Latest / Honey Badger Radio / The War on Fathers Is the Real Deep State with Stephen Baskerville | Fireside Chat 281

Transcript

The War on Fathers Is the Real Deep State with Stephen Baskerville | Fireside Chat 281 · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My name is
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Brian and this is the Fireside Chat where we talk
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to interesting people about things related to, well, what our
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: channel is all about, which is discussing the issues facing
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: men and boys and how that will have greater consequences
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: if we ignore those issues. Today we're talking to political
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: theorist and author Stephen K. Baskerville, one of the sharpest
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: critics of family courts, sexual politics, and the failures of
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the modern right. We'll discuss his latest book, Who Lost America?
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: His recent essay, The Tragedy of Conservatism, The War on Fathers,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: and well, and more. So stick around. It's going to
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: be a good time. Welcome to the show, Stephen Baskerville.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Thank you. It's good to be here with you.
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's good to have you on.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Um, You have quite the pedigree and you've been doing
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: this kind of work for a long time. So I'm
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: surprised it took us so long to finally get you
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: on our little corner of the internet. So I guess
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: the first thing I should ask is, first of all,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: did I get that right in terms of a quick
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: sort of look at who you are and what you do?
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, my background is in academic history and political science.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: And when I got into this close to 30 years ago,
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: I just kind of applied what I'd been doing all
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: those years to this. And I realized nobody else had
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: done that. Nobody else had really, you know, a lot
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: of psychologists, a lot of legal practitioners, a lot of sociologists,
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: you know, people like that were involved in these issues,
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: complaining about it or supporting it. But nobody with a
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: background in politics in politics, who was used to analyzing politics.
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: So that's how I applied it. And I've tried to
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: apply it in my books and writings. Yeah.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: And that's actually really interesting too, because I've also been
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: doing this for a while. And one thing that I
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: have been, I guess, like trying to do is deal
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: with this without making it political. But I mean, I
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: gave up on that a while ago and I discovered
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: that it is all political.
• 2:17
  Speaker 3: And I'm specifically talking about.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Men's issues, boys' issues, but things like family courts, child custody,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: and these kinds of issues. So I guess I must
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: concede that I think that this is inherently a political
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: issue in many ways.
• 2:37
  Speaker 3: And what are your thoughts on that?
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: Well, yes, in many ways. I mean, all those things
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: you mentioned are instruments of the state. They're state institutions, courts. lawyers,
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: forensic psychotherapists, welfare bureaucracies. I mean, the whole thing, it's
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: a massive panoply of state institutions that are abusing their power,
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: that are violating the constitutional rights of citizens. And there's
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: a real lack of that kind of outrage about it.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: The kind of outrage we saw in the civil rights movement,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: for example, that people's rights are being violated. I think
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: too many people approach it therapeutically and psychologically, it doesn't work.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: I mean, you can chatter culturally, which is kind of
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: an excuse for doing nothing. And actually, my background before
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: I got into, aside from governmental institutions, the other thing
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: that's political about it, and this was my field even
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: before I got into this, is ideology, political ideology. I mean,
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: it's all driven by feminism, which is a radical political ideology.
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: There's no two ways about it. They seek to seize, control,
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: state power and manipulate it for their own power, empowerment,
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: as they say. And, you know, so it's a political
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: ideology driving the state machinery. And too many fathers and
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: men just withdraw from that and want to, you know,
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: complain and, you know, just, you know, there's a lot
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: of self-pity in the manosphere and so forth, which is fine,
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: I mean, to a point. But sooner or later, we
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: have to look at, you know, who's abusing their power
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: and do something about it. Yeah, very.
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: It's well put. So then. Hmm.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: You said that there's a lot of people treating it
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: in a therapeutic way or they're just kind of like
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: trying to find other solutions. What are what are the
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: things that we're missing? The you know, that the let's
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: say the civil rights movement got right. Like what should
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: men be doing?
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you look at my first book
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: on this topic was called Taken into Custody just 20
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: years ago. And I go through that and I show
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: how all of those institutions that we named before are
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: just violating, abusing their power, violating the law, violating the Constitution.
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: I go down the Bill of Rights and other articles
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: of the U.S. Constitution and the English Bill of Rights
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: and the Canadian one a bit. And I just show
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: how these, you know, they're just routinely violating people's rights.
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, Americans have to stand up and say, this
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: is our birthright as Americans to have the, we expect
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: the constitution to be enforced. And, you know, if this
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: system of organized crime, which we call the family law judiciary,
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: needs to be put out of business. And the judges,
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: if anything, the practitioners need to be, you know, need
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: to be prosecuted. They're crooks, they're criminals. The criminals are
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: sitting on the benches passing judgment on law-abiding citizens. And,
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: you know, this is outrageous. And, you know, I mean,
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: imagine if Dr. King had sat there and said, you know, said,
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: you know, black people, you know, African-Americans, they need to get,
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: you know, they need to get better therapy. You know,
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: they got to find better psychologists, you know, to help
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: them work through their feelings about this stuff. I mean,
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: this is this is madness. Um, they have to stop. So, so,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: you know, we've got to stand up and demand that the, uh,
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: that the, uh, that the law and the constitution be,
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: be enforced. And, uh, you know, this therapy, I mean,
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: you can see it, for example, in the Lindsay Clancy case.
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, look at this. It's all about therapy. The
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: vast majority, there's a huge number of videos on it
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: and almost all of them approach it. Um, one way
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: or another, even those who are critical of Clancy and
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: think she should not evade punishment, they approach it therapeutically
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: as well. Very few people have approached it in terms
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: of driven by a political ideology. Janice Fiamengo does, Alexander Grace,
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: one or two others, and I just published a piece
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: in the American Thinker on it showing how feminism drives
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: it all and much more. So, you know, I'm sorry,
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: I know everybody likes to stay at home and stay
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: in their comfort zone and be athletic. There's no substitute
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: for being citizens. And we talk about male leadership, but
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: the main form of male leadership, one of the main forms,
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: is as a citizen, as a leader in the community.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: And that's what men have got to grasp the nettle
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: and start doing that.
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with that. So then.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: If it's the case that this, because I mean, you know,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: the civil rights movement and the other movements of the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: time period, there was a lot of momentum and energy
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: and money behind it. I don't think, and if we're
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: just talking about the men's movement, let's say, not necessarily
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: like a right-wing countercultural thing, which I'm not, for sure
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: on this, but I think that was what your book
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: who lost.
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: America is more so about.
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: But if I'm just talking about, you know, men who
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: want to be, they don't want to get ripped off
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: in the, in divorce courts. They want to maintain custody
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: of their children. They want to be involved with their
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: families and, and all of that. And they also want
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: a system that supports them in terms of like providing
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: them with opportunities to, you know, make money and have
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: a job, like these are all things that are being systemically.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: Taken away from men, American men, I mean, you know.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: How would they get that same kind of momentum and
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: funding and support that the civil rights movements and feminist
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: movement of the 60s had so they can make this?
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: Because it seems to me that there are a lot
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: of men that want these things, but they don't have
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the same supports They don't have the same sympathy, the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: same compassion for their plight.
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: No, it's very true. It's a very serious problem. Yes,
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: we haven't gotten anywhere with conventional politics, either electoral politics
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: or party politics or interest group. Myself, I headed a
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: father's rights group for two years. And we basically got nowhere.
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: I would have liked to have been a little more
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: militant than my board of directors would allow me. But,
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: you know, that might have made a difference, I think. But,
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: you know, still, the point is the same. So, yeah, no,
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: we haven't gotten anywhere with that. So I think another
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: reason a lot of men just give up on politics
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: and just, you know, retreat to the Internet, to the manosphere,
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: and just complain and gripe and, you know, feel sorry
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: for themselves. But actually, you know, I think that there
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: is one way that we can derive some support. I
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: think some of that apathy. actually may turn out to
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: be a blessing in disguise because I'm sure most of
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: your listeners are well aware of the movement known as MGTOW. Oh, yeah.
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: The marriage strike. I think the best account of the
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: marriage strike for those not familiar with it is Helen
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: Smith's book about 15 years ago.
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: Men on Strike.
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Men on Strike. And she but the I know
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: journalists that were writing about it even before then, 20
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: years ago or more. And what she documents in that book,
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: and she does it very well, I think has great potential.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: Even though it's apathetic, it's withdrawal, it's everything I'm against.
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: But what it's done is it has created a bit
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: of a crisis. And I think it's given potentially some
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: leverage to men. Women, for example, there's massive numbers of articles, videos, podcasts,
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: all of it on the internet about women complaining, where
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: are the men? Where have all the men gone? Where
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: are the men to marry? And sure, there are feminists
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: who say, I don't want to marry men. I want
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: nothing to do with marriage. But there's a lot of
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: normal women still. who, you know, who want to get married,
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: want to have families, certainly want to have children. And
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: they can't find any men to do it with. And
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: so I think, you know, and the other people who
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: are tearing their hair out about this are the trad cons,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: the traditional conservatives, who instead of reforming, instead of using
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: their political prominence and their money, they've got lots of it,
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: and their prominence in the media and their high profile
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: positions to reform the family courts and the whole divorce machine.
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Instead of doing that, what they do is they resort
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: to scolding and nagging men and saying, get married and
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: man up and all this crap.
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: Yeah, stop complaining.
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, right. Jake, what's his name? Holly, Josh Holly, a senator.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: I was looking at, was it Brad Wilcox's site, The
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: Marriage Project, I think it's called. I mean, this is
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: just complete nonsense. And it's not working. So you've got
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: Trag cons tearing their hair out. You've got women complaining.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: So I think men need to, first of all, keep
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: doing what they're doing, you know, spontaneously. They do this
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: without any political intention, without any intending for any, you know,
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: but in practice, what it's doing, I think, is it's
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: giving them a certain amount of potentially political leverage. I mean,
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: the best way, after all, to control sex is is
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: what women do. Withdraw it. Keep it. Withhold it. Boycott women, families, marriage.
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: But don't boycott them forever. It's not a good lifestyle.
• 12:29
  Speaker 3: Well, it's not sustainable.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: And it's also kind of giving the feminists what they want, too,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: because they want to destroy the family. So men checking
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: out kind of gives the feminists what they want. But
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: I'm not saying that to say that they should suck
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: it up and put themselves at risk. I'm just saying
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: that it is a temporary fix, but it's not a
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: fix for the long term because ultimately it will result
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: in collapse.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: Exactly. No, it's like any strike or boycott. It's a
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: means to an end. Yes, it should be. The men
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: have to stand up and say, and I say it
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: on shows like this, And in my writings, I say, look,
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: if you want men to marry, if you want to
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: continue civilization, if you want men to get married and
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: have children and propagate the species and continue the civilization,
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: it's very simple. Just reform the courts. Reform the law
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: judiciary and the whole entourage of crooks who surround it.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Put an end to it. Put it out of business.
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: Make marriage an enforceable contract, you know, instead of a
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: fraudulent contract. And you'll have men. You'll have men to marry,
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: and everybody will be happy. We'll have a stable civilization.
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: Just do it. And when the trad cons, and especially
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: when the women joined, with the fathers, the men, and
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: start demanding reform of the courts, then we'll get change.
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: And it's not something that should require massive amounts of time.
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: You just build up. But you have to make it
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: clear that's what you're doing. We're not renouncing families and
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: marriage because these are part of our civilization. You're... you're
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: saying for now we can't do it. You've made the legal,
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: the judiciary, the legal system has made marriage a fraudulent contract.
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: You make it a real contract with integrity and enforcement
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: and fine. We're, we're, we're all there for it. So
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: that's all. I think that's what they have to do. Yeah.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: So let's, let's talk a little bit about the, the
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: trad cons, as you put it for a moment. First
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: of all, we should define our terms. So what, What is,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: when you say TradCon, what do you mean by that?
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Do you just mean like a right-wing person? Are you
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: talking about a specific.
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: Group of people?
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: I mean mostly professional conservatives. In other words, people who
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: make their living by being political operatives connected with.
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: Conservative- So like pundits, politicians, journalists, that kind of thing?
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: Right. Pressure groups, think tanks, conservative media, heritage, family research council,
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: all these phony- organizations.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: So you're not specifically saying just right-wing people. You're talking
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: about a specific group of people that have influence that
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: are either being intentionally, purposefully ignorant, or they are ignorant.
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: Of the issues. Perhaps the most frustrating one of all
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: is Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson has shown in certain areas
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: a certain amount of courage in his dissent from Conservatism Inc.
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: The neocon, yeah, sure.
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, from the neocons in foreign policy. I mean, read
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: with him or disagree with him. He's got some testicles.
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: But on this, he's terrible. I mean, he's as bad
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: as any of the other trad cons. He produced a
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: horrible film earlier this year. absolutely awful film. I think
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: it was called father's matter or something like that. And
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: it was just rehashing all the same trad con rubbish
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: from the 1990s. Plus the, plus the, the, the more
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: recent stuff that's been coming out and, you know, the
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: man up stuff and fathers abandoning their children, all this,
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: this rubbish, which is not, you know, it's simply not true.
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: And it's, it's provable that it's not true. So, and
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: I think Tucker Carlson really cares about families and fathers. He,
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: he for years on Fox news, he slipped in these
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: little asides. I know fatherlessness.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: I specifically remember him giving an entire month, which was
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: women's history month to men's issues. And he even had
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: on Warren Farrell towards the end, um, to discuss it.
• 16:48
  Speaker 3: Yeah, this was, this was when he was still with
• 16:50
  Speaker 3: Fox news. So it was a years ago.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: And I was very impressed because that wasn't something you
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: saw anywhere. Um, I would say it was more likely
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: to happen on Fox News than say MSNBC or something
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: or CNN, but I was just glad that it was happening.
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: And then for whatever reason, I'm not sure that it's
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: a change. I think it's a matter of perception because
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: I see more and more, and I don't want to
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: make this into like, let's a bash Tucker Carlson episode,
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: but I'll just speak more broadly about the punditry because I'm.
• 17:26
  Speaker 3: Really glad that you put down that you're.
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: Making this distinction because obviously you would have to because
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: your book, Who Lost America, is about how the right
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: is losing ground and it's coming from a place of
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: wanting to address this problem and fix it. Would I
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: be incorrect in assuming that you would consider yourself to
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: be a right-wing guy politically?
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: Well, I try not to. I try not to. I mean, yes,
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: but I try not. I don't think conservatism should be
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: a kind of counter ideology.
• 18:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't I didn't say conservatism. I said right wing.
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: I think those are different. Yes.
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: Well, more or less by default, I'm certainly not left
• 18:07
  Speaker 2: wing anymore. I grew up that way, but I'm not anymore. And,
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: you know, so I guess that makes me right wing
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: in some sense. But I think, you know, there's a
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: lot of different right wing people, a lot of people
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: that don't like the left for different reasons. And I said,
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: why should we don't all have to dislike the left
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: for the same reasons? It's not necessary to hurt everybody
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: into some right-wing or conservative orthodoxy. There's lots of people
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: out there who are apolitical or non-ideological who just don't
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: like the craziness, increasing craziness of the left these days.
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: So I like to see myself as part of that.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: If that makes me a right-winger, well, people can label
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: me however they like.
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I believe at this point there are
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: two factions, but they are the left and the non-left.
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: So there's just like the left and everybody else. So you're,
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: you are firmly in the everybody else category. But I mean,
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: the reason why I'm bringing that up, going back to
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: the thing with the trad cons is so that we know,
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: because that's what, when I bring them up, that's who
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about too. I'm talking about the the sort
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: of like prominent political commentators, the Daily Wire people, the PragerU,
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: Blaze TV, Fox News, whatever.
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: Some politicians like Josh Hawley.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: And I guess like, what I struggle with is that
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: I know, and I just spoke to a guy on
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: Monday who was a politician.
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: He was running for....
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, Philip Parrish, and he
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: was running on the platform of dismantling the Duluth model.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: And I bring this up because when I spoke to him,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: I asked him about whether or not there were other
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: people that were working in politics that are aware of
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: men's issues, because I know it can't be ignorance. And
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: he said that he's known guys that they have either
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: known themselves or were themselves a product of that system.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: Like they had gone through a messy divorce. They lost
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: access to their kids. Maybe they were in a domestic
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: violence situation and they were, you know, basically had to
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: deal with the Duluth model and the way that it
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: essentially frames all domestic interactions and conflicts.
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: But they're scared.
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: Like they're terrified because This is the reason why I
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: think that the men's movement or these issues are not
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: getting the same momentum. It seems to be political suicide
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: to run on helping men. So it's like, how do
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: you do that without tanking your campaign or whatever? And
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: I think that that's also the case for a lot
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: of these pundits. I think that they're cowards. I don't
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: know how else to describe it. And they're not willing
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: to you know, call like basically name the demon that
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: they're fighting against. And instead they'll, they'll talk about other things.
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: I'll talk about the economy. They'll talk about, you know, jobs.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: I'll talk about foreign policy that, and I'm not saying
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: these things are not important, but if men and women
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: are not coming together, nothing else is going to be sustainable.
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: It's all going to fall apart. Like it's like the baseline.
• 21:30
  Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. I mean, you're right. Basically, they are not
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: only cowards, but it's just another form of feminization.
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: I mean, it is.
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: That's what feminist feminism has done. It's feminized all of
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: us in one way or another. You know, it's first feminized.
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: It emasculated really is the word of low income black
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: men and through the welfare system. And that spread out
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: into the divorce system to other middle class white men
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: and other middle class men. And from there, it went
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: up through the Me Too movement into celebrities and politicians
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: and others who were terrified of being accused of, and
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: I left out university students and servicemen who were accused
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: of rape and sexual assault and various things. So it's
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: all a form of feminization, emasculation, and that's the form
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: that it takes among the trad cons. They are emasculated too,
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: and in their case, They don't have to be because
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: they've got a lot of power and influence and money
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: and organizations that they refuse to devote to this. But
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: in their case, it is, as you say, the feminization
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: takes the form of, I think, just plain old-fashioned cowardice. Yeah.
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: I also think that on some level, most people, whether
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: they call themselves feminists or not, are feminists. They buy
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: into at least some of the presuppositions that feminism claims,
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: if that makes sense. So for example, you might fund
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: someone today that would call themselves conservative or whatever, and
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: they would say, well, I'm against the whole trans movement
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: or the radical man-hating part of feminism. But I do
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: like the fact that it allowed women to do, you know,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: work or stuff that these other myths, you know, like, oh,
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: I like being able to own a credit card and
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: I like being able to have a bank account and
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: or whatever. They basically will default to a form of
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: feminism from the 1960s or the original feminists.
• 23:38
  Speaker 3: From like the turn of the century. And they'll say, well,
• 23:40
  Speaker 3: those are the feminists that I agree with.
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: But I think that baked into all of it is
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: the same underlying DNA of opposing men or seeing men.
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: As competitors rather than partners.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: Absolutely.
• 23:57
  Speaker 3: Does that make sense to you?
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: Oh, yes, absolutely. It does. It's all fits together in
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: a package. And, you know, Janice Fiamingo makes this point.
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: And so others, Hannah Speer and others have made this
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: point about feminism that it was never, you know, even
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: the so-called liberal feminists or the modern feminists. was full
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: of very pernicious things. And I think the bottom line,
• 24:16
  Speaker 2: this is just my view, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: of this, that the bottom line of all of those
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: things and what they all contribute to is the control
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: of the reproductive system. This is what feminism has sought
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: from the very beginning, to control the system of reproduction.
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: There are two things primarily that give women power. One
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: is children and the other is, sorry, one is sex. Yeah.
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: And the other children. Right. And so these are the
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: two things that, you know, like I say, give women power.
• 24:49
  Speaker 2: And the two things that feminism has tried to control
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: from the very beginning, from the, as soon as they
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: got the vote, you know, they created the welfare system.
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: And then that, you know, then there was the divorce system.
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: And then there was, you know, abortion has come all
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: the way through all of this. The bottom line in
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: all of it is control of the reproductive system. The
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: hand that rocks the cradle, as the poet said, is
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: the hand that rules the world. And that's what they want.
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: And that's all of these things contribute because the economics,
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: you know, the credit cards and the equal pay and
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: women's employment, all of that is ways of achieving independence
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: for men, getting control of monopoly control of reproductive system
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: as single mothers. In other words, welfare or divorce or
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: de facto single motherhood, even if you're married. all of
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: these things give women independence from men, give them a
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: monopoly of the control of the reproductive system, and that
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: gives them the control of the society ultimately.
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah. So... Can.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: I make one other point? Oh, go ahead. Something you
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: said a few minutes ago. This might make me some enemies,
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: but I think it's interesting to point out. Most of
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: those trad cons... that we've identified. The people you listed
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: them are a pretty good list. Many of them are
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: the same people as the neocons in foreign policy.
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: Oh, 100%.
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And domestic policy are often, I know there's some
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: men that feel differently, but if you look at, you know, again,
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson shows great, he takes on the neocons on Israel,
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: on Iran, on Iraq, the Iraq war.
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: Sure.
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: All of those things. He ridicules, he doesn't take them on,
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: he ridicules them, he laughs at them. Calls them irrelevant.
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: But many of those neocons in foreign policy are the
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: same people as the trad cons. They're the worst. And
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: two examples of that is Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham was
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: one of the worst senators on men's issues in America.
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: And the other, Dan Coats. Oh, yeah. And there's some others, too. Yeah. Yeah.
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: You might feel differently about foreign policy than you do
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: about foreign policy. No, no, no.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: I mean, I don't want to, like, let's say, I
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: don't want to digress too much, but I'm with you
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: on the foreign policy stuff.
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. So, yeah, no, I wouldn't sweat that. But, okay. So,
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: if the professional conservative class is part of the problem,
• 27:25
  Speaker 3: what does.
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: What would a healthier, more masculine form of opposition look like,
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: aside from MGTOW, which I think is a good temporary solution,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: but it's not a long-term one. There has to be
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: something else. Have you thought about that at all?
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: Well, I think MGTOW is the beginning of it, because
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: I think that's what gives us the leverage to demand
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: all the rest of it. I think a more forthright opposition, obviously,
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: would be... I think what MGTOW should demand when MGTOW
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: has built up the leverage and the clout that I
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: think they have the potential to do, you know, the
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: things they should be demanding. And I think the one
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: thing they should be demanding are things like the restoration
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: of basic, traditional, male-centered, house-centered household-centered citizenship, just basic citizenship,
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: the citizenship of men, married men in households with property,
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: exercising civic, members of churches, by the way. I think
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: churches are a big part of, sorry, I know churches
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: are useless. Everyone ridicules churches. Men hate churches. Rightly so.
• 28:46
  Speaker 2: They're awful. They're feminized.
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: Well, yes, many of them are.
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: They're horrible. I don't think mosques are terribly far behind.
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: But as ready-made institutions, I think men should seek to
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: get control of the churches again, regain, retake control of
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: the churches if they want to have it. and direct them.
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: They already exist. They are driven by a wholesome, healthy,
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: and effective doctrine, Christian faith, that organizes people, that gives
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: them purpose, that extols male leadership, and that has deep
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: roots in American history, in Anglo-American history, in Western history.
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: And many say, oh, the churches are useless. I give
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: up on them. Besides, I don't believe it in the
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: first place. The churches have many, many important civic functions,
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: or did have, aside from faith itself. I mean, they
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: have multiple, including intervening in troubled families and troubled marriages. So,
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: you know, if you can't regain control of a congregation,
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: you're not going to regain control of a nation. We're
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: a civilization. So I urge men, if you want to
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: act on the local level, that's the way. Invade the churches.
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: Take control of the men's groups, which mostly seem to
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: be men flagellating themselves over their horrible sins, which is okay.
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: It's healthy. It's a good Christian thing to do. But
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: make sure you're flagellating yourself over the right sins. Make
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: sure you're flagellating yourself not because you're not feminist enough,
• 30:26
  Speaker 2: but because you're too feminist. And then you'll start to
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: get on the right track. So again, I think the
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: restoration of a citizenry, a household male Christian-dominated citizenry is
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: something that we should aim for. And I think men
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: and every institution, the media, the universities, the churches, all
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: of these things could be simultaneously redeemed together with, you know, well,
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: together with the churches, but you can't do one and
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: then the other. You've got to do it all together,
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: you know, in the process. You can't, you know, yeah,
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: go on.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: Should we then start a long march through the institutions,
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: but like, you know, subversively replace everything with like a
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: more masculine perspective? Because I think that the opposite has
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: happened in like universities, in media, in academia, in, well,
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: in churches. So like, should we be considering that like
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: a kind of long march through the institutions?
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: Right. Well, it certainly doesn't hurt. Subversive? Yeah, I've tried,
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: but at the same time, I think, I think there's
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: a kind of two tier, uh, uh, track on that.
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: I think on the one hand you have to, we
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: have to try to create alternatives. The alternative media is,
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: you know, is up and running massive. So the alternative
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: media is great. Alternative universities have not been terribly successful
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: so far. Um, alternative churches. Um, I don't know.
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: Well, let's go, let's talk about that for a second.
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: Um, So most churches in the United States are Protestant churches,
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: and they've absolutely been infiltrated for the most part. And
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: the Catholic Church, too, I think is becoming really feminized
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: to the point where a lot of Catholics spend more
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: time venerating Mary rather than Jesus. But I do think
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: that there are a number of churches that are springing
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: up in the States that I would like to like,
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: at least recommend as a, as a possible alternative.
• 32:55
  Speaker 3: And I'm specifically talking about the.
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: Orthodox church because I'm, I'm a member of it, but
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: also because it is, there's like, um, you know, the
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: Orthodox church comes from, well, at least as it exists here, it's,
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: it's people that were part of the Russian church and
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: the Russian Orthodox church endured the Bolshevik revolution. the soviet
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: union and all of that and so i think it
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: knows what the problem is it has like a familiarity
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: which allows it to be resilient and it's very patriarchal
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: so i i'm not saying it's a solution and i
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: know that if you don't believe it's not going to
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: work for you and you might be laughing at me
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: right now but i can tell you that the at
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: least anecdotally the churches i've been to The people, they
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: get married, they stay married.
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: They have lots of children. They're very happy.
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: There's no antagonism. There's no politics. They homeschool their children.
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: So they avoid the woke academic stuff and the kids
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: are very bright. So it's not like they're getting a
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: bad education despite the fact that the education system wants
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: you to think that homeschooling is not good for your kids. So,
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: I mean, and there are groups that are supportive. Like
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: there's men's, you know, little men's clubs within the churches.
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: And I think that men getting together with other men
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: is crucially important to like making change because when men
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: get together, they start to organize, they start to brainstorm,
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: they start to build things, right?
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: So I don't know what you think about that. I
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: just thought I would throw that out there.
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: No, I think you've raised something quite important and I
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: will comment on it because I think it's important. I
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: think there's a lot to be said in that respect
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: for orthodoxy. I live in an orthodox country. I live
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: in Romania. And it's an Orthodox country. So I see
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: the Orthodox church a lot firsthand. My wife is Orthodox
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: and her family are Orthodox. And you're right. I mean,
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: all of us, people are very traditional, very even patriarchal.
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: And they're vigilant against communism, like really vigilant against communism.
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: They are vigilant against communism. And they are, yes. And
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: they are throughout Eastern Europe, throughout Eastern and Central Europe.
• 35:05
  Speaker 2: And so they are... you know, there's very little interest
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: in doctrinaire feminism, very little sympathy for that, for homosexualist
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: ideology or transgenderist ideology. I mean, there's just no sympathy
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: for it whatsoever. So I think, you know, there's some
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: truth in that. My one criticism of orthodoxy, however, is
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: that it tends to be, it tends to lack the
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: evangelical zeal that has characterized, at least historically, Protestantism. It's
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: not so susceptible to Western fads like feminism and homosexualism,
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: but it's also not very reformist. The Orthodox, and I
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: see this throughout Eastern Europe and Central Europe, there tends
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: to be a kind of a soldier's fake mentality of
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: just accepting that's, well, that's the way things are, you know, big,
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: big countries, big, powerful people. There's nothing much we can
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: do about it. So, you know, I wouldn't write off
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: all Protestant evangelical Protestantism entirely. Historically, it had a very,
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: you know, it was a very fiery reformist movement, even radical,
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: even revolutionary in the English speaking world. And, um, you know,
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: Protestantism was very in its origins, very patriarchal, very, uh,
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: Very upset. The English Puritans who really started American history
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: were fiercely concerned about the family. They produced a voluminous
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: literature on the family. Not sermons, household manuals, guidebooks, all
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: kinds of things. Oh, yeah.
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: Very prescriptive stuff. Yes.
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Read John Demmel's book, what's called A Little Commonwealth.
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: They called the church A Little Commonwealth. So this was,
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: you know, church membership was training ground for citizenship, for
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: secular activity as well. The New England churches became the
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: New England town meetings. So maybe in America, maybe America
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: seems to be the cause of all the problems, the
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: font of all the problems. Maybe it's also the font
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: of the solutions as well. Maybe, you know, something of
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: the orthodox mindset together with the Protestant zeal for reform could,
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: you know, and the Catholics being sort of halfway in
• 37:27
  Speaker 2: between on both counts, you know, maybe that may be
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: the crucible where, you know, we come up with some
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: kind of a, you know, a formula for fighting back. Yeah.
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: So I think.
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: You know, I think you're onto something because the... in
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: the places where Orthodoxy remains, Eastern Europe, I think that
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: the reason why it is as it is is because
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: it's about, it's essentially survived because it's able to endure
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: all of the, you know, changes in power structures in
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: given countries, right?
• 38:00
  Speaker 3: So, you know, they were.
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: There for the rise of the Bolsheviks. They were there
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: during the time of Lenin and Stalin, and they remained
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: there after the fall of the Soviet Union. They, for
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: the most part haven't changed because that's, you know, it's
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: built into the name, it's Orthodox, but in the United States,
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: because we don't have the same history that people in Russia, Romania,
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: and in Eastern Europe have, then there is more zeal here. Um,
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: you know, from what I have seen from people who
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: basically have a little bit of, because maybe they grew
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: up in a Protestant church, you know, my, my priest,
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: who's an Orthodox priest now, he grew up, um, in
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: the big mega churches, you know, very, you know, evangelizing.
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: And I believe it was Presbyterian, but, but the point is,
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: is that it, I think there is like that, that
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: mixture happening of like the American spirit of, you know,
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: becoming like taking initiative and getting it done mixed with the,
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: the sort of value system that's been, that's endured for
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: as long as it has, that comes out of, or
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: not just Orthodoxy, but also Hellenic tradition. Like, Ancient Greek
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: philosophy is sort of, you know, they actually play very
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: well together, these two things.
• 39:16
  Speaker 3: So you don't really even have to be like a.
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: Believing Christian to like see that, you know, what the
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: solutions are.
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: Right. And, you know, a lot of evangelicals are, you know,
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: flirting or worse with converting to to Orthodoxy for exactly
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: that reason. They're looking for, you know, they're sick of
• 39:34
  Speaker 2: the feminization of the American churches, Western churches, and they
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: want that traditionalism, that, you know, that solidity of the Orthodoxy.
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: So I would say that should be encouraged, but in
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: a qualified way. You know, let's just try and take
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: the best. I tend to think that externals in religion
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: are secondary. You know, the forms of worship are, you know,
• 40:03
  Speaker 2: to me are second. They're not unimportant. Historically, they're very important. But,
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: you know, I think we can take the best of
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: the various Christian traditions and, you know, discard some of
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: the problems that we've had. and maybe get somewhere because
• 40:18
  Speaker 2: there are, you know, we're starting to get good criticisms
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: of the church. Uh, the churches in the West, there's
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: David Edgington's new book. Uh, what's it called? White Knights
• 40:29
  Speaker 2: and reviling wives, where he goes into this, this white
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: knight syndrome of, of, you know, feminized pastors and priests.
• 40:36
  Speaker 2: And there's, what is it? Richter, Michael Richter. Is that
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: his name on the, uh, uh, what's the name of
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: his website? But he, he also takes the churches to task.
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: And so, uh, you know, if more and more Christians
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: and Jews and, and Muslims for that matter would, would,
• 40:53
  Speaker 2: you know, be, be more forthright and wake up and start, uh,
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: you know, um, preaching, preaching forthrightly, um, then, uh, I think, uh,
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: you know, I think we could, we could get some
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: movement in the churches.
• 41:07
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: Christianity as well has a, Christianity has a very in, inbred, uh,
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: and always has had, uh, potential for revivalism. It's often
• 41:19
  Speaker 2: the churches become crooked, they become corrupt, they deteriorate, they
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: become lack of... And what happens?
• 41:28
  Speaker 3: It's where the schisms came from.
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: Exactly.
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: Somebody starts a revival and they rejuvenate themselves. So I
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: wouldn't write them off yet. No, I'm not.
• 41:40
  Speaker 3: I'm not writing them off at all.
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: I think that it's a good starting point for a solution.
• 41:45
  Speaker 3: Let's talk about commies for a moment. Let's go the
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: other way.
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: So in your book, you connected the family court system
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: and the sexual revolution to the larger political takeover. How exactly,
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: just for people who might not know, how does the
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: war on fathers and marriage feed into what you call
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: the communist term?
• 42:05
  Speaker 2: Right. Well, that's a very important question. And that's something
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: I've been working on over the years. My first book,
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: Taken into Custody, was very narrowly focused on the family
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: courts and the divorce machinery. I then discovered that the pattern,
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: what I saw in the family courts, was part of
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: a larger pattern of radical feminist and homosexualist ideology. Not just,
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: for example, accusing fathers of domestic violence and child abuse
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: in divorce court, but accusing servicemen and university students of
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: various gender crimes and then politicians. So I saw it
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: wasn't limited to the family courts and divorce. It was
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: a much larger phenomenon. And then in that other recent
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: book you mentioned, Who Lost America, I started seeing the pattern,
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: the same pattern, for example, the lawfare operations against Donald Trump,
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: against the January 6th defendants, against parents at school board meetings.
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: The judge, I forget his name, but the judge, they
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: accused him of rape.
• 43:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah.
• 43:08
  Speaker 3: That was on, why am I forgetting his name? I
• 43:10
  Speaker 3: was talking about him all the time. But yeah.
• 43:12
  Speaker 2: Not Kavanaugh.
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: What was that? Kavanaugh, that's Brett Kavanaugh.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Brett Kavanaugh, yes.
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: It was basically weaponizing women's victimhood to destroy the lives
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: of their enemies, essentially.
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: To get rid, and all of those, what all of
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: those have in common is getting rid of unwanted men.
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: Whether it's in your household, it's in your home, or
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: it's in the workplace, or in the political system, or
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: in Hollywood. So, you know, gradually and I increasingly saw
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: that what was happening was that the techniques from family
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: court and from the judiciary were, well, first of all,
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: they were spreading elsewhere in the judiciary and then they
• 43:50
  Speaker 2: were being taken for things like lawfare operations against Trump
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: and Putin, you know, vilification techniques against people like Putin
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: and Serbia and others. So I think what's happening is
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: the family courts are are the pioneers of these violations
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: of constitutional rights and hysteria. And everything works so well
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: in the family courts to get rid of the men
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: that they started getting rid of men elsewhere in the
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: military and in the universities and in the, you know,
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: in Hollywood.
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: Well, basically every industry, when the Me Too movement was
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: going on, every industry was having its reckoning.
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: Where there were a bunch of allegations that would come out.
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: And It was almost always against men in higher positions,
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: like managerial positions or very high status positions. And they
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: would get ousted and then there would be a union.
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: Like I remember this in the animation industry that I
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: bring this up a lot. There was a union called
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: Women in Animation that had this goal of making the
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: entire animation industry 50-50, 50% men and 50% women. And
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: one of the methods they used to make that happen,
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: because they couldn't do it off of merit alone, it
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: just wouldn't shake out that way because more men are
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: interested in that job, more men are willing to work harder,
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: longer hours, et cetera. So what they did was they
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: just put out this large open letter, a bunch of
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: women in the industry signed it, and a bunch of
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: men got fired by their respective unions or whatever, the
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: unions didn't back them up, but they were basically pushed
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: out of those jobs and the women came and replaced them.
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: And this was happening everywhere. So it's political, but it's
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: also just financial. Like there's just financial incentives to make
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: an allegation. And you're going to have a bunch of
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: women that have your back. You're going to get a
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: man out of there and they're going to put you
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: in that. It doesn't matter if you're qualified or not,
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: which is why our culture is so sick because we
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: don't have qualified people creating anything.
• 45:54
  Speaker 2: Exactly right. Exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. One of the themes
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: that I've tried to pursue all through my work is
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: that none of this is just a matter of father's
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: rights or men versus women or men's rights. It's a
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: matter of justice versus injustice. Because if you can inflict
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: injustice on one sector of your population, you can't quarantine it.
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: It doesn't stay there. It doesn't stay confined to your target.
• 46:19
  Speaker 2: It spreads out. And once the principles and the practices
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: are established, they can be inflicted on other people. And
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: that's what Martin Luther King meant when he said that,
• 46:30
  Speaker 2: you know, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: And Frederick Douglass had said something very similar back in
• 46:36
  Speaker 2: the days of slavery. He said the white man's grave,
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: the white man's liberty is marked out for the same
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: grave as the black man's. And what they meant was that,
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: you know, if you subject, you can't quarantine it. You
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: can't leave it. You either abolish slavery. Lincoln said the
• 46:51
  Speaker 2: same thing. A house divided cannot stand. You either abolish slavery.
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: Or it's going to take over everything and it's going
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: to corrupt everything. And that's the same that we see
• 47:00
  Speaker 2: now with feminism and their injustices, especially in the legal system.
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: You either abolish it and reform it or it's going
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: to continue spreading out and it's going to engulf all
• 47:09
  Speaker 2: of us. And that's kind of the theme of Who
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: Lost America is that it is that's what's happening. It
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: is engulfing all of us now. And you either wake
• 47:18
  Speaker 2: up and stop ridiculing, scolding men and say, oh, this
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: is just father's right, a bunch of father's rights and that's.
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: And you take these injustices seriously, or the whole constitution,
• 47:29
  Speaker 2: the whole system of constitutional limited government and freedom is
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: going to be the casualty.
• 47:36
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree 100%.
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: A lot of people on the right still talk mainly
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: about things like Marxism, cultural Marxism, and globalism. Why do
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: you think that framing is insufficient or even a distraction,
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: if you do?
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: I do. I do very much. Um, there's no doubt
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: about it. Uh, you know, feminism did kind of grow
• 48:00
  Speaker 2: out of past ideologies like Marxism, you know, and in
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: some ways it's just as repressive and just as vicious
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: as Marxism. And I, I go into my, in my books,
• 48:09
  Speaker 2: I show some examples. I came across an example. I
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: forgot to mention an interesting, uh, example, uh, between Leah, quote, quoting,
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: comparing a quote from Leon Trotsky. I think it was
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: with a quote, the head of the check. I wasn't Trotsky.
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: It was the head of the checkup with, uh, Catherine MacKinnon,
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: and remarkably similar lines. Anyway, so it is just as
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: repressive and potentially totalitarian as Marxism. My problem with that characterization, though,
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: I think it's become a crutch for conservatives. First of all,
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: I don't think anyone is scandalized by that. If the
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: purpose is to make feminism sound awful because it's similar
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: to Marxism, well, there's plenty of people think that Marxism
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: is pretty perfectly good.
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: Why don't we just call it feminism and just tell
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: people that it's just as bad, if not worse than Marxism.
• 49:03
  Speaker 3: It is worse because the, it is worse though, I think.
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: Because Marxism couldn't have taken root in the United States
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: or in any Western first world country because there was
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: a path for a working class person to basically have
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: a satisfying life.
• 49:18
  Speaker 3: And you can't really do that.
• 49:20
  Speaker 2: That.
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: But if you divide men and women with, you know,
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: and that's like going to be way, way, way more
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: disastrous than simple class struggle.
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: Absolutely.
• 49:29
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: Even in the old Soviet Union, there was plenty of
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: social conservatism, you know, and I had some experience with
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: the labor movement and party politics in Britain where And,
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: you know, you might be a left wing socialist and
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: in favor of, you know, nationalizing the means of production
• 49:44
  Speaker 2: and all that. But if your daughter came home pregnant
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: without being married, you know, there would be hell to pay. So,
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: you know, there's plenty of that. But the other problem
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: I have is what you described earlier. And that is
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: that I think calling it cultural Marxism, which is a
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: very good phrase in its way, But I think it's
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: become a crutch for conservatism who are too frightened of
• 50:04
  Speaker 2: feminism to take it on. They don't want to take
• 50:08
  Speaker 2: on feminism because they're intimidated by it. They don't know
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: how to deal with it. They're afraid of it. So
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: let's just refight the Cold War. Let's just go back
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: and take on Marxism and socialism and liberalism and vilify
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: the Russians and the Chinese and refight the Cold War
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: at home and abroad. And that'll solve the problem. We
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: don't have to deal with these feminists. They're just cultural Marxists.
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: It doesn't work that way. Feminism is its own, as
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: you said, it's its own radical ideology. It has supplanted Marxism,
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: I believe, at the vanguard of the left. It dominates
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: the left. Marxism is, in many ways, socialism is passe.
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: And it is feminism that is dominating the left. We
• 50:53
  Speaker 2: have to take it on, on its own terms.
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: It's... Yes, it's dominated the left and it also has,
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: let's say, captured a lot on the so-called right as well.
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: Because again, it's normalized this sentiment and it's also, you know,
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: because there are cowards, because they're afraid that criticizing feminism
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: means criticizing women. If you've noticed that whenever they start
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: to make an anti-feminist argument, they always have to lay out,
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: and this is, I think, part of the feminization of
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: these men, they have to lay out this sort of
• 51:27
  Speaker 1: land acknowledgement that, you know, oh, I.
• 51:29
  Speaker 3: Don't hate women.
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: So, you know, just so you know, this is not
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: against women. I love my wife. I love my daughter, blah, blah, blah. Okay,
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: now I'm going to make this little critique. And it's like,
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: you're not taking it as seriously as you would all
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: these other things, which I think are less consequential than feminist.
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: I mean, intersectionality or intersectional feminism is basically already compensating
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: for the lack of focus on things like communism or
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: radical race politics or whatever, it just folds everything in
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: together and says, all of this is a struggle. But
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: notice that intersectionality is feminist first. So it's intersectional feminism,
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: which includes all these other identities like disability and LGBTQ
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: and all of that. So yeah, it has to be,
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: I agree, it has to be taken seriously.
• 52:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And there's this idea on the right that if
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: you just attack socialism and cultural Marxism, that feminism will
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: just go away. And it doesn't work that way. It's
• 52:32
  Speaker 2: going to get worse. And that's the other thing is
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: it's going to get worse before it gets better.
• 52:36
  Speaker 3: I agree 100 percent.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: So what are some practical steps that you think ordinary citizens,
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: not professional activists or politicians, can actually take right now?
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: I know that you mentioned The thing about working at
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: the lower scale, because a lot of people, they get
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: caught up in looking at how the large scale things
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: are happening. And they're like, I can't affect change on that.
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: They're thinking about who to vote for in a presidential
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: election or something, as opposed to what is within your reach,
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: what is closest to you. So what do you think
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: are some practical steps that ordinary people can do that
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: they can take right now with some actions?
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: Right. Well, stop giving money to trad cons and their organizations.
• 53:23
  Speaker 2: They have too much money and they're all useless and
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: they lose anyway. So stop supporting the trad cons and
• 53:30
  Speaker 2: be skeptical of what they say, because they can say
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: nice sounding things, which say absolutely not about the family and,
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: you know, so forth. But it has no practical impact.
• 53:39
  Speaker 2: So don't put your faith in trad cons. I think
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: I think you can. I think men should. join churches
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: and join men's groups and be militants, speak out about.
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: Because I think underneath, you know, in these men's groups
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: and churches, they're always, as I say, flagellating themselves over
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: their sins. But beneath the surface, you know, they're angry.
• 54:04
  Speaker 2: There are men in those congregations and they are angry.
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: They're angry about the takeover of their churches by women,
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: by the power, usually the power of the pastor's wife,
• 54:15
  Speaker 2: by the spinelessness of the priest or the pastor. So
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: those men, you scratch them, you start saying things more forthrightly,
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: and I think they'll follow you. So I think that's
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: a great place to start. And I think patronize the
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: alternative media. I think shows like this are extremely important.
• 54:34
  Speaker 2: I think the alternative media are a big thing. And
• 54:38
  Speaker 2: I think we need to be, I think we need
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: to talk more, perhaps less complaining, less griping, less... self-pity
• 54:47
  Speaker 2: and more solutions. And I think the biggest solution, for me,
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: I think the solution, I think we should be very
• 54:55
  Speaker 2: forthright about this. For me, I think the solution is
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: father custody. I don't think the solution is 50-50. I
• 55:04
  Speaker 2: used to believe this, but I don't anymore. Shared parenting
• 55:07
  Speaker 2: or joint custody or whatever you want to call it.
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: I think that's a nice first step, but it's only
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: a marginal improvement. Whereas I think, you know, basically we
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: have to go back to the system of, because as
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: I said before, the main feminist objection is the control
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: of the reproductive system. That is their, that is their
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: main ambition and they direct, and men have to take
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: it back. Daniel Anais, who I think is the greatest
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: mind in the men's movement ever, pointed this out, what,
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: back 20, 30 years ago in the case for father
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: custody and before that in the garbage generation. He said this,
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: he said, you break the divorce system and you get
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: custody for men, for fathers, more or less automatically, and
• 55:53
  Speaker 2: it will break the power of the feminists. Not just
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: reform the courts, it will break feminism itself. And I'm
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: increasingly convinced that he's correct about that. The other complaints
• 56:03
  Speaker 2: about men are all, I think, less important, but they'll
• 56:09
  Speaker 2: also be solved more quickly. Once you solve this one,
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: once you take back the control of the reproductive system
• 56:20
  Speaker 2: through MGTOW and through father custody.
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: Restoring the fathers to their rightful place in the home.
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And all the rest of it will fall into
• 56:30
  Speaker 2: place much more quickly, much more easily. So I think
• 56:33
  Speaker 2: we should concentrate on that. and demand it. And it's
• 56:37
  Speaker 2: also what's obviously right. And just from a constitutional point
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: of view, nobody should have the right to take away
• 56:43
  Speaker 2: the power of the authority to take away someone's children
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: from legally innocent parents. I mean, that's what's happening. Children,
• 56:51
  Speaker 2: legally innocent parents are having their children stolen from them
• 56:54
  Speaker 2: under the pretext of divorce. And that is obviously intolerable.
• 56:57
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's like Martin Luther King said about segregation,
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: why we can't wait. No, we want change now. Not tomorrow,
• 57:05
  Speaker 2: not someday, not after we change the culture, now. There's
• 57:09
  Speaker 2: some Justice Jackson, what was his name? Robert Jackson on
• 57:14
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court says there are some rights that are
• 57:16
  Speaker 2: not subject to a vote. Okay? Nobody claims we have
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: to change the culture before we can outlaw abortion. Men
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: and some women should not have to wait to have
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: their children restored to them. You either show what they've done,
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: what transgression they've committed, against the law, or you give
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: them their children back and you leave them alone. There
• 57:39
  Speaker 2: should be no compromise of that whatsoever. And all the
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: rest of it, I think all the rest of it
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: will fall into place.
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: Some states are doing this now, in the United States
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: at least, where they are presuming, I think it's either
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: 50-50 custody or father custody, but I believe it's 50-50
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: custody in a number of states. And that's already had
• 58:02
  Speaker 1: a a pretty big effect on not just obviously not
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: just custody, but divorce itself. Like women are less likely
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: to divorce a man if they don't think they're going
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: to get access to the children and all that comes
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: with it, like child support, alimony, et cetera. So I
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: do see some of that already changing. And, you know,
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: I welcome that. Are you as optimistic?
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: I think it's a good first step. But I don't
• 58:30
  Speaker 2: think it's a solution. I think the problem with it is,
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: is it still leaves the courts involved in the family
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: of an innocent parent. In other words, if it's 50-50 custody,
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: someone has to enforce that. And the courts have to
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: enforce that. When the court's involved, they will come up
• 58:48
  Speaker 2: with excuses for watering it down as soon as no
• 58:51
  Speaker 2: one's looking. I don't know how Kentucky, the reports are
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: that Kentucky is working pretty well. And as you say,
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: in reducing the divorce rate, I saw it in D.C., Washington, D.C.,
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: where it's been around for a lot longer. And I
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: didn't see that it made any difference at all. But,
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: you know. So I think it's a good first step,
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: but I think an innocent, legally unimpeachable parent should not
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: have the state involved in micromanaging their relationship with their
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: children in any way. The state doesn't belong in the
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: family unless it can show that one or both parents
• 59:30
  Speaker 2: have done something legally wrong. And in that case, it
• 59:33
  Speaker 2: intervenes in the least intrusive, invasive way. Okay, so you
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: give custody to the innocent parent, which in most families
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: is the father because it's the women who file not
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: 70% of divorces, as we often hear, but virtually about
• 59:51
  Speaker 2: 99% of the divorces when children are involved. So basically,
• 59:56
  Speaker 2: you know, custody to the innocent parent is basically the
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: same thing as father custody in most cases.
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'm not sure how much time we have. We've
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: gone for about an hour, but I do have some
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: more questions. Are you okay with a.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: Little bit more? Yeah, fine.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 3: All right, cool.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: I think we're, so first of all, let's talk about marriage.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: And I agree with you. I think the problem is
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: the state being involved with marriage. Now, again, I'm speaking
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: as a Christian. Marriage is supposed to be a holy
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: sacrament that is basically under the jurisdiction of the church,
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: not the state. But the problem is that the state
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: has become, sort of replaced the church.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 3: In most marriages, not all marriages.
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 1: And I guess like I don't know if you're thinking
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: that it would be better if we can get to
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: a point where the state is not involved with marriage
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: and that it rather is just like a.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 3: Product of the church.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: That way, people who are not, you know, like, let's
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: say not just like people who are homosexuals that want
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: to get married, but also just like people who are
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: secular that want to have a.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 3: Partner that they live with.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: And they but, you know, they maybe they don't need
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: to get married. Maybe we should just treat it as
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: something because the purpose of marriage is family and children.
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 1: So do you think that, first of all, do you
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 1: think it's a good idea to cry and get the
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: state out of marriage? And I don't know how possible
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: it is, but I thought I would start with that.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 2: You're right. Important question, because it's got a huge appeal.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 2: I hear every day on videos and websites and everything
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: about how everyone wants to get the state out because
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 2: the state is is nothing but trouble. I think the
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 2: state should be removed from marriage and families as much
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 2: as possible. The burden of proof should always be on
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 2: the state for intervening, and it should certainly not have
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 2: the power to intervene or interfere with a spouse or
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: a parent who has done nothing legally wrong. In other words,
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: that's a basic common law principle. The state should not
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 2: be intervening in the lives of legally innocent or legally
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 2: unimpeachable citizens. And that includes the private realm, the household,
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: the family is a realm of private life from which
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 2: the state is excluded and the parents rule in the family.
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 2: And if the state wants to intervene in cases of
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: extreme child abuse, for example, it should have a heavy
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: burden of proof on showing why. So the state should
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 2: have certainly a very minimal interference in marriages and families
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 2: and private life generally. Now, having said all that, the
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 2: problem is children. Once children appear, the state appears. Once children,
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: you know, the state invariably claims power over decisions of children.
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: Prenuptial agreements are not enforceable when it comes to custody.
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 2: And of course, you know, child abuse allegations or whatever.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 2: the state becomes involved. And even if you have 50-50 custody,
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 2: or even if you have father custody, someone's got to
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: enforce it. So I don't think you can remove the
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 2: state 100% from marriage in the household. Because when children are,
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: in the case of a childless marriage, yeah, perhaps so.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 2: Any two people can walk into a church, declare themselves married,
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: and cohabit and live their lives. There's nothing wrong with that.
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 2: But I think once children appear, you've got to make
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 2: your peace with the state somehow. And it is a
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 2: state that is overweening and overmighty. And so I think
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: there's no choice but to fight the state, reduce its
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: power and demand that it be curtailed and controlled the
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: way it is, you know, which is what constitutions are for.
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 2: So that's what we have a constitution. It's a pretty
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: good one. Most Western countries have a similar one and
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 2: they need to enforce it. Now, having said all that,
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 2: I think there was a, There was a time when
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 2: you didn't have to worry about the state. I mean,
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: it wasn't that long ago, a few decades ago. If
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: anybody took a man's children, even his wife or his
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: wife's family, if she ran off with the children, he'd
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 2: get together with half a dozen friends, and he'd go
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: get them back again. There wouldn't be any intervention of
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 2: the state. In other words, you don't interfere with a
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: man's children, and if you do, you do so at
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: your peril. You know, he'd get his friends, they'd get
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 2: baseball bats, and they'd go get the children back again. And,
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 2: you know, the state would never be consulted one way
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 2: or the other about it. The problem is that the
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 2: modern state is overmighty. And that recourse, that response to
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 2: child kidnapping, has been replaced by something we call custody.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: And custody is granted by the state. So you need
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 2: to get– I think there's no– substitute for demanding that
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 2: the state, uh, take the minimal intervention by intervening only
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: against a spouse who has broken the marriage contract. And
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 2: by the way, this would do a lot to reinforce
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 2: the institution of marriage. It would give men a encouragement
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 2: to get married before they have children, because once that
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: you have a marriage contract, a marriage agreement, a marriage covenant,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: if you in the church, um, you have, uh, you know,
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 2: you have certain grounds. And as long as you remain
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: faithful to those stipulations, the terms of the covenant, no
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 2: one has a right to interfere with your children. And
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 2: that's what it has to be. So the state, any
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: interference of the state has to be only against the
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: parent who has violated that marital contract, whether it's through
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 2: adultery or desertion or, you know, it varies in jurisdictions.
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 2: Different jurisdictions have different terms, different grounds for divorce. But
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: As long as you know what they are in advance,
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 2: in other words, as long as it's stipulated clearly, if
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 2: I commit adultery, if I desert the household, if I
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 2: beat my wife severely or husband, if I try to
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 2: murder him, that's legitimate grounds for divorce. I will lose
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 2: my home. I will lose my children. I will be
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 2: shown the door with nothing but the clothes on my back.
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: And the other spouse will get everything, especially the children.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: And once that's stipulated, you know, I think the problem
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: is solved. Or at least it's under control.
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah. All right.
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: Two more questions. We'll try and keep them brief. So
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: first of all, you are now co-hosting a YouTube show
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: called The Mansplainers. What gap in the current sort of
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 1: manosphere or men's rights conversation are you trying to fill
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: with that show?
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 2: Well, we do concentrate mostly on divorce and child custody,
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 2: but not entirely. I think one thing we're trying to
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: do is elevate the level of debate and have the
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: very best people on. We don't have a lot of shows,
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 2: but we do have some of the very best people,
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 2: Paul Elam, Janice Fiamengo, Roger Devlin, and some of them
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: not well-known, some of them who have missed out on
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 2: the you know, the internet and the media, social media
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 2: craze and have fallen by the wayside. We're going to
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: discuss amnias in a week or two. So, you know,
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: we try to elevate the quality of debate, have the
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: very best people on. Some of the same things that
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: Paul complains about in his series, you know, Repairing the Manosphere,
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 2: you know, too much complaining, too much hedonism, too much self-indulgence,
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 2: too much self-pity. I mean, to this point, these things
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 2: can be galvanizing, can be energizing, and so forth. But
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 2: we like to concentrate on solutions, on practical steps that
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 2: men can take. And here's some of the points of
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 2: view that are not getting out there in the cacophony
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: of social media as much. So that was kind of
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: our main purpose in creating that.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a breath of fresh air.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: And to emphasize my area, which is politics. Politics can't
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: be just ignored or renounced. There's got to be a
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 2: place for it, even amid culture. And we talk a
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: lot about religion, too, because I think religion is extremely
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: important in all this.
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I agree.
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: That's something that I am also learning to accept more
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 1: and more is that our, let's say, The transcendental matters
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 1: as well, because it's like I believe where it's where
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: all spawns from.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: So that was addressing the gap in the manosphere conversation.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: I don't even like using that word, but that's sort
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: of like, the nom du jour now that everyone has
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 1: to use.
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 3: Any conversation involving men.
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: If you could force every conservative politician, think tank fellow,
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: and church leader to understand just one thing about the
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: politics of sex and the family, what would it be?
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 2: To understand one thing.
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: If you can make them look at something that they
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: either refuse to or pretend doesn't exist to shake sense
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: into them, what would you show them?
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 2: I suppose I would say the hand that rocks the
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 2: cradle is the hand that rules the world. Men have
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 2: to control the terms of reproduction, or at least they
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 2: have to share it. If they don't share it, then
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: women will have a monopoly. Women naturally Biologically speaking, naturally speaking,
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 2: women have a monopoly on reproduction and its terms. And
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 2: if men don't demand to share it equally, then the
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 2: women will monopolize it. So, I mean, basically, it needs
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 2: to be controlled by men. It's the basis of civilization.
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, patriarchal civilization, this is Amnias' argument. And he's
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 2: exactly right. Civilization is based on male control. or at
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: least sharing, of the terms of reproduction. Because without that,
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 2: we have no future of our civilization.
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: There is something else I thought I would mention. It's
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: true that women are the gatekeepers to sex and reproduction.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 1: And that made me ask, well, then what are men
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: the gatekeepers of? What do they have? What's their leverage?
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: And it used to be the provision, protection, the the
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: security that women desire and they need to raise their
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 1: children safely because a baby, a human baby and human
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: infant is nothing like any other animal in the animal kingdom, right?
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: Where most animals, they come out and they're ready to
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: run around and within a few minutes, human babies can't
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: move for like a year, their heads are so large
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 1: and they have to be protected. But men have been
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: replaced by the state, right?
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 3: In that role, right?
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: The women are, this is why women are useful to
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: power hungry politicians because they can tell them you need
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 1: us to protect you.
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 3: You don't need men, right? This is what.
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: Destroyed the black population was the promise of state funded
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: childcare and snap and welfare and housing and all this
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: other stuff. But the condition was there couldn't be a
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: man in the house. And so what happened was Now
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: we have Black families, 80% of them with children born
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: out of wedlock, and there's a rise in gang violence
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: and teen pregnancy and all these other problems that are
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: coming up from that. So men have to take back
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 1: that power of where their strength is in terms of
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: what they contribute, I think, which is their being the
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: custodians to the children.
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. And I think what you've just made,
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 2: what you've just said, confirms my case about the importance
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 2: of taking on the state. I think there's no substitute
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 2: for it. And look at the, yes, it's a gargantuan task,
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: but it's also the task that has to be undertaken anyway.
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: I mean, people who have no familiarity with these issues
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 2: whatsoever will all tell you that the state is too powerful.
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 2: The state is, you know, we talk about the deep
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: state and the tyrannical state, not in the Soviet Union,
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: but in the Western world. And so, you know, if
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: men have to bite the bullet to grasp the nettle
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: of not only getting custody back, but reducing the power
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: of the modern state, well, that's what they have to do.
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 2: And that, you know, the generation that does that or
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: the generations that do that will be looked upon by
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 2: posterity as heroes. And I think we have no choice because, frankly,
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 2: you know, we've had several generations, including mine, that have
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: fallen down on the job. We've abdicated not just to women,
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 2: but to the state, our responsibilities. In fact, men bought
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 2: into the sexual revolution because they didn't want to do
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 2: things like fight foreign wars. They didn't want to provide
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: and protect and slog away at jobs. We have our responsibility.
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 2: We have our guilt for this also, men. That is
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 2: to say, since at least, you know, it's been growing
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: since at least the 1950s when Playboy magazine was founded. So,
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: you know, if we have to start, if subsequent generations
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: have to make up for the abdication, the failure, the
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: irresponsibility of my generation and the ones before us, well,
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 2: I think there's no choice in that. We just have
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 2: to do it. And we'll be, you know, this is
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: what Jesus meant when he, He said, you know, you'll
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 2: be saviors along with me. You shall be as gods.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 2: This is, you know, this is, you know, Jesus was,
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 2: as the Puritans used to say, Jesus is a king
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 2: that makes all of his followers kings. Jesus is a
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 2: savior that makes all of his followers saviors. And that's,
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 2: you know, it's a big task and we may not
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: do it. in our lifetimes. But if we want to
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 2: get to the promised land, we have to get started.
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. And I got a super chow
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: from someone. I'm going to read this, and then I
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: think we'll wind it down. So Xeranks gave us $ 5
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: and said, French philosopher Charles Foyer, who died in 1837,
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: is noted to have coined feminism. His sentiments are what
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: are what are pervasive today with women competing with men
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 1: for work and thinking that they are enslaved in marriage.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: Marx was 19 when Foyer died and didn't come to
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 1: prominence until his late 20s. How has feminism regarded a
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: Marxist ideology when what we are seeing preceded Marx? I
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: ask because we are people who blame Jewish people for
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: feminism's spread.
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 3: No, there are people, not we are people.
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: There are people who blame Jewish people for feminism's spread.
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: And the person who coined the movement was an anti-Semite.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: And even Marx, who is Jewish, hated his own heritage.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: That's a big question.
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 2: Well, that's interesting. I read Fourier years ago and I
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 2: wasn't thinking about these issues back then. So I'd like
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: to go back and reread Fourier again. Yeah, he did.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: Coin the term, but I don't know that it meant
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 1: the same thing as like when Mary Wollstonecraft.
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 3: Was writing about, you know, women, or Mary Shelley for
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 3: that matter.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Wollstonecraft was more of a kind of practical ideologue.
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 2: Fourier was a utopian socialist. He was a bit of
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 2: a nut, frankly, and he never really told anybody how to,
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 2: like utopians, he never told us how to get there.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: Whereas Wollstonecraft, I think, was more influential because she was
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 2: in that mold of ideologues who gave us the practical
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 2: steps for achieving it. So she probably is more of
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 2: the the mother of it, the Fourier. But, you know,
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 2: it just goes to show, Fourier had all kinds of
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: fantastic ideas, and they went nowhere, most of which went nowhere. True. But,
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 2: you know, unfortunately, this one did go somewhere, and it
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 2: gets more and more ridiculous all the time. Yeah.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: He may have coined the term, but I'm not sure
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 1: that it means the same thing that it means today
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: when he said it.
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but maybe. I'm not claiming to know for sure.
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 2: All right. All right.
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 3: Last question and then we'll wrap it up. Well, maybe
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 3: two more.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: One, have you read or heard about Helen Andrews's article
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: she wrote called The Great Feminization?
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 3: Are you familiar with Helen Andrews?
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I did. I did read that. It came out
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 2: just about a year ago.
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah, about a year ago.
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah. It made a big splash. It actually went viral
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 2: on the conservative media. I wrote a piece on it
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 2: on my sub stack. I think it was, you know,
• 1:17:24
  Speaker 2: it was good because she's a, you know, trad con
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 2: she's mainstream conservatism. She used to edit the American conservative magazine,
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 2: which published some of my work. Uh, so, you know,
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 2: it was good to see trad cons, mainstream conservatives, uh,
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 2: at least, you know, willing to take a hard line
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 2: on feminism. I think her, I shouldn't say a hard
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 2: line willing to, you know, forthrightly criticize one aspect, one
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 2: aspect of feminism, which is women in the workplace. But, um,
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 2: it was a very mealy mouth, uh, effort in my opinion.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 3: It was very, very safe. And yet she got into
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 3: a lot of hot water.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, very true. I don't think she even used the
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: word feminism in that article. In fact, no, she didn't.
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 2: She said it was the quantity of women in the
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 2: workplace as if feminism was not, uh, responsible for increasing
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 2: the number of women in the work. I mean, she
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 2: went out of her, you know, very, some very typical
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 2: trad con operation in the sense that she.
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 1: She's probably a feminist in her own right, though, because
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 1: if she's working in the sphere of writing about these issues,
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: I think that she feels like she has to pay
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 1: lip service to it because otherwise she can't have her job.
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 1: It's a ridiculous thing because women have always worked. Feminism
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 1: was never necessary for that. But it just seems to
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 1: be a pattern I've noticed where a lot of people
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: have to, again, it goes back to the land acknowledgements
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: where they have to make clear that they're not against
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: feminism because otherwise, you know, whatever terrible consequences they think
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 1: would exist. But yeah, I mean, I was just wondering
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: if you read it because I was impressed with By
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 1: the fact that it exists, but I agree it doesn't
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 1: really go far enough in a number of ways.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 2: And the really interesting thing, too, is that her magazine,
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 2: The American Conservative, is not a neocon magazine in that sense.
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 2: It's very anti-neocon in foreign policy issues. So you would
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: think they would be a little more forthright. And I
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 2: guess her article shows that they are a little more forthright,
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 2: but only a little more. not nearly as forthright as they,
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 2: as they should be. And if, you know, if these trad, these,
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 2: these traditional conservatives like American conservative magazine and Chronicles, I
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 2: believe if they were a little more, um, harsher, if
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 2: they took on the feminists more directly, they would carve
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 2: out a, a niche for themselves that, you know, would
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 2: rival the rival, the neocons, but instead they just kind
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 2: of rant and rave at the neocons instead of, uh,
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: you know, finding a niche that'll give them a, equal clout. Yeah.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah. All right. Well, okay.
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: Last question I'm going to ask, uh, in the time
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: that you've been doing this, in what ways do you
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: think you have changed the most? Like in terms of
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: your views and stuff, I don't mean just like getting older.
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 2: Um, how, how have I changed? Um, well, I've, uh,
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: One thing that strikes me, when I wrote my first
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 2: book on this topic just 20 years ago, Taken into Custody,
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 2: I saw myself as writing an expose. I thought I
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 2: was going to write something like Sinclair Lewis's The Jungle,
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 2: or sorry, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, or Michael Harrington's The
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: Other America. I thought people were going to, I was
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 2: exposing all the evils of family court for the first
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 2: time with good background, the politics of what goes on
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: and how horrible it was and I put a lot
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 2: of work into it and I thought people were just
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 2: going to say, wow, this is horrifying. And, and, you know,
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 2: I was going to start a reform movement and everyone
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 2: was going to jump on the, uh, on the bandwagon and, and, and, uh,
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 2: you know, undertake this major reform and everyone was going to,
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 2: you know, live happily ever after. Well, 20 years later,
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 2: that hasn't happened. What has happened 20 years later is
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 2: the things I wrote in that book have reached general awareness. Uh, they,
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: they have reached, uh, you know, most, it's the manosphere,
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 2: the social media, all of it, and even the mainstream
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 2: media are full of the horrors of family, you know,
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: they do acknowledge the horrors of family court now, which
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 2: they didn't 20 years ago. But what's equally striking is
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 2: the complacency. They're not outraged about it. They don't undertake
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 2: reform movements. They don't try to say this is intolerable
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 2: and we have to change it. They just kind of, oh, yeah,
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 2: men's constitutional rights are being violated right and left in
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 2: family court. It's just the way it is. Be careful
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: who you marry. Be careful who you marry. Choose the
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 2: right woman and you might be okay. Probably not, but
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 2: you might. So the general awareness that I wanted people,
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 2: I wanted to achieve with my first book, Taken into Custody,
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 2: has been achieved. How much of it I achieved, I
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 2: don't know, but it's been achieved. But the outrage is,
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 2: has not come with it. The reform has not come
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 2: with it. Tucker Carlson is a good example. Tucker Carlson
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 2: takes on all these things. He takes on Israel. He
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 2: takes on the Iraq War, the Iran War. He's outraged
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: about it. He wants to change the abuse. But what
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: if Family Court, he says, well, it's just the way
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 2: it is. Man up and get married.
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 3: Yep.
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 2: I know.
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 3: I know. It's completely like a mix-up of priorities.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 1: You know, people think it's like it's so edgy to criticize, like,
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 1: I don't know, like Zionists. But it doesn't compare to
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: like trying to criticize the people who are actually destroying
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 1: our society by destroying our families, by taking the fathers
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: out of the home. And and they're scared to do
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 1: to criticize them.
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: So I'm I'm glad that, you know, you're being you're
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: able to see that as clearly as I can see that.
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: But with all that said, though, I think that this
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: has been a really great conversation. I could ask you
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 1: a lot more questions, but I can't go much longer
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: because I have to do things on my end.
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 3: So thank you, Mr. Baskerville.
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: Where can people find you? I put links to all
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: your stuff in the description, but, you know, you've maybe.
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, probably the best place to start is my website, stephenbaskerville.com.
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 2: And that doesn't have my most recent work, but it
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 2: does have a link to my sub stack. And that's
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 2: that's where my. most recent work is. So stephenbaskerville.com and
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 2: then click the link to my, that shows my books
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 2: and my major articles. And then you can go from there,
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 2: click to the sub stack for my recent work.
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 3: All right. And I have a little bit of an idea.
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: Some people are saying the problem with trying to change
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: this to the political level is that women vote, but
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 1: I have a thought and I don't know how true
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: this is, just something I'm going to throw out there.
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 1: Maybe women are hypergamous when it comes to voting as well, i.e.
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 1: maybe they only vote for like the highest levels of
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: office and they don't concern themselves with the bottom levels.
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: If men are activated at like the local levels, then
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: they can affect it from the bottom up.
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 3: Something to think about.
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 1: It's possible, especially the ones that tend to vote left
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: because they see the world in terms of power dynamics
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: between those who have power and those who don't have power.
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: And so they will probably vote for the people who
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 1: have the most power under the assumption that they can
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 1: operate like kings, when that's not the way it works
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: in the United States, or at least that's not how
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: it's supposed to work. So it's something to consider. Maybe
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: men should be involved in voting for judges, for sheriffs,
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: for aldermen, or local mayors, like these kinds of lower offices.
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 1: And if there's enough of the people on that side
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 1: that are sympathetic to men's issues, then you can affect
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: things going.
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 3: Upwards from there. So anyway, I don't know. Just something
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 3: I just popped into my head just now.
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 2: Go ahead. Yeah, it's an interesting way of wording it,
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 2: of phrasing it. I'll have to think about that, but yeah.
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's possible. I don't know.
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: I mean, like I said, if women's hypergamy draws them
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: to looking at the biggest, baddest dude on the block
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: as their support structure, then maybe they're missing... like all
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: of the smaller parts that move in that machine that
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: men could be like picking out. So instead of concerning
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 1: yourself with every four years with whoever's in the white house,
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 1: you're looking at the people in your local governments, in
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 1: your local areas, because the judges are the real problem.
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: And I think you can vote for judges in, in States.
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 3: I'm not, I'm not great. I'm not really knowledgeable on that.
• 1:26:02
  Speaker 3: It's just an idea in some States.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 2: So there you go.
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 3: Anyway, Thank you so much for coming on the show, Mr. Baskerville.
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: And thank you guys for joining us. Again, links to
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 1: all this stuff is in the description. But we're going
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 1: to head out now. So if you guys like this video,
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 1: please hit like.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 3: Subscribe if you're not already subscribed. Hit the bell for notifications.
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 3: Leave us a comment. Let us know what you guys
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 3: think about what we talked about on the show today.
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: And share the video because sharing is caring. Thanks so
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: much for coming on this episode of the Fireside Chat.
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 1: And we will talk to you guys in the next one.