News Roundup: Clinton & Corrupt Religion, Zoomers & Socialism, Leftists Aren't Gone

About the information that Russia and Putin had on Hillary Clinton, which included possible criminal acts, like secret meetings with multiple named U .S. religious organizations in which State Department officials offered, in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton's campaign for the presidency, significant increases in financing from the State Department.

They also had documents that showed the patronage of the State Department to State Department employees who would go and support Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. There were high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary's, quote, psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness, and that then-Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.

Then-CIA Director Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious substandard sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed a, quote-unquote, clear preference for Trump.

And there you have it. Tulsi Gabbard today at a press conference, actually, I think this was this afternoon, so it wasn't all that long ago, talking about these declassified documents that are making their way to the surface.

They revealed that the Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russian interference, if you remember, that this was included in the main body of the 2017 intelligence community assessment called the ICA on Russian election interference.

And this contradicts claims made by the top Obama administration officials like John Brennan and James Clapper, who said that it didn't, and they actually pushed ICA documents to Congress and others that had left out this particular information.

So now we're finally getting it. Now we're finally seeing what's actually happening. This is why you saw Trump earlier this week saying outright that Obama is responsible for treason, that what he did was technically treasonous.

Now, if these officials aren't punished, if there's nothing to come back on them, if there's no justice, that means that we're in deep trouble. And I don't expect that to happen, but I'm hopeful that something will happen.

Obviously, no one truly gets away with anything because at the end of your life, when you die, you will eventually stand before God and he is able to destroy the body and the soul in hell, not just the body, as Jesus said.

So no one gets away with anything. But if we're going to have a life to pass down to our descendants, to our children especially, we want to make sure that our institutions in this country are trusted again.

And they're not right now. The CIA is not trusted, neither really are any of the intelligence agencies. Obviously, the IRS hasn't been trusted for a long time, but it's now like everything's the IRS. Everything in government is viewed with suspicion.

And that's not a good place to be at all for any country. That means it's an opportune moment. The moment is ripe for someone to come in with very innovative ideas that sound good on paper, that may not actually be good, revolutionary schemes, and to gain a mass following based on that, using low information voters and people who aren't really thinking straight about these things, but are whipped up into an emotional frenzy.

And they can take over the government quite easily because there is nothing to keep the present system in place. There's no reason to get behind it and support it. Why would you? It's so corrupt. And we're finding out more and more about its corruption.

And so the Trump administration has an opportunity here, a window, a small window to do something about that. But the trust has to be restored and it has to be restored soon. And that's where we're at.

And the reason I played you that particular clip, though, is pretty obvious for listeners of this podcast. I would think you heard in that particular clip, Tulsi Gabbard saying that actually, if you want to be honest about what was really happening, Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign was actually involved with paying religious organizations for support and offering them perks.

Now, what does that look like exactly? Well, she said it, but it's also in this particular document, which I will show you. This is the document that was just released, Oversight Investigation and Referral, September 18th, 2020, Intelligence Community Assessment.

This is the ICA and the title is Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 U .S. Presidential Election. Now, if you type in the phrase religious organizations, you'll find on I don't know what page this is, but about almost halfway through the document that there is this section.

It says the Russian Federal Security Service in August had details of secret meetings. So the Russians had knowledge of something that was going on in our politics. And what did they have knowledge of?

There were multiple named U .S. religious organizations in which the U .S. State Department representatives offered in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton significant increases in financing from department funds and the patronage of state in dealing with post-Soviet countries.

Now, if you notice, one of those post-Soviet countries would probably be Ukraine. And it makes you wonder to what extent you have the State Department of the United States acting as an arm of the Democratic National Committee and telling religious organizations they need to support Hillary Clinton and they will have some kind of access, some kind of special patronage in former Soviet places.

Ukraine has to be at the top of the list in everyone's mind on this. And of course, there's a lot of Christian organizations over there in Ukraine. There's a lot of charities, quote unquote, but there's also a lot of corruption.

Ukraine is known for this. And so the question I have is, what does this look like? There's no details in the report, but obviously somewhere this exists somewhere there. Someone knows what was actually taking place.

And maybe this explains some of the shenanigans we saw. Now, I'm not saying it explains all of it. I still am a firm believer. And I don't think this will change that whether you have support coming from moneyed interests or the government or big business, you are going to have ideologues who spread their ideology.

But the way that ideologues get other people to see the utopian dream they're selling and support them, even though those people aren't ideologues, those people are opportunists generally, the way that ideologues get opportunists to support their schemes is oftentimes through financial incentives.

And I think that's what you have here. You have leftists essentially using the apparatus of the state to get religious organizations who should not be and should not have any business taking bribes from anyone to support them.

And I don't know what those organizations were. I don't know. I mean, some of you might be thinking, well, that's got to be the Gospel Coalition or something. That's got to be World Vision. That's got to be, I don't know if you're in the evangelical world.

Did the Southern Baptists take any money? Was Crewe taking money? I know I saw a lot of woke stuff coming from them. I know even the Gospel Coalition published an article supportive of Hillary Clinton.

Were they actively taking money? Was Russell Moore on the payroll somewhere? Was he? And I don't have the answers to those things. And the document doesn't tell you exactly. But something was obviously going on.

And I'm sure this went way beyond Protestant denominations. This sounds like it was it was broader. It was religious. We don't even know if it was limited to just Christianity, although I'm sure in the United States it was probably heavily Christian.

So how's that to get your afternoon revved up here as you think about the corruption in our government? That is certainly corruption. And I want to bring to your attention a letter. This is from July 15th by the Evangelical Immigration Table, and it is to Congress.

And here's what it looks like. It says, Dear Members of Congress, we write to you to urge you to consider the newly reintroduced Dignity Act sponsored by Representative Maria Salazar. I talked about this on the last podcast, which would establish a restitution based legalization process for immigrants present in the United States unlawfully who are willing to pay a significant fine as a penalty for their violation of the immigration law to submit to and pass a criminal background check and to meet other appropriate requirements.

Now, I already said, look, there's a thousand dollars a year for seven years. Come on, really? I mean, what kind of benefits are you getting that exceed that number? Likely now, OK, you have to pay a fine.

You're here. I think it's seven years. And then what happens after that? Because this particular representative, Maria Salazar, has also said, well, for now, we just we let them in the country essentially and we let them stay here.

But it's it's to a future government, future political politicians to make the decision as to what to do with them permanently and to extend citizenship to them, which is what we know was behind this from the beginning.

We know what a scheme like this is. If you're not after solving this right now, you're not after solving it. You're playing games, you're playing politics. But I think more than that, you're actually trying to get a amnesty situation because the politics, especially in the Republican Party, which Maria Salazar is a member of, the politics favor actually deporting people right now.

But anyway, it goes on. It says that you're equally as important. The proposal does not provide amnesty. Right. It always says they always say we don't provide it's not about amnesty. It's always like it's a step towards amnesty or two steps towards amnesty.

It's never amnesty, though. Instead, it would actually exclude these individuals from achieving federal benefits and or entitlement program resources for which they have not paid in. Moreover, the Dignity Act would ensure that immigrants who have committed violent crimes are deported, keeping our community safe.

So, I mean, what does that mean, though, paid in? Like, are you can you take advantage of welfare benefits simply because, well, you're paying in at a certain level, even though most of your work is off the books.

Like, what's this practically going to look like? That's what the American people want to know. And I think most of the American people, at least on the Republican side, are firmly against this from the outset.

Well, the vast majority of evangelical Christians believe that violent criminals should be prioritized for deportation. Lifeway Research finds only 17 percent of evangelicals say the same about those who would be willing to pay a fine as restitution for breaking U .S. immigration.

So it goes on. Let me just get to some details that are actually relevant here. They cite statistics we've talked about before from this Lifeway Research, because this is supposed to make the case that evangelical Christians are actually behind us.

The base of the Republican Party really does want this, which I've talked about before. I don't think that this is probably accurate. I think this is an attempt to prove that evangelical Christians are in favor of these things by organizations that are that evangelical Christians are paying for, essentially.

So they're representing evangelical Christians. They are getting money from the government and often for resettlement programs, that kind of thing. In fact, look at the people who are mentioned here, the Asian American Christian Collaborative, they're left wing.

The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, I would say they're kind of left wing. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the SBC, they're left wing. The National Association of Evangelicals, they're left wing.

The National Latino Evangelical Coalition, they're left wing. And World Relief, they're very left wing. So those are the organizations, but they all interface with evangelicals and claim to represent them.

And so they need to prove somehow that they have this groundswell of support. But it makes no sense. It makes no sense, given the fact that why would it be that, whatever it was, 81 percent of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump and knowing that his policies on the front end were to take care of this problem.

And then, oh, no, almost a comparable number actually don't want those policies. That doesn't make any sense. So I'm very skeptical about it. But as Christians committed to the rule of law rooted in the biblical conviction that God has ordained the government to restrain evil and ensure order, we believe the Dignity Act offers necessary reforms, et cetera.

Now, I made the case this should just be called the Anti-Dignity Act or I don't know. Find a different name, find a different name that calls it what it is. This is if you had dignity, you would be not wanting to break the law, not wanting to encourage that, wanting people to make things right.

That would be the restoration of dignity. So I would say the Trump administration is more in favor of dignity. This kind of a law is actually against dignity if you really want to make this about dignity.

But of course, they play these word games to garner emotional support and that kind of thing. So with that being said, to open the program here, maybe I'll go to this next. I wasn't going to do this until towards the end, but why not?

I just mention it to you in passing here. Crew, the organization that used to be called Campus Crusade, just had their yearly I think it's yearly annual conference and they had a doctor is a doctor. I think it's Dr. Crawford Loritz there and Daryl Smith speaking there.

And those who have followed this podcast for any length of time know those two names have been very associated with trafficking in social justice ideas into evangelical organizations, mostly crew, and they're still speaking.

And I saw some quotes on a live tweet that someone was putting out there, and they certainly seem more veiled, but they also seem social justice, couched social justice language like Christians can't support powerful institutions.

They have to choose between that and Jesus and stuff like that. And if you are used to reading these guys, you know what that means in their mind. But I don't have access to the videos, which crew is probably very thankful for it.

I haven't asked anyone for access, so I haven't put a great deal of thought into this. What I have received, though, and I can tell you this from someone who is involved in crew, actually from more than one person involved in crew, is that things are much tamer this year.

And so while there was apparently in Daryl Smith's speech in particular, some social justice sounding language overall, they're not going that direction. And I explained this to one of the crew missionaries that who I think maybe they already agreed with me and didn't need the explanation.

I'm not sure, but we were having a conversation and I said, look, my experience with crew missionaries is there's a lot of Stockholm syndrome. There's it functions kind of like a cult in a way. You're not allowed to question authority.

It's very authoritarian. And whatever the authorities who are in charge of the organization say must be followed. It's kind of like the military in that sense. You can't question orders and questioning orders.

That's the basis upon which you'll be fired. I don't think it's it's purely ideology. I think there's ideology at play in all of this. There's a pressure coming from the left, also pressure coming from the right for crew.

But I think crew has responded to the pressure from the left, probably more so, even though, yes, they got rid of their lenses institute. They're trying to walk a line is what they're doing. And they're trying to make sure everyone's happy and, of course, no one's happy, but they're keeping people like Daryl Smith around and they want to project this image that they are compassionate and they care about some of these social justice issues, even if they're not going to be quite as woke with their rhetoric as they used to be at the national stage.

So I think they want to have their cake and eat it. I think that. This will continue in crew, and I think the same thing is true for other organizations, so you have, for example, sorry, I'm trying to sign, I don't know if anyone heard that I'm trying to silence my signal app because I'm hearing it in my ear.

Another organization is Moody Moody Bible Institute, and I've noticed that Charlie Dates is speaking or has spoken there recently. And again, another person who is, I would say, woke, I don't really have any qualms about that.

We've talked about it many times on the podcast before. And Moody obviously has a conservative evangelical history, but they're not responding to the pressure that was exerted in the years following 2020 to root out social justice and DEI programs and policies and personnel in these organizations has on some level failed.

It has been successful in other places, but I think the main takeaway has from this is my broad conclusion has been that these organizations will not admit failure. They will go quiet and the social justice stuff typically will be in other arenas.

For example, I know at Wheaton College, there have been events where they're not recorded. There's no access to the recording and there's some hardcore woke stuff still happening. And it's frustrating because it's like this stuff was exposed before they wanted everyone to know in 2020, look at us, look what we're doing.

I think that's obviously changed. They want to get away from that kind of reputation, but I don't think the ideology has left the building. I think that the people who traffic this stuff in are still there.

There's been no repentance. There's been no admission of wrongdoing. This is it's the same for a lot of places. Now, the question is whether places like, I don't know, Grove City College that are more politically conservative, if they and Liberty University, right, which didn't have as bad of a problem, but certainly had one in certain, I mean, the university that big is going to have it, whether or not they climb out of this because of the general vibe on the right.

That's where I see more of a lasting change. But if it's if they don't have that, if it's not a political thing, if it's if it stayed just sort of a theological evangelical institution, I don't have a lot of confidence that when the political winds shift, they won't just go back to doing what they were doing before.

Kind of sad. But that's my assessment. And I'm just grateful it's not for whatever reason, even if it's a bad motive, I'm grateful it's not as bad as it was in some of these places. So there's your little snippet update on both Moody and crew.

Now, I want to talk about I want to I want to mention this, this sort of my in the middle of the podcast. This isn't a story, but I do want to say the men's retreat is coming up. And if you have not signed up as a man, you're going to want to come whether you like music or not.

This is for you. We're going to have a great time in the Adirondack Mountains. We go hiking and fishing and there's a lot of outdoor stuff. It's great food. It's great fellowship. We only charge costs.

So it's pretty inexpensive for what you're getting. And we have a great lineup. You're going to hear things about, oh, wow, I didn't even change that. Someone changed A .D.'s profile on this. So he was cartoon A .D. and now he's not.

So that's kind of cool. Anyway, there's going to be things you hear at this conference. I'm pretty certain you have not heard before about the topic of music. And it's not just about music, but music's a big part of this.

And we're going to have campfire time where we have different styles of traditional hymns. And we're going to have folk music in the church. We'll have some history lessons on that. But you're also going to hear some audible representations of the differences between styles and why certain styles are advantageous over others and that kind of thing.

So can't recommend it more highly. You got to come out music and masculinity dot com to sign up. We always have a great time at the men's retreat. And there's my plug for that. OK, let's move on to some encouraging news.

I want to let you know about this. New York, the state that I'm sitting in right now, has paid two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars to end the legal battle with Christian photographer over same sex weddings.

Now, I'm actually kind of encouraged by this, that this ended up with it was probably going to go into federal litigation. But New York State decided they were not going to press the matter anymore. The U .S. District Court for the Western District of New York and New York's Democratic Attorney General and commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights have been ordered not to enforce several provisions of New York's anti-discrimination laws against Emily Carpenter photography.

Now, if you listen to this podcast, I know I've said that like four times. Hey, you got to listen to the podcast. But if you listen to the podcast, you'll know this is one of the things I was concerned about before the election.

New York State passed a provision that actually changed their constitution and it put in a non-discrimination clause to the effect that you can't say anything against someone's immigrant immigration status, let alone their LGBTQ plus whatever identity.

So pretty radical, extreme stuff and hard to eradicate because it's part of the constitution now. And it's good that you at least have some pressure there coming from. This is what I said. I said the federal government is going to pressure this.

And I think that's what's happening. And that's a good thing to see. Alliance Defending Freedom was involved. You can read the more about it if you're curious. But I think this is a win and hopefully this stays.

I mean, it does matter who's in the White House, even for the state level policies. We're going to go to I have a bunch of little things and then we're going to get to some broader things. I'm working towards the Zoomer stuff that I want to talk about.

So this was interesting. My good friend, Sean McGowan, Pastor Sean McGowan, Presbyterian friend. I do have some Presbyterian friends, that is. He talked about how PCA churches, if you walk in, there's going to be a variety of different worship practices and that this is unfortunate.

And, you know, I thought when I first saw that, I was like, I don't know how heavy regulative principle Sean McGowan is. But is he saying you got to sing psalms? Is he saying you got to? I don't think he's there.

I think he's more like traditional hymns are best. Anyway, now I know what he meant more. OK, David Cassidy, who let's see, David Cassidy is serving at Spanish River Church. OK, so I think he's the president there.

I've seen this guy. Oh, yeah, I know I've seen this guy. OK, David Cassidy was part of the whole, like, anti-Zack Garris thing. Last year and just saying some ignorant things. OK, so anyway, David Cassidy, herein lies the problem of constant conflict.

I have no doubt that the worship of the church that Irish Presby serves and that's Sean McGowan is faithful, but the desire to impose a single form can only lead to endless debate and division. Let's avoid this.

Now, here's here's what here's the some just pictures of the worship at Spanish River Church in the PCA. So it's it's not just super. It's not that it's contemporary. OK, contemporary just means like present up to date, that kind of thing.

I don't know if anyone has a problem with contemporary innovation, maybe, but not contemporary sloppiness, maybe, but not contemporary. But obviously, contemporary is the word that is typically used to it's the banner.

All these other things fall under. And so here it is. Right. It's not that it's not the contemporary element that's bad. It's just that it's so casual. And you have to I saw this meme the other day. I know I don't talk about memes much.

We shouldn't craft our views based on memes. But I just see this meme that made a great point. And it said when the world worships their idol and it's all these sports broadcasters on ESPN and they're in these amazing suits, pinstripes and just they went to the dry cleaners.

I mean, it looks good. And then underneath it, you saw the church when they worship their god. And it's it's images like this. And I understand it's not a there's traditions and there's specific kind of traditions that have developed in these different institutions.

But I do think that it's to our peril when we decide that in the worship of God, we are going to just be really casual. I understand. Come as you are. Let us reason together. The Lord accepts and receives those with a penitent heart who are humble before him.

I'm going to be preaching on that this Sunday, actually. And I get that. And if that's what you're used to, if that's but and I'm not even necessarily for a dress code, but maybe this church needs it.

Maybe this church needs because it wasn't passed down. And John, how can you say that based on someone's dress? I'm just telling you when it's when it's this casual, something is wrong. So you're worshiping the god of the universe.

Right. And it is more something that it's caught more than tie. It's something you see. Not saying these people don't have some fervor for God or worship in their heart, but there's something off as well.

And you see in this and these aren't very agreed. Well, there's a woman, I guess. I don't think that's preaching. I think I'm assuming here she's probably just reading the Bible, but in a PCA church, conservative PCA church, probably not.

And OK, I know people are going to hate me for this, but guys, look, the hoodie with the sports coat, I'm just judgmental, John. Right now, I'm not saying that you're not necessarily a person with good intentions and your heart's in the right place and all that.

But it's like letting a 13 year old dress themselves and go on stage. It 13 year olds aren't mature and they don't have a good idea about what's appropriate, what's fitting for the occasion. And this is a serious occasion.

I think this is the preacher, I just this is, you know, something very casual intended for for sports, for chilling around and then mixed with something semi-formal and mixed with jeans. And it's just it's a confusion, guys.

It's a confusion. And I saw some of the videos, too, and they're worse, but I wanted to weigh in on it. I suppose somewhat as a teaser for the Music and Masculinity Conference, because we're going to be talking about this.

My task is to talk about the importance of tradition. I am convinced, actually, that there is an important element that we have ignored, we meaning many evangelicals who have tried to reinvent the church every 10 years.

So not me personally, but many have ignored. And I went through this maybe 20 years ago when I was first playing music. Well, yeah, I guess it was almost 20. Man, I'm getting old. OK, so almost 20 years ago when I was playing music for the first time in a church setting and the worship wars were happening, I remember this.

I remember there was a guy who came to my church and he did a youth thing where he put all these garbage cans with graffiti on them and he got smoke, a smoke machine. And then there was like this punk band at the time.

I mean, it's also cringy now looking back because none of this stuff is in style now. Right. At the time, it was like, this is so cool. And now you're like, it's like, Grandpa, what were you doing back then?

But at the time, right, this was supposed to be the thing that would attract the youth. But it didn't attract the youth. What it did was it just sort of pressured the youth who had grown up without that kind of thing, without that culture to then participate.

And then people were just kind of confused standing around. And then I remember the praise team leader. It wasn't a praise team leader. It's just the guy who was leading. It said, oh, everyone jump. Right.

And I remember this and I remember the fallout from that. And I remember the parents who didn't like it. And I remember all the arguments. And at the time, you know, the little legalist self that I was, I was just like, well, where in the Bible does it say you can't do this?

What's the I don't understand. What's the problem? Because you have to throw all tradition out. Right. Tradition doesn't matter at all. Yeah. I need a Bible verse specifically that says this beat or this rhythm or this style or this clothing or this atmosphere is wrong.

And I am so 180 degrees against that now and see how foolish and immature I was in my understanding. You know, it was back when I knew it all and I just I don't know it all anymore, which is a better place to be, because actually I know more now.

Yeah, I think I got that right, so I'm going to be talking about that at the men's retreat, and that's a little teaser for you of what you can expect. This is inappropriate, and I'm going to explain to you in further detail why and why it's OK to take tradition into account and to take prudential and wisdom related concerns into account, because it does communicate something.

What you wear does communicate something, how you talk, the I mean, why do why in the military do you march in a stiff kind of order? What's that about? Your posture even communicates something. It's complicated.

That's what I'm saying. And there are fitting occasions for many different things. OK, I got to move on here. Actually, wow, I'm I got to move fast because I'm leading a Bible study tonight and I got to leave in like half an hour or less.

So let's keep going here. Rachel Denhollander, this is a tweet she put out there, and I'm going to just summarize it. She's going after Trump, but it really she shouldn't have been going after Trump. It was a Christian attorney who had brought this case against the Washington state from enforcing a law that would have required priests to report evidence of child abuse learned during confession.

And she just she did a series of tweets against this and how bad it is because she's the person who wanted attorney client privilege waived for the SBC executive committee. She wants what they call priest penitent privilege waived.

But this extends to organizations beyond just the Roman Catholic Church. This is something Protestants also have. It's not the same, but Protestants have a privilege when it comes to counseling situations.

And I talked about that with John MacArthur actually last week that they actually had a landmark case that their church won in the 1970s, I think by the time it went to the Supreme Court, it was the early 80s, but where they won essentially or clarified the right to have someone count under their counseling care that they did not refer out to, quote unquote, experts in the psychiatric or psychological fields.

And they are exempt from the kind of legal light, the liabilities that those kinds of fields would likely have if they encountered a similar situation, I suppose. So there is this in our law, in our tradition, there has been this understanding.

And I think both attorney client privilege and you could probably hear my daughter in the background. I know she's having fun, but attorney client privilege and what we have called priest penitent privilege, these things are there for a reason.

And I think there's a good case to be made that they should remain in place. This is centuries long tradition in the Western Christian institutions or countries. And I think fundamentally what it is attempting to do is ensure that a spiritual leader, a Christian pastor, has the freedom to be able to counsel difficult situations and provide spiritual advice to someone without the fear that that person is going to be confessing, as it were, to the state directly.

Because otherwise, why not just make the church the arm of the state? Right. It's an intention. The intention is to put a separation there. That the purposes for these kinds of things in the context of the church are for a heavenly purpose and not for earthly purposes.

Now, it doesn't mean that you can't have a pastor or, I suppose, a priest who, well, now in the case of the Catholic Church, it actually might be different. I think there's a penalty for it if a priest breaks that.

It's like it's like the Hippocratic Oath in a Protestant context, which I'm more familiar with. There is, I think, more of a willingness to report things that are necessary to be reported, but it's at the discretion of the pastor.

And generally, the pastor is trying to guide someone spiritually who wants help with these issues towards reporting themselves if it's necessary. So if someone's coming and they want help and they're repented, normally that's not the kind of person that is committing criminal acts and is presently raping people, let's say.

Maybe the rapes have happened, but they've happened and now it's the aftermath and they're coming to try to get help. And so to shut that off, which is what a policy like this would likely do, would be to probably catapult your society into even more depravity as people feel like they can't even go share with a spiritual leader.

So there's probably more that could be said and probably it could be said by people who know more about this issue than I do. But I do find it rich that it's Rachel Denhollander who's on this crusade against it when she was the one in favor of waiving attorney-client privilege.

And her motives have been totally in line with the Me Too agenda and disregarding the due process that we've had established in our country for quite some time. OK, let's get to the big stuff now, the big stuff I want to talk about, which involves Gen Z.

And I guess what I want to do is what we're going to do is we're going to go through some stats. I have been one of the one of the outliers, OK, on the right. And I've been skeptical. I've been I've been optimistic, but I have been cautious on whether or not Gen Z is going to, quote unquote, save us.

This seems to be a millennial instinct more than anyone else. Millennials, for some reason, think Gen Z is super right wing and they're going to come up and everything's going to be changed. And it's some of it might just be propaganda.

But like Gen Z is going to save us because young Gen Z males are more right wing. And I've gone through some of the stats on this. And I've the reason I've been skeptical is because although there's a lot of different stats that insinuate different kinds of things, it does seem there is a right wing shift, not just in the United States either.

It's in Canada. It's in even Japan. But at the same time, you also see on some social issues a softening. So, yes, they're more likely to vote for Donald Trump at the same time. They are more likely to support abortion.

Is that right wing and really the bigger question here is what kind of right wing is it? That's what I'm because because there's different the right is somewhat broad, right? You have your libertarians, you have your your classic liberals, for lack of a better term, you have your paleocons, you have your Christian reconstructionist, theonomy types, and the list just goes on.

You got your pagan rights. You got your groper types. And what exactly is going on with the Gen Z males or is it are they just going to different rooms, as it were, in the building that we call the right?

And they are it's sort of like a, you know, a distillation into various containers rather than just like they're all in one pot. And I don't know all the answers to that. But I think I think that a lot of the zoomer males are more transgressive.

And there's a lot of this just from my own experience. They have been they feel like they've been kicked to the curb their whole life. They're dealing oftentimes the stats bear this out, certainly with a lot of dysfunction and they're tired of being called names because they're white or they're male.

And this is all contributing to the situation we have before us. On top of it, they're getting a lot of their information, not because of necessarily a scholarly process or going to legacy institutions, which you can blame them for not wanting to go to legacy institutions, but they are going to chat groups online and it's forming a lot of groupthink.