Unpacking America's Socio-Political Unrest with Nate Fischer: Oliver Anthony, The War Against Trump, REN, BAP, & Jake Meador

The socio-political landscape in America is currently a bed of hot coals, rife with tension and discontent, as the recent viral song "Rich Men North of Richmond" from Oliver Anthony demonstrates.  There's a massive disconnect between elites and the working class. Globalism vs. Populism. Christianity Today vs. actual Christians in America today.

Joining us for a captivating discussion of this situation is Nate Fischer of New Founding, bringing to light the widening disconnect between the elites and the middle class, and the growing irrelevance of the conservative movement. With Nate, we dive deep into power dynamics and network influences that drive these narratives, exploring the fragility of the current globalist, post-war consensus system.

Be prepared for a candid examination of the escalating tension between the liberal order and the increasing use of hard power, such as police threats and arrests, to enforce compliance. We saw this with the recent Trump indictments.

Shifting gears, we also explore the appeal of alternative ideologies, the skepticism towards institutionalized food and health systems, the rise of accounts like Raw Egg Nationalist and Bronze Age Pervert, and an alarming trend of labeling anything skeptical of the technocratic regime as 'fascist' or 'Nazi'.

Our conversation with Nate culminates in a nuanced understanding of the evolving evangelical movement, its power dynamics, and the motivations behind denouncing rivals. What about the phrase, "No enemies to the right?" What does this mean?

We scrutinize the Tim Keller-inspired transition from fundamentalism to anti-fundamentalism and its implications for wealth building. Lastly, we shed light on the vital distinction between enemies and sinners, and the urgent necessity of focusing our collective energy on the left, especially those who have openly declared war on us. A must-listen episode for anyone keen on making sense of this turbulent era!

Talk to Joe Garrisi about managing your wealth.

Sign up for Barbell Logic.

Place your meat order with Salt & Strings.

Start banking with Private Family Banking. You can reach Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey at chuck@privatefamiliybanking.com, call him directly at 830-339-9472, or download his e-book HERE. 

10 Ways to Make Money with Your MAXX-D Trailer.

Transcript

Eric Conn: 0:01

This episode of the Hard Men Podcast is brought to you by Salt and Strings Butchery Order your custom beef bundle. Today, it's also brought to you by Private Family Banking helping Christians take dominion through privatized banking. And finally, today's episode is brought to you by Backwards Planning Financial building multi-generational wealth with Joe Garrisey. Well, welcome to this episode of the Hard Men Podcast. I'm your host, eric Kahn, and joined today by Mr Nate Fisher from New Founding Nate. Thanks for joining me for this episode of the podcast.

Nate Fischer: 0:35

Thank you, eric, it's great to be here.

Eric Conn: 0:36

Well, nate, we've had a lot to talk about in the news, lots happening. I want to start with one thing that I found particularly interesting. I know you commented on it on Twitter, but, oliver Anthony, what is going on with this hillbilly from Appalachia? Why are so many people resonating with this song?

Nate Fischer: 0:55

First, I will disclaim any expertise with this. I am not. I did not grow up listening to country music. I'm not an expert in the genre and I would say I am not probably the target audience for that. So I think there's people who could answer that more personally than I can.

Nate Fischer: 1:17

What I think resonates, what really seems to me to be the case here, is you have this recurring theme where the mainstream in many, many sectors, including that segment of music, has become deeply disconnected from the actual psyche and themes of the actual, I guess, interest and desires of the target market.

Nate Fischer: 1:45

So it's not surprising, when you have an industry that is out of step, that someone who says something that's not being said and resonates is going to who's from outside of that establishment is going to rapidly take off and rapidly grow. And I think you have digital. It shows the power of Twitter right. Twitter can allow something like that to spread probably faster than things have historically spread pre-digital age pre-networks and can do so outside of channels, outside of the approved gatekeeper channels. So I think at the macro level that's how I'm looking at it Again I'm also coming as a venture investor and businessman in this space rather than as a member of the target audience who can tell you why it resonates with me. But I recognize that it hits a lot of themes that are not being hit by a lot of people who I, you could say whose job it should be to reach those people.

Eric Conn: 2:49

Yeah, I think that's a good point. Do you see it as sort of a I guess, at least high watermark or rising marker of where populism is in America? A lot of people said maybe after Trump it's dying. It seems like with some of these things, like with the song, there's a strong discontent between a lot of Americans and the I guess you would call it the ruling class. Do you see that at play here?

Nate Fischer: 3:12

I think it's very clear and it's very clear that it applies to the conservative movement. I forget who it was who came up with this, but even National Review wrote a piece that was criticizing this just a typical sort of stupid piece you would expect from Connick. Some labeled them North of Richmond online. It's both geographically and spiritually true. So I think you have an establishment and you have an establishment right, and both of those are out of touch with what a lot of people are feeling.

Eric Conn: 3:52

Yeah. Do you see anything changing there on that front, in terms of you think there will be people who are part of that conservative ink who say we have a problem, we should adjust, or do you see them doubling down, keeping the same course? What do you see happening there?

Nate Fischer: 4:09

I don't know that they change, but I also don't know how relevant they are increasingly. So I think you'll have a lot of people who are never going to change, but they're going to just lose their status as gatekeepers absolutely. And once they lose their status as gatekeepers, they'll pretty rapidly lose even their market share and their influence on the market. I mean, they'll continue to reach a bunch of, I think, an increasingly aging and narrow audience. But in many ways, I think on the conservative movement, they're already a niche player rather than power player.

Eric Conn: 4:49

Yeah, I think that's probably true. You know one of the other things that was going on in the news obviously everything with Trump legally. You had some comments on that on Twitter. I'm wondering if these things are connected with the harder sort of the regime pushes and the elites push particularly. You know what's perceived by many to be a witch hunt for Trump. Do you think it causes the populist movement to heat up? Do you see that people are? Maybe new leadership arises? What do you think happens there?

Nate Fischer: 5:20

It's a tough question In terms of what causes the populist movement to heat up. I would say there's sort of there's two. There's two strands. There's populism, and populism, I think, is a means in some ways. There's a lot of people who are very dissatisfied with the, they're dissatisfied with the present elites and they're inclined to follow populist messages. I also think there's sort of general dissent from the regime and I would say that goes beyond, beyond straight populism. I mean you see the Christian nationalist discourse and a lot of that is straight up, it's not populist. I mean they are fully in favor of an alternative elite and arguably, I think, challenge the egalitarianism and the anti-hierarchical doctrines of liberalism. So I don't know if I would classify that as populist, but I think that on both sides you see a growing skepticism of the system, whether it's populist or whether it's dissident elite or elite discontent.

Eric Conn: 6:28

Yeah, yeah, I think that's a good point. One of the things you had tweeted was just talking about how a lot of these shows of strength they really show a fragility, so I wonder if you would unpack that for me. What did you mean by that? How are you seeing that play out?

Nate Fischer: 6:42

So I would say that they certainly indicate a. They indicate or suggest a fragility at the very least. So I'll go to kind of two themes there. One is the nature of these shows of strength and the other is the nature of increasing volatility and change. So sometimes when you need to use more force, there's a. There was a great, there was a great discussion, or I think it was a podcast by Orrin McIntyre talking about Nick Land's Nick, some of Nick Land's analysis.

Nate Fischer: 7:13

Nick Land is a very interesting thinker about the dynamics of power and in that some probably about a month ago I think Orrin did this and highlighted a point that land made, which is is talking about the nature of power and the distinction from force and how power effectively is what gets people to do what you want without the use of force and when you need to, and that can be many, many forms he actually uses. The ultimate example of that. One of the ultimate examples of that is fiat currency, where you make something, something up that's, in a sense, totally artificial and it's an indication of power, legitimacy, respect, credibility, all of that that people will accept it as extremely valuable, despite the fact that there is nothing in a sense forcing them to do that. No one is pushing them to give you something for money. You'll do so voluntarily. But in many ways that extends to a dynamic that you can see across many, many domains and in a sense, the more they have to use force, the less power they have. So you could say that the need to more and more overtly use at least force or threatened force right, which is what police are using when they threaten you with arrest or they arrest you they're losing in a sense, I think, voluntary compliance with a liberal regime they would come from, you could say, legitimacy. I think in a sense their regime is losing legitimacy and so they're needing to use more and more hard power, and that is a hard force. Really Hard power is sort of, I guess you could say, in between those, but, to use that terminology, they are losing power by that standard and they're needing to substitute something that's in a sense, more brutal. Now I think there's a second, and I think that's an interesting theory I find it very plausible. Again, I don't necessarily strongly adhere to any of these, but when you're looking at the range of outcomes that we can expect, I think understanding some paradigm, some plausible theories, is very helpful.

Nate Fischer: 9:27

Now I think there's a more direct example, which is there's no question that they're getting more and more aggressive in what they're doing. Without question, that is a greater sort of a volatility from historical norms. So if you think of historical norms as sort of operating within this constitutional system, or operating within this liberal constitutional system, post-60s constitutional system, what have you? For a while everything sort of went the way liberals wanted it to, even without significant departures from the perceived rule of law, and all of that. Increasingly, they're doing things that on a daily, on a monthly, daily basis, seem like they're pushing new boundaries. Right. They're doing something that might have shocked people If five years ago they would have said it.

Nate Fischer: 10:23

I don't think you had that kind of groundbreaking change in the 90s, for instance, in politics. It was sort of if you had predicted five years ahead what was going to happen. And we're going to have a president impeached because of a sex scandal or something whatever. That's well within the sort of paradigm of what you expect politics to look like Now. You have attempts to throw your political opponents in jail. You have attempts to throw their lawyers in jail. You have attempts to do lots of things that I think would have shocked people 10 years ago to hear that this was going to happen. Unquestionably, that is.

Nate Fischer: 10:57

That reflects sort of a greater volatility in the range of political scenarios, political outcomes that I analogize to a stock market at a frothy period.

Nate Fischer: 11:10

So, even though all of these seem to be going in the direction of the left in many ways, we don't have we don't have like clear opposition, we don't have a clear path to how we're going to beat it.

Nate Fischer: 11:20

You can imagine it like I guess I'm getting older now, but the NASDAQ at the peak of the internet bubble would, toward the late days of that, you saw these large jumps on a daily basis, sort of a rapid increase in the rate of change there, even though it was continuing to go up. When you see a situation like that, you recognize that there's higher volatility and that higher volatility can go both directions, and it also means the sort of reasonable expectation of the range of outcomes in the future goes up on both the positive and the negative. So the analog here is everything seems to be going in the direction of the Dems. There's not clear, strong, coherent pushback from the Republicans. There was over the Trump era, but I think they're pushing back, but even so, they're doing so in ways that are well outside of historical norms and we can expect that that departure from historical norms will continue. And as we consider the range of possible, let's say, outcomes that go against that, we should also look at a range that extends well outside of historical norms.

Eric Conn: 12:35

Do you desire to be shrewd financially for the sake of your family and future generations? We know that a robust society depends on getting this right Success in building and passing on personal wealth. Let's be mature, responsible leaders with the resources God expects us to turn a profit on To love our children and children's children. Well, joe Garrisey, with Backwards Planning Financial, integrates investments, debt insurance, tax strategies and legacy planning in a holistic approach, coaching his clients to act wisely. You can do better than you received. You can affect your family's trajectory and maximize your efforts to set up long term fruitfulness. Joe starts with your values and goals, then provides impactful counsel to help you form and implement your financial plan. Click on the link in the description for Backwards Planning Financial and contact Joe today to get started.

Eric Conn: 13:32

Meat is a staple of a healthy, protein packed diet, but not all meat is created equal. That's why I buy my meat from Salt and Strings Butchery. Salt and Strings is owned and operated by my friends Quinn and Samantha Bible, and the meat they offer is raised, harvested and processed exclusively in southern Illinois. It's cut and packaged by my friends Quinn and Anthony, and not only is it the best meat I've ever had, well, all their meat is sourced from local farms that share our Christian values. Salt and Strings is now offering a beef and hog box that can be shipped directly to your door. The 15 pound beef box features 100% black angus beef and includes rib-eyes, t-bones, sirloin, chakras, fajita meats and ground beef. You can order your beef box today for just $259. That will send it directly to your door.

Eric Conn: 14:19

The hog box is $239 and features premium Durrock pork, including eight thick pork chops one of my all time favorites Pork steaks cured in sliced bacon, ground pork, bratwurst and breakfast sausage links. You can place your order today at saltandstringscom or use the link in the show notes, and also be sure to follow Salt and Strings on Instagram. We'll also include the link in the show notes. Yeah, I think that's really helpful. So if you're thinking strategically tactically maybe business, maybe media, maybe it's political for a consolidated opponent where opponents do arise and be successful, what do you think that they need to do in this particular time?

Nate Fischer: 15:04

Well, I think there's sort of short term and there's longer term. I think that they need to in many ways, they need to control. One way to navigate volatile periods is to I think there's two sort of paradigms to think. One is the antifragile and the other is the concentrated and potent. So have a so on the one example, if you're thinking of who's going to be prepared to respond to a situation of high political volatility, it is someone who has very firm control over a lot of resources and a lot of people, typical sort of great man situations where someone arises, whether it's a military commander, whether it's another politician, maybe it's someone with a great deal of wealth, but someone who has firm executive control over that and is able to rapidly move in a situation of great volatility. That's obviously the type of situation I would look for. I would look for, if you're looking for, who is going to make a move that potentially counters this. Now, that's not a suggestion. First of all, I don't think there's anyone who would be even in our camp, who isn't even close to that position right now. So that's more of a prediction, that's more of an analysis. I mean, it's similar to the analysis that I think Burke made, where, in the wake of the or in the French Revolution, he noted he effectively predicted a Napoleon figure rising. I would look for that.

Nate Fischer: 16:35

Now, in terms of what we want to do, we want to, I think, look much more at the anti-fragile side at this point, which is how do we build institutions and how do we build networks that are protected against attack, even in a sort of escalated, continued and potentially rapid escalation of the trends that we've been seeing? And that's where I see that when I talked at the conference of yours in June I think it was, that's when I talked about how these high trust networks high trust particularly deeply religious, deeply Christian networks are in some ways uniquely suited to resist that, because what they have is something that is intangible and it's very difficult to attack, it's very difficult to regulate, it's very difficult to tax, it's very difficult to attack. So, in many ways, these sort of high trust networks and communities that are united by vision and values rather than, let's say, united by the power of one man or an institution or an organization, are going to be anti-fragile in the face of a regime that is incredibly volatile. I think another thing. So, in terms of what we should build? I would just say invest in building networks that are anti-fragile, invest in building things that allow you to fork away, to maintain your own path in the face of a regime that may go after you in more and more lawless ways, and do so, investing in resources and things like trust and community that is difficult for them to confiscate. And so that would be the sort of basic level I mean at a very basic level, family right, community, your church, those things are difficult to confiscate.

Nate Fischer: 18:23

But I also think that what we should develop is and this is really what I spent a lot of my time developing is ways of translating those into more and more layers of life, like can we add economic layers on top of that? Can we add we're building a venture firm where I'm very close to launching a fund. This fund would be designed to invest in companies in these communities and in these ecosystems. Are there ways to essentially add economic institutions, maybe slightly less anti-fragile, but that support this ecosystem and support these goals? Are there ways to flesh out a very clear, very strong alternative vision that can draw people?

Nate Fischer: 19:11

When does that vision become real?

Nate Fischer: 19:12

Maybe it's sort of realized at a small level within some of these communities, but it's a vision that is a coherent vision for what the country could look like. So we have an alternative to the left and as you have, I think, as you have volatility, you are going to have people looking for something firm and attractive, and one of the things that we can offer them is we can offer them a strong, positive vision rooted in Christianity that is, in a sense, is providing a source of both hope and inspiration in a time of chaos and uncertainty more broadly, and in a time of chaos, uncertainty and loss of faith in the alternative, this sort of idealistic promises of the alternative. You're moving from an era where people idealistically believe in America and in this sort of liberal promise that was associated with the American story toward a time where all they have is forced to protect that and people are desperately seeking for something else that they can aspire to, that they can work toward that. It's a vision that feels compelling and I think we can offer them that.

Eric Conn: 20:24

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. One of the things I also wanna ask you about is you think about platforms and people who have stood out. Two of the ones I think of are BAP, bronze Age, pervert and then also Ren Reich Nationalist. They interest me in a number of ways. Number one because the regime hates them. Number two because so many people have been interested in that content. So I wonder if you would unpack for me. Start to unpack, first of all. Why are these guys resonating? Why did they climb in so many different, very different communities in popularity? Why was the message working with so many different people?

Nate Fischer: 21:01

So I'll speak to those two and I'll keep it a little separate. I think they're often associated with each other and there's certainly parallels in message, parallels in aesthetic. I don't know the extent to which they share values. I know that my understanding as a raw nationalist at least subscribes in some degree to Christianity. Bronze Age Pervert is not Bronze Age Pervert is a neo-pagan. I don't know if he would embrace the term and I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but certainly that would be a doctrine that I think he has advocated. I think, exactly what you described, though to some extent. In some sense, they answer the question. They are providing firm answers to the question that you offered, which is what is a different or what I suggested, what is a different vision that we can aspire to and that provides a different vision?

Nate Fischer: 21:55

He has a very, in some sense, a fairly coherent, fleshed out and clearly alternative doctrine of how we should approach life, how we should, what we should value, what we should celebrate, what the good life looks like. I would disagree with a lot of those things. I think that the grounding in paganism, the rejection of Christianity, is a problem. At the same time, aspects of it are clearly directionally correct. There's aspects of it that are. They resonate because as critiques of our status quo, as critiques of our current society, they ring true with many, many people, including Christians certainly, including people who are, who have some sort of grounding in sort of natural truth and a recognition that in many ways our society is suppressing a lot of natural truths. So I think that explains a lot of appeal of BAP. I think another part of it is just that self-confidence. He's out there and he's unapologetically. He's unapologetically offering alternative despite the fact that the regime rejects it, and that there's a charisma in that People are drawn to someone. They're drawn to someone who has the confidence to do that.

Nate Fischer: 23:11

Now, going to ROG Nationals, going to Wren particularly, I think there's a very strong, I would say there's less of a sort of emphasis that I've seen on a sort of overarching philosophy. There's a and this one is more directly related to us because we've actually we've partnered with him. He is working with Kindred Harvest, which is our new natural, really sort of industrial contaminant free food company, starting with teas that are plastic free and glue free and heavy metal free, adding other lines that could be adding honey that's glyphos fade free. All of those are trends that I think recognize, on the one hand, a skepticism about what the industrial food and health apparatus has told us.

Nate Fischer: 23:59

As people lose trust in institutions, you start to lose trust in institutions that have told you it's safe to eat things with this degree of heavy metals, it's safe to eat plastic and safety glue. These are things that humans did not ingest in any significant quantity, if at all, for the vast majority of history. Now we're doing so. Now we have a lot of problems. Someone who comes out and essentially offers both explanations for how those things can actually lead to problems we see, such as obesity and a lot of other disease, and starts to offer practical suggestions on how to avoid those, that is appealing. That's a very basic. It's a very basic set of concrete actions you can take to free yourselves of things that you have reason to be skeptical of. I don't think we initially know for certain the consequences of those things, of those sort of industrial contaminants, but we know we don't trust the people who have told us that they're safe and we know that those people have lied to us in other contexts. Someone who can come out and start offering a program in life that involves living in a more natural way, in a way that is certainly, I guess, more robust to the potential dangers of those, is going to be appealing.

Nate Fischer: 25:24

Again, it does so in a way that it's just refusing to play the regime's games. I mean, the left has been. I don't know if you've seen these articles, but over the last year there's been a spate of articles talking about how bodybuilding is fascist, right, Farmers markets are fascist. All of this stuff is now being labeled. Anything that displays a skepticism of this technocratic regime is suddenly being labeled Nazi or fascist, which is just comical. I mean farmers markets fascist, right. So you end up with someone who just and instead of being afraid of that again this is the goes to the self-confidence. Instead of being afraid of that, just mock it, and I think that's people respond well when someone mocks the sensors, when they mock the Pharisees of our day.

Eric Conn: 26:14

Yeah, and I think that's a big.

Eric Conn: 26:15

I've seen a lot of people in the, you know, identified in the Christian camp Jake, midor and people like this who have really been pushing against, almost like this is the way I read it, I want to get your take but like, oh yeah, you see these people that are associated with that guy.

Eric Conn: 26:29

He's bad, We've got a guilty by association, but we're going to throw those to the wolves. It's an interesting dynamic. So even Salon, I think it was, ran an article on Jake and you know he's got sort of, I guess, a soft, complementarian type position it would be soft, in my view at least and they're calling him like an authoritarian fascist, you know. So his response and a lot of the regime evangelical response is oh, let me show you some people who are worse and by the way they're, you know they read BAP or they read REN or you know whatever it is. So I wonder, I'm thinking, with somebody like Jake or the regime evangelicals, a mix of both why are these guys? Why is our camp? Why is any association with them? Why do they think it's so volatile? And ultimately, I think, why do they think it's a threat?

Nate Fischer: 27:22

So I think Jake is. Jake is sort of he's profoundly disturbed and probably a range of ways. I mean I think there's sort of a, there's a self-loathing there, there's a rejection of, in a sense, he's a man without a culture, a man without a country. I mean he even look at how he dresses. He doesn't even dress like a normal person in Western attire and I think it comes from probably a sort of rejection of his home culture. And yet he has this ideology, that, or he has this value system that celebrates sort of rudeness in certain ways, and I'm sure there's just a profound cognitive dissonance there that leads to all sorts of just there's all sorts of disturbed and sort of chaotic reactions. And I think you combine that and this.

Nate Fischer: 28:08

You noted the salon thing, the salon attack. What really stood out to me there is when he responded to that. He responded with a really sort of off-handed defense of his statistical methods or something like that, or the study it was something really minor rather than a condemnation of Solon's moral framework is evil. Look, if someone comes after me like Solon did, I would say your moral framework, the moral system you use to attack me, is evil. I don't care what you say because you are evil. Jake, instead, is too cowardly to condemn them for their attack on him, which I think displays again a profound, probably, lack of confidence even in the goodness of his own moral framework. So instead he turns around and he says okay, well, let's accept your moral framework by your moral framework. Here's a bunch of people who are even worse. I'm going to turn around and I'm going to condemn them. So he's essentially endorsing the moral framework that has been used to condemn him rather than condemning it, and that's just. I think that's cowardice and I think it's probably a lack of self-confidence born of a self-loathing.

Nate Fischer: 29:22

And I think a lot of the evangelicals it's probably less extreme than Jake. I mean, many of them are actually somewhat successful, moderately successful, according to short of regime metrics at least they have decent degrees, they have decent sort of careers, they're decent looking, whatever In many cases. I think in their case they're sort of more straightforward. They're comfortable people and they're collaborating with the. They're very happy to collaborate with the regime and they're very happy to.

Nate Fischer: 29:56

They're very happy to use the regime to go after their enemies. I mean just as just as when the Pharisees condemned Jesus to the Romans, they said we have no king but Caesar they are. They're essentially looking to denounce their rivals within the movement and they're looking to use the regime to. They're worried that the rivals are going to upset the comfortable relationship that they've been able to build with the dominant regime. That allows them to maintain, even if subordinate, at least at least fairly comfortable position. And so they choose to denounce those rivals to the regime and they choose to. They choose to use that denunciation to essentially use the regime to dispatch their rivals within the evangelical world.

Eric Conn: 30:46

Yeah, I definitely agree with you. That's really profound. One of the things I was going to ask you to is I know Aaron Wren had written about Tim Keller and his renewal of church in America and this shift away from complementarianism to anti-fundamentalism. I want to get your thoughts on that. You think that's happening, you think it's at play here and if so, how do you think the rest of us who are not part of that movement we're not going to embrace the anti-fundamentalism? How do we respond to it?

Nate Fischer: 31:16

So do. I think it's play here. I think absolutely. I think in many ways, what Aaron described is a very natural and pervasive dynamic where what they are, what they're attempting to do, is what I just described here, which is they're attempting to find a way to separate themselves from the people who are. They have a stance that, fundamentally, is based on making peace with the regime. I like to say it's sort of. It's probably what a state church would look like in a communist country. Like you go to the state churches in China. I don't think those churches are in. I wouldn't even say they're entirely false in their doctrine. I mean, you can probably go there and you can probably hear something that's relatively, relatively in line with Christianity versus most of what you'd hear. But they're going to. They're going to, at the very least, not talk about the things that you're not supposed to talk about. And so I think that there's sort of a trajectory where you see a lot of the, the establishment evangelicals, finding ways to keep evangelicalism within the bounds. That would that would make it acceptable to the regime.

Nate Fischer: 32:27

Anti-fundamentalism is a tool to attack those who are outside. I would say that's one, there's two, there's anti-fundamentalism, and then there's there's sort of. I think there's the other tools where they denounce them. I think the fundamentalism one is interesting because it's classically been sort of a a line of divide within evangelicalism. I think evangelicalism itself sort of originated in a division from fundamentalism, so you could almost see that as a more internal, that sort of a more internal means of separating themselves, whereas denouncing them for sort of regime popular sins is is more like denouncing them to the Romans, let's say.

Nate Fischer: 33:10

So I think you see both of those. You see both of those dynamics and they're probably mixed. It depends on the case. They may be very opportunistic about those. I think one thing Aaron Wren pointed out that's key is there's really no meaning. There's no sort of clear or meaningful definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is is something that they recognize as a threat or dangerous. I think the way he used I mean the way he used that article about winsomeness to talk about this sort of showed how ridiculous a lot of it is. So I think that they'll opportunistically use both of those, both of those means, depending on what's likely to stay.

Eric Conn: 33:48

Our sponsor, private Family Banking Partners, is on a mission to help Christians live out the Dominion mandate by making a stealth-like move away from the mainstream banks and into their own privatized banking system. This innovative system is designed to guarantee uninterrupted compound interest and tax-free growth without exposure to typical stock market risks. To join this growing community that is already building wealth into future generations and converting Postmill Talk into Postmill Action, contact Private Family Banking Partner Chuck De LaTorante at his email chuck at privatefamilybankingcom Again, that's Chuck at privatefamilybankingcom To set up an appointment and to receive a free copy of Chuck's new book Protect your Money Now how to Build Multigenerational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown. Go to the link in the show notes For more information.

Eric Conn: 34:44

Yeah, it also seems like with the evangelical establishment at least that portion of it it just has the feel like the wheels are coming off. I don't know if you have the same read on it, but my anticipation would be that means that there's going to be sort of a power and influence vacuum on the right for a lot of people to potentially pick up. I've kind of wondered if Mark Driscoll isn't trying to hit on that. He's come very strong with a lot of the anti-woke messaging of late. So it's like you see all the people he used to be aligned with going left and now he is completely rebranded going right. So I'm curious if you see that A do you think it's crumbling, and B do you think it creates a power vacuum that has to be filled.

Nate Fischer: 35:25

So it absolutely creates a power vacuum. There's no question that the evangelical establishment has lost a vast, vast share of its influence and its power. Now much of that, I think, has been seeded effectively to a increasingly totalitarian regime. So for a lot of people who would have been loyal to the Gospel Coalition, they're probably now taking their cues from people who are outside of the church altogether or who are certainly, at best, sort of much, much more liberal Christians so-called Christians Then within the conservative church. I think there's a tremendous power vacuum Now. Is that necessarily going to be filled by other analogous influencers? Maybe, maybe not. I think to some extent that could be filled by local pastors. It could be filled by a lot of different structures. There's no guarantee that it's a power vacuum that will be filled by a like-kind alternative, but maybe with a different set of views.

Nate Fischer: 36:23

Driscoll I don't want to comment too much on Driscoll. I'm not extremely familiar with Driscolls. I've seen him on Twitter a little bit. I haven't been following him closely so I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to do. I think he's certainly a very, very savvy person at recognizing what people will respond to. I mean he was without question. He was incredibly effective as a communicator when he was in Seattle, and he was effective.

Nate Fischer: 36:50

I've heard many, many people who speak very positively about how he reached them. He knows how to. I think he knows how to read the moment and recognize messages that people need to hear, that they want to hear. In terms of the substance of what he's saying right now, I don't know. I know Aaron has been critical of some of what he's said and some of what he's done. I was never. I never listened to him very much. I never, for whatever reason. I wasn't one of the people that his message resonated with, even in his heyday. It's possible that he's learned from. He's learned from some of what may have been errors or mistakes in the past and he actually has a message that's meaningfully improved. He may read the moment but make some of the same mistakes over again. Yeah, no, I think that's helpful.

Eric Conn: 37:40

One of the things I want to do as we move to a close is just ask you there's been a lot of I feel like I've heard this a lot from a lot of people on the right Maybe a lot of people don't know where it comes from but this expression that we have no enemies to the right. You shared an article by Charles Haywood talking about this. I wonder if you would just unpack that. What does that mean? I'm sure some of us are probably using it in a wrong way.

Eric Conn: 38:03

But how do you see that idea and how should it play out?

Nate Fischer: 38:08

I was having some discussions about this. I was having multiple discussions about this this morning. I think the key is the key to understanding that concept is understanding understanding what an enemy means. An enemy, ultimately, is someone who you are trying to destroy. You're trying to, whether it's politically or economically, destroy them, remove their power, remove their ability to remove their ability to do anything to you. I think that that's very different than that's very different than a sinner. It's very different than someone who is wrong, who's teaching something. That's an error that needs correction. An enemy is someone you're trying to destroy and the left is united in treating us as enemies. The left is extremely powerful and is trying to destroy us. So I certainly don't feel the need to pick enemy level fights with people who are not on the left, who are not part of that. You don't, you don't want to make any more enemies than you need to right now.

Nate Fischer: 39:14

I think some people, I would say, extend that to don't criticize anyone on the right. I think that's that. That that gets risky. It's often a prudential question. I mean, you don't need to nitpick, you don't need to criticize everyone who's wrong on the right. I think we should focus our energy at the left. At the same time, I think there's room for vigorous debate both about what's prudent, what's effective and what's right and wrong. I mean, there's still questions of what's right and wrong, and there might be errors that would be associated with the right, that are wrong. What I would say is don't attack them.

Nate Fischer: 39:47

In leftist terms, look if someone, if someone, has a view that I disagree with, that would be associated with the right. Let's call it associated with the far right, so they're even sort of to my right potentially, depending on how you define those terms. I'm not going to, I'm not going to denounce them. The way a leftist would denounce them, which A is, is reinforcing the leftist moral framework. B. It's also creating a real likelihood of bringing down much, much stronger and disproportionate harm to them, because we have a society that already, where certain types of denunciations destroy someone's livelihood, they destroy their, they destroy their job, they destroy their credibility, they destroy their livelihood in a way that's vastly disproportionate to what would be appropriate, even if they are in fact, in fact wrong on that issue.

Nate Fischer: 40:36

And so I would, I'd happily talk with them. Maybe I'd do it privately, maybe I'd do it. If we're doing a public, I'd do it in a sort of very careful way. But I don't think we I don't think we can't discuss those issues. I think it's important actually for us to have pretty vigorous discussion about a lot of tough issues that have been suppressed in liberal society. And whatever position is most opposed to liberalism is not necessarily the right one. It's. It's worth discussing. So it's not that we can't debate or criticize ideas to the right, but we don't treat them as enemies, we don't try to destroy them. Is is the key point.

Eric Conn: 41:10

Yeah, and when you're thinking of enemies on the left, like where are you aiming specifically? Like what is it ideas on the left? Is it movements regime?

Nate Fischer: 41:21

I mean, enemies are people. Enemies are not just ideas. I think the key thing to realize is there are people who are trying to destroy us. There are people. There are people trying to put Trump and his lawyers in jail. Those people are enemies, not just the ideas that motivate them. They should be removed from power. They should be, they should be punished, they should be eliminated in their ability to to do that in an example made that prevents other people from doing it. So I think, where am I aiming particularly? I'm focused on the domains that I'm operating. I mean, part of it is I'm operating in business. So I'm not day to day necessarily focused on enemies. I am day to day focused on building businesses, building a fund, helping build up our, our economic ecosystem.

Nate Fischer: 42:06

Obviously, we have enemies to the left to have declared war on us. Right, jake Midor has declared war on us. In a sense, he has made clear that he's going to keep coming after us. I mean, that's that's you. You can't entirely ignore that. I, you, you have people who are. I think you have people who are. Maybe they're not focused on us today, but they're doing things that would absolutely destroy us.

Nate Fischer: 42:32

There's a lot of people, I think in the justice department who want to build up a narrative of domestic extremism that they would define in a way designed to encompass us, that would allow them to direct the full power of the state against us and destroy us. Those people are, without questions, enemies. Now the prudent way to deal with that might be to operate it might still be to operate through conventional political channels to try to remove their power, to have the house Republican committees investigate them. There's a lot of prudential questions around how you deal with an enemy who you choose to focus, focus on at a particular point. But it's very clear.

Nate Fischer: 43:08

I mean, look at, there's a lot of, there are a lot of sort of ideological enemies and with that sort of leaders. I mean it's given the nature of the regime, it's not necessarily neatly wrapped up in one person or anything, but there are. There are lots of people who very clearly want to destroy our, our culture, destroy our way of life, destroy any sort of nation. They want to send millions of people across the border to essentially invade our country. I would say those people are rightly considered enemies and how we respond to them versus the many, many other priorities we face is an important prudential question. But if we don't recognize that they are enemies, then we we certainly aren't prepared to even consider that calculus.

Eric Conn: 43:53

Yeah, I think that's really really helpful. Well, nate, I definitely appreciate it. For people who want to follow along with what you guys are doing, obviously we'd recommend checking out the podcast new founding podcast. We'll provide links for that in the show notes. Any other big projects that you'd like to highlight?

Nate Fischer: 44:08

Well, I I mentioned the fund Very, very excited about that. It's it's something that and it's something that's going to be open. I I we haven't announced or publicly launched it yet, so I won't say a ton about it, but we are. We are seeking startups that are. So the way to describe what we're doing fundamentally is we we back companies where our understanding of the political and cultural moment and our connections within the right-wing ecosystem make a material difference. So it's not just a company that has a Christian owner, it's not just a company that sort of culturally values aligned all that that can be an important component, but for us, our focus is on those where that makes a material difference in the business itself. It's key. It's selling to people on the right, let's say, it's selling a product that would be a key piece of infrastructure.

Nate Fischer: 44:57

So we're always looking to talk to, to founders and and companies in that space. We're always looking, we're we're interested in talking to investors who are interested in investing in that space. We, we do advisory work for them. And then we, we continue to do talent placement. So we are building, we're continuing to build out our talent network and we have a great pipeline of people who are very eager to make a move into companies that that are values aligned and that would be a broader array of companies. That would be any company in many cases that is not going to have a woke leftist culture, and we are. We are placing people often professionals, executives, very, very strong people eager to move to companies like that. So really think of it as serving the key sort of high value needs of businesses in our space.

Eric Conn: 45:49

Awesome. Yeah, that's fantastic.

Nate Fischer: 45:51

And you can go to new. You can check out our website, newfoundingcom. We talk about those. We'll talk about all of this there. And then you can check out my Twitter. Certainly, I talk about all of this there.

Eric Conn: 45:59

Awesome. Well, I appreciate it, Nate. Thanks so much for your time.

Nate Fischer: 46:02

Thank you, eric, appreciate this, enjoy talking.

Eric Conn: 46:06

Thanks again for listening to this episode of the Hardman podcast and special shout out to our Patreon supporters. If you're not yet a Patreon supporter, you can join today for as little as $5 a month, and that definitely helps keep this work going. We are glad to partner with you for content that builds a new Christendom and reclaims biblical masculinity. At the same time, you can check the show notes for the link to become a Patreon supporter of the Hardman podcast today. Stay frosty, fight the good fight. Act like men.