat that the elite see from Christian nationalism.

That'll be next week. And oh man, so many good things happening. Have a Merry Christmas. I can say that now, right?

It's the day after Thanksgiving. Have a Merry Christmas. You can play Christmas music now in my opinion. I'm already doing it.