Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Season two, episode number three, we're going to be talking about the Daily Wire versus Steven Crowder.
But of course, we're going to start the show with our binologue.
Yet a hero has finally emerged from the rubble to save us from this tyranny.
The Christ-rejecting Jew, Ben Shapiro, and his cohorts over at the Daily Wire.
An organization so courageous it's led by heroic sidekicks like Matt Walsh, who wholly reject transgenderism for children without parental consent.
Who make it clear that we should warn people before they brutally mutilate their own bodies.
I mean, how can the left possibly stop us with heroes like that?
A couple years ago, Shapiro dropped an atomic bomb on a live stream by positing that pansexuals are, quote, weird.
But that had to be deleted immediately just in case the sponsor got angry.
You see, in the culture wars, it's important to keep the enemy happy.
In fact, people who work for the Daily Wire will assure you that they'll never get any strikes, they'll never get demonetized, they'll never, ever lose a sponsor.
Unless, of course, they want to be mocked, ridiculed, slapped, spit at, sued, penalized, fined, fired, or even receive a mild beating.
But everyone knows Shapiro would never, ever hire slaves to work for him.
He pays these fierce defenders of truth tons of money, loads of money, truckloads of money.
They are not slaves.
I mean, who would honestly sell their character, their country, and their convictions for money?
Definitely not a controlled opposition, Jew-grifting media company aimed at staying within woke boundaries.
It should be noted, not all conservatives are kosher on this method of war games.
They think we should actually resist the ever-changing rules of the liberal tech oligarchs.
And apparently, 50 million dollars wasn't enough for Crowder to sell his soul and work at the Bar Mitzvah factory.
I don't get why he can't just take the wheelbarrow filled with money and walk away and shut his goyim mouth.
Honestly, the last thing we need is another media company not owned and operated by Jews.
If somehow you think that selling your soul for money is evil, you have a terrible disease of the mind which YouTube fact-checkers have so eloquently labeled the Baptist bias.
Thanks again for joining us this evening on the Baptist Bias.
I have my co-host, Ben the Baptist. Say hello to everybody, Ben.
How's it going, everyone? It's Tuesday. It's February 7th. You're right where you should be for another edition of The Baptist Bias.
And what I like so much about this podcast is we're going to look at issues that people are talking about on the Internet,
and we're going to view them through the lenses of Scripture and through the lenses of a Baptist bias.
So we're glad that you're joining us tonight, Pastor Shelley. Thanks for having me.
Now, we had a couple episodes already where we talked about the preserved Bible, and this show's not going to be focused on that,
but I did want to take just a few seconds before we dive into our show just to talk about the film and its release.
Brother Ben, you got to see this in theaters. What is your reaction to the film after having watched it in the theaters and coming out live?
Give us some thoughts.
I was very happy with the film. I think it flowed nicely. It was entertaining. The two hours flies by when you watch it.
And I have to give you the credit, Pastor Shelley, for helping to chop this thing up and make decisions on what we were going to put in the deleted scenes section.
But no, it was very exciting to finally get a chance to see it in the theaters, and I think that it's packed with essential information.
Well, you have to admit, the deleted scenes film is definitely longer than the original.
It's definitely a lot longer, yeah.
Which is exciting for a lot of people because they wanted more, and we're going to actually be releasing pretty much all the deleted scenes,
all the stuff that we worked on that was pretty high quality but just didn't make the final cut.
And silly enough, that is actually longer than the full film.
Additionally, we're going to be releasing full interviews, and I'm pretty excited for people to actually get to listen to a lot of the interviews.
There was a great one that we did with Dr. Humberto Gomez where he talked a lot about the Spanish translation work that he's done,
and a lot of that didn't necessarily fit with the film, so we didn't necessarily get to put as much of that into our project as we'd like.
But I'm excited about just releasing the full interview and hearing even his testimony. It was great.
You got to hear all the interviews. What was, in your mind, what was the one that you liked the most or you kind of enjoyed the most?
I'm going to say Dr. Phil Stringer. I appreciate his depth of knowledge on the subject matter, his respect for the received text of Scripture,
the experience that he has preaching on this subject. I would say that was probably, you know, if I have to pick, my favorite.
But Pastor Shelley, my question for you is, now that the film is done, and you put a lot of work into it as well,
I'm curious your perspective. How do you think it turned out?
You know, it's definitely interesting because whenever you think about these projects,
and it was about two or three years ago when I started even thinking about this, started planning it, even doing some of the filming,
when you start kind of getting your ideas out there, what you kind of have envisioned, and then the final product.
And I have to say that it's definitely very different than I originally thought.
You know, the inspiration of the film was to show how the bishops and the Tyndale, the previous preceding Bibles of the King James,
were saying the exact same thing in their verses as the King James in almost every place.
Of course, there's going to be areas where there were synonyms or just slight word changes.
But it would be saying the same thing, the meanings the same. And in fact, in most cases, the bishops were saying almost the exact same thing.
And I wanted to show that compared to a modern version so people could see, and I kind of made this point in the film,
that it was the same, the same, the same, and then different. And I was hoping that that would be pretty impactful.
But really, the film actually had a lot of other information that we ended up putting in there just due to our research.
You know, I feel like we learned a lot. What were some of the things that you really liked as far as the research, new things you learned from the film?
Well, first of all, I love how we proved unequivocally that the Bible teaches providential preservation.
But what I really appreciated specifically is part four, where we talked about the difference between the two philosophies associated with
one with the received text of Scripture, the other one with the critical text, and the different philosophies that are competing with each other,
one that conflicts with preservation, one that of course doesn't actually adheres to it.
And in particular, how you, Pastor Shelley, touched on the fact that older manuscripts are not always better.
And you made three points about that, which I thought were useful for people.
Because I think a lot of time people are kind of inculcated with these talking points that they're hearing from the James Whites of the world,
from these critical text proponents. And it sounds like it makes sense. Well, older must mean better.
I mean, it's closer to the originals, therefore. But I like how we take the time in the film to systematically dismantle that argument.
It's done in part four of the movie. For me, that was the highlight without giving too much away.
Well, you know, I even did a poll where I asked people what was their favorite part of the preserved Bible.
And we actually got over 400 votes on this poll. But I put out their history, why older manuscripts are not better,
the KJV versus the modern version comparisons, Ruckmanites, and then the King James Bible translation process.
And I was actually a little bit surprised by the results of this poll.
Just first off, of those five, I don't know if you remember what I said, but do you know which one kind of stuck out to you as being maybe your favorite part of the film?
History, why older manuscripts are not better, KJV versus the modern versions, Ruckmanites, or the King James Bible translation process?
Probably why older is not always better, for me personally. But I did really like the Ruckmanite part.
Yeah, which is kind of like part four. And, you know, I kind of broke it out like history is kind of part one,
why older is part four, KJV versus modern is kind of like part five, the process is part two, and the Ruckmanites is in the end of part five.
But surprisingly, history was number one, 31%.
Intriguing.
Number two is KJV versus the modern version comparisons. They like seeing the variances there.
Why older manuscripts are not better, part four, that was third, 20%.
And then the King James Bible translation process was 19%, which honestly, I really liked part two.
But, you know, as having seen it so many times in the editing process, you know, I kind of enjoyed other parts of the film more, I think, later.
But it's nice to see that a lot of people still really like that. And I honestly kind of still thought that a lot of people would pick Ruckmanites,
because that was kind of one of, it was kind of an entertaining part for me. But, you know, a lot of good comments, too. People really seem to enjoy the film.
Maybe that's more of a niche audience, perhaps, with regard to Ruckmanites.
I think with part two, what I really enjoyed was the detail that the film goes into when it comes to the translators.
I mean, literally going through some of the top scholars that were involved in the translation process, including one who knew 21 languages, Lancelot Andrews,
that was educational in my mind, because it shows you the scholarship, the level of skill and expertise that went into the making of the pure word of God, the King James Bible.
Well, we got an action packed show, we might even take some calls. So stick around, put some questions in the live chat, we might respond to one of your questions.
Thanks for tuning in. I do want to start off with another poll. And this is actually more to the topic of this evening.
But I ended up putting another poll out there. Who do you side with in the public spat, Daily Wire or Crowder?
And it's a very clear winner. Crowder won at 84%. Daily Wire, 16%.
Now, of course, before we kind of get into talking about this issue, I want to at least just educate our audience for a moment and just kind of show a few clips real quick of kind of what's going on.
If you don't know, Steven Crowder is kind of a popular YouTuber. He has over 5 million subs. He's a comedian that's kind of turned his show into a little bit more talking about current events, news, politics, things like that.
In times past, he's mostly just been strictly a comedian. And then also, the Daily Wire is mostly the company owned and operated by Ben Shapiro.
He's added several other people to their network or to their company over the last few years.
But it's mostly Ben Shapiro, who's kind of a political commentator, a political activist. He's done a lot of debates and speeches.
I think that's probably a fair assessment. Do you have anything?
No, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of what he does and what he's about.
Now, Steven Crowder is arguably probably the most popular conservative voice on YouTube. I don't know if anybody has more subs or more reach.
Some of his live streams have garnered millions of viewers when it comes to showing the election night or some of the other popular events.
So he's definitely someone that everybody's pretty familiar with.
5.93 million subscribers.
Yeah, almost 6 million. And that number hasn't even changed very much in the last few years because of how much YouTube has restricted his channel, tried to demonetize it.
And he used to be top results. And he's had to fight a lot of things on YouTube because I think he was at 5.6 almost instantly or skyrocketed that very quickly.
And then he's just been kind of stifled for a really long time.
So people plateau with the credentials.
Well, he's going to plateau. Anybody will potentially. But yeah, I think that specifically YouTube is just like restricting a lot of his content.
But there is an interesting spat kind of that's come out between these two.
And initially, Steven Crowder, he made a video talking about how he's no longer going to be on the Blaze, which the Blaze is a network that was created by Glenn Beck.
And just to give you guys a little bit of history, Glenn Beck was used to be on Fox.
And he's a Mormon who was just very extreme, very eccentric in his views and would say all kinds of weird stuff.
So Fox had to let him go. So he just ended up creating his own network.
And then Crowder ended up joining up with Glenn Beck and was part of the Blaze.
But I guess that relationship has ended. I don't know exactly why.
So Crowder was trying to find another network or platform to kind of help him.
And he ended up making a video about how it wasn't going it wasn't going well or he had some criticism to offer.
So I want to play just a few minutes here of his initial video that kind of started this controversy.
Let's play clip one.
So stopbigcon.com now exists to begin with.
It's been a while. Either this has to stop or I'm going to have to stop.
Either this, what I'm about to discuss, has to stop.
Or I don't know. This may just not be for me anymore.
So let me explain. Give me a few minutes of your time because context matters here.
I ask that you don't skip ahead. It won't take very long.
This has been a long time coming. This is a conversation that I've actively avoided, sidestepped.
And I've hoped and prayed that it not be necessary behind the scenes for a long while.
But that's no longer possible. So if you've watched for the last decade,
you know that I've always made it clear that we here at Mug Club are in the business of serving you.
The viewer, you watching, listening right now.
I've also made it clear that I wouldn't be in the business of attacking other conservatives, regardless of disagreements or personal issues.
And I've always explained my logic was relatively simple.
I believe that the world was better with more voices out there rather than less, regardless of minute differences,
considering the magnitude of the battle that we are genuinely fighting for our country right now.
But for the first time, I have to say that I believe many of those in charge in the right-leaning media
are actually at odds with what's best for you, the viewer, the customer, and more importantly, the country.
We here at Mug Club, we thought that we were all in this together, that we were fighting the media, entertainment, industrial complex.
We thought that we were all genuinely taking it to big tech.
But too many of those in charge of the big conservative platforms are verifiably in bed with them.
Big tech is in bed with big con.
The people you thought, the people I thought were fighting for you, a lot of it has been a big con.
Now, I'm specifically avoiding naming names or going after individuals in this video.
Well, I wanted to play, and I know I played a little bit of this clip, and here's the thing about Steven Crowder.
I want to first just make a comment here.
Obviously, I don't agree with Steven Crowder on a lot of things.
Steven Crowder, I don't even know if he's saved. I don't even know if he's a Christian.
And really, for the purpose of the show, I'm not going to necessarily dig into that as much.
I really more want to focus on the interesting aspect of this particular controversy,
because what Crowder is making his video about and what he started out talking about is the fact that a lot of conservative companies are in bed with big tech.
And I think that that is a legitimate criticism, and it's something that's very true, that there is a lot of these companies.
Now, he had said people that we think are fighting for the righteous cause are actually in bed with these people.
Now, I would say that I think a lot of people have realized that these people are fake and not really fighting for the right views all along.
It's just Crowder is, I guess, finally catching up that some of these people are not sincere, not real, that they're not someone that should be trusted.
But he is making it clear. He started out his video not talking about money, not talking about how much he gets paid, anything financial.
Also, he didn't name any names. He's simply just saying there's people out there that make bad contracts.
And instead of playing the whole clip, I'll just explain to you. He said, I was offered a contract, and in this contract, it said that if I get censored or lose sponsors,
that I'm going to get penalized, and this contract is going to even take away some of the budget that we have for our show.
And he was fundamentally against that because he's saying, how are we going to push back and really fight this woke culture and these big tech censors
if I'm getting punished for actually violating their terms of service?
Based on that one particular argument, I don't see how I could disagree with that. What do you think, Ben?
Well, I think it's basically forcing him to play by the rules for fear of losing his monetary, his compensation, losing his spot.
And there's kind of competing philosophies at play here, which is why I find it to be interesting as well, where one says, let's play by the rules.
Let's go with what big tech wants us to do and almost self-censor to remain on their platform.
Whereas there are others who would say, no, let's just make our own platform. Let's just preach the truth no matter what.
But yeah, I would agree. It seems on the onset unfair to be shackled with that kind of restriction from the daily wire.
I mean, what if I said, hey, from now on, I'm going to make sure that every one of my sermons meets all of the YouTube guidelines, whatever they are.
That would certainly have an impact on things that I preached or things that I say.
And anybody that has a brain in their head would realize people that are trying to play by the rules are going to change the direction of the content that they make.
Whether that content I agree with 100% or not, I don't care. It's just for the argument's sake, you cannot say you're the resistance if you're playing within their ever-changing boundaries.
And I believe it's what they want, by the way.
Of course, that is exactly what they want.
I think the ultimate goal is for you to say, when I preach, I'm going to make sure I water this down a little bit so I don't get kicked off of YouTube.
It's mission accomplished for them.
Well, and again, this is their side of the argument, which we'll play a quick clip of this too, clip number two of the daily wire's response.
But their response is, well, it's about money and we're a business and we're about making money.
But Crowder didn't bring up money. He didn't say, hey, I'm in it to just see how much money I can make as a comedian.
He's saying, I'm actually trying to shift the country into a better direction, a more conservative direction, try to help fix our country, make it to where other creators and content can be distributed and not always be beholden to big tech guidelines.
If that's his true vision, if he actually believes that, then it would not make sense to sign up for a contract that's going to restrict you on these type of situations.
So I want to play our second clip here, though, of the daily wire responding.
And again, Crowder didn't mention them in his video.
They just came out of nowhere and basically said, hey, it was us that he was talking about.
Let's play out.
All right.
Our friend Steven Crowder has launched a new initiative called Stop Big Con.
And in the video announcing the launch of the project, he talked about leaving the blaze and all the different offers that he filled in from other conservative organizations and what he thought were the real problems with those offers.
And that's led a lot of people to speculate about whether or not the daily wire is one of the people who made him an offer in particular.
Are we the ones who made the offer that he put up on the screen and talked about at length?
And the answer is, yes, that offer did come from the daily wire.
I'm not trying to hide that fact.
I'm not ashamed of that fact.
In fact, I think it's a very good offer.
But I think there's a lot of sort of misconceptions about the nature of the offer, the nature of the points.
I think Steven misunderstood a lot of the points.
And so the way we do here at The Daily Wire, we're just going to be incredibly transparent, you know, that we like to have our members be a part of the journey.
We live stream all of our company town halls, for example.
We just find that sunlight sometimes is the best disinfectant.
And so with that in mind, I'm going to talk to you a little bit about how we came to be in conversations with Steven, how those conversations ended and walk you just line by line through what the actual document that we sent over to him, a nonbinding term sheet, what it actually said and why.
First thing you should know is that I'm really miserable to be making this video.
Steven's been my friend for 10 years.
I think he's maybe the most talented person working in the conservative media space.
He's one of the top entertainers in the country, politics notwithstanding, a great comic voice.
And I find it really tragic that we're having this kind of a conversation.
But it's also very important, I think, that that we talk about it in particular because I know a lot of people who are fans of The Daily Wire were really offended by the things that Steven said in the video and their concern that maybe we're doing the wrong thing.
And I think that by the time we finish this video, you'll understand what we were thinking with our with our term sheet and how we operate as a business a little bit better.
So we have a response come out and I want to note a couple of things about this.
Number one, Crowder didn't mention them. So everybody wants to say that Crowder is the one that's causing all this controversy.
I don't believe that that's necessarily true because they didn't have to even make this video.
What if they had never made this video? Would Crowder have actually name dropped them or would you ever shame them?
They're kind of the ones making it a big public deal.
But additionally, Crowder did not say, oh, I got offered this amount of money and I wanted more.
I think we're worth more money. He's saying, I don't like the fact that there's penalties and restrictions for not following YouTube guidelines perfectly.
And if you get a strike and he's like, I was already demonetized. And in this term sheet, it says I'm going to be penalized for being demonetized.
It's like, well, that doesn't really make any sense.
Now, in their response video, The Daily Wire does not focus on the whole essence of what Crowder's argument is.
Crowder's argument, his whole video is just, hey, these people are in bed with big tech and they're trying to play by the rules.
I don't want to play by the rules. And they're just, no, he didn't like the money and here's the money and we're just a business and money, money, money, money, money.
So you have to understand when there's an argument between two people, you have to first agree on what the argument even is for there to be some kind of an outcome.
I don't see either of these sides ever really addressing one another's argument entirely because Crowder's saying I'm upset with A and they're coming out with B, just money, money, money.
And, you know, they're like, well, we don't want people to think that we're, you know, think poorly of us.
Why? Because you're playing by big tech and you're just fake and you're not really actually standing for any kind of truth, which is exactly what I personally believe.
Now, of course, I'm not saying that Crowder is like this knight in shining armor and everything he says is perfect, but let's be real.
Of these two organizations, who's being more genuine, Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro?
I think it's pretty clear. What are your thoughts about these two videos so far?
Well, I think you have one side who's trying to position this as, hey, I'm upset with restrictions that will be placed on my speech, essentially, because that's what it is.
And another side that's trying to turn it into really a financial dispute and make the claim that that's really what the problem is.
And Pastor Shelley, my question for you is, what if, let me pose it this way, does it matter in your mind whether the issue truly is financial?
Like, is that even something you're concerned with or do you just like the fact that you see a big time conservative celebrity who's talking about getting off of the big tech reservation?
Well, here's the thing. Can we really know everybody's true motivations and everything that's going on in this situation?
I personally believe no, and I think that it's wrong to just sit here and speculate and know exactly what either side's motivations are entirely.
But if we just take the argument on the surface, I have no problem with a conservative voice saying, hey, let's not just lock in and get shackles on us and say we have to do everything that YouTube wants us to do for the next four years.
I mean, think about how much YouTube has changed in the last four years.
Absolutely.
And we don't think that it's going to continually get even worse in the next four years.
Every year.
What kind of shackles are going to be in place by then?
Gets worse every year.
And Crowder will be locked in with a company that's saying already we're going to do whatever YouTube says.
You know, I think it would be foolish for anybody to sign a contract like that if they actually want to say something that they actually believe.
Now, if you don't care what you believe and you're just a paid actor, then go for it.
But I think that Steven Crowder has already proven through his history he's not just in it to make money.
Why would he have allowed himself to get demonetized on YouTube?
You know, they were in talks with YouTube and they're asking him to take certain content down.
He could have just taken it down.
He could have just played ball.
He could have never done any edgy content.
He could have stopped talking about COVID and all these different topics that were pretty hot buttoned that always got him in hot water and got his channel shut down and got his, you know, he's losing all kinds of money and revenue from saying the things that he's saying.
So why is it that he's doing that if it's just all about money?
And of course, you know, anybody with his type of talent could probably go work for Fox or go work for any of these companies and take the big paycheck and not even have to do any of the labor.
You know, he was going to actually produce his own show, but, you know, if you could work for Fox, you could work for some of these people, you just sit down, read the script, go home, make a cool 10, 20 million dollars or whatever it is.
I mean, nothing about Steven Crowder's history, you know, and again, I'm not agreeing with everything he's done.
Obviously, he's dressed in drag and all kinds of weird stuff, but, you know, and he's even had all kinds of horrible people on his show, but let's be real.
He seems to believe what he says, at least, you know, he seems to be pretty genuine.
He might be genuinely wrong in some cases, but if I were to say who's more genuine, I'm not going to say it's Ben Shapiro.
I'm not going to say it's the Daily Wire.
I would agree with that.
You know, that's kind of silly that people say, oh, you know, Steven Crowder is just making this big deal about money, but number one, he didn't even out the Daily Wire.
So how is it that he was going to make this all about money in a competition with them if they're the ones that outed themselves and they didn't even address the real issue?
They just made a big thing about the money, and then you have Candace Owens and some of the other hosts going out there and just slandering Crowder relentlessly saying he's just evil and a socialist.
There's a video clip of Candace Owens saying that he's a socialist now.
I didn't know that.
Yeah, because he didn't like being beholden to big techs.
Wow.
Talk about gaslighting.
But, you know, he did make another video, and I want to just play a very short piece of this, only a few seconds, but he made a third video where he shows that he recorded a phone call.
Let's play that.
They don't get deals that they can be wage slaves for a little bit.
Come over and make a salary and grow their brand.
They can be wage slaves for a little bit.
Now, a lot of people have made a big deal about this and said that Steven Crowder is basically the scum of the earth for recording a friend and airing it out on live YouTube land.
It's not TV, I guess, anymore.
Whatever you want to call that.
The internet.
Live internet.
So, you know, here's the thing, obviously, to record someone, you know, and they don't know that you're being recorded, or it's a personal friend that definitely can seem pretty
or it could feel like you're being betrayed, in essence.
So you'd only want to do this if you felt like someone was doing something really shady or really bad.
But here's the thing.
If he truly believes, even if it's his friend doing something really shady, and they're not going to admit it, you know, it kind of is what it is.
I mean, they came out and said, hey, we're the contract.
Steven Crowder is basically lying, and they kind of attacked him.
And then he comes back with his recorded phone call, and then he's like, he's the bad person.
That's like, really?
It just makes him the bad person just because, you know, it's a fight.
It's a little ugly, number one.
Number two, I personally don't record any of my friends.
So, you know, you have to ask this question, how good of friends were they at that point?
You know, has there been some foul play that we're not really privy to, and he got to that point where, well, now he's recording the phone call.
Did he record it just because it was a business agreement, and they just wanted to simply, he wanted to know.
They kind of act like it was an ambush.
Maybe it was.
But here's the thing.
If, if someone's doing something shady, and you call them out on it, why are you focusing on the recorded phone call, you know, as opposed to actually the shady thing that happened?
And of course, his friends calling the people that work for them wage slaves, just kind of a colloquialism.
I get that.
But it's just to illustrate Crowder's point, though, what is Crowder's point?
These people are coming in and just doing whatever they tell them to do.
They're kind of locked in.
They have the shackles of YouTube and big tech that they have to be beholden to.
And Crowder's not interested in just getting a paycheck.
But what would be implied if I called you a wage slave?
That, I mean, I was, first of all, beholden to you and getting a paycheck.
I mean, it's certainly not saying screaming, I want to be an independent creator making my own content.
It's saying I'm just getting a paycheck.
Yeah, I'm getting a paycheck.
I'm kind of a run of the mill employee.
I mean, what's the difference between Dan Rather, what's the difference between Ann Coulter, what's the difference between any of these news anchors, Brian Stelter, and one of these people on the Daily Wire?
Are they not all wage slaves?
They're just simply reading from the teleprompter at that point?
Does that even, does it even matter what they believe or think?
Well, that's what you see with a lot of the mainstream media, is it's a bunch of people who have no personality.
They sit in front of the camera, they read the prompter, they have no opinions of their own, they do what they're told, they espouse what they're told to espouse, they say what they're told to say.
And I think that if the so-called alternative media or conservative media is going to go down that route, then they're really no different than the corporate media that you see, CNN, Fox News, et cetera.
But again, we've got to think about this.
Daily Wire, as a business model, is essentially trying to espouse every day, we're fighting censorship.
Yeah.
We're fighting big tech.
We're fighting the woke culture.
I mean, they're selling this. You have advertisements going out saying, buy our product because we're fighting YouTube, we're fighting big tech.
And then you have it being exposed, well, actually we do everything YouTube wants us to do.
I mean, that pretty much undermines their entire business.
Yeah, we fight them by adhering to every single one of their rules and penalizing our own people for violating them.
I mean, what if I said, I'm going to have a series on the Catholic Church, exposing the Catholic Church, but I did sign an agreement with the Catholic Church that I wouldn't say anything that they didn't agree with.
That would just expose the whole point of that entire show or that entire network.
So, you know, who's really the betrayer? Is it Steven Crowder betraying his friend, or is it the Daily Wire betraying all the people paying them money on a regular basis, kind of lying to them about how much they're really fighting the system?
And again, I get that some people's business model is to play within the boundaries of YouTube because, you know, what's the point of going on YouTube if you're just going to get kicked off?
I don't think there's a point to just nuke yourself. Hey, we're streaming on YouTube right now, but we're planning on doing the same as these other guys where we have off YouTube segments and the later part of Baptist bias that we can go to a platform where we can have Ben say whatever he wants about Bill Clinton or about Hillary Clinton or any of those things.
And I think that there's value in both. But again, why would I sign a contract that says whatever YouTube wants me to do, we're going to do that.
You know, I think that that really undermines the whole point. And I hope that our producer can get this pulled up, so I'm going to give him a second, but I have an advertisement or some kind of a post from Jordan Peterson.
I emailed them to separately, and it shows kind of, in my mind, the fakeness about them. Now, let's pull up this on the screen. It's Jordan Peterson. This is a sponsored post.
So this is on Facebook, and sponsored means they're paying money, and it was already proven that The Daily Wire gave $7 million to Facebook last year, I believe, for advertising specifically.
But this post says it is an irrefutable fact that woke indoctrination is having harmful effects on society. So here comes The Daily Wire to really help us, you know, with this woke culture, right?
It says if you have wondered how we've gotten to this point and how we can push back against it, I recommend a new series called The Master's Program with Dennis Prager, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
So you know how you're going to fight and push back against all the woke indoctrination is by agreeing and staying within all of YouTube's guidelines. That's how you're going to push back.
Now, Prager, you, was considered like this big conservative group, and Dennis Prager is considered really conservative. But you know, Dennis Prager also goes out there on Twitter, on social media, praising Dave Rubin and his partner for adopting children.
How is that fighting the woke indoctrination when you're literally letting two men adopt children? I mean, what is really worse than that? I mean, it's just so bizarre to me that people still fall for this trash and claim all The Daily Wire is conservative and fighting YouTube.
It's like Ben Shapiro is not fighting YouTube. He's not fighting the woke ideology. Ben Shapiro is a Jew. I mean, how would I, why would I trust someone that denies Christ as Savior for any particular ideology, any particular, you know, battle? I mean, when did unsaved Jews ever do anything positive in the Bible?
Crickets. That's my answer.
I mean, what do you have Barabbas pulling an insurrection? I guess, you know, but it didn't really work out, did it? Didn't really liberate anyone. And I don't think that Ben Shapiro is the next Barabbas, folks.
He's not going to set up some kind of an insurrection. It's pretty clear that Ben Shapiro cares about one thing. What's that one thing? Money. Exactly. Which, what, what was the response video to Crowder?
Money. Yeah, exactly. So, you know, it's, it's very clear that there's one thing that Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire care about is money. Crowder, I'm sure does care about money, and I'm not saying that he doesn't. Maybe he wanted more money.
But at the end of the day, he also seems to care about being able to say what he believes, having freedom of speech, fighting back and being conservative, and not just being beholden YouTube. I mean, he has switched to Rumble and got a lot of people over there, and he's tried all kinds of alternatives.
He's really just stuck with YouTube because he has 6 million subs or something, almost, and it just has a platform over there. But I believe, and he said it many times, that he would get rid of YouTube tomorrow if he could, because he just hates all the restrictions and the shackles that are associated with it.
And he's not even getting monetized from it. So, you know, why does he care about YouTube other than just continuing to reach people and to share his ideology?
Now again, I'm not advocating Steven Crowder's ideology. What I find interesting is this argument of, hey, should we push back against YouTube? And again, I appreciate that because as someone that's constantly censored, shut down, having things taken down,
it's nice to have other people like Crowder pushing back against YouTube and being a bigger platform and a bigger voice with more weight to be able to try and stop the censorship.
Because if it wasn't for people like Steven Crowder, I'm sure we'd be censored even more. Who knows how much more they would have shift the Overton window towards the left if we didn't have anybody fighting back except for us.
Because nobody cares about us. I mean, YouTube will smoke us like this. But, you know, they care about people like them because of being sued and some of just the public outcry and the fact that some of these bigger voices could draw a lot of people away from their platform and their advertising.
So, you know, and of course, YouTube now makes money on advertising whether you like it or not. I mean, we released the Preserve Bible and I went and looked at it. YouTube put 31 ads into our film.
And it's just like, what? I don't make a dollar off of that. I don't make a cent off of that. It's actually really frustrating because it caused a lot of people not even to watch the movie anymore.
But of course, it's clear YouTube's hurting for money. They're just putting advertising on every single video. It seems like the advertising is more on YouTube than ever before. Have you noticed that?
Yeah, even when they don't give you any of the profits. We're not monetized. We never will be monetized. That's obvious. I mean, it's a new IFB channel. This is a new IFB pastor. You better believe the ads are not monetized on the documentary.
They just chose to riddle it, to fill it with ads. It's like, it seems like every 10 seconds an ad comes up. And of course, you never know what kind of weird thing will be included in that ad. And so that is frustrating.
You said a lot of really interesting stuff. Again, I want to just emphasize for the audience, there's a debate in the chat room, you know, oh, Crowder this and that and Shapiro.
Again, it's not that we're advocating for one personality or the other. We're talking about two competing philosophies. One that says, play by the rules. We are beholden to the big tech overlords and their rules and regulations.
And another that says, you know what? No, I don't want those handcuffs on me. I want to say what I'm going to say, regardless of what YouTube has to say in response, regardless of their rules and their regulations.
And I think, again, think about this from the big picture. What's the point? What is the point of all this censorship? Why do they delete Pastor Steven Anderson, a friend of ours from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tevye, Arizona?
Why do they keep deleting his channel? Why do they delete our channel, the original Steadfast Baptist Church channel? Why did they delete the First Works Baptist Church channel?
It's not just so that the information cannot be disseminated, but it's also to intimidate you and people like you from preaching the truth and watering down your own message and censoring yourself for fear of taking your mouthpiece or should say having your mouthpiece taken away.
Because YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, whether we like it or not, Pastor Shelley, is the digital public square. And so I think there's still some use for it. However, I like the idea of using it to guide people to an alternate platform where you can really speak your mind.
But my point is this. I appreciate the mentality that says I'm going to stand for what's right, regardless of what YouTube says. Nuts to them.
Yeah. And again, whether I agree with Steven Crowder on his viewpoints, whether he's saved or not, I just agree with his philosophy that we should fight back against the censorship.
And of course, the reason why Crowder gets censored is not because he's lying. It's usually when he's telling the truth.
You know, albeit maybe it's rare, but I'm sure Crowder has said a lot of good things. Hey, even Ben Shapiro has said things that are true and I would agree with and he gets censored for that as well or has problems sometimes.
But again, if he's going to lose any kind of money, he'll shut up real quick. I mean, he accidentally, I guess, called pansexuals weird and then is like, oh, let's take that out because we could lose sponsors.
First of all, what the hell does that even mean? Second of all, what kind of spineless twerp? Can we delete that? I said they were weird and I don't want to put that in there. Our sponsorship.
My wife is a doctor and she would obviously diagnose them as weird. Well, you know, we could lose a sponsor and I don't want to do that. Let's go ahead and cut that out.
That's a better impression. I mean, here's the thing. Ben Shapiro is is not addressing the issue. And I did have a clip of his.
I do want to show clip number five, if we can, of Ben Shapiro talking about Steven Crowder in the past. And, you know, he did make a response to Crowder and he said that, you know, oh, this is just a bunch of lies and he's betrayed us.
And, you know, we really fight. We do fight the man or whatever. And it's just like that's that's a joke. But when Crowder got demonetized three years ago.
He ended up drawing a lot of attention because it was like one of the first big names to get demonetized on YouTube. And these people that have six million subs, I mean, they make a lot of money on the advertising if they're able to.
However, you know, when you get demonetized, you get nothing. Yet YouTube still makes the money. They still get to pocket all the revenue from your channel.
Exactly. So I think that's why YouTube didn't take Crowder down just because they probably make a lot of money on him, but they, you know, won't let him get any of the money. Now, Ben Shapiro made a commentary three years ago trying to defend Steven Crowder.
But I want you to pay attention to what he actually says. Let's play the first minute of this clip.
YouTube is now cracking down on any creator who offends somebody. This is basically what we have learned over the past 24 to 48 hours. You don't have to violate YouTube's terms of service in order for them to penalize you if you wind enough.
So if you wind a lot, you can get YouTube to pull down creators videos, thousands of creators videos, if you wind a lot and claim that you are a victim and suggest that you are being harassed.
Well, then, you know, your whininess is bravery. Your whininess is great. This is pushed by a guy named Carlos Mazo. Carlos Mazo is YouTube is now cracking down on any creator who offends somebody.
This is basically what we have learned over the past 24 to 48 hours. You don't have to violate YouTube's terms of service in order for them to penalize you if you wind enough.
So if you wind a lot, you can get YouTube to pull down creators videos, thousands of creators videos, if you wind a lot and claim that you are a victim and suggest that you are being harassed.
Well, then, you know, your whininess is bravery. Your whininess is great. This is pushed by a guy named Carlos Mazo. Carlos Mazo is a commentator and basically an activist over at Vox.
He used to work for Media Matters, which tells you exactly what he sees his job as being. The fact that he is considered a journalist is ridiculous. He is not a journalist. He's an activist. He's a pseudo journalist.
And so he has been pushing this idea that Steven Crowder, a person with whom I am friends, a comedian. I don't always love everything that he says in the pursuit of comedy, but he's a comedian.
And he has made fun of Carlos Mazo by doing something that he does on a routine basis to many people. Every time I'm on his show, he makes Jewish jokes. He calls his lawyer half Asian lawyer Bill Richmond.
He had a producer named Jared. He used to call him Not Gay Jared. He has a producer who he calls Quarter Black. I can't remember the name of his producer. This is just a running shtick on his show.
Well, he referred to Carlos Mazo as a queer. The reason that I'm saying the word is because I'm not sure exactly what the context is for when this is appropriate. Carlos Mazo calls himself queer, but if Steven Crowder says the word queer, then it's obviously some sort of insult according to Carlos Mazo.
So I'm not sure what the rules are because the rules change every five seconds or so. Suffice it to say, I would not say that about Carlos Mazo because that's not a word that I use, even if Carlos Mazo uses the word about himself in any case.
So we have Ben Shapiro admitting that, well, barely, he's like, oh, Steven Crowder called him a queer. Did I say that out loud?
Then he's like, it's not a word that I would use. I mean, I would never say that. I mean, this is the guy fighting YouTube. This is the guy fighting the liberal leftists. He said he won't even use the word queer, even though he said that's what this commentator calls himself.
I mean, that's what it stands for in the LGBTQ is queer. You can't even use that word. I mean, this is how soft Ben Shapiro is. Not somebody, you know, this is back when Crowder got demonetized.
And, you know, if you listen to the whole clip, it's five minutes, never does Ben Shapiro say anything like, you know what, we should fight YouTube and we need YouTube to stop demonetizing and this is wrong.
It's just like, well, you know, I don't like it. And I called him and chewed him out and stuff like that. But he's not saying, well, we're going to fight this and we're going to push the limits.
He's like, I don't know what the rules are, so I don't even know what I can say right now because Ben Shapiro is going to play by the rules no matter what they are, no matter what the narrative is.
This is what you literally call controlled opposition.
And he's a scaredy cat, little wimp. I mean, it's almost like he was getting ready to say it. Did you notice the hesitation on his face before he said the word queer?
Queer, queer, queer. All right. It's not that hard. Grow a set and stop being a little sissy who plays by the left wing, deranged, depraved rules that these bunch of freaks come up with. Stop letting them control our language.
Easy now, Ben. I don't want to have to penalize you for getting a strike on YouTube.
You know, I shouldn't be shocked that somebody like that. You know, the Bible would do this. The Bible says about Jews in First Thessalonians, chapter number two, verse 15, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men.
Ben Shapiro, the Jew, contrary to all men, according to the scriptures. And he's also too afraid to use certain words that might not be politically correct. They're queers. All right. It's real easy to say it.
Well, there's like an unholy alliance between Jews and queers, apparently.
Well, where two or three Jews are gathered together, there's a queer in the midst.
There's a queer in the midst.
That's stolen, but I like it. I want to play another person's perspective here. We have Mark Dice clip that I want to play just a few seconds of. Now, he has a pretty strong take on this particular issue.
And, you know, Mark Dice doesn't like The Daily Wire. He says that and he's criticized them for sure. But he came out really strong against Crowder and basically just accused him of just being a money-grubbing liar.
But I want to play just a few seconds of his words here so I don't take them out of context.
So Steven Crowder says that he's going to expose the phony brand-name conservatives now that he has left the blaze. And is independent or is he the phony and a coward trying to cash in on a fake controversy?
Stay tuned and subscribe to my channel for new hair because I'll break it down like nobody else since I have no strings attached, I haven't signed any NDAs with anyone, and I don't believe in any sacred cows.
Crowder's big announcement this week after he returned from a three-week Christmas break was this.
We here at Mug Club, we thought that we were all in this together, that we were fighting the media, entertainment, industrial complex. We thought...
So Mark Dice is saying Crowder's just in it for, you know, the fame, it's a fake controversy. Make sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel and click down and buy my book and my shirt.
You know, it's kind of funny how Mark Dice does all the same things. But, you know, at the end of the day, I don't really care.
You know, Mark Dice says this, Crowder just wanted 130 million dollars and he was mad that they were only offering him 50. He thinks he's worth a lot more money.
You know, arguably, I don't know what it takes to run one of their production studios, number one.
You know, they always say 50 million, but it's a four-year contract. So it's not like just 50 million dollars. That's 12 and a half per year.
So you have 12 million for year one to produce a show. Crowder's claimed he has 30 employees.
On top of that, they have to pay rent, legal fees, employees, costs, cameras, equipment, all the other stuff.
I mean, honestly, it would be hard to imagine Crowder making more than, you know, 500,000 dollars or 600,000 dollars, maybe a million tops if he was really, really conservative with his budget.
And that's year one. But think about this. Inflation is increasing so much every single year, but he's locked in for four years.
And not only that, he's actually locked in for six if you paid attention to their term sheet because they said that if Daily Wire wanted to, they could just extend it for two more years, not with Crowder.
You know, Crowder didn't have to say, okay, they basically have the option to just do that if they want to.
So think about six years in the future what inflation could do to the budget, you know, that you might have gotten used to back then.
I mean, 50 million might sound like a lot of money. And I'm not saying that it's not a lot of money.
But, you know, people want to act like Crowder's just getting 50 million dollars just to just, you know, oh, just produce a show or something like that.
You know, there's a lot of money that would have to have been spent in order to even produce a show for as long and as many episodes and as much content as they were wanting.
Plus with the fact that he could possibly be penalized and money could be taken away from strikes or demonetization or losing sponsors, which is probably a real threat for someone like him.
So, you know, but so him asking for more money, in my opinion, might have been legitimate.
But even if he did or didn't, I don't care because it doesn't, he said very clearly in his videos, he said, hey, look, you erase all these penalties and you say you won't penalize people for getting strikes and I'm good to go.
Well, you'd have to call his bluff if he didn't really mean that. He didn't say, oh, and a whole bunch more money. He's saying, look, just take this stuff out and we'll make an agreement or we'll do whatever.
It's just that Daily Wire is not going to go against big tech. They're not going to go against YouTube. They're not going to go against their platform.
And you know who also doesn't do that? Mark Dice. I mean, when have you ever seen Mark Dice get a strike or produce edgy enough content to lose his entire channel?
Mark Dice would, if he lost his YouTube channel, would lose pretty much everything probably. I think Crowder has a way bigger following and a lot more platforms, a lot more alternatives to go to.
He also has stand up comedy routines and all kinds of things to generate revenue. If Mark Dice lost his YouTube channel, his income might be devastated by like 80 or 90% overnight.
So that guy has to play by the YouTube algorithm and the YouTube guidelines. How is it fair for him to criticize Crowder for not wanting to play by these rules?
When Crowder clearly hasn't, Mark Dice always does. I mean, to me, it was not a fair analysis by Mark Dice.
And look, I like a lot of Mark Dice videos. I don't necessarily agree with him on everything either, but I think he's wrong when it comes to this particular controversy.
What is your take on Mark Dice?
What stood out to me was the $50 million number you brought up. It's a large number. It seemed gargantuan at first, but I hadn't really thought about it until we spoke.
All the expenses that go into making a podcast or a live stream, live show like Steven Crowder's show or others that are broadcasted live and the expenses, the employees that he has to pay and all of that.
Of course, it's over a number of years as well. And so what seems like on the onset, he's rejecting $50 million that he can immediately take 100% of and go buy a gold boat.
That is really not the case. It's not a situation where he's rejecting literally tens of millions of dollars to buy a gold boat, but rather when you divide it all up, it's actually a much smaller number.
So that, I think, pokes some holes in the argument that says that Crowder's motivation is solely financial.
Now what's the alternative? Let me ask you this question because I'm curious. If you're somebody like Mark Dice where your livelihood, if you will, is tied to YouTube and using your channel means losing your audience, losing your ability to sell merchandise and therefore losing your ability to make a living.
What's the alternative? What do you advocate for somebody in his position to do to be able to break free from that and actually say things that would violate the terms of service on big tech?
Here's my opinion. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't build a business on YouTube. What viable product does Mark Dice provide for us?
I mean, he literally just goes to the beach and finds the dumbest people on drugs and then ask them questions. And I would love to know if Mark Dice is even sincere. I question that because how many videos is he walking around with a gold bar or silver coin?
You're going to tell me nobody ever took a gold bar over a chocolate bar when he's going around there offering these people $1,500, cold hard cash essentially when it comes, he's like, hey, we're standing right in front of this coin shop.
I mean, how many outtakes did he not air in some of those segments? And, you know, I saw in the comments, and this is true, Mark Dice is like one of the biggest Trump fanboys I've ever seen in my entire life.
I mean, this guy just loves him some MAGA, loves him some Trump and Trump's not some really extreme conservative. He doesn't stand for conservative values.
So, you know, while Mark Dice definitely has pushed the limits in some cases, you know, brings up things like Operation Northwoods and Bohemian Grove and stuff like that, he seems to have some pretty big blind spots of his own.
And I just find it bizarre that he just attacked Crowder so hardly without even focusing on the issue of actually pushing against YouTube censorship.
I mean, when did Mark Dice even say, hey, YouTube censorship is a problem. We need to push back against this. You know, I don't think we should play by their rules.
He didn't even bring that. He just money, money, money, money. Why is everybody just so focused on money? You know, the Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil.
So, you know, the root of all evil. I mean, how can you have a lot of respect for someone that's just the biggest Trump fanboy?
Well, I think everybody involved is a huge. Isn't it true that aren't they all huge Trump fans? Isn't this a battle between everybody who loves Trump?
Well, I've seen Crowder give a legitimate criticism against Trump. Does Crowder criticize?
Yeah, he's called out Trump for lots of things that he personally disagreed with. Now, I mean, he may still be overall an advocate for him. I don't know.
I think that a lot of people that are, say, born again Christians that voted for Trump or, you know, basically think he's the lesser of two evils.
So, you know, you're going to demonize a lot of people if you say anybody has ever supported them.
Now, I personally don't. I think that he's across the line for me as far as someone that I would want to support.
But obviously, if you have to pick between Joe Biden or Donald Trump, it's not really a hard choice.
The question is, can you really get behind supporting someone that has the morals of Trump? I mean, the morals of Trump are so destitute.
It's sad that you would even think anybody's worse than him. But that's the state of America.
Well, and what kind of turns me off, the thing with Trump, you look at his support for the clot shot, and that's where I think he loses a lot of people as well.
The fact that you have somebody who sort of brands himself as an anti-establishment figure, and in some ways is on certain issues, foreign policy, going against the corporate media and things like that.
But then ties himself to big pharma, to the medical industrial complex, where you have rather guys like Rhonda Santis who are actually coming out maybe a little bit and talking a little bit about some of the issues associated with the clot shot.
So I think with Trump, that's another major issue that I have with him. And I also believe, Pastor Shelley, and since we're talking about conservative ink, isn't it frustrating just how far left the Overton window has shifted?
Because I heard someone say this, and it's so true. He said, Donald Trump, really, he's kind of like a Democrat from maybe 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago.
That's not even true. He's like a Democrat from two years ago.
Two years ago, yeah.
Barack Obama, his campaign was against same-sex marriage.
Right, and that's hard, it's like mind-blowing when you think about it.
Barack Obama was more conservative than Donald Trump to date by a long shot, as far as at least their talking points. I'm not saying as their person, I mean obviously they're all fake and lying about it, but just their public persona.
Barack Obama and Democrats were way more conservative just a handful of years ago than any Republican almost is today.
Clinton, I believe it was the Clintons who supported DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Clinton.
You might be right, we should fact check that one.
Let's fact check it. I'll do it while you talk. But, you know, the guy who forces women.
But my point is, Pastor Shelley, isn't it frustrating just-
The Defense of Rape Act, that's what he really wanted.
Yeah, that's exactly what he would have liked to pass through.
But to see how far left the window was shifted and how what constitutes conservatism, it's getting weaker and weaker, I guess is my point.
And to me as a Bible-believing Christian, I don't have shifting sands, we don't have shifting sands as Christians, we have the word of God.
So it's frustrating as we stand where conservatism was back in the day, right?
We're just normal. We're just normal and then everybody else is going off the deep end and they look back toward us and call us the extremists.
Yeah. Well, again, this is a completely different subject. I want to play some more clips here in a second.
I want to play clip number 8 of Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh and I want to talk about that.
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
When was that?
I don't know.
Okay, but-
Let me find it here.
You made me forget my point.
Sorry, go ahead.
When we look at how extreme candidates have gotten, I don't think that the world or America has rapidly changed.
I think that it's kind of been a big propaganda and brainwashing tool of the social media where they're engineering people that believe that everybody's changed and evolved on these issues when they haven't.
I think that even majority of Democrats probably disagree with the Democrat policies and beliefs, but it's just kind of this big megaphone of social media, big tech, and the media that's trying to amplify their opinion and try to pretend like everybody believes like them when really probably very few actually are a side of them.
I'm sure obviously 10, 15% of our population is probably going to believe anything and everything they say, but I really think the other 85% probably resist it by and large.
It's not even close.
It's just they're amplifying this small minority of voices and they're trying to get everybody to just think, oh, everybody believes this way, everybody thinks this way, everybody is on board with this agenda when-
Honestly, I don't think that that's even close.
I think that our country is a lot more conservative than we realize.
It's just kind of a facade.
And again, that's why they need the propaganda.
That's why they need the censorship.
That's why they need to put all these restrictions in place because they know that the general populace is not on their side already, is not going for what they believe.
They're trying to constantly brainwash them.
Now, to go back to our argument here, and again, I could show a lot of clips of Crowder and things that he's done that I disagree with.
He's had Dave Rubin on his show.
Obviously, Dave Rubin's a horrible person.
He should never have him on there.
Steven Crowder doesn't, I don't even know if he's saved.
He's had Mark Driscoll, a pastor that I don't believe is saved, kind of a new Calvinist.
I believe he's a false teacher.
He's had him on the show, said that he really respects him.
I don't know if he's saved or not.
I know his co-host, Gerald, espouses a lot of pro-Zionist views and everything like that.
But let's say Crowder is just bad Christianity, which I don't know if that's a fair comparison or a fair analogy.
But let's look at the Daily Wire for a second and let's see what their version of faith is.
We have a Jew and then we have a new person added to the show, Matt Walsh, who's a Catholic.
Now, Matt Walsh used to have a little blog and then I guess he totally sold out to the Daily Wire.
And he's so conservative that he made a film called What is a Woman?
Where he had to ask this really hard question of what a woman is to a bunch of transgender surgeons and medical professionals.
And, you know, I watched the entire film, but I walked away from the film and maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong.
But essentially, it seemed like the only thing that Matt Walsh was advocating for was that children could not get gender transition surgery unless they had parental consent.
And number two was that if anybody were to ever get a gender transition surgery, they should be warned of all the risks associated with it.
And we shouldn't have as much propaganda just in advocacy for it.
Outside of that, I mean, he didn't seem to say that trans people couldn't exist.
It's just that we didn't have to use their pronoun if we didn't want to and that homosexuality wasn't necessarily a problem.
It was just forcing children to do this against their will, basically, or lying to them about it that was his big issue.
I mean, is that really fighting the woke ideology?
No, it's weak. It's weak, it's watered down, and that's the frustration with these guys that Christians, a lot of Christians look to and think are actually fighting the good fight.
Here's how you respond to this nonsense, to this depravity going on in our culture. It's called Leviticus 2013. Take the Bible off your shelf and read it and you'll see what it says.
And the thing is, Pastor Shelley, with somebody like a Matt Walsh and a lot of these conservative ink personalities is that they will essentially make a documentary, do a podcast, get up in front of an audience and say one plus one is two.
And then I am supposed to applaud them for that.
Well, no. I think we should probably go a little bit further than saying one plus one is two. Again, I'm frustrated with the standard of what conservatism is supposed to be continuing to deteriorate year after year.
Well, just to give you a little sample of what kind of ideology you're getting from Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, let's play a little clip here of Matt Walsh explaining his beliefs.
You're known for not only being very caustic, but obviously being very religious. So what is your religious background? We'll get into religion a little bit more deeply a little bit later in the show, but what's your religious background? What's your belief system?
Yeah, I'm Catholic. So I grew up very Catholic, very conservative Catholic. I've got five brothers and sisters and one of my sisters is a nun now, so that's the kind of Catholic family that we have.
But I grew up in a very kind of liberal area, going to public schools. So you had to, your parents had to instill in you the ability to defend, not just the ability to defend your beliefs, but also the willingness and sort of finding joy in that argument.
So I think that's kind of where I got it from. And how did all of this impact on your politics? So you're a conservative, obviously. You were not a super pro-Trump conservative during 2016. So how does your worldview shape your political views?
Well, you know, for me, the first objective for everyone is to get to heaven, right? That's the first objective is our spiritual fulfillment. So that to me is number one before you get to politics or anything like that.
All right, let's stop it for just a second. So, you know, so far, obviously he's Catholic, so I don't agree with that. But, you know, this isn't, I like his answer, where he says, hey, the most important thing that you can even decide first is if you're going to heaven or what it takes to get to heaven before you're gonna end up deciding what you believe about politics.
Now, that's obviously the right mentality, but then let's hear what he has to say about going to heaven.
And this is, you know, one of the problems I see in the conservative movement now is I don't, it seems like it's not really grounded in anything like maybe it used to be, grounded in those deeper kind of spiritual moral truths.
So I think it's got to be kind of ground up from there. What are your fundamental beliefs? And that is why are we here? What's the point of life? What's the point of any of this? I think those are the questions you have to be able to answer. And then once you can answer those questions, then you sort of build your political framework on top of that.
So from a religious point of view, and you say that the goal is to get to heaven, are you a belief-based person? I mean, is it that you believe in Christ and therefore you go to heaven? Or is it a workspace thing? Because obviously this is sort of a differentiator between Judaism and Christianity and some iterations.
Yeah, I think, well, and I don't mean to dismiss like 500 years of fighting between Protestants and Catholics, but I kind of think that at least between Protestants and Catholics, the works versus faith dichotomy, it's kind of a misunderstanding.
Because I think we actually generally agree in that I certainly don't believe that the whole point of life is just to intellectually assent to the proposition that Jesus Christ is Lord and there is a God. So people will say that all you have to do is believe in Jesus, all you have to do is believe in God. I definitely don't believe that.
Alright, let's pause again.
So Matt Wallace is going to go on a little rant here of what he actually tries to describe as getting to heaven. But notice with just a quick stroke of the hand, just, yeah, I mean, I know Protestants and Catholics kill each other for hundreds and hundreds of years, but it was really just, they actually agreed and didn't realize it.
What do you think about that kind of history?
I think it's trash. And I've heard it so many times from people like him.
He needs to watch the preserved Bible. Yeah, I guess William Tyndale being executed for believing salvation by faith was just a misunderstanding.
Right. Or even the Dark Ages where laymen, lay people were penalized, executed for just reading the Bible in their own language.
Yeah, but I'm saying specifically on the salvation issue. And what I really liked about our film is if you if you listen to the charges laid against William Tyndale right there at the beginning, the first one is that he believes salvation by faith.
But then they said the second one was just a merely trust in his mercy was enough to receive salvation.
He maintained that faith alone justifies.
Yeah. And basically illustrating that he believed that it was a one time trusting in Christ and just simply believing in his mercy would take him to heaven.
And they executed him for that particular belief. Oh, but it was just a misunderstanding.
Why so much vitriol from the Catholics if it was just a misunderstanding, Pastor Shelley?
I mean, to say that it's just a misunderstanding is is really just to show they're ignorant of history and obviously is clearly wrong on this particular issue.
Now, of course, you know, no one advocates for intellectual assent.
No, they didn't say first William Tyndale maintained that intellectual assent to the fact that a God exists is enough for salvation.
No, no one believes that no one's ever said that.
So, you know, what he was actually executed for was partly I mean, you know, translating the Bible and giving the Bible to people.
But really, the reason why they were so mad about that is because he was helping people realize salvation by faith.
And the Catholic Church does not believe that.
And Matt Walsh is still a Catholic that still doesn't believe in that very clearly.
Now, just based on that one premise, we know that nothing that Matt Walsh is going to basically say or believe is going to probably ever go to the ultimate truth, which is salvation by faith.
And while people like Steven Crowder, I don't know if he's saved or not.
I'm sure he would at least give lip service to salvation by faith, at least, you know, he's not going to get up and say just work salvation.
If he did, someone could show me the clip.
But Matt Walsh is going to very clearly say that and then he's going to just start blaspheming a lot of things about God.
Let's play a little bit more of this clip.
There isn't a lot of in terms of description of what the afterlife is actually going to look like and and and everything that it entails.
So, you know, I think if you look at if you look at you have to look at Christian philosophy through the ages and how they've sort of developed this idea.
One for me, in terms of my thinking about the afterlife, for me, the most influential thing that I've read besides the Bible would be C.S. Lewis Great Divorce.
I don't know if you read that.
I don't know how biblical it really is, but what I like about what in that book is what he does is he he's able to really illustrate how it is that a person might choose hell instead of heaven.
Because the only thing that makes sense for me in terms of hell is, well, it's not so much that God sends you there.
Even if you really want to go to heaven, God says, no, you know, you did this, you did that.
That was wrong. And now you have to go roast in the eternal fires for 50 trillion years.
And then you haven't even started at that point.
So that's that sort of version has never really made sense to me.
What does make sense and what you'll hear Christians say a lot is, well, no, God doesn't send you to hell.
You choose it. Okay.
All right, then it seems more just. But what does it mean to choose hell?
Matt Wallace is saying that it's more just if God didn't actually send you to hell, but you chose it.
Because I guess it would be so unfair and unjust for God to actually punish people with hell.
I mean, who's he to stand in judgment of God?
And why would I ever think that everyone that goes to hell shows it?
No one's going to choose hell. Nobody wants to go to hell.
Even the devils and the demons are afraid of going to hell.
They say, aren't thou here to torment us before the time they're terrified of the idea of going to hell.
No one wants to go to hell. What a stupid idea.
And it made me think of Luke 16, where you have a rich man and he fared sumptuously every day, as the Bible describes it.
But it says in verse 22 of Luke 16,
And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried, and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom.
So we have a rich man who just was living his life, having a fun time.
But as soon as he died, he just instantly is in hell, just lifts up his eyes in hell, and burning and in torment and suffering.
Nowhere in this story about this man does it say, this guy just really wanted to go to hell.
This guy just loves the idea of burning in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
No, it's just, he was living his life, didn't care about the things of God, didn't have the fear of God,
didn't get saved, didn't believe in Christ, and then, lo and behold, dies because everyone dies.
And just instantly in hell for rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and not wanting to believe in him.
But to say that he likes being there or wants to be there, think about some of the things that he says.
He says in verse 24,
Why is this guy wanting a drink of water if he's having such a good time down there?
Obviously he's not. Obviously it's a punishment.
And he even says later, he says in verse 28,
So he hates it so much, and he's so worried that other people are going to go there.
He's begging for a miracle that Lazarus could come back from the dead and warn his brethren that they would never go there.
You know, what's interesting about the story is this.
The rich man never asked even one time to be released from hell.
It seems like he realized it was an eternal punishment once he got there.
And he's so afraid of anybody else going there because he knows that it's eternal for them as well,
which makes it a scary reality.
But, again, Mark Deist just blasphemes God by saying he's not even just...
Matt Walsh.
I'm sorry, who did I say?
You said Mark Deist.
Matt Walsh simply blasphemes God by saying to God somehow not just by sending someone to hell.
What are your thoughts about this clip?
Well, I think oftentimes when people have a doctrine that's clearly taught in Scripture that they personally don't like,
then what they'll do is they'll end up placing their own feelings above the text, whereas we're just honest with what the text says.
And what you'll see, and you see it in Luke chapter number 16 and you see it elsewhere, Pastor Shelley,
is that people often through their own apathy end up in hell.
We see this all the time when we go out sowing and when we knock on doors.
It's not that those who reject the gospel are saying,
I don't want to hear what you have to say because I would love to wake up in hell and be tormented for all of eternity,
but rather, well, I just don't have time, the game is on.
It's apathy.
It's that they don't care about the things of God.
Maybe they have what they want in this life.
We talk about, you know, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.
You know, there are maybe perhaps certain people who they have an abundance here on this earth.
And so that leads to them not caring about spiritual things.
But my point is, as you see it all the time in real life and in the scriptures,
where an apathetic attitude can lead to those who wake up in hell one day.
And, you know, for Matt Walsh, if he doesn't like the doctrines of scripture,
then it's incumbent on him to show a little bit of humility and admit to what the text is clearly saying.
He's not even a very good Catholic, if you think about it,
because number one, he doesn't even think there's a distinction between faith alone and works.
He's saying, oh, it's just a misunderstanding.
And then secondly, he doesn't even believe in the doctrine of hell.
When did Catholics stop believing in the doctrine of hell?
Yeah, Catholics believe in the doctrine of hell.
I mean, at least historically they did.
Now, I do want to play a little bit more of this clip,
because he then even goes to say that some bizarre idea of how people are not going to really be going.
Not very many people are going to be going to hell if they just love someone.
It's all about love wins.
Let's see. Let's play at about six minutes and 40 seconds.
Love wins.
Or a little bit before that.
Right. It's being able to look beyond yourself.
And so the question that I always ask myself, and I was talking to some people in my family about this recently,
is, you know, is it possible for someone who loves anyone to go to hell?
Even if you have someone who didn't really believe in God, wasn't religious,
but let's say they really did love their wife and they really did love their child.
Not just that emotional affection, but actually love them.
Is it even possible, metaphysically, for that person to go to hell,
considering that they have love in them?
And if hell is a place where no love can be, then how could that person be there?
And I guess it seems to me that if you figure out how to love anyone outside of yourself during your life,
then I think that's something God can take and work with.
And those are little embers of something that he can ignite into a fire, in a good sense.
So that's sort of the objective of life, is to love.
Love and do what you will is Augustine, I think, said it.
So very often.
All right, we can stop there.
Think about what he just said.
Number one, he said, if you love anyone.
So I guess if Adolf Hitler loved anybody in his entire life, then he's not in hell.
Or, how about this?
How about if you just, the only person I ever loved was Jeffrey Dahmer.
So now I'm not going to go to hell because I loved at least one person.
You know, the Bible says in Matthew 546,
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
Do not even the publicans the same?
According to the Bible, it doesn't describe hell as a place where these people never loved a single person in their entire life.
No one ever loved.
You know, that's not what separates someone from going to heaven or hell.
Obviously, his works-based salvation leads him to these bizarre beliefs that if you've ever loved a single person, even one time,
then there's this ember that God can work with.
You know, it sounds like he has that purgatory idea of those people that, well, at least they love somebody,
so they're just going to get punished a little while in hell and eventually we'll work that issue out.
We'll iron that out.
And they had love in there somewhere, but only the people that were hateful, you know, just hate everyone.
There's no love.
They're the ones that are going to be in hell.
And I mean, he summarizes basically Christianity as this.
Love just at least one person and do as thou wilt.
Oh, you mean the satanic mantra?
I mean, that's the literal mantra of Satanism is do what thou wilt.
That is being quoted by Matt Wallace in questions related to his beliefs and how to go to heaven and the biggest questions of life.
He's just spouting Satanism.
And I want to add to what you said.
Jesus Christ in John chapter 14, verse six.
I am the way, the truth and the life.
No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
It's through Christ.
It's by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
There isn't some alternate route to the Father whereby if you loved one person.
I mean, this is so ridiculous.
It's like just repeating his view on salvation.
It just sounds so ridiculous, but there is no alternate route by just having love in your heart or something.
It's through the Lord Jesus Christ.
And doesn't this kind of.
So is this like a work salvation now or did he go back to like kind of faith or it's like now it's just love.
I thought it was works earlier.
It seems like he's trying to cover all his base.
Well, earlier in the clip, he we didn't play all of it, but he tried to explain that salvation is essentially walking across a bridge.
And it's like having the faith that the bridge is going to get you there.
And that bridge is Jesus Christ.
So it's kind of like confusing faith and being faithful.
But the Bible is very clear in places like Romans Chapter 11 that we're saved by grace, not by works.
So it's not by faithfulness that gets you saved.
It's a one time trust in Christ that gets you saved.
It's not of works.
So according to the scripture, we concluded that salvation was with faith alone, not by any kind of works or not by what you do.
It's a one time trusting of Christ.
That's how you get born again.
Yet this unsaved Catholic is going to believe this.
And of course, you know, Shapiro surrounds himself with people that aren't Christian.
But surprising, a Jew doesn't want any real Christians on his show.
Wow.
What I want, even if Crowder isn't saved, and I'm sure he probably isn't.
But why would I even want him to get under the influence of Ben Shapiro and these other weirdos?
And they're they're strange ideas.
It's not going to happen.
It's going to happen.
You know, it'd be nice if Crowder would drop people like Dave Landau drop the Daily Wire and, you know, get saved and start, you know, you know, putting out some Christian content.
And I hope he does make his own media company, even if he doesn't get saved, just to at least stick it to YouTube and put more pressure on these big people.
And to add to the scripture, you have Titus, Chapter three, and it tells us in verse number five, not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly.
Through what?
Loving one person in your whole life, having love in your heart.
No, through Jesus Christ, our savior in verse six.
You know, it's sad when people like Dave Landau drop the Daily Wire and, you know, put more pressure on these big people who get saved and start to get saved.
having love in your heart? No. Through Jesus Christ our Savior, in verse 6. You
know, it's sad when people like Ben Shapiro understand the Bible and
Christianity more than these supposed Christians or Catholics. That's kind of a bad sign.
Yeah, he always seems to know exactly what the Bible says, because he'll say
it's just faith alone, it's just believing in Christ. Let's play one more small clip
and we'll kind of end the show. I know we've gone a little long this evening,
but I appreciate you guys sticking with us. We've got over 60 people in the live
chat. Thanks so much for for coming out and supporting us. But I have one more
clip of Jordan Peterson, and Jordan Peterson's also not saved for sure, not a
Christian really. I don't even know if he claims that title at all. I know he's
kind of said he like believes in God maybe. I think he was like an agnostic at one
point. Yeah, he kind of, from what I've seen, maybe respects the Bible and kind
of respects the Christian worldview, but doesn't necessarily adhere to it. He is
the straw man that Matt Walsh brought up in that interview in the sense that, or I
guess Ben Shapiro would fall into this category as well, where perhaps
intellectually a sense to certain facts about Christianity, but doesn't believe
them. Yeah. Well, let's play this clip real quick and we'll kind of give some last
commentary. This is Jordan Peterson talking with Ben Shapiro about
Christianity. This is where I think we could have an interesting conversation
about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. So there's an idea in
Christianity, which is I think the central idea, which is that you need to
face the potential for malevolence that exists within you and in the world. So
that's Christ's confrontation with the devil in the desert, with Satan in the
desert. You have to come to terms with that malevolence. That's part of
existence. And you have to voluntarily accept the burden of suffering. And so
that's the acceptance of the cross. Okay, so you take on that. You say the
suffering. So there's an idea that Christ is a messianic figure because he took
the suffering of the world onto himself. And what that means to me is that he was
someone, speaking conceptually, who decided that the suffering of the world
was his responsibility. And that that's what you're supposed to do. You're
supposed to decide that that's your responsibility. You take that on as a
burden. You do the same with the malevolence. So when you read history,
you read history as a perpetrator, right? Maybe you also read it as a victim, but
you certainly read it as a perpetrator. And then that's on you. Okay, so then the
question is, what happens when you do that? And I would say the answer is two
things. Is that, first of all, it starts to force you to develop, like to learn
what you need to learn in the world, and to absorb the information that would
enable you to start to face the suffering and to rectify it. So that forces you to
become a more competent person. And that's the socialization part that you
thought of as so important. But then there's a secondary thing that happens
too, which is that taking on that additional stress and demand voluntarily
transforms you biologically, because within your genetic structure, let's say,
there's all sorts of potential. But that won't be unlocked unless you place
yourself in a position where the demands necessitate it. And so by following that
pathway, truth, let's say, the acceptance of suffering and the confrontation with
malevolence, so that's the heaviest load that you could take on, then you actually
produce a psychophysiological slash spiritual transformation in yourself that
matures you into, like, the representation of the Father on Earth. That's why that
that's how that lays itself out.
Okay, so I'm glad he got us here, because the question that I said to you, there was
only one thing I said to you guys before we started that I wanted to get to
something about most of the lectures that you're when we're doing these things,
you're usually talking about the Old Testament. Now, obviously, you're an Old
Testament guy. But my question was, do you think that Ben, or just people that
believe in the Old Testament exclusively, are missing something? So you just laid
out a case of something that potentially is missing there. Do you think that is a
fair argument?
Well, what I'm going to argue is that what you just said is fundamentally
unchristian, in the sense that you're saying that everyone is supposed to
imitate Jesus, and the basic conceit of...
Oh, keep playing this real quick. I want to I want to hear the rest of what he says
here.
This is...
He's fast forward.
You're saying that everyone is supposed to imitate Jesus, and the basic conceit
of, from what I understand, speaking with Christian theologians, is that we are
fundamentally incapable of taking on our own sin. And so we have to have somebody
who comes in the form of Christ on earth, in order to accept that suffering for us.
And that that is the purpose of God actually embodying himself in Christ, is
to provide human beings the capacity to withdraw from original sin, that we don't
actually have the capacity beyond a certain point to overcome. And that's why
Jesus as a singular figure is necessary. I actually agree from a Judaic point of
view with everything that you say, because for me, it's about accepting the
responsibility for my own sins on myself. And I don't have the ability to say that
there is the the suffering servant, the suffering lamb of God, who sacrificed
himself to relieve me of my sins, and therefore give me a fair shot at life.
Now, here's the thing. Ben Shapiro is is hitting it on the head as far as the
distinction between Christianity and Judaism. What's so funny is that Jordan
Peterson espouses Mormonism. And then Ben Shapiro is like, Well, everything you
said is unchristian. And then he's like, I but I yet I agree with you. Why?
Because all false religions agree with one another. And Jordan Peterson is the
most pseudo intellectual individual on the planet. He tries to use really big
words to try and talk in a really overly complicated manner, as to try and
disguise the fact that what he's saying is stupid. Basically, what Jordan
Peterson said is that we have to deal with the fact that we're bad. And we
look to Christ example, as how he is someone who ended up taking on the
burden of overcoming being bad and trying to be good. And he's saying, by
taking Christ example and applying it to ourselves, where we overcome bad,
become good, we take the burdens of this world, we change our physical bodies.
And we have a spiritual transformation. Now, this is what Mormonism believes,
because they say Christ was our example of how we could become like a God where
you essentially overcome evil, you overcome bad, you stop sinning. And if
you think about it, even in the Book of Mormon, they teach that if you are sent
to sinful, you'll become more and more black. And the more and more you get sin
out of your life, the more white you get talking about that physiological change
that would come upon you. And then of course, the ultimate conclusion of
Mormonism is that you end up becoming deity into becoming, and as Jordan
Peterson said, Father on Earth, you become God on Earth. So really, all he
expounded was, is simply just Mormonism. And he doesn't, I don't even think he
realizes what he said. He's just simply just a vessel of the devil. And then,
yet, what I find interesting is that Ben Shapiro always articulates our
viewpoint and Christianity perfectly. He knows exactly what it is. He says,
Hey, actually, Christianity teaches y'all are too sinful. We're all too
sinful. We need a sacrifice. We need Jesus Christ to come. We need God and
flesh to die on the cross for our sins, and simply trust in Him. And it's faith
alone in Him that atones for our sins rather than atoning for ourselves. So he
clearly understands that issue. And again, that's why I would think someone like
Ben Shapiro's probably reprobate because he's heard the gospel. Obviously,
he's clearly understands the gospel and knows everything about it. You know,
even if I preach the gospel to Ben Shapiro, it doesn't sound like I would be
educating him on anything new. He already knows all about it. He just
rejected it, doesn't like it, and wants to work his way into heaven. And you
know, I think that Ben Shapiro is probably a genuine Jew in the sense
that he probably does believe his religion and probably does try to follow
it. He's not one of these crypto Jews that just kind of pretends to be Jewish
so he can get more money or whatever. Obviously, they both, whether they're a
genuine Jew or crypto, they both love money. Don't get me wrong, but I'm saying
that I feel like Ben Shapiro's probably very sincere. He's just sincerely wrong.
Think about a lot of the Jews at the time of Christ. They were probably, a lot
of them were sincere, not necessarily the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were fake,
but even some Pharisees seem to be pretty genuine. How about Gamaliel? Or,
you know, some of the other Jews or Pharisees seem to be pretty genuine in
their workspace religion. Think about Romans 10. They have a zeal of God, but
not according to knowledge. You know, I think that Ben Shapiro is probably a
representation of someone who has a zeal of God, but just not according to
knowledge. And he knows the truth, but it's a stumbling block unto him. You
know, he doesn't want to believe in Christ because of pride, and that's the
ultimate reason why people don't get saved. They're too prideful. Another
reason why Jordan Peterson is probably not gonna get saved? Too prideful. He
thinks he's really smart. He's seeking after wisdom. Ben Shapiro, Christ is a
stumbling block unto him. Matt Wallace, very prideful. You know, you see this
common denominator between all these individuals of pride being the catalyst
is why they won't trust Christ and accept his free gift. What did you think
about, you know, Jordan Peterson's intellectual nonsense? Well, I'm surprised
you were even able to deduce anything from that and to break it down and
come up with something because he lost me. And I'm all for speaking well, you
know, and you know, using terms that sound educated and things like that.
I'm for that. But guys like him, these Calvinist false prophets like James
Wyatt as well, they take it so far to where they just sound pseudo
intellectual, and it becomes word salad. It becomes nonsensical. And to me, that
rant that he went on, that diatribe that Jordan Peterson went on, was nonsense to
me. Like, I couldn't even understand it. It is just he just way off the deep end,
and it's very difficult to track. So I appreciate that you are at least were
able to decipher that for us a little bit. Well, I'll admit that was like the
third or fourth time I've heard the clip. Okay. I mean, it is a little bit
difficult to follow what he's saying. It's hard to follow. Because I was
debating internally whether or not he was just throwing words out there or if
he actually meant something. But I think he actually did know what he was
saying in the sense that he was trying to make a Mormonism point. He just
probably didn't realize he's teaching Mormonism while he was saying all those
things with, you know, a lot of fancy vocabulary. That's right. And a verse
that came to mind when you brought up the doctrine of Ben Shapiro is Romans
chapter number one, verse 18, where it talks about, For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men
who hold the truth in unrighteousness. And I think you're in a very dangerous
position when you, again, intellectually assent or acquiesce to a certain set of
the facts about the gospel, and yet reject it. And you kind of you're having
it and maybe you're holding it in a holding tank or like the Bible describes
it again, holding the truth in unrighteousness, kind of putting it on
the back burner. And so Ben Shapiro is in that position. That's a dangerous
spot to be in. But that is insane to me. You look at these guys, both sides, I
believe, think that they're so smart, that they're so educated, that what that
they're making good points. When in reality, it's just a bunch of nonsense,
especially whatever the hell that was that came out of Jordan Peterson's mouth.
And pretty much every time he talks, Pastor Shelley, it's hard to follow. Yeah,
it's to me, it's purposely hard to follow. And really, you can actually discern
someone's wisdom or intelligence by the fact that they're able to make difficult
subjects simple or plain. Whereas, yeah, whereas Pastor Anderson is a great
example of that. Whereas someone like Jordan Peterson tries to take something
really simple and overly complicated, really difficult and, and speak about it
and so many more words than need to be communicated. Yeah. That it sometimes you
get lost very easily, even though technically he was making a point. Now,
again, I want to wrap up the show. And I put that poll out there. A lot of people
got mad at me. They're like, you know, Crowder versus Daily Wire. And they're
like, you know, neither, neither, neither. But the question wasn't saying,
like, do you love these people? Do you want to, you know, you know, spend the
rest of your life with them? The question is, who's right? Do you endorse them? And
basically, I think you could still pick, you know, is it that Daily Wire is right
and Crowder only cares about money? Or is Crowder right in the sense that he truly
is upset about big tech, big tech censorship, and doesn't want to become a
wage slave? Now, that's not something you could say neither, because one of
those is true. Either Crowder's lying, and he simply just wants money, like the
Daily Wire saying, or Crowder really is upset about big tech, and wants to not
have that happen to him or any other conservative voices in the movement. And,
you know, me personally, I think that Crowder probably does believe that,
because here's, here's my proof of why I think that Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire is
wrong. Who was a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ. He is
anti-Christ that denied the Father and Son. You know, there's only one
anti-Christ in this situation. It's Ben Shapiro. So, you know, who's the real
liar is him. So, there's my evidence. What do you think?
I want to drop a mic right now. Like, that was a mic drop right there, courtesy
of the Word of God. I don't trust Jews. So, I'm going to pick Steven Crowder, if
I have to pick between him and Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro hates the Lord
Jesus Christ. He's a Christ-hating Jew who was a liar, but he that denied that
Jesus is the Christ. I can't argue with the Word of God. To me, it's pretty
obvious who you should side with, if you have to pick between the two of them.
And again, it's like people think, oh, you're, you're saying, oh man, who do you
endorse? Who do you 100% endorse? That's not what we're doing here. It's like, if
you have to pick, if you have to, between these two, I think the obvious one is
Crowder. It's like Trump or Biden. I'm not picking on who I like more. I'm
saying who's right in the argument. Yeah, I would say, I'm just saying, is, is the
Daily Wire right? Because I don't care that they're Christ-rejecting Jews or
not. If, if Crowder is just a money-hungry person that doesn't actually
care about conservatism and is just making a big feud just for money, that
could be true, even though Daily Wire is bad. But I'm just saying, like, I don't
see the evidence that Crowder only cares about money. It seems like the only
people bringing up money was the Daily Wire. It seems like the Daily Wire's not
pushing back against big tech and it seems like Crowder has been pushing it
back against big tech. So to me, I think that Crowder's probably the more genuine
person in this argument and is probably, does really care about that part of the
contract. Well, look at the track record of Daily Wire, right? Again, well, let's
put the Jew thing to the side for a second. Look at their track record. Look
at the track record of, oh, I said pansexuals are weird. Let's go ahead and
delete that as quickly as possible, or being afraid to use the word, as he kind
of, he got ready for it, right? Queer. I mean, he was so afraid to say it. Can I
even say that? Can I even say that? I'm not sure what the rules are. Please forgive me. He said it himself. I
wouldn't use that word. I was just quoting it. I definitely wouldn't use that word. It's
really highly offensive. Yeah. Let me hide. Whereas the guy that actually got
censored and actually got demonetized for using the word in a more provocative
sense. I mean, it's pretty clear who actually cares about conservatism in
between those two. And again, I'm not saying that Crowder's some knight in shining
armor. He has some serious issues. I just think that I've seen a lot of people give
them a lot of heat. And to me, it just makes it seem like they're just YouTube
shills or something. And you know what? I'm not interested in shilling for
YouTube. Hopefully we're gonna start taking the baddest bias offline for the
latter portion of our show. So then we can really say what we think about it.
Letter it. Oh man. You better buckle up. But thanks so much for joining us
anyways on YouTube. Obviously we're thankful for our supporters. We're gonna
be putting out our phone number for our next show. We'll be having call-ins. We're
gonna have some other special guests. We have a great season lined up. So make
sure to check us out. Tuesdays 8 p.m. We'll be putting out some polls and
things like that throughout the weeks too. So check in. Share our clips. We also
can be shared on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean. What name?
Spotify. The big one. Damn. What else we got? Facebook. Yeah, you hit them all.
We got them. Great. Got all of them. Yeah, I guess Rumble. We need to get on
Rumble. We do need to get on Rumble. I like Rumble. Okay. I'm not sure you agree.
Are we ready to rumble? That's funny. We need we need a laugh track for you.
Probably just a sympathy laugh track. Well that's gonna do it for us. For The
Baptist Bias, Ben, sign us off. Thank you so much for watching. Make sure you leave
room in your calendar every week, Tuesday nights 8 p.m. Central Time. For The
Baptist Bias, this is Benjamin Naim signing off. God bless you all and we'll
talk to you guys again after a while.