Latest / UK Column Radio / Infanticide, Pharma, and Feminism | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter

Transcript

Infanticide, Pharma, and Feminism | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter · UK Column Radio

• 0:30
  Speaker 1: My name is Jim. This is Jim Wolfe The Battle
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: of Ideas, Charles. Another week without Mike, so it's just
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: you and I again, I know it is.
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry that well. I don't think apologies are really necessary.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: It's the audience, certainly, not not to you or me,
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: and and I don't think to Mike. I mean, as
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: I made the point last week, it's great that he's
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: got some time off and I have had a little bit,
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: I knows, having good time. So that is to be
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: to be held in the mind, front and center, and
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: he'll be back soon enough.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: I've got a very important question, based on a comment
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: that both you and I saw recently under one of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: our videos, Charles, why do you die your hair? Funny enough?
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: I have? I have once dyed my hair for this
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: is this could be regarded as terribly distasteful. It was
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: for a fancy dress party absolutely years ago, and I
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: can't even remember what the theme was. I can't quite
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: remember wh I died my hair, but I died my
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: hair black. And I the only reason that this is
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: even mildly amusing is that I subsequently met as a
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: person who I who I just chatted to quite a
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: bit at that party several weeks later, by which time
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: you know, this was it was a kind of temporary
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: die had washed out, And the look on this young
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: guy's face, he just couldn't. He knew there was something
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: that was right about the next conversation. He knew that
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: we'd spoken that, you know, but he was just doing
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: the processing thing. Something has changed quite radically, and he
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: couldn't quite work out what it was, and finally he
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: struck upon it.
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: Your hairs, your hair has completely.
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: Changed, assuming that black was naturally the color of my hair,
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: and that I must have died it out. So so yeah, anyway,
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: there was a comment, I forget what you have to
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: remind me what exactly did it say?
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Real men?
• 2:26
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't hear you know your stones off.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: I'm so sorry I had my Michael, I can't remember
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: what topic one Real men don't dye their hair?
• 2:35
  Speaker 3: Or that's right, something like that.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: It was? It was.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: It was absolutely brilliant, because I had nothing to do
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: with anything that that particular recording had that's discussing or touched.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: On or that should be mynu tagged line. Never mind
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: the battle of ideas, John Warfere. Real men don't die
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: there here.
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it could be. I mean it's I think, keep it,
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: keep it in reserve. You know, it's there if you
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: need it. But it was great, It was really good.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: I enjoy comments like that because they are so far
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: removed from anything that one's really thinking about. They're absolutely great,
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: and it leads into you know, it could lead into
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: a load of stuff, in fact, on the real men's stuff.
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: The BBC World Service this morning was promoting a program
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: called The Conversation, which I think in fact is traditionally
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: a Radio four program, but anyway, it at times it
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: has if I'm remembering correctly, it can be interesting because
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: it involves people who have had an experience, had a
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: sort of shared experience, and it's it's sometimes a sort
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: of retrospective. So they'll be gathered together and they'll talk
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: about something significant and okay, this is the BBC, so
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: invariably is it's going to be some sort of a
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: mainstream topic. But nonetheless, you can't really dismiss the first
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: hand experience that somebody has. Obviously, the view that they
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: will take of it might be different from yours when
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: you listen. But still, and what we were talking about this
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: morning was I mean that the slant put on it
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: was absolutely amazing, but it was this word that I'm
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: actually still quite unfamiliar with the manner sphere, and it
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: was said in such terms of absolute revulsion.
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: It seems to well, I you know, I tried to
• 4:19
  Speaker 3: look at it.
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: I don't I don't really know, but it seems to
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: be based on the universal, mainstream, universal sort of progressive
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: hatred of Andrew Tait and of anybody that wants to
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: emulate either the philosophy or the lifestyle of I've just
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: looked at that, okay, And I think the reason this
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: has come about is because Louis Theroux has made a
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: documentary about these people who apparently occupy the manusphere. But
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: as the BBC does uniquely well, they have they've sort
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: of created this bracket which now has been formalized in
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: BBC speak, though it really exists as though there's a
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: sort of codified membership, and it's a it's a absolutely
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: bona fide a thing, as opposed to just a rather
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: loose description which some people may think they fit into,
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: or may want to fit into, or whatever else. But
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: it's it's I mean, you know, it's just it's just
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: another interesting look behind the I suppose behind the screen
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: or scene or whatever you want to say, at the
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: way that the mainstream is there to curate public opinion
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: and sort of nudge people back onto track when they're
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: thinking the wrong things. And and again I think, just.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Sorry, just finished the points.
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: It's again, it's what what the BBC's best at, which
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: is which is patronizing people. Anyone who thinks that Andrew
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: Tait is a wizard or has a masterful command of
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: either sort of life or philosophy. Fine, I mean, you know,
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: I think to not credit people with being able to
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: see through any of the things that come in front
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: of them is, as I say, remarkably patronizing. But it's
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: just interesting the way in which they do it and
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: who they select as targets that have to be sort
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: of you know, myth busted and all this kind of stuff.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Actually a fan of you know, topics relating to a masculinity.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: I think manosphere is obviously just an online term. Andrew Tait,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: just for example, is is an anomaly because he's obviously
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: a terrible example to men in many ways, and yet
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: he does say some things that are that are correct.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: So what happens is that you end up with this
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: blurring of the of the lines. I don't think he's
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: in any way you know, moral or ethical or upstanding,
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: but he does make valid points. And so now it
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: becomes complicated because now you it becomes it doesn't become
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: a binary thing anymore. You can't just dismiss him because
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: he has made a lot of valid points over the years.
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: But nonetheless, I don't know if if you listened to
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: my conversation with James Walton last week about you know,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: every day carry.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I did well and funnily enough that that's exactly
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: what I was about to talk about in relation to
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: Andrew Tates and this idea of the minister.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: But you what were you?
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: Were you about to say something or were you just
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: introducing that as a question.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Well, I was about to say that I personally enjoy
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: that kind of thing, because self improvement is part of
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: the poly war. It's the one of one of the
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: attacks on us is obviously to make us feel inferior
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: and we are parasites and we're useless heaters and all
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: that kind of thing, and we lose what it means
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: also just to be a man and to be a
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: husband and to be a father. I am about to
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: be a father for a second time. You've got kids,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: and these things become very real when you're in the
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: situation and and and they matter, Charles, they do matter.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: And it's great to be able to discuss it like
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: I did with James. I actually forgot where I was
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: going to go with that point. By the way, Okay,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: well don't worry, because I will.
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: I will absolutely bring you back on track, or at
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: least onto the try I wanted to go, which is
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: to make the connection between what your discussion with James
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: Wharton brought out and what Andrew Tait is or does.
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: And I think it's completely fascinating that people and this
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: is this does not just apply to the manusphere.
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: This is this is almost all of.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: Popular culture, which is about status, is about having your
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: face on the screen. It's about projecting an image, it's
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: about having money and gadget and apparently this is all
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: put under the banner of success. You know you are
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: successful if you've achieved all of those things. And I
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: find it hilarious because if you then listen to your
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: conversation with James Walton, it doesn't have to even be
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: that much detail, because clearly that's something that he goes
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: into inconsiderable detail for anyone who hasn't listened to that
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: James Wharton, I think, is he to describe himself as
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: a prepper or maybe that's not quite the right word.
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: I can't remember violence or he is a better anyway,
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: but it's got very better connotations. Yeah it has Yeah, okay,
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: so that maybe that's the wrong word. But the point
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: is that he is looking he is looking at life
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: as being a practical challenge, and he's asking the question
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: as I think we all should, which is, what if
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: you know, what if? What if the grid does go down?
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: And what if the shops do run out of food?
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: What if this, that, and the other? And I had
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: to say, throughout time, that's always been a possibility. If
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: you haven't had access to or control over any of
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: those things, then I think you're incredibly naive to just
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: assume that stuff will roll on and it will be
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: absolutely fine, even if by and large that is your experience.
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: So to have a what if plan is very good.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Now.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: What I find hilarious about Andrew Tait and his acolytes,
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: if that's who they are, they drive these. I mean,
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: you're always seeing these these uh. I don't know, Lamborghini
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: or Ferrari cars, whatever. I'm just imagining how comic it
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: would be if a carburetta or fan belt or something broke,
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: or there was a exhausted manifold issue, and how much
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: use any of those guys would be at dealing with it. Similarly,
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: if the electrics failed, how many of them would be
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: able to go to the distribution board and work out
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: what was wrong and how to correct it. And the
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: point I'm getting to, which I think is fairly obvious,
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: is that actually these guys, for all their sort of
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: aphorisms and projection of I don't know what it is
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: exactly they are projecting, but they are They're useless. As
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: far as I can work out, they are useless. Andrew Tate,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: I think built his reputation as a as a mixed
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: martial arts fighter. Okay, that I'm not dismissing as useless.
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: He's obviously physically fit, strong, and capable in that god
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: and this is not an attack on him. I've never
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: met him, I don't know him, but I'm guessing that
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: a lot of the other people that were in this
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: documentary that Louis Throux has just produced are I would say,
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: in my definition of what it is or isn't helpful
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: in life or in society, I think they are all useless.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: So without if you switched off the money tap, then
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: there's nothing. And I think that's the bit that I
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: am sort of amazed and disappointed that people get drawn
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: into thinking is is wonderful? But as I say, I
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: think that's sort of always been the case, you know,
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: the idea of popular icons as being useful people.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: I don't know if there.
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: Was really ever a time where that was where that
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: was the case in a sort of majority sentence. So
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: that's why I think that the Walton James Walton discussion
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: and the Mano sphere idea is a really interesting juxtaposition
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: because it's not you know, to say that you can
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: fix the plumbing, or you can source water, or you
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: can grow stuff or whatever. I mean that for some
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: reason doesn't have popular appeal, and the question has got
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: to be, well, why how much help is it to
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: be able to dry Lamborghini as compared with providing food
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: for your family?
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: But I mean it does go also deeper than that.
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: One of in my view, one of the most valuable
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: takeaways from a discussion with James about EDC and prepping
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff is precisely everything that
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: we ever talk about. The control good and all of
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: these things that are top down in positions, and by
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: setting back and moaning and pointing fingers at them and going, well,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: we need to wait for the government to fix things.
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: We need to wait, he talks about taking responsibility, being
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: able to get into the situation yourself and solve the problem,
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: which unfortunately charles a lot of what's going on. And
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: there's a very interesting segue that I think I'm building
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: you into what I want to talk to you about
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: not taking responsibility for your actions.
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well I think that's exactly it, not taking
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: responsibility for your actions. But you know, to go back
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: to that, the sort of the glamorizing of people who
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: are completely unable to not just necessarily to take responsibility
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: for their own actions, but are not in fact responsible
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: really for their own lives. And so this again the manosphere.
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: I do say a lot of it is just affront.
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: It's a charant. I have no idea where these people
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: are getting the money that they're supposed to have, But
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: without it, there is nothing there. And I think that's
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: the really significant thing. The point that Andrew Tait has
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: always made consistently is that he has enough money to
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: be able to bar and large ignore all the dictats
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: that other people might be concerned about. So that's been
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: his approach as opposed to the right will just just
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: build your life in such a way that you're controlling
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: every element of it. And I would say that he's
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: not controlling any of the elements of his life. He's
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: completely He and these other people are completely and utterly
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: reliant on the supply chains that they're able to purchase from,
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: so and I would not describe those as being resilient.
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: So yeah, anyway, but you carry on, Well, you know
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: what I'm going to bring up now.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: We spoke about it earlier, and everything at the moment
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: on social media's is centering around this trial that's happening
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: in the US with this mother Lindsay, what's the name
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Clancy Clancy. She murdered her three kids, frustranging them and
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: is now claiming that she's not guilty of a criminal offense.
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: And there's such an interesting, bigger discussion going on here
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: because it's about the system. And it's about over medicalization
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: of quote unquote mental illness. It's about feminism and how
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: women You've seen these videos of these women coming together
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: in the hundreds protecting her, defending her, saying that she's innocent,
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: and this this a there's a complete inversion of sanity
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: going on here, and it's it's it's it's it's baffling.
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: Uh And and I wonder how much of this is
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: by design? And I think a lot of it is
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: by design, but over a long period of time, yes,
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: I think so.
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, it is very it's a very complicated issue.
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: And I certainly wouldn't claim to know a huge amount
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: either about the trial that's ongoing, all the circumstances leading
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: up to it, but but certainly looking at the the
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: optics in the way that it's being covered in the
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: response to it is is very perplexing, but it cut
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: But to come back to your the point that you
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: were making the connection with in terms of taking responsibility,
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: I think this is this actually is a thread that
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: runs through quite a lot of what we discuss, which
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: is that if her defense is that she was in
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: effect not in control because she was hallucinating and she
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: was being directed by a voice or voices to do this.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: In an actual fact, it seems not at all straightforward,
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: and that she was, as far as I understanding, that
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: she was considering that she was not worthy of life.
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: She had to die. So okay, well, well again, you know,
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: there are there are many levels of this, But the
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: point is that the it's difficult, isn't it, because you
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: on the one hand, you're claiming that you didn't have control,
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: and therefore you're not liable, you're not at fuld you
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: it can't have been a criminal offense. But at the
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: same time there was a rationale because she has stated
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: that she believed that she should kill herself and that
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: therefore the logical conclusion was that the children wouldn't survive
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: without her, so that's why she had to kill them.
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: But at the same time arguing that you are not
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: responsible because this is being dictated to you. So it's
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: a sort of it's a circle in a way that
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: I think can't quite be squared. But the point of
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: it is that that it's very much in the spirit
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: of the age where it's it's another it's another thing
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: that's that's apparently nobody's fault and that is what we
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: see more and more of now, and that that is,
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, apart from the specifics of it, which are
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: of course absolutely horrific. But but but the sort of
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: bigger picture of of there not being any responsibility and
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: being able to pursue a line like that through the
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: legal system is I think increasingly frequent and therefore really problematic.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: And I mean, I don't want to get into the
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: pacifics because we aren't analyzing the specifics. We're talking about
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: the sort of macro picture yet. But it is also
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: it's bewildering to me, Charles, that we are in a
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: position today where we are kicking the can down the
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: road going well, you know, she premeditated it. She got
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: her husband to leave the house, she planned it, she
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: thought about it. That's premeditated. And then she strangled all
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: of them, and then and then you know, and then
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: committed suicide in a half fast way. She jumped out
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: of the window and got paralyzed. So she committed the crime. Now, now,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: if she had voices in her head, which apparently a believer,
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: is not the case. And all of these things, these
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: are all deflections to make her a victim. And I
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: find this is a big problem of kind of the
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: postmodern movement. It's part of the feminist movement. It's too
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: you know, if it wasn't let's turn it around. Let's
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: say it was a man, the father. Let's say he
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: killed these three kids. Do you think we'd be seeing
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: the same kind of conversations right now. No, he'd be
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: a monster and hang him out to dry and all
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: this kind of stuff. But with her, she's troubled and
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: the system failed her, and we need to have sympathy
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: for her and for me. There's a complete disconnect going
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: on here, and it's so it's a lot larger than
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: the incident itself.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: I think that's fair.
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: And I think your point about about the difference between
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: how these things are managed depending on whether it's a
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: man or woman that's supposedly perpetrated the crime, let's say, yeah,
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: that's that's very stark. I think also it's another instance
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: where more than one thing can be true. And and
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: on the point about you know the system, well, first
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: of all, you know what system, What is that system?
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: How is it meant to work? And could it have
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: made an intervention that would her prevented this from happening,
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: And even if it could, is that really the purpose
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: of the system is the balance of responsibility between the
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: individual and the system, weighted towards the system, or we
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: really went to believe that our lives in certain instances
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: should be managed by something other than ourselves. And the
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: problem with that question in this specific case, I think
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: is that she was already as far as I understand,
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: again limited understanding, and the specifics don't matter to a
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: huge extent. But the simple fact is it seems to
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: be beyond doubt that she had a she had a
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: relationship with pharmaceutical product that was very significant, and I
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: think it cannot be regarded as irrelevant that this happened
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: in the United States, where I think the attitude to
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: and the control of the big farmer is completely different
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: really from anywhere else in the world. And the probably
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: this would apply particularly in real of sense, to psychology
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: or psychiatry or whatever branch of sort of mind science
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: exactly this would be related to. But that that I
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: don't think that can be dismissed. And again it's not
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: to say therefore that well, in which case she definitely
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: did have no responsibility. But the point is you are
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: faced with an impossible hypothetical, which is, well, what if
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: she'd never encountered any of these drugs? And I think
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: anyone who's ever ingested any sort of medication will, you know,
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: if they're really sort of compelled to think about it,
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: will acknowledge that whilst it might be intended that it
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: changes something physically, there are very often there is a
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: mental effect. And just on a personal note, I vividly
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: remember that with you know what the at that point
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: what the British Army was describing as an anti malarial drug,
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: the name of which was larium. I can't remember what
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: the chemical name for larium is, but but you know
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: it was. It was a product that was supposed to
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: be taken by exercising troops going to go to Africa.
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: And it's just it was a very interesting one because
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: because I said that I wouldn't take it, because I
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: was very well aware first of all of what the
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: supposed symptoms of malaria are, having supposedly had it before,
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: and also understanding the physical relationship. Anyway, long and boroling story,
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: but in the end I was given an ultimatum of right, well,
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: you know you're off the course if you don't take it,
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: and okay, looking back, I think I made the wrong decision,
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: but I did take it, or rather, I took one
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: pill and suffered not absolutely immediately but sort of about
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: twelve hours later, very very serious sort of side effects,
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: but they were they were absolutely mentally it completely scrambled
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: my brain and so too. I mean not that it
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: had a you know, I didn't go and do anything stupid,
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: but I was completely incapacitated. So that's just a small
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: example of how a pharmaceutical product can affect. You know,
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: if you've been on multiple products for years, and.
• 23:14
  Speaker 3: You are also.
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: Sort of associated with this, but in a way distinctly separate.
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: You are struggling as a mother with three children, which,
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: let's face it is not that you know, that's not
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: an unusual struggle to have, it is. It absolutely is difficult,
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: especially given all the societal pressures. It is. It is
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: a difficult position to be in. But it does create
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: this hypothetical of well, what if, you know, what if
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: she had never encountered any of those drugs, is this
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: would this reality have been possible? And that, of course
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: the question that nobody can really answer, And so then
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: we're left in the hands of you know, so called
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: experts with testimony about well this is what was being
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: demonstrated there, as though they can really know that. And
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: I find that completely peculiar, and I think it reminds
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: one to a certain extent of the very very dodgy
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: contribution to the Lucy let Be supposed murders here in
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: the United Kingdom, a nurse who was accused of and
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: has been convicted of murdering a number of babies, and
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: a lot of this hung on the testimony of some
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: again and you know, a so called expert witness, this
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: guy called Dr Dowie Evans. And what's so remarkable about
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: that is that he in effect sort of interposed himself,
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: He sort of forced his way in to the case
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: and was determining whether or not something was murder. I mean,
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: it was so far beyond what he should have been
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: able to contribute as a supposedly expert witness. So so
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: I don't mean to diverge too much from the topic,
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: but the point is we just when it enters into
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: the legal realm, there are just so many sort of
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: spin off topics and areas that we can't really ever
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: understand or make sense of, and so then it does
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: become a question of right, well, what's going to be
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: drawn out of it, what's going to be made important?
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: And to your point, you know this has been seized upon,
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: you know, in really the most perverse way by sort
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: of feminist groups, right y, Yeah, And I think you
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: know that is odd. But you because obviously you've looked
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: at this more than me. I mean, what's your what
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: is your take on that on the agenda and as
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: you say, whether you know is that is that sort
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: of organic or where's it come from?
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: Where's it going?
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: Well? I mean, I don't know if you remember Rachel
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: Wilson was on my on my show, I think those
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: close to whatever Europe?
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: Do you remember?
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: And her husband Andrew, who has also been on my show,
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: but not on my UK column. Sharm unable to get
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: him because he's too busy at the moment. He's been
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: on Rogan a few times and once you're on Rogan
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: you become impossible to get hold of. But they have
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: argued a lot that this is a domino effect going
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: all the way back to the basically the introduction of
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve and putting women against men, and then
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: the sort of the occultic roots of the feminist women's
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: liberation movement, ironically, which is not about liberation, because what
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: were they liberated from. We end up with a with
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: a culture of of anti humanism. We see the the
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: the hatred for babies and and this this weird kind
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: of rehtoric that an unborn baby is a parasite. And
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: you see what's going on in the US, how they're
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: pushing that that that age of what do you call it,
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: that determination period closer and closer to birth in some
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: areas now at birth. And what's the difference between just
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: before birth or you know, just after birth, you know,
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: to parasite. I don't really want it. It's interfering with
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: my life. Let's just get rid of it. And once
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: we disconnect the humanity from you know, a baby, we
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: end up with this, with this culture of of of
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: disconnect from from our own family. What about her? What
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: about this woman's husband? You know what did you know?
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: Do they not talk or did they not talk? You know,
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: if I'm lying in bed with my wife, if you're say,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: you know, it was a rough day yesterday. And then
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: as you do, you know, a as a couple, you go, well,
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: let me help, or because you do things together so
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: that the other person doesn't end up, you know, killing
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: your kids. Uh. And so so what I'm what I'm
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: getting at is to get to this point, there's a
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: long line of events that have occurred, and that's on
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: top of the pharmaceutical industry making people more and more sick,
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: the over medicalization of quote unquote mental illness. I mean,
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: what exactly is mental illness?
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean exactly A very very difficult question
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: to answer in any objective sense. And I think we're
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: seeing this, you know, the subjective drift, or at least
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: the drift towards subjectivity in every respect, especially when anything
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: or anyone presents as being outside of the mold that
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: the establishment wants people to fit into. So, for example,
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: if you're expressing views about government that aren't necessarily to
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: suggest that you support it's every action, then you're drifting immediately,
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: straight straight away towards being classified as an extremist. And
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: that is not at all how the absolutely overwhelming majority
• 28:43
  Speaker 2: of people who might think like that would ever classify themselves.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: So it's the question is who who gets to decide?
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: And I think mental illness is exactly in that area.
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: Who does get to decide. Some people will feel that
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: they are and therefore will be able to describe that
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: they are. But for other people, it might simply be
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: behavior that's looked at through a different lens, and that
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: can be enough to trigger the idea that the person
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: being viewed is mentally unwell. Well, I mean again, who's
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: to say, really so, I think it's very very difficult.
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: I think the other thing in, you know, to your
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: point about the anti sort of human nature of all
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: of this and the idea that especially with the increasing
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: promotion of and much more significantly really the protection of abortion,
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: and just to remind people the lengths that that's gone
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: to in the United Kingdom with the criminal well, what
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: results in the criminalization of any sort of activity anywhere
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: near an abortion center. There the the primary purpose in
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: many respects of what are called public spaces protection orders,
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: I think may be regarded as the protection of the
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: abortion industry. And just to highlight how absolutely ludicrous it
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: is that this has been exposed by several Christians who
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: have been to the proximity of abortion centers in order
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: to offer support to people who are either on their
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: way in or on their way out, and that has
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: been reduced down to being told not to do that,
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: not to engage, and therefore they've just had a presence there,
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: and in their own words, they've been praying silently in
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: their own heads, and that has been enough to find
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: them in breach of a public spaces Protection order, which
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: then may result in a criminal sanction. So it is
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: perfectly remarkable that that's the direction that this can go in.
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: But I think on the sort of human or humanity agenda,
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: one of the extraor ordinary things again that I think
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: should have struck people but apparently didn't, was that twenty
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: twenty and twenty twenty one across most of the world
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: was a period where apparently, you know, it was all
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: about saving lives and flattening the curve and this, that
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: and the other, and very much at commemorating deaths of
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: people who had supposedly died from with or you know, somewhere,
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: and this idea of COVID, and first of all, that
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: completely marginalized the death of anybody else, which seemed rather
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: perverse outcome. But then the next thing was February twenty
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: twenty two. We then switched modes. Apparently all we were
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: invited to switch modes into let Now, in effect, we've
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: got those lives in the bank, so now we can
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: expend them all by killing Russians, because that's really a
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: good thing to be doing. And it fits in again
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: to the abortion thing. So there are some instances in
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: which it's absolutely imperative that we save that particular life,
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: but we have no qualms about taking the other one
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: over there. And that and that incredible inconsistency, I think
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: is it is very concerning that people bar and Lage
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: don't seem to see that and the same you know,
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, you could say the same about any of
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: the conflict that's started since the end of the sort
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: of COVID restrictions period, to be to be totally fixated
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: on apparently saving lives, only to then go into overdrive
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: on destroying lives. And and now you know, we're seeing
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: the absolute well, I mean, it's more than a than
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: an undercurrent now towards war, you know, all out war
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: with Russia because of what's been sort of propagated in Ukraine.
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's it is, it is perverse beyond measure.
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: But that's the way, you know, that is the way
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: I see this as a contradiction.
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: Yes, the dichotomy that you've just highlighted as very, very real.
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: I've been thinking about this because, as you know, I've
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: got a second child on the way, so this is
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: quite close to the bone. But why I was pointing
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: out that we have a long line of events, and
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: I was referencing Rachel's amazing work, because she's done years
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: and years and years on this. Her book, by the way,
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: The Occult Roots of Feminism is worth getting. So you
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: have a series of events here, right. So you you
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: you start off by dehumanizing the baby, right, that's inside
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: the mom. Right, It's a parasite. It's just a clump
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: of cells. It's an invader. And what you're doing is
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: you're you're severing the emotional and the moral bond between
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: the mother and the child. Right. But then after that
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: you then normalize the disposal right of that child, because
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: it's not killing. It's healthcare, you know, it's it's it's family,
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: family planning, bodily autonomy, that kind of thing. Right. Now,
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: extend extend this along a little bit, Charles. Right, So
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: if if you can imagine a sliding scale here, you
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: now have disconnected babies from the parents. It's now an outsider.
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: You've now created a boundary where it's okay to get
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: rid of babies. But hold on, now we're going to
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: discuss at what period of time. You know, if it's
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: fourteen days, no, no, we all extended all the way
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: to nine months. Then eventually we can go, well, what's
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: nine months, Let's just do it after birth, you know,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: in the first year. You know, if it's in the way,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: it's a parasite. Still we can get rid of it.
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: And ultimately, what you're doing is you're removing accountability. This
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: is what we were talking about Earlier're removing accountability and
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: you're now blaming something else, and the woman then becomes
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: the victim again, as we're seeing in this particular case,
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: and ultimately you've got a dismantling of the family. Can
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: you see where I'm going with this? Yeah, you can,
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: and you have and then you have a societal you
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: have a societal collapse.
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, well I think this this actually relates back
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: to the point I think I was trying to make
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: about the distinction between somebody like Andrew Tait and somebody
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: like James Walton, and if I had to pick one
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: of those guys to James be alongside in I should
• 35:17
  Speaker 2: think pretty much any circumstance it would be James. And
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: that's That's not to say I'm joining the the burgeoning
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: band of Andrew Tate haters, because I'm certainly not in
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: that category. I'm you know, I have no acts to
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: grind with him, but I just don't think, apart from
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: his martial arts skills, I don't think he's a useful
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: human being in the way that I would regard usefulness.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: Now it's not a good example. Yeah, so that's why
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: we go along that. However, where I think things become
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: problematic is is when and again this is it's such
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: dangerous territory because how do we really know? So we
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: have to sort of stick with what we do know,
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: but to wind the clock back. And so if we
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: take the point that you're talking about, which is in effect,
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: where stuff is actually just a choice, it's not a
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: it's not forced that there's no an element of necessity.
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: But where I'm going with this is back in time.
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: And actually, as far as one understands, not that far
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: back in time, and I mean, let's face it, quite
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: possibly in certain parts of the world now it's possible,
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: does still happen. But the idea of infanticide as a
• 36:34
  Speaker 2: practice is it is something that absolutely definitely did exist.
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: And this is where I know we've talked about it
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: this a bit before, and I think you're I think
• 36:44
  Speaker 2: you and I probably diverge to a certain extent on this.
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: But the idea of where we sort of draw the
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: line between the animal kingdom and human human beings. And
• 36:54
  Speaker 2: we're obviously able to look now at the situation with
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: Lindsey Clancy and be completely sort of horrified by what
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: happened and repulsed by it. But then actually our own
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: species did exactly that thing, but for reasons that, as
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: far as we understand, are completely different, and that's what
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: creates that much greater degree of proximity to the animal kingdom.
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: Now you look at the animal kingdom.
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: Multiple species will in certain circumstances kill their own young. Now,
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: the way that we explain that is that there is
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: a practical benefit to doing so. Either it's because there
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: is a scarcity of food and therefore the offspring would
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: not survive, which is why the process is carried out,
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: because it saves that period and it allows perpetuation of
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: that species, or that there is some sort of a
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: defect with that particular offspring. It doesn't matter what it is,
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: what it is, yeah, okay, yeah, And then there are
• 37:59
  Speaker 2: and then the sort of genetic side of it. So
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: I think this is seen particularly a big cat, where
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: males will try to kill the offspring of another male
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: in order to perpetuate their own bloodline and bring the
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: female back into back on heat so that they can
• 38:16
  Speaker 2: make to it. So, I mean, there are a load
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: of things that we look at from the outside as
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: being instinctive. How can we really know whether it is
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: entirely instinctive or whether there is any sort of flicker
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: of emotion during any of that. What we do know
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: for sure is that with human beings, when we see
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: that even a distance far removed, like the Lindsay clanch case,
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: we absolutely experience that emotion. But the point is that
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: going back in time not very far. And I believe
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: this it's well documented, this was happening in the twentieth century,
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: and it was apparently practiced by humans, Okay, for there
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: were absolutely instances in which it was ideological or sort
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: of quasi religiou as well. So it is a very
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: very complicated and sort of nuanced picture. But the point
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: is that people believe they were doing it for the
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: right reason, and that wasn't some sort of paranoid voice
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: in the head type thing. It was part of some
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: kind of either custom in terms of it was a
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: sacrifice or whatever. And I'm not saying this saying oh,
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: you know, so therefore it's all absolutely fine. You know,
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: we can justify it like that because it was done
• 39:30
  Speaker 2: before and there was a practical benefit. But the point
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: is that we are living in this bizarre world where
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: somebody like Andrew Tate can just have loads of money,
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: and for our reason we think that we think that
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: that means something.
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: Charles, we don't diverge on this. I agree with everything
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: you said. The The additional point I'll ad is when
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: animals do that, there is a nature based reason for that.
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: They For example, if you have a bunch of lion
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: cubs being born in the word, one of the one
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: is white. Now more often than not that lion cub
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: will get killed by the mother or to end up
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: being pushed out, and there's a good reason for that
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: because it will bring down that pride. Will it becomes
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: noticeable and it puts the rest of the cubs in
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: danger because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Now,
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: if we apply that to humans, obviously it's more difficult
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: to wrap your head around. But there would also, I guess,
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: be a reason for it. That is about the preservation
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: of that family, not the destruction of the family, if
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: that makes sense. So, in other words, the lion the
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: lioness kills that white cup for the preservation of the family.
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: What this woman was doing was for her own selfish means,
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: she didn't have the world to live anymore for whatever reason,
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: and decided that her kids therefore shouldn't live either. Yes,
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: so it was selfish, if that makes sense. It wasn't
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: about the preservation of anything.
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: Well, I think, yes, I mean this is but this
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: is the thing, and this is where, sorry, this was
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: the point at which I think that our points of
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: view might be slightly divergent. I'm not I'm not I'm
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: not at all saying that this.
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: Is the case.
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: But I think from previous conversations, what what I'm trying
• 41:19
  Speaker 2: to say, or trying to suggest is is that that's
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: sort of unknown of well.
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: How much how much of what we do do it.
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: Does still flicker back to, you know, sort of primeval instinct, right, so,
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: and I don't know. I mean, I'm just putting it
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: out there. So the really, yeah, that's fine. But the
• 41:40
  Speaker 2: reason I the reason I spoke about the Lindsay Clancy
• 41:43
  Speaker 2: thing in terms of a hypothescal with the pharmaceuticals is
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: that what we can't know is whether in some way
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: any of her thought process was triggered by some kind
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: of instinct. Because again, I know we seem to have
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: different takes on what was said, but let's just say
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: that what I had heard was the case, which is
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: that she believed she should end her own life. Because
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: it doesn't really matter why, but let's say that was
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: because she she believed that it was going to be
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: a disaster in that you know, they were all going
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: to starve or whatever whatever the outcome could have been,
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: and therefore that that was why she did it, and
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: that that does actually conform to the sort of you know,
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: natural or instinctive motivation for in fansight, of course, we
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: can't know, but all I'm all I'm suggesting is that
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: are there still times, are there flashes even in this
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: bizarre world we live in where where for most people,
• 42:51
  Speaker 2: I think in the world, most things are a choice
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: rather than a necessity.
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: I think you're right. I think I don't know. Yes,
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: thank you. I think you are onto something. I don't
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: disagree with that either, because I, for example, in twenty twenty,
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: I was taking SSRIs, which are completely completely terrible idea,
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: and I don't take any medications now that means okay
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: at the presence, and probably the worst kind. And I'm
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: very glad to say that I'm no longer on any
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: of that stuff. But I was being eaten up and
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: consumed by this whole COVID thing and I couldn't figure
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: out what was going on. Let me say that when
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: you take that medication, it certainly changes something in you.
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: There's no doubt about that. Right, It's certainly doing something,
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: and it's not good because what it's doing is that
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: from my experience, is that it's it's removing any kind
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: of I don't know, a sense of morality to some degree,
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: like you care less about things, and I mean you
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: you have less for certain behaviors. And I can understand
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: to some degree how the pharmaceuticals, excuse me, can do
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: that kind of luck. If you drink alcohol, it changes something,
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: It changes something and you're wiring for a while now.
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: But the question, yeah, is in spite of all of that,
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: are you going to go and kill somebody if you're intoxicated?
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: Are you actually going to take a life and kill
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: somebody in your house if you're drunk? I suppose some
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: people that is a reality. But then I'd like to
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: think that that goes deeper than just the alcohol, because
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: something's going on in your head even before you've been
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: drinking that takes you to that point. And if you've
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: got postpartum hang on, excuse me, if you've got depression
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: because of kids? And I know that this is a
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: common thing, but why three kids? Why not to stop
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: after one? Yeah?
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, yeah, I think I think this is
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: This is where it's very difficult to second guess any
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: of this. And and as a complete outsider to review
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: this stuff sort of online or to hear in court testimony,
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's so so difficult to get any sense
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: of what really has gone on because, as I said earlier,
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: we're into the we're into the sort of legal domain
• 45:30
  Speaker 2: where it becomes a point of arguing a certain thing
• 45:34
  Speaker 2: rather than necessarily being able to discuss.
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: Really it's let's let's pause and pull back and break
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: us apart, because I don't want to get into the
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: nitty gritty of her particular case. And you know, as
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: I said earlier, trying to talk about the the the
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: the bigger picture, but without getting distracted as as is
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: often the case in the distraction economy. The first thing
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: is the first thing. She admitted to killing the kids, right,
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: so they're or I think in any reasonable society that
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: is something that requires accountability. Right, she killed it be
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: in us and kids. They didn't ask to die, and
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: she has to face the consequences. I think that's fair. Now,
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: the second conversation that we can have is what led
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: to that, And I think we can, Like you said earlier,
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: multiple things can be true. I think we can have
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: multiple conversations yet. But I think one of the big
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: things that the sort of postmodern feminist movement has brought
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: us is this blariness is fuzziness. Well, she was on
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: so many drugs that we can't really blame her because Charles,
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: think about how slippery that slope can get.
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: I agree, I agree, And that wasn't really my point
• 46:46
  Speaker 2: of introducing the pharmaceutical argument. But what I really meant
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: by that was and this may have been done, but
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: has that been any scrutiny of the people that were
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: just willy nilly writing prescription after prescription form? And I
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: think this is what I mean, and this doesn't this
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: doesn't pertain just to the area of mental health. This
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: is this is everything. This is just stuff being done
• 47:13
  Speaker 2: on the NOD and it's it is just no way
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: for a society to run. And this is in large
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: part when when you're trying to identify where the line
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: is between cock up and conspiracy. The reason that conspiracy
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: is so terribly easy these days is because cockup is
• 47:32
  Speaker 2: so very straightforward to engineer, because people do not scrutinize stuff,
• 47:37
  Speaker 2: They do not ask the questions that should be asked,
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: and almost never do they say no when something that
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: we can see in retrospects shouldn't have gone ahead. And
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: so there you know, there are many many factors to this.
• 47:50
  Speaker 2: So I dare say this is why I say that
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: that two things you know, or more than two, I
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: mean more than one thing can be true at the
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: same time. And so whilst I don'tugest that we just
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: blame the pharmaceuticals, I think that we should be looking
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: at the people who are in charge of making that
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: sort of thing happen, and what did they think their
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: responsibilities were, and.
• 48:15
  Speaker 3: Who else was involved in any of this.
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: I mean, okay, it does seem and again I know
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: we don't want to get drawn into the specifics, but
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: it does seem also that she was sort of withholding
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: information I think from the people that she was dealing
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: with on the on the pharmaceutical side of it. So again,
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: as I say, you just still, you know, you never
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: get away from the fact that it was the individual
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: that did it. But then, but then what does what
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: should society's response be? I mean, because actually the other
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: thing I wasn't clear on that hasn't as far as
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: I'm aware, emerged. Has she shown remorse for this? Do
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: you know what she said to feel about it?
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 48:51
  Speaker 3: I think that's a really fundamental question.
• 48:55
  Speaker 2: Because if she's if she's claiming that she was hallucinated
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: what the actual term was, but being dictated to by
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: voices although had consciously considered that she was going to
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: have to end her own life. I mean, the whole
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: thing is very confusing. But does it follow logically therefore
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: that she would express remorse after having done that but
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: failed to kill herself. I don't know, but I do
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: think that.
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: I mean, even if she does show remorse, doesn't matter
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: because she's apparently mad, you know, she's unstilled and all this.
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: Yes, I mean, okay, I think it matters because one
• 49:27
  Speaker 2: of the big questions, again that we touch on on
• 49:30
  Speaker 2: quite a regular basis, is what is the what is
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: the answer in terms of criminal justice? Sending people to
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: prison statistically absolutely doesn't work. And yet nor does the
• 49:42
  Speaker 2: idea why just going sweep a few leaves for six
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: months and then you'll be okay. That doesn't seem to
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: work either. So what does work? And the reason I
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: asked the question about remorse is that if if we
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: take at face value what's being said, which is that
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: she was being dictated to and then snapped out a bit,
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: is that can there be any worse punishment than realizing
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: that you've killed all of your own three children?
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah? Sure, And by the way, there are parallels that
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: can easily be major. Let me use we spoke about
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: animals earlier, so let me come back to that. Let's
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: talk about rhino horn poaching. This is a good one.
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: So it's a big deal here in South Africa. For
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: most of the world it's not a big deal at all.
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: Nobody really cares. But for us, it's a big deal
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: because there are only so many rhinos and they are
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: all in captivity because they have to be. Now, there
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: is an individual who goes into the game park to
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: find the rhino and mutilated to get the horn. There
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: is an individual involved, and he's almost always expendable, but
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: there will always be more of him, if that makes sense, right.
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: So when you zoom out, you realize, well, there's a system.
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: There's an entire organizational structural framework that enables this, and
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: I think this is maybe where the discussion from the
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: feminist side does have some validity. There is an entire
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: framework in a structure that has enabled the over medicalization
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: of not just women, but I suppose people in general.
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at the United States, right,
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, I think something like or twenty five even
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: thirty percent of all women are on antidepressants. Yet they
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: were liberated one hundred years ago, Charles, what are they
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: unhappy about? But they're aborting a million babies a year now.
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: You can't tell me that that does not have some
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: long term negative impact on the culture.
• 51:46
  Speaker 3: Absolutely it does.
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: And I don't think one can be skeptical enough or
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: even cynical enough about the objectives of not just the
• 51:57
  Speaker 2: pharmacisical industry. But I think it's a very easy one
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: to see anyone I would wager that anyone who has
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: had any involvement with this sort of situation. So, again,
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: not to focus on Lindsey Clancy's case, but you know,
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: let's say her former husband I would put I would
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: put money on him having been medicalized at some point
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: as a result of the trauma. So my point is
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: that if the moment you start to medicalize, particularly if
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: it's to do with mental so called mental health, you
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: will get an outcome that that has a knock on effects,
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: especially if it's a mother. What are the chances in
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: this day and age, I would ask, what are the
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: chances of a mother being on some sort of anti
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: presiant medication that is not going to result in the
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: children subsequently being on some sort of a medication because
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: they have to deal with the effect that this has
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: on the mother. And so it is, you know, it's
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: this incredible self perpetuating system. Okay, abortion, obviously we have
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: to put slightly one side, because that is you know
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: that that's a termination of But otherwise we're talking about
• 53:05
  Speaker 2: an industry that thrives on reducing people's capacity but keeping
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: them alive. And the more people you do that to
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: the way I see it means that the more people
• 53:16
  Speaker 2: you have as potential customers, because society starts to weigh
• 53:19
  Speaker 2: itself down or has done. I mean, look at you know,
• 53:22
  Speaker 2: look at where we are by any metric. Now, we
• 53:26
  Speaker 2: are in a far far worse state than we were
• 53:30
  Speaker 2: three years ago, one hundred years ago. And the only
• 53:33
  Speaker 2: thing that people ever can point back to is life expectancy.
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: And that, for me, is simply not an indicator of
• 53:40
  Speaker 2: whether or not a society is healthy. Now, we look
• 53:45
  Speaker 2: at we look at the way in which people are
• 53:48
  Speaker 2: can be kept kept alive. I mean in a size
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: grim but just you know, just kept alive. That's that's
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: not that's not quality of life.
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: No, that's our quality of life. I mean, why life expectancy?
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: So you take somebody and put them on live support,
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: and then they're on live support and they live an
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: extra five years, but they're in a coma the whole time.
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: Is that is that? What is that?
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: Now?
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: What what we're wanting.
• 54:09
  Speaker 2: Hmm, well exactly, although you know, we have to be
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: we have to be consistent and and you know, just
• 54:17
  Speaker 2: just going back to so I'm not, you know, don't
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: want to get to the point of conversation where it
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: looks like we're sort of advocating for people to be
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: knocked on the head at some stage in life, because
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: it just doesn't look like there their life is is
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: good enough. Because of course, first of all, that's straight
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: away plays into the hands of what Lindsay Clancy is
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: claiming that she was doing. But also it goes straight
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: back to the abortion argument because it gives much greater
• 54:42
  Speaker 2: credence the idea of you know, this sort of notion
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: that well, we know best, you know, we know that
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: doing this would be is the best outcome because it's
• 54:51
  Speaker 2: not going to enable a sort of miserable life for
• 54:55
  Speaker 2: the as yes, unborn child. So it's a you know,
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: it's a very very complicated area, and I don't think
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: you know, that's why I wanted to introduce the idea
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: of first of all human history, where in fantasyde was
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: absolutely well documented and prevalent i would say in many societies,
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: but also the idea that we look at the natural
• 55:15
  Speaker 2: world now and we see it and again you know
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: this idea about defects and whatnot, and to look, how
• 55:22
  Speaker 2: do we really look at humans these days where we
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: are able to intervene in almost every situation, we can
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: intervene to deal with what we perceive to be a problems.
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: It's really really difficult because if you do that with
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: if you do that with animals, and you say at birth,
• 55:42
  Speaker 2: and the most obvious example of this is hatching chicks
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: of frankly, any species, but any any chick that hatches
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: that isn't immediately able to look after itself, and I'm
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: talking about in an incubated context as opposed to being mothered,
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: because the mother will basically make that decision. But anything
• 55:59
  Speaker 2: that hatches that has not immediately got a grasp of
• 56:02
  Speaker 2: being able to walk and peck, if you intervene to
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: in any way support, try to support, try to help
• 56:10
  Speaker 2: that creature, the likelihood is that it will not work,
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: it will end up dying. And this is the difficulty.
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: But this is of course given rights to all the
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: philosophies over the years about how we consider that sort
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: of thing with humans, But it's it is terribly difficult
• 56:26
  Speaker 2: because we think that we have we have sort of
• 56:29
  Speaker 2: monopoly on emotion. Where this is concerned in a way
• 56:32
  Speaker 2: that we think we believe that animals don't.
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: Well, we don't know that. Yeah, that's that's an interesting thought.
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: It's contact to do with what we're talking about. But
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: the idea that any mammal that is born immediately gets
• 56:49
  Speaker 1: onto its feet, humans are the only ones that can't.
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: I mean, we're actually useless for what the first two
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: three years of our life even longer.
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but that, but this, but this, well, I think
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: it is related because that the supposedly the theory for
• 57:02
  Speaker 2: that is because it enables greater brain development, and that's
• 57:05
  Speaker 2: why we end up having the emotions. And that's why
• 57:07
  Speaker 2: we're having this discussion in the first PLA is because
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: we believe that what Lindsay Clancy did was absolutely horrific,
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: whereas if a liones had done it, that you're not
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: going to find two lions lying there in the bush
• 57:18
  Speaker 2: going God, that's bloody awful. I can't believe she did
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: it so, or at least that's what we believe, but
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: we don't know. And you do see animals missing each other,
• 57:25
  Speaker 2: you know, they're very well documented that elephants will travel
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: long distances to visit the site on which parts, you know,
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: a family of theirs have died. So we are stupid
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: to dismiss animals as in effect being sort of done
• 57:41
  Speaker 2: or sub sub intelligent. They just have intelligence in a
• 57:43
  Speaker 2: completely different way and I don't.
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: And you know that.
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: The point I'm sort of trying to get to is
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: is that, yes, in many respects, I think we can
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: absolutely distinguish ourselves from any of that, but I don't
• 57:53
  Speaker 2: think we can totally. But anyway to the point about
• 57:56
  Speaker 2: the period of time in the womb us is supposedly
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: the argument for it. So we sacrifice the sort of
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: physical attributes in that we have to be protected by
• 58:09
  Speaker 2: usually a mother, but or mother and father for a
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: considerable period of time. But that's because our brain has
• 58:15
  Speaker 2: developed sufficiently so that we can then get on to
• 58:17
  Speaker 2: do what we are supposed to do.
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: But you know, it's very complicated. Okay, I'm just looking
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: at the time. So I'm going to use this opportunity
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: to circle back right to the beginning of our discussion
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: about the manosphere and masculinity and men good. And I'm
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: going to say this, all this talk about women killing
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: their babies, et cetera. I want to also say that
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: men need to be men again, you know, I mean,
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: would she have gone to that extreme perhaps if her
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: husband was a better husband. I don't know the details,
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: but hold up a mirror, and I don't always shift
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: the blame, you know, be be a better man, I mean,
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: be the best partner to your other half that you
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: can be, and perhaps they won't end up on pharmaceuticals
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: and going down terrible dark spirals. And that's taking responsibility. Also.
• 59:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a very good point. And I
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: thought one thing that struck me. I think he was
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: quoting somebody else, but James Walton said that good times
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: create soft men. And I think that is absolutely what
• 59:24
  Speaker 2: we're looking at. We have been looking at it for
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: some time. And I think that, you know, again, not
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: wanting to go in the specifics, the specifics, how on
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: earth am I meant to know? But I think yes,
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: in many of these cases, you do have to ask question, well,
• 59:36
  Speaker 2: how on earth, how on earth did it get to
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: that point? You know, again, very easy to do and retrospect,
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: very easy to do when you're totally outside of that situation.
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: But at each of those points did so and so,
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: in particular the husband's stand up and do what needed
• 59:51
  Speaker 2: to be done. And I think increasingly and very unfortunately,
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: the answer is no, because look at what people tolerated
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: during the lockdown period. Why on earth did people en
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 2: mass tolerate the fact that their children were in effect
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: either locked into or locked out of a system by
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: which they should really be flourishing. It was absolutely dreadful,
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: and yet the number of people who stood up and
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 2: really fought to protect their families was minuscule.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: So this is a plea to go and find my
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: UK COLOMN show with James Walton. That's a bit of
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: a plug. It's a bit of a plug, but in
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: general go listen to the UK column.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 3: How about that? Yes, yes, that's a good one.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: All right, Charles. Always pleasure chatingto you. Catch up with
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: you next week. Well thanks Jam