Doctrinal Training: Christian Political Philosophy

I'm gonna start with a reading, it's the key text for any talk on civil government. I'm sure that you guys have heard it. It's been, I was thinking through this, I told Kelsey, because she hears everything that I say when I prep it out, and I said, are you ready to go hear Absolutely Nothing New tonight?

And she said, are you ready to go say Absolutely Nothing New? And what I realized though, is that I don't think that I have long form dealt with this topic since probably early 2021. So it's been about five years.

There's a reason that it's been about five years. And there's a reason that a lot of conversation started about civil magistrates and governing systems and that sort of thing around 2020. And it was because there was a shock to the system.

And everybody was trying to decipher what this text means. And it is Romans 13. It became one of the places that I was living in scripture. Romans 13 says, every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.

For there is no authority except from God. And those which exist have been appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists that authority is opposed the ordinance of God. And they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of that authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For it is a minister of God to you for good.

But if you do what is evil, be afraid. For it does not bear the sword in vain. For it is a minister of God, an avenger, who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore, it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of that wrath, but also because of conscience.

For because of this, you also pay taxes. For rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all that is due them, tax to whom taxes due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

The Question of Christian Obedience to Government

So the question that comes up is, as we were going through 2020, and we were told stay in your house, wear a mask everywhere you go, don't stand next to anybody, this sort of thing. And it seemed like a reflex was triggered in many Christians that was, hey, I don't think we have to do all of this stuff.

Right? And then there was much hand-wringing. And the hand-wringing came because, in the culture, long before that, for probably all of our lives, we would come across this text and be like, and look and say, yeah, I mean, you obey the government.

Obviously, you do what they say, right? If you don't, they might kill you. And you have a conscience that makes you want to fear evil and to do good. And then as you look, there was commentators, there was someone that I listened to a lot.

And back in 2020, he said, and I quote, if the government tells you to go out of your house and wear pinwheels on your head, then you have to do it. And something inside goes, really? You have to wear pinwheels on your head if the government says to do it.

And we were struggling and grappling. And I think as time goes on, as human beings, when something's not right in your face, it starts to fade away. And I think that five years, six now, from that time is probably a good time to revisit what's going on.

And the world has changed tremendously since 2020. As you see, we'll talk about liberalism. And I think liberalism was our, probably is our default operating system as Americans. And so we'll talk about that and that sort of thing.

And the question that came up that started all of this stuff, that started people talking about our government, people talking about the boogeyman of Christian nationalism and all this sort of thing, came from the question, which was simply, when can a Christian disobey the government?

Right, that was the question. When can you disobey? And there was one easy case. There's one in scripture where we obviously can disobey, and that's in Acts 4, when the magistrates call Peter and John and they tell them to stop preaching the gospel because they're causing unrest.

This is in Acts 4, 18 through 20. Peter and John say, whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you be the judge, for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.

So easy test case that we have to spend about five seconds on is that you do not have to obey the government and stop preaching the gospel. Simple, right? But what we know through history is that that is likely one of the only times that that ever happened, because the government doesn't particularly care if you preach the gospel.

The government cares if you start to call what they condone evil, right? When you come into conflict with the government is not when you preach that Jesus is alive. You come into conflict with the government when you say your promotion of sodomy is evil and you should repent, right?

Government doesn't like that. That is not something that they're gonna enjoy. And so a second thing that we can probably all agree on is that the government cannot command you to sin. God's law is higher than even man's administration of the law.

And so the government has no right, no authority to command you to sin. Just as a pastor has no authority to command church members to sin, just as a father has no authority to command his wife or his children to sin.

That goes all the way down the line. But that doesn't answer the hard question, right? Because the hard question is what about arbitrary, specious, maybe even tyrannical commands that are not de facto sinful?

No one would argue that it is objectively sinful to put a mask on your face, right? No one would argue that it's objectively sinful to take a vaccine that the government is coercively trying to get you to take.

In a vacuum, having something put into your arm from a doctor is not a sin issue. But the issue comes in is can the government make you do that? Can they do that? And so what we arrived at, and I think it is on the shoulders of giants, there's this idea called Protestant Resistance Theory that is hundreds of years old.

And it comes from a Magdeburg Confession. There is contra-tyrannous, there is lex rex, lots of old works about when the government comes into conflict with the church, what is the church or what is the Christian to do?

And this is always regarding specious, tyrannical commands, not the things that are obvious. When the government commands you to sin, you resist. And this comes down to, for us, you have to think through wisdom, conscience, and love of neighbor, right?

You have to be wise, you have to consider the stakes, you have to consider what's going to happen, you have to love your neighbor, and then ultimately you have to obey your conscience. And if your conscience gives you clear paths to not do what the government says when it's not a sin issue, then you do not need to do what the government says, and you are going to take the consequences.

That does not mean every man is a law to himself, we live in a community, that sort of thing. So that is a recap of the year 2020 and 2021. That's basically what Christians were talking about. And then a much more interesting question started to surface after 2020, when people finally left their house again, and we started to see craziness going on, right?

Not only with COVID, but with rioting in other cities, with lots of scooping people up for political demonstrations, that sort of thing, and a lot of unrest happens. And so the question starts getting asked then, and this is a rhetorical one, but the answer to it brings us in lots of different areas.

Is Jesus Lord of Civil Government?

Is Jesus the Lord of civil government? Now, what would you guys say? Is Jesus the Lord of the civil government? Is he in charge of it? Is he the king of it? Yeah, I think most Orthodox Christians throughout history would say, yes.

The problem is, what does that mean? Jesus is the Lord of the government. Is that just a title? Is that just a thing where he's actually kind of like a deist, where he's in charge of it, but he's not doing anything about it, right?

And it's just going on. And so this is going to round us into political theory and talking about doctrine and what scripture requires of us because the government has been given a job, right? And we saw it in Romans 13.

Did you see what the job was? It's to promote good and to terrorize evil. And the way it can do that is up to and including killing. The government has a sword. Pastors and fathers don't have the sword.

They can't kill anybody, right? That's against the rules, against God's law, but the government can. Because Romans chapter 13, as few knew back in 2020 when we were trying to figure this out, Romans 13 comes after Romans 12, and Romans 12 is talking about how Christians should not take vengeance because vengeance is the Lord's, and then he goes on and says the government is an avenger.

And so what happens is God takes vengeance on evildoers through his minister, the government, who has the sword. And that's how those things reconcile together. So is Jesus Lord of the civil government?

The answer is yes. And then Christians have wide disagreement about what this means. So I'm going to do something I don't like to do and put the disclaimer here. This is not a dividing line inside the church.

I am friends and have listened to lots of people in all of these camps. I don't hate them. I do have my side. I do carry my side strongly, but it's one of these things that should not be divisive for us.

It is a thing that's an in-house squabble that we should reason together with. So the first one is this. What does it mean that Jesus is Lord of the civil government? And we have these things that start to group up.

And I'm going to give you three groups of people that try to answer that question broadly within our camp and kind of outside of our camp. This is really in conservative evangelicalism. So we're not going to talk about communism and socialism and fascism and stuff like that tonight because those are not considered viable alternatives for what the government's supposed to do from a Christian perspective.

Radical Two Kingdoms and Classical Liberalism

But there are other ideas. And the ones that serious Christians debate are up on the board. And there's variations of those, okay? So the first group, they arrive at something that boils down to classical liberalism.

It's a very kind of modern idea, but this would be called the radical two kingdoms camp. So here's the idea. When you hear two kingdoms in this discussion, the two kingdoms are the church and the state, right?

Radical two kingdoms is the idea that those two things are siloed off with very little interaction between them, right? You've got the church over here doing its thing and you got the state over here doing its thing and the two are really not supposed to deal with each other very much.

Now, radical two kingdoms is going to say that the church should advocate for good things, but they should not try to impose political power because that is not the church's job. That is a separate thing that only the state is about.

You will hear an interpretation of Romans 13 with radical two kingdoms guys that will be something like, you have to always obey the government, period. And in their consistency, radical two kingdoms people for sure advocated the vaccine and advocated masking, social distancing, all that stuff, almost to a man in 2020.

And the reason for that is it is consistent with their view of government, right? If you're supposed to do what they say, then you do what they say unless it's to stop preaching the gospel or to sin. We all agree on that.

So in radical two kingdoms, there is a deep separation between church and state. Now you notice I don't have that on the board and there's a reason I don't have that on the board. It's because radical two kingdoms theology is modern and always devolves into a different idea that is on the board, right?

And they are like this with a group that nowadays in America would be similar. They would have forefathers like the Anabaptists. Anabaptists were a group of people who basically wanted to separate off from the society, be left alone by the governments, probably so they wouldn't be killed for not baptizing their babies.

But at the same time, they were radically against state power. There were reasons for that. There were cultural reasons for that. And so the church does what it does. The state does what it does. That is radical two kingdoms.

The big proponents of radical two kingdoms slash kind of quasi-Anabaptist stuff, people you might know. Any of you guys ever heard of R. Scott Clark? If you haven't heard of him, like congratulations, you are probably a normal human being who's not drilling down to the bottom of the reformed world online.

But R. Scott Clark is probably the most notable advocate of this. But I would put in the same vein group like G3, right? They're kind of defunct now, but you guys have probably heard of them. They would have been kind of more on the Anabaptist strain of this, and you would have said it.

They would say, you would hear things like the war for independence of America was a sinful war, right? We should have listened to the king, right? And that would be consistent with this kind of idea because you do what the government says, period, all right?

Post-Millennial Theonomy

Now, the second group that we have, we would call, I'm gonna use, I don't know what they would like. Really, it's post-mill theonomy, okay? Post-mill theonomy, post-millennial theonomy. So very quickly, broad brush, post-millennialism is an eschatology that basically posits that the church is going to grow like leaven through a loaf.

It is going to continue, not in a straight line, but there's ups and downs. And that at the end of history, what's gonna happen is the church is going to have large dominance over the land. Now, the church may be the wrong way of saying that.

Christianity is going to have huge influence over the whole land. And so what's gonna happen then is Jesus is gonna come back, probably put down an apostasy, and do the final judgment of the living and the dead.

For fairness and clarity, I do believe in post-millennialism. That's what I believe. However, I cannot say that I link it to theonomy anymore. And that's probably because over the last few years, theonomists have sort of showed their hand about what they really believe about things.

And I thought it just meant we want God's law to be the law of the nation, right? That's what theonomy means, God's law over the nation. But that is not exactly what post-mill theonomy is about. Another word, Doug Wilson is a major proponent of this, and he calls himself a Christian nationalist, but we have to be careful, and this is where it gets weird, because Doug Wilson says that he doesn't mind himself being called a Christian nationalist.

So he's adopted the term, but he would not be what most people who are Christian nationalists would describe as their political program. Doug Wilson, in fact, wrote a book called Mere Christendom, and that is what he calls his political program, Mere Christendom.

The idea would be similar to some of the stuff from Christian nationalism, but there is a very important difference. Okay, so these two strains, Mere Christendom, neo-post-mill theonomy, here's the basic idea.

Jesus is the Lord of nations, and with conversions, the nations will progressively become more Christian in her laws and culture. That is incredibly important to note if you're trying to understand what these guys are.

They believe that changes in Christian law, changes which they believe will happen, right? Post-millennial, the nations will have more Christian laws over time. The way that that's gonna happen is that from the bottom, the masses are going to convert from hearing the gospel, and as they convert, they will demand more Christian laws, and therefore, the nation will have more Christian laws.

You get that? That's the idea. Now, if you're listening really closely, that should sound a lot like democracy, right? So we are Americans, and we can't escape it, okay? And that's something that I'm going to go back to a lot tonight, because when what Christian nationalists propose, it makes people go stark raving mad, and the reason why is not because, it's because we're Americans, okay?

And we have ideas about democracy, about liberalism, about republic, all that kind of stuff. Now, post-mill theonomy, right? There will be conversions, everyone will become Christian, and the nation then will become more Christian.

This will be accomplished through evangelism. I can throw a warning out there that it can result in post-mill guys sounding kind of like what they despise out of dispensationalists. So one of the criticisms that post-mill guys will throw at dispensationalists, you don't need to know the whole meaning of that word, but dispensationalists basically believe in the rapture, we're gonna be taken out, Jesus is gonna come back and rule after seven years of hell after the rapture, okay?

What other eschatologies will accuse dispensationalists of is being escapists, right? You don't have to do anything, what's the point of doing anything? You're gonna get zapped out anyway, you can't win, everybody's gonna lose until Jesus comes back and crushes the Antichrist and all that kind of stuff.

The problem with post-millennialism that very much disconnects itself from, I think, aggressive action, is that post-millennialism also almost becomes escapist, in the sense that, yeah, I mean, the whole world's gonna be Christian, I'll just keep rolling along, right?

And you will hear this, and in politics, it kind of becomes a thing where we don't have to do anything politically because Christ is king and he's gonna take it all over anyway. Do you hear kind of the similarity there?

And the idea, and it comes back to this idea, what do Christians have to do with politics? What are we supposed to do? Is Jesus Lord of the Nations? If he is, what does that mean? So, another huge thing, very important.

Every post-millennial theonomist of the modern, that everybody you would have heard of, that's Apologia, Doug Wilson, cross-politic, that whole orbit, James White, what they're going to do is they are going to see multiculturalism as being good and proper, all right?

You guys understand what multiculturalism, right? Diversity is our strength, right? It's a good thing because as the nation looks more like the nations all assembled around the throne of God in Revelation, that's a good thing, right?

We're all gonna be fine because what happens is the gospel smashes all of those distinctions. So you would hear things like this, and I have heard this from one of those men. It would be, I have more in common than a Christian Nigerian over in Nigeria than I do with my lost grandmother, all right?

You will hear things like that. I will tell you, from a technical standpoint, I would tell you that is bunk. First of all, you're probably not even gonna be able to talk to the person in Nigeria. Second of all, you don't have any familial or fiduciary responsibilities to the person in Nigeria.

But this is emblematic of what we are in America. Does that make sense? And it kind of devolves. In all these political systems, we can't escape this, and I can't either. We are Americans, and we have ideas about what government is supposed to be that has been completely shaped by us as Americans, right?

If you take that back to the Israelites under King David, they're not gonna understand what you're even talking about, right? We act like this is the biblical standard, right? The American government is what God always ordained the government to be, at least before the 2010s, right?

Christian Nationalism: Multiple Strains

There's this idea of wanting to go back to the 50s or go back to the 90s, because it was perfect then, right? That's kind of the idea. Now, here is a problem. Actually, let me do the last one. Christian nationalists, Christian nationalists fall into several camps, okay?

There are Christian nationalists who base their Christian nationalism on post-millennialism. It's a little different than the theonomist. The post-millennial Christian nationalist is going to say, God's going to take over the nations, he's going to rule them, and he's going to do that through us.

Does that make sense, see the difference? Like, we are going to attain this power because it's ordained, and that's what we have to do, so we have to get involved. Those would be theologically similar to the post-mill theonomist, but they have a different application of their beliefs.

There would also be a group that is called classical two-kingdom, so not radical two-kingdom, classical two-kingdom. Classical two-kingdom is probably the more academic and thoughtful strain of Christian nationalists you're going to run into, so put a pin on that.

I'm going to explain them. I'm going to explain another branch of Christian nationalism. Another branch is like the New Apostolic Reformation guys, right? Like, you got that, what is her name? Paula White, right?

Trump's witch advisor, okay, who is definitely a witch, definitely a false prophet, but she's also a Christian nationalist, and what she thinks is that, essentially, Trump is anointed by God as the king to put everything to right, but that is essentially a Christian nationalist program in the sense that God is going to use this man here to usher in the Christianity.

Now, I don't hold with that, and I don't think that her standpoint is very academic at all, but it is quite emotional, and there are a lot of people that are not in the reform strain that fall into that.

I have not run into anybody who's in the reform strain. That is very much a charismatic strain kind of idea, and that does go along with their idea of apostles and prophets and that sort of thing, and obviously, we're in the middle of talking about that right now.

Classical Two Kingdoms Theology

Now, back to the two kingdoms, guys. There's a few reasons to spend a little more time on them and to respect. One of the reasons is because I am one, okay, and I'm teaching this, so I get to take that mantle.

Another reason is because it is the dominant position of the reformers. Like, the reason that we're here, as far as our doctrine in 1689, it is the absolute dominant position, the two kingdoms idea, and the idea of the two kingdoms is that the church and state have different roles, but they have interactions that are necessary, and this is gonna offend American sensibilities, okay?

So, on one side, it doesn't. We like separation of church and state, right? But we don't understand it the way it's been classically understood. So, the church and state have different roles, but they can correct and submit to each other in different times.

So, for example, it is, under two kingdom theology, it is good and proper for the state to call a synod or a council of elders and churches to adopt anti-heresy laws about problematic things that are infecting the church, and this has happened numerous times in history, right?

That's how we got rid of Pelagianism. That's how we got rid of Docetism, all kinds of heresies that happened in the past. Many of these councils were called by civil magistrates because there was such disturbance in the church that they came in, right?

They did not bring the sword, so to speak, but they did call a council and make everybody figure it out because it was causing trouble. Similarly, the church can and should, under this theology, can and should instruct, intercede, plead, and pray for the civil magistrates, right?

So, the church has the keys and the state has the sword. The church has a role to play, but the state has a role to play, too. If there's a post-millennial idea, right, that the church, and I actually misspoke earlier, the church is going to rule the nations, that is actually not a proper understanding of how biblical revelation, because Jesus comes back, and when he rules the nations, he rules as a civil magistrate with the iron scepter, right?

He will be both, but the iron scepter is his rod of iron that he rules the nations with. The church is not given a rod. The church is given the keys, and so if the church is to rule the nation, then the church is the state, and we have seen things like that before, right, and it generally turns out really badly.

The church needs to know her place. The state needs to know its place. Now, there are proponents of classical two-kingdom theology. The most notable and the most well-thought by far of the modern movement is a guy named Stephen Wolfe, and he wrote a book called The Case for Christian Nationalism that is really more or less an exposition of what two-kingdom theology is, right, and he does apply it to political situations, but there's a group of people.

Now, not surprisingly, in reformed land, the two-kingdom guys and the post-millennial guy, post-millennial theonomy guys are just constantly fighting each other and don't like each other very much.

They disinvite from each other's conferences. They throw some slime, all that kind of stuff. It's a big fight right now, okay? That's going on. That's neither here nor there to us. I do want to start to kick the tires on these things with a principle.

Testing Political Theories: The Abortion Question

Now, how many of you guys want to outlaw abortion? Okay, all right. This is actually the foil, okay, because what you'll get is you'll get the radical two-kingdom guys who will say, we're totally separate.

Would you vote for, would you be for something that abolishes abortion? Yes. The post-mill theonomy guys will say, the laws don't do anything. You have to have a people that wants the laws, right? And then at the same time, they will run an organization called End Abortion Now, which is lobbying congressmen from all over the country in states to abolish abortion.

Now, I am not poo-pooing that work whatsoever. I want their hand to be strong and for them to be successful, but if you can't see the obvious contradiction to their state of theology, what they do is they make abortion the special law, right?

We have to advocate abolishing abortion, and we do that through the law, right? If we can outlaw abortion, then we will stop abortion, or at least largely stop it, but that actually doesn't apply to anything else, right?

Because if you do anything else, that's tyranny, that's trying to be a theocracy, that sort of thing. All right, so here we go. Gotta go in the speed round now. Hopefully, that's a good foundation. This is how these people come at it.

Liberalism as America's Default Operating System

We have this idea that we're all in, we're cooking in it, and it's called liberalism. Now, I'm not talking about the Democrats. I'm not talking about what Rush Limbaugh was talking about, liberals and that kind of stuff.

I'm talking about classical liberalism. Classical liberalism has a core doctrine that all of us probably have believed most of our life, and we are only now seeing it just completely disintegrate, and that is the idea, the core doctrine of liberalism is that there is a neutral public square, right?

Everybody can come into this public square, and we can vote it out, and the majority will be happy, and the minority has rights, but they will submit to it because we're all in a glorious democracy, and we can all have our own religions, right?

We can get along that way. Now, actually, that's a problem, right? Because we know of a religion right away that's made inroads in many Western liberal democracies, right, and that religion is Islam, and Islam is by nature a conquestorial religion, right?

So what Islam will do is it will take your neutral public square, and it will use it to take a microphone and to talk, and then as soon as they get enough power, they will run you out of the neutral public square, and if they get enough power, they will hole you up in your house and persecute you.

Now, what is a little known fact, though, is that Christianity is also a conquestorial religion, right? The reason we probably don't know that is because Americans have never practiced Christianity as a conquestorial religion, but if you read through the book of Acts and most of the New Testament, I defy you to come back and tell me that Christianity is not a conquestorial religion.

It is looking to take ground all the time. It is looking to convince people, to proselytize. It is looking to spread the good news, and when that good news happens, people change, right? So Christianity is conquestorial, so how can you have Christianity in a neutral public square?

We're not okay with people just dying and burning in hell without us challenging their religious priors, true? So we have to understand that even though the conquest is achieved through different means, both Islam and Christianity are conquestorial, and that's why there's such a problem with liberalism when the two of them clash.

This nation was inarguably established as a Christian nation. In fact, many of our founding documents that talk about freedom of religion were always talking about freedom of Protestant Christianity because they had no conception of any other religion being on these shores.

They weren't thinking about Hindus or Buddhists or Jews or Islamic people being here. There weren't any here, not in any numbers, and so religious freedom was about fleeing what had happened in England where there was a constant back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism and also even within the camps about whether you baptize babies or not, and it was violent, and people wanted to get away from that and practice religious freedom within Christianity.

Christianity is never going to share space with Islam. It's just not, and we see it over and over again. And so what happens is liberalism, as it's gone on for a long time, this core doctrine that there's a neutral public square, we've started to learn that the only intolerance in liberalism is for intolerance.

Does that make sense? They are extremely intolerant of intolerance. We have things that we have to do, and what's happened in our country is that the whole thing has been pushed, the program has been pushed by something we cannot tolerate, and the easiest one to identify is homosexuality, right?

Because what's happened is our government has promoted and it's got pushed, pushed, pushed, pushed, and it's something that Christians can't tolerate and our intolerance is intolerable to classical liberalism because the only rule is the rule of the majority.

The only blasphemy is blasphemy against the zeitgeist, and there will be blasphemy laws, but they will be ever-changing, and you know that. There are certain words that cannot be said right now. There are certain words that I would not dare say that would go out on the internet right now.

These words are not profane words or vulgar words. They're words that we can't say. Those are blasphemies, right? You can't say blasphemies. Every government has blasphemies. So if Christianity is true, and then we have to, which it is, right?

We're all here because we believe Christianity is true, and we see that fundamentally, liberalism is at odds with Christianity in time because liberalism or a system of it can work as long as pretty much everybody's Christian, and that's what we saw, right?

The country thrived and flourished as long as most of the people were Christian, and that's because when the neutral public square was all a bunch of different, it was Episcopalians and Lutherans and Baptists in the public square.

We're fine. We're not trying to burn each other's stuff down and go crazy and take over city councils to run people out of town. That wasn't happening, but the problem is liberalism always, always is going to devolve into democracy, and democracy is an intolerable system of government that every ancient society has banished and condemned because it's basically two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what's for dinner, right?

And that's what is ultimately gonna happen, and our forefathers and everybody else said that as soon as people know that they can vote for themselves tax money, they will do it, and we are where we are today, right?

So if Christianity is true and liberalism is at odds with Christianity, then the syllogism is liberalism is a system that cannot work over the long term, and I think I don't, if I'd been doing this 10 years ago, you guys might be throwing tomatoes at me right now, and you might be going, are you insane?

What are you? What is your politics? But now we're all kind of like, yeah, pretty much, because what's happened in the last 10 years is we are seeing the death throes of a liberal democracy because what we've seen is as the public square has devolved we have two sides that not only can't agree on stuff, we actually just can't even live with each other, right?

You can't, if you're gonna be intolerant of certain things that are promoted, then you're not gonna be able to live there. People will burn your house down, right? They will run you out of town. So what do we do?

The Anthropology of Liberalism

Here's the anthropology, and you'll hear this. This is liberalism, right? Man is enlightened. It's like Star Trek. Star Trek is a very liberal show, right? Star Trek would posit that man is enlightened, and the more that he progresses, he will continue to improve, and this is key.

His improvement will grow by leaps and bounds as he becomes more global and more tolerant, right? That is what we see playing out. What is the best man in liberalism? It's the most global man. It's the most tolerant man.

It's the man who wants the good of everybody all the time. So the core tenets of liberalism are gonna be egalitarianism, and just test my words. Think about what you see. Think about what's going on in our culture.

The core tenets of liberalism are egalitarianism, globalism, democracy, religious pluralism, and the absolutism of autonomous libertine freedom. The biggest thing that you have to have in liberalism is complete autonomous personal freedom to do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.

That's why libertarianism is a thing. Here's the problem, though. The tolerance of liberalism has to be enforced, right? So the god of liberalism is actually the government. Our god is the government, is it not?

As if we had a god king, our god is the government in this liberalism as it gets late stage, because the government doles out everything. The government is in charge of every part of human life in America.

Need some money? Go to the office and fill out some paperwork. The government will send you some, okay? Need some work? Well, go to the government website. They're gonna have a list of jobs for you. Need education?