The scariest story you'll read all year | Maintaining Frame 187

The birth rate crisis isn't as bad as you've heard. It's worse.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Happy Halloween everybody, and welcome to Honeybadger Radio. My name
is Brian Allison, and this is maintaining frame number one
eight seven, which is also like the police code for murder,
which is appropriate this Friday, the sorry you'll ever read
all year.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Uhh, I said, it's all converging.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Yeah, yeah, it's a it's an interesting coincidence. That's why
I wasn't sure what to call it. And then I
looked at the number on the maintaining frame. I was like, oh,
it'll be one eight seven. Yeah, yeah, that's the that's believe,
that's the murder code, but.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Yeah, the murder of our civilization too, that's potentially yes.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yes, So I am here and Allison is here, and
we're going to be looking at this article from the Atlantic,
which is ironically because the Atlantic is generally a left
leaning paper, pro feminist, you know, bit progressive, but even
they're seeing the writing on the wall. And Mark Novaco

(01:00):
wrote this article entitled the birth rate crisis isn't as
bad as you've heard, It's worse. So there is a
real there's the panic is beginning to set in. And
we're going to be looking at this article today and
I guess. Also the base Camp video, which is a
bit of a flip side on it because it's more optimistic.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
So it describes the solution, or at least one of them,
to the decline in the birth crisis, and which is
really interesting because I had an extended conversation with a
feminist about the we.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
Talked about the Yeah, we talked about this too on
the show many times. And so I'm glad that Mark
and Malcolm and Simone are sort of landing, you know,
in the same place. They're really they're smart cookies. So anyway,
so you guys might have noticed that things are a
little bit different. I have made things a little bit

(01:57):
more of festive on our screen here, so we have
a little bit of halloweeny background, and I have like
a jack o' lantern. It's like right there, Yeah, eat it.
I never made a jack o lamb before. It's my
first time. I stuck to the basics. So that's a
real jack o lanner made from a real pumpkin back there.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
But anyway, cool I have I didn't do anything. I
usually put up my zero little dog ghost. Yeah, unfortunately,
you know what, you know what, here's here's my Lucy
skull there you go. Maybe I'll just hold this.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
All right, No, don't don't do that. I have like
a skull on my shelf too, as well as this
eyeball thing that like is motion activated. It's like a
crystal ball with an eye inside of it and if
you walk past it, the eye opens and it talks,
but it just goes off like every like thirty seconds.
So I just I'm just leaving it off. Just trust me.
There's an eyeball behind me as well. Scary eyeball.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
Scary, yes, But let's anyway with that out of the way,
let's I guess like you do the things, yes, and
get into the story, into the topic.

Speaker 1 (03:06):
So go ahead, all right.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
So if you want to send a message at any
time throughout the show, please do or a tip in
a message, please do so at feed the badger dot
com slash just the tip. That's feed Thebadger dot com
slash just the tip, very much appreciated, whatever funds you send,
and it's the best best way for you to send
us a comment because it doesn't go through YouTube's scary

(03:29):
scary corn labyrinth comment system. Take that for what you
as you may. And also we are doing our monthly fundraiser.
It's at feedbadger dot com slash support, So please help
us out there if you could. I want to do
a big thank you to okafs who put in two
hundred and fifty dollars prior to the beginning of this show,

(03:51):
So thank you to okafs, and also to tell THEMNAR
who put in two hundred. So we have a grand
toll of seven hundred left. So if you guys can
could help us out with that, be greatly appreciated. All right,
So let's let's just get started.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
All right. So this is oh by the way out,
and I have a unfortunately, like this show can't go
longer than an hour and a half. I have a
guy delivering me a dining room set that we bought
on the marketplace, and you know, I gotta be at
he's gonna drop it off at two thirty and then
I got to go right from there to go get Lindsay.
So all right, so the Atlantic the birth rate crisis

(04:30):
isn't as bad as you've heard. It's worse. Humanity is
set to start shrinking several decades ahead of schedule. By
Mark Novakov again, what do we mean? But first of
all ahead of schedule. So like, you guys, did you
have plans for the humanity to shrink and it's just
happening faster than you thought. Is that the issue? I
don't know, But.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
Basically they had population projections and they included some s
that probably weren't supported. So that's that's what that means. Yeah,
we could go with the uh, the World trade No, no,
what is it? The WEF interpretation? The world economical interpretation,

(05:16):
which is that you know, we want population decline. Not
so sure about that, but it is it is so
essentially what that means is they had a projection. It's
worse than that projection. Yeah, so let's let's find out
what those what those mistaken assumptions were that led to
the rosy optimism of you know, the human race basically

(05:41):
starting to shrink in two thousand and I think seventy
five or something. So go ahead, all.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
Right, So first the bad news. Global fertility is falling fast.
The aging populations of rich countries are relying on ever
fewer workers to support their economy, dooming those younger generations
to a future of higher taxes, high or debt, or
later retirement or all three birth rates are in. Middle
income countries are also plummeting, putting their economic development at risk.

(06:08):
Practically the only countries set to continue growing are desperately poor.

Speaker 2 (06:14):
For a while. About that they're continued, They're going to
continue to grow for a little bit, and then they
will cease. Actually, before we continue, just double check to
make sure that it's going out through Twitter, because there
has been issues with that.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
I yeah, I checked. Yeah, I checked it for the
show I did yesterday. It was there.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
But let's say, yeah, I had to. I had to
actually I had to actually, oh no, it is okay,
it scat's there. I see it all right, excellent, So
whatever fix I did worked permanently.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
I guess. I guess it was a Twitter thing. Then
I don't have access to your account on Twitter right now.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
So yeah, okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah, okay, by about twenty eighty four, according to the
gold standard United Nations World Population Prospects, that's a okay again,
you're you're giving a lot of credibility to the United Nations,
But okay, the global population will officially begin its decline.
Rich countries will have will all have become like Japan,

(07:13):
stagnant and aging and the rest of the world will
have become old before it ever got the chance to
become rich.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
Mmm that's nice.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Ah, yeah, what go ahead, Well that's nice.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
I mean basically, the Western nation sort of pulled the
ladder up behind them, And also that means that we're
going to have a relatively comfortable decline while they are
probably going to be plunged into horrific squalor so yeah, yeah,
us huh.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
I mean yeah, I guess that's one way to frame it.
The thing is too with Japan. You know, they were
the canary in the coal mine with regards to the
issues between men and women would be herbivore, men being
essentially the precursors to migtao as as far as it
being recognized on a grand scale. So maybe there's a
relationship there. Maybe Japan's problems that were going on like

(08:08):
way like way before, Maybe there's a relationship. Maybe it's
something we should have been looking at. And again I
don't even I'm not even sure that Japan's problems within
that regard are ideological per se, because it's not like,
you know, feminism is like a massive thing there. So
it's really just like I guess just the something about

(08:30):
the relationship between men and women in that country. Uh. Anyway, though,
sorry did I say bad news? That was actually the
good news based on estimates that turned out to be
far too rosy. Every two years, the UN's demographics revised
their population projections, and for the past ten years they've
always had to revise in the same direction down. Next

(08:53):
year they'll do so again. In reality, the worldwide population
decline is set to begin decades ahead of their expectation
because global fertility trends are much worse than they and
probably you think.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
I I prop my problem. My estimations were probably even
more pessimistic, just because I know that it's going to
be a force multiplier once you reach a critical point,
especially in cultures that are, you know, infested with feminism,

(09:28):
It's going to become a force force multiplier once the
the tar pit of the party of single women and
they're all reinforcing their own attitudes towards marriage and family.
Once it reaches a critical mass, there's like almost no
stopping it. So yeah, I always had a pessimistic projection
because I knew that embracing the notion that men and

(09:52):
women are defined through oppression, the relationship between men and women,
the complementary and relationship that is the foundation of of
all of our societies, all of our progress, even the
concept of economy. What do you think the first exchange
system was between men and women. That's the very foundation
of our economy. And reframing all of that complementarianism in

(10:16):
terms of oppression was going to destroy everything was because
everything is relies upon that trust and that sense of
mutual reliance. And we destroyed it because and get this, guys,
we destroyed it because somehow in whenever this began, I
guess the real critical thing started in like the sixties,

(10:38):
feminists essentially said, how do we define gender roles or
that is, the relationship between men and women in such
a way that it benefits feminism literally said that, and
nobody at that time said, wait, that sounds like it
could be dangerous. Maybe maybe we shouldn't give feminism complete

(10:59):
control over the engine of society and then allow them
to define it in whatever way benefits them. Maybe this
won't turn out well for us, and shock it didn't.
And I know Japan is a different situation, but I
think it does have its own kind of brand of
feminism and the other thing is that what it's really

(11:23):
facing is this complete economic stagnation, and that itself also
yields problems with family formation. So if there's no upward mobility,
families don't tend to form. If there's no legacy, families
don't tend to form. And the other thing with family

(11:44):
law in Japan is, from what I recall, it does
have a feature that would tend towards not encouraging stable
birth a birth rate, and we can get into what
that that will be. But so there are something there's
something really critical going on here. And once we get
to the second thing that I want to talk about,

(12:05):
which is which is Malcolm and Simon space Camp. Yeah,
discussion of this, then we uh, then we can we
can talk about that. But let's let's finish off the article.

Speaker 1 (12:19):
So Jesus Fernandez villa Verde, a University of Pennsylvania micro
macroeconomists studies how poor countries develop. This development usually happens
alongside a fertility transition. As people move from rural areas
to cities, their economic opportunities expand and kids become less
crucial as a source of agricultural labor. Women gain access

(12:43):
to contraception and education. They go from having about six
kids on average to two. Fernandez villa Verde calls this
the standard modernization story, and he's been teaching it for decades.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
Hm hmm, okay, yeah, yeah, keep going or yeah, well,
I mean it's gaining access to contraception and of course
the Atlantic.

Speaker 1 (13:07):
Education, education and education.

Speaker 2 (13:11):
I wonder what's hiding in that word education.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
Yeah, because like I don't know if having children, like
if ag is the need if Okay, let me back up.
I don't know that the need for agricultural labor is
the primary force behind people deciding to have children. I
think it's just the desire to have family. But if

(13:35):
you go and if you go get educated somewhere, maybe
that will be the way that it's spun. So women
get access to education in a city and then contraception
and then they stop having children. Maybe they were can.
I think the education is probably the big part of
that though.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Yeah, like I said, there's a lot hiding in that
word education. Yeah, a lot of Greeks in that.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
The education is doing a lot of heavy lifting. All right,
So let's uh, I got Gary Thomas gave us a
super child. Super child, Sorry for five dollars, and he says,
correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't there an academic
who predicted that if humanity kept growing at its rate,
then the Earth would run out of natural resources. Every

(14:20):
developed country in the world employed policies to discourage people
from having more children. None of the predictions, said academic made.
None of the predictions said academic made come came true,
and he is still employed in some American universities. Unfortunately,
it's harder to convince people to have more children than
to convince men to have to have less. Yeah, that's

(14:41):
kind of yeah, that's what we're getting at. I think
that the fear mongering about overpopulation is just one of
the many ways that they that people try to engineer
humans to have less kids. And it's I think it's
effective on women in particular. And now we're reaping the rewards,

(15:06):
well not yet, but it's coming, right, it's coming, So
we're going to rewards of it. Yeah, that does happen.
The people who do have kids will actually be the
ones that will be able to weather that storm because
they'll be able to like work together, like you know,
before we had industrialization to survive, so like all of

(15:27):
that I think the people who are having kids are
actually going to do better than the ones were not.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
But anyway, yeah, or anyone who actually is related to
to pushing back against the shame that we place on men,
I think because ultimately that's the only place where a
solution is going to come from the crucible of saying no,
I'm not going to I'm not going to be pressured

(15:56):
out of Recognizing that women are to blame does mean
that they're the only ones to blame, although they do
have a lot of blame to take now because there's
you know, it's like a dam. There's a lot of
pressure behind the dam because we haven't been doing it
for so long. But yeah, that you know, the people
who are willing to stand up and say no, I
am not going to be influenced by women's egos and

(16:19):
women's feelings to deny the truth of what is happening,
and that those are people like us. We're few and
far between, guys. We're a rare species. We have gills
and we can breathe underwater. But the truth is that
the solution can only come from the rare species, the
rare prototypes. Shall we say, okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (16:44):
Much of Fernandez villa Verde's research focuses on Latin America
and an economically middling region where one would expect middling
fertility rates. In recent years, however, births in some Central
and South American countries have plummeted to rates far lower
than most rich countries, in defiance of the standard modernization story.
Each year, Fernandez villa Verde updates his data on Latin

(17:07):
American birth rates, which he gathers from the country's official
birth statistics in preparation for a class he teaches about
the region's economic history. He first began noticing in twenty
nineteen that the un was too optimistic, but only in
the past few years did the discrepancies become downright alarming.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Yeah. Yeah, And a lot of this is I mean,
you could say that a good portion of what propelled
the richer nations into having fewer children was simply, you know,
prosperity and increased you know, doing whatever, increased entertainment and
all of this kind of stuff. But what is propelling

(17:49):
Latin America into even lower fertility? That's the question. What's
causing that? It's not the same thing, And I don't
know if there's a significantly more economic stagnation in Latin America,
or maybe there's significantly more of something starting with the
letter F.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Do they mean, yeah, Latin America is in South America
because I.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
No, I think it also includes Mexico maybe, well.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
Yeah, okay, Mexico.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
Mexican birth rates are they that?

Speaker 1 (18:20):
I just yeah, they're probably low. I think it's all
because if there's a lot of like socialist countries, I'm
not sure people have a lot of kids in those
kind of countries. Because at one point.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
Nine that Mexico is at one point nine to one,
so it's doing better than the US and probably better
than And if it's doing better than the US, then
it's probably doing better than Latin America. Go figure, all.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
Right, all right, definitely better than South Korea. So yeah,
much of Fernandez? Did I read that?

Speaker 2 (18:52):
Pit?

Speaker 1 (18:52):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (18:52):
I did.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
For twenty twenty four, the UN have projected seven hundred
and one thousand berths in Colombia. It had with the
chance of the number of births being lower than five
hundred and fifty three thousand at only two point five percent.
In the end, Columbia saw only four hundred forty five
thousand berths in twenty twenty four. That translates to a
fertility rate of one point zero six berths per woman,

(19:16):
down to more than down more than half from two
thousand and eight. Yeah, even lower.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
Yeah, this is this is plummeting. Okay, continue.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
At current rates one hundred reproductive age, Chileans can expect
to have fifty two children and only twenty seven grandchildren. Wow.
Demographers generally consider a birth rate of about two point
one to be replacement level, or the point at which
a society doesn't shrink. That's like breaking even from one
generation to the next. The discrepancies were not limited to

(19:51):
South America. In twenty twenty four, Poland's berths were also
below the two point five percent probability cut off, as
were Estonias and Cubas and a band.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
Yeah, what I corrected you on a word?

Speaker 1 (20:10):
Well, it's it's not a word. It's a place.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
I don't get it is a word like that is
a word.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
It's a place. It's a place.

Speaker 2 (20:17):
But I actually corrected you on something.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
Yeah, let me let me have this.

Speaker 2 (20:23):
Okay, continue, Okay, And.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Sri Lanka and Egypt, these supposed outlier results aren't outliers
at all. The world is just not having as many
babies as the u N have thought it would, so
like the you but like the u N. Well, I mean,
I know they're not gonna they're not gonna like say
what is what They don't even speculate on what the
cause might be because the u N is a part

(20:50):
of the problem if you asked me, Like the u
N created the problem, and then they're measuring the problem
that they create and they're like, wow, this is actually
like this is at all.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
Like yeah, they are. They are allowed to just put
up whatever they want in terms of their projections, and
we're going to get into more of why this is incorrect. Yeah,
but yeah, exactly right, Like the UN investigated itself and
found that it was blameless or not even that the
UN investigated the problem that the UN caused, which we're
not going to talk about, and the UN found that

(21:24):
the problem was a lot less than you know, it's it's.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Okay, it's not really a problem at all. Really, you know,
it's a solution to say, you know what, this is
actually worse than we thought. It's still not your fault,
U N. It's nothing to do with you. You guys just
didn't do the math, right, that's all.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (21:44):
Yeah, So digging into the UN's model, Fernandez villa Verde
found something even stranger. For every For nearly every low
fertility country, the UN projects either one of two outcomes.
The fertility rate will flatten or will rise to a
number somewhere between one and two births per woman, still

(22:09):
below replacement level, but not quite as catastrophic. The United
States is in the first category. Our fertility rate has
fallen steadily since the Great Recession, from two point one
to one point six. One might therefore expect the decline
to continue, But the UN projects that the US rate
birth rate will stay flat, not just this year, but

(22:31):
also in twenty twenty six and twenty thirty and twenty
sixty and twenty ninety, never rising above one point seven
or dipping below one point six. I want a job
at the UN. I mean, it sounds like really easy
to do. I can just make things up. Yeah, yeah,

(22:52):
I can just make shit up.

Speaker 2 (22:53):
Oh, they have a logic to this. It's just ridiculous.
It's like the Chebacca defense.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Did they did they explain the logic?

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yes, they're going to explain.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
Yeah, they do expl logic.

Speaker 2 (23:06):
So we can have a good we can have a
good chuckle over it.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
Okay, I kind of want to know what they're gonna like,
how they're gonna explain this. In the other category are
countries such as Thailand, whose fertility rate has been falling
for seventy two years and has never stopped for longer
than a single year. Nonetheless, there are the UN product Sorry, nonetheless,
there the UN projects a demographic miracle. Starting in two years,

(23:33):
the country's birth rate will begin to climb, first slowly
and then a little more quickly, finishing out the century
with a birth rate of one point four to five,
up from its projected twenty twenty four low of one
point two. Still not good, though.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
None of this is good news.

Speaker 1 (23:53):
No, no, it's gonna go up. It's gonna go up,
but it's still gonna below replacement.

Speaker 2 (23:58):
It's just like the difference between you have your foot
in a bear trap and you're gonna have to cut
your foot off to actually get out of it, or
you have your entire leg in a bear trap and
you're probably have to cut your well. Actually, no, you
have your entire body up to the neck in a
bear trap, and your kid's gonna have to die.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
Yeah, so sort of.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
The The good news is that only your foot is
in the bear trap. That's the UN projections. The bad
news that no, actually it's your neck in the UN
is just lying to you. Oh man, Okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (24:35):
Every part of that appears to be wrong in reality.
Thailand's reported birth rate last year was zero point nine eight,
and a preliminary twenty twenty five data show the decline continuing.
In a country the size of Thailand, the difference between
the UN's projection and the real fertility rate throughout the
twenty first century will amount to millions of people who

(24:58):
will never be born all in all, as Fernandez villa
Verde recently explained at a research symposium in London, humanity
won't start to shrink in twenty eighty four. It'll start
to shrink in twenty fifty five, if.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Not sooner, probably sooner.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
I'm thinking sooner too. I'll last something changes, Yes.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
Yeah, something massive change, something cultural has to change, and
it has to be a massive and widespread change. And
at at some point, at some point, developing nations and
Latin America, I don't know, I guess develop the sort
of middle nations between developing. At some point they're going

(25:41):
to realize that first first world nations are poaching their
population m hm, and that they're going to realize that,
and the immigration may end up reversing. So people, and
even not even because of in the US, immigration will

(26:02):
end up reversing because the countries that they're immigrating to
will have no economic opportunities, will be destabilized, and they'll
just go back where they can be with their extended
families and and have economic opportunities or at least the
same amount. Right, So it may end up that and
also policies may in those countries may start to severely

(26:26):
discourage immigration once they start waking though their politics. Politicians
start waking up to the fact that Western nations are
dealing with their their decline and birth rate by essentially
poaching other populations. And I know that that doesn't like
I don't mean to offend anyone, but that is what

(26:47):
we're doing. That's what politicians are doing. I mean, not
not Trump and on the right, but politicians on the
left and some I guess on the right, and certainly
politicians and other nations are literally poaching other popular relations
to try to deal with the fertility crisis in the West,
and at some point those populations are going to wise up. Yeah,

(27:09):
realize that that's what's happening.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well yeah, yeah, I mean that's why I'm for, like,
you know, people like working on their home countries because
I'm the immigration him and it is it is ultimately
for their benefit as well.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yes, yeah, where they build up their own countries. And
it's alsoly also ultimately we need to solve this, like
we need we need to have a solution. I have
some suggestions that I think would help, and we'll get
to that, but we need to solve this, and we
need to solve it in probably in Western nations that

(27:44):
already have the advantage, significant advantages. Okay, So it's not
going to come from it's not going to come from
those nations that are already reproducing because they're more subsistence level,
Nor is it going to come from the middle nations
that have imploded. It's got to come from us, in
my opinion, let's continue, Okay.

Speaker 1 (28:08):
All in all, as Fernandez Villaverde recently explained in a
research symposium in London, humanity won't start to shrink in
twenty eighty four. It'll start to shrink in twenty fifty
five and if not sooner. There are two types of people.
Alice Evans, a British professor who studies failing fertility around
the world, posted on x after reading Fernandez vla Verde's presentation,
those not bothered about demographics and those who've had Jesus

(28:30):
or Jesus's slides we've read read I'm sorry those who've
read Jesus's slides. The UN has a simple explanation for
its optimistic projections. Fertility has rebounded in the past, so
it will rebound.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
Again, not without a significant look at ourselves and what
we're doing. Okay, is not going to happen unless we
employ some serious self awareness and start analyzing what we're
doing wrong. I mean, it could rebound, right, Maybe there

(29:10):
are ways to deal with at least like a population
that doesn't have replacement but still has the social and
spiritual flexibility to deal with the future. Like we could
probably work out something that way, but not with what
we're doing now, okay.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
In Belarus, for example, the fertility rate in nineteen eighty
eight was at replacement level. It fell to an abysmal
one point two to two only nine years later, but
then it rebounded all the way up to one point
seventy three by twenty fifteen. Australia's birth rate fell to
one point seven in two thousand and one, only to

(29:53):
bounce back to two point zero in two thousand and eight.
France's rate followed a similar trajectory during the same period,
as did Italy's and Sweden's. To the extent you think
the world population prospects are wrong, that is the extent
to which you are saying this time is different Lyman Stone,
a PhD student and birth rate consultant, told me.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Okay, so essentially what's happened is there are some countries
that did experience a recovery in their birth rates. So
the UN, for absolutely no apparent reason, has decided that
all countries will experience a recovery in their birth rate
without analyzing why that recovery happened and if there are

(30:38):
similar circumstances in those countries to encourage it. The UN
is just picking up the idiot ball and running with
it right here. Okay, next paragraph.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Okay, The thing is this time really does look different.
Birth rates in Australia and France and Italy, and we
have now fallen to all time lows, excluding during World
War One. In France's case, Belarus, a one time redemption story,
recorded a fertility rate of just one point one last year,

(31:13):
lower than the lowest lows the country experience. In the
nineteen nineties, deaths outnumbered berths by nearly two to one.
If a rebound is coming, there are no signs of it.
Fernandez villa Verde estimates that the world is already below
replacement fertility. The population is just not projected but guaranteed
to shrink if things don't change. That was not the

(31:35):
case in the nineteen nineties.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
We had a chance, Okay. Yeah, and again the UN
is using these recoveries and they're assuming that that's going
to be the case. Even though the countries that they're
looking at that recovered, many of them just went down.

(31:57):
So it was what they call, in like stock markets,
a dead cat bounce. So if the stocks hit the floor,
you just imagine that the cat is dead and it
bounces that that that's probably what happened with the fertility
rate in these countries. Yeah, and again, there's no analysis
as to why there might have been a rebound. Maybe

(32:19):
those countries had traditional expectations or traditional systems that enabled it.
Maybe there was a reduction and well some of those
countries seem to have been communists and may have changed
to not communists. Maybe that hadn't something to do with it,
you know, So we got to look into why that happened.

(32:39):
Can't just assume that it's going to happen everywhere magically.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Again, Yeah, it's the UN we're talking about. So, yeah,
they're not they No, it's true. They're literally like a
kind of a cult. But anyway, the UNS model hasn't
adjusted to the new normal. If a country has ever
experienced a fertility increase, as Australia and France and Belarus have,

(33:06):
then its birth rate is assumed to be stable. If
a country has never experienced an increase, then the model
assumes that it will at some point once fertility gets
low enough. In other words, the model assumes is as
its end state a stable and modest number of births.
This is perhaps a reflection of humanistic optimism. There is

(33:27):
at some point a minimum social capacity to adapt and
eventually at least address some of the concerns or challenges
that exist in that country. Patrick Gerland, the cheap author
of World population Prospects told me the people living in
those countries don't necessarily want their country to totally disappear. Yeah,
But like the thing is, I don't think a lot

(33:51):
of people are thinking about it in that macro scale.
Like they're just looking at their life and they're saying, well,
I'm gonna say it. Women are like, I'm basically pursuing
my career. I'm getting my bag, I'm like doing these
I'm not gonna have kids. Kids are gonna drag me down,
kids are gonna hold me back. They're gonna prevent me
from like truly being liberated and free and independent. I'm

(34:12):
not gonna do that. I'm sure men are looking to
have kids, but even when you are looking to have kids,
you're not necessarily doing it because you're like, oh, I'm
looking at the fertility rates in my country and replace
we're below replacement. I gotta make babies. No. I mean,
men make babies because they have a biological drive to
do it, and when women want it, they do too.

(34:35):
But I think that women have been h propaganda ised
to not want kids or to think that they don't
need them and put it off and wait or whatever.
I mean, you ever see the movie everybody talks about ideocracy?

Speaker 2 (34:47):
Right?

Speaker 1 (34:48):
You ever see Idiocracy, Allison h a movie where they
show like the smart couple and they're like putting off
having kids and then they're like talking of freezing their
eggs and for and their and whatever, and what it's
what it was trying to say is that only dumb
people are gonna have babies, and therefore the world's gonna
be run by dumb by dumb people because dumb people

(35:09):
are having babies. But I think that the mistake is
not that it was the smart people or people who
thought they were smart, holding off because they wanted to
focus on their careers, and in particular women doing that
that because and I say that, because women's fertility is
a window and there's only so much time, and they're

(35:30):
and they're told that they don't have to worry about that,
and that you know, there are stories of women who
are in their sixties that have babies and there, and
they put that all over the news. So they're telling
women it's okay, you can wait, but they you can't wait,
Like at least you should be, let me put it
another way, you should be taking it into serious consideration

(35:52):
because Ultimately, women are the gatekeepers of reproduction and so
like you know that, and that's a responsibility that women
have that we have essentially just erased. So like even
me bringing it up could trigger people in our special
chat for example, that I would even say that. But
it's true, Like it's true.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
So yeah, how many methods do women have to prevent
reproduction at this point? Sorry, guys, it's true. And how
much ankst is over? I don't know Texas even reducing one. Okay,
let's uh, let's do the next paragraph. Okay, so no,
I think it's the middle of this paragraph.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
Yeah, I didn't finish it.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
That's okay, it's a long paragraph.

Speaker 1 (36:41):
Oh no, no, I read the paragraph because it would
be because this guy Patrick Gerland was trying to say that, well,
you know, people don't necessarily want their country to disappear. Well,
of course people don't want that, but if but if
they don't know that not having kids is actually disappearing
your country because they don't they don't they don't typically
think in that scale, Like they're just looking at their situation,
you know, me and my relationships and my children. They're

(37:05):
not looking at the big picture. So if they put
it off. Most likely when people don't have kids, like
women don't have kids, they're just thinking, well, that other
lady's going to have kids, so I'm not going to
have kids, like I don't like, I don't have to
do it. Somebody else is going to do it, right,
And if everyone is doing that, if everybody's saying, well,
I'm not going to do it, somebody else is going
to do it, well, guess what nobody's done it?

Speaker 2 (37:23):
Well, it's not even like Honestly, when I listen to
what women are saying there, many of them are saying, well,
I'm just going to get my bag. I'm going to
enjoy my career. I'm going to enjoy my girlfriends and
dating and having sex with a man that I find
intensely sexually desirable rather than someone I can actually get
to commit to me. Because honestly, like literally, of course,

(37:46):
women are going to feel intense sexual desire for a
man who's like four freaking standard deviations of attractiveness above them,
and our current dating landscape allows that, and then they
compare that level of tractiveness to someone who is on
their same level and they're like, oh wow, I don't
even feel any attractiveness. Yeah, bullshit, lady, you've just experienced

(38:07):
tdonic adaptation. Anyway, But this is why, this is why
peasant girls weren't allowed to go after princes. Yeah, like
they're just like, no, you smell like pig shit and
you have shoulders like an orc. No, thank you, lady.
But anyway, all right, So, ultimately, what I hear from

(38:31):
women is that they don't have to do this. This
is not their job, even though it is literally their job.
This literally your evolutionary appointed job, ladies, is to have children,
just like it's men's evolutionarily appointed job to protect and
provide for those children and also engage in fatherly activities

(38:53):
to raise them into functional adulthood, as we see from
the statistics. So but they say no, no, I don't want
to have children, or rather, they don't feel like they
have any sense of loyalty to this culture, because this
culture is a horrible patriarchy that's oppressed women since the
dawn of time. And when I say, well, then you're

(39:15):
essentially consigning to the trash bin of history the only
culture that's given you rights, they say, well, those rights
are the bare minimum, and we don't know anybody any
about anything for having offered them to us. And it's
like you are making the explanation for why cultures disappear

(39:36):
whenever they start to liberate women, and why that's women's
liberation is inconsistent with evolution. Like it's literally like if
you were like, yes, I am going to have children
because I feel so much gratitude for all of the
rights that this culture. I'm going to have so many

(39:57):
children because I want to raise them in a culture
that gives them right. No, that's not what you're doing.
You're saying that was the bare minimum. I owe you nothing.
Now I'm gonna consign you to cultural extinction. Congratulations, ladies.
You are why women don't get rights. These behaviors are

(40:17):
why you don't get rights. And this is like whenever
I say this, women are like, oh, you just hate women.
I'm like, no, you hate reality. Like this is nothing.
There's no hatred here. There is. If you do not
have children in a society that gives you rights, that
society is going to go extinct and being superseded by

(40:40):
those societies that can breed. And if the only societies
that can breed are the ones that put restrictions on women,
they will win.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yep, that's it.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
You are doing this to yourselves, ladies, but you don't
care because you're gonna get your bag until it all collapses, right,
which you know for uh, you know, let's see twenty
and fifty five. I think that's optimistic. We're probably looking
at twenty and forty five. Unfortunately, twenty and fifty five
is thirty years from now. So I'm going to be

(41:12):
in my seventies, right, You're going to be in your eighties.
Perhaps John, my husband's gonna be in his eighties. Okay, well,
we're we're on the way out, right, that's it. That's
we're we're gonna be. We're gonna be saying, Sayonara, we're
going to be sitting in our in our I don't know,
with my uh, with like seventeen German Shepherds and whatever

(41:33):
Ryan's retirement plans are. You know, that's gonna be it.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
We're out nurse by robots probably, yeah, we're being nurse.

Speaker 2 (41:41):
Yeah, We're we're on the way out. Okay, ladies, if
you're in your twenties now, in your thirties, you are
going to be living through this collapse. So you're you're like,
I need to get my bag. Well, congratulations, you're stealing
your bag from your future self. So when you're in

(42:03):
your seventies and eighties, there's not going to be a
bag there. There's just going to be abject poverty and
guess what, nobody's going to buy your ass, So your
your contingency plan not going to be there, all.

Speaker 1 (42:19):
Right, Okay, to this point, the model comes with a
hard coded minimum. No country can ever be projected to
have a fertility rate less than point five children per woman.
Like the rest of the rest of the model, this
too might need to be revised. Macau, which the UN

(42:40):
analyzes separately from mainland China, had a fertility rate of
one point two a decade ago. Last year, it fell
to zero point five eight, and it looks set to
fall even further. In the first four months of twenty
twenty five, berths were down another thirteen percent. If you're

(43:01):
not sure why this is so alarming, consider Japan, the
canonical example of the threat that low fertility poses to
a country's economic prospects. Hey, I brought up Japan at
the beginning of the show. I didn't know that they
were I didn't read this article. So this is my
live reaction to the article. At its peak in nineteen
ninety four, the Japanese economy made up eighteen percent of

(43:22):
world GDP, but eventually the country's demographics caught up with it. Now,
Japan's median age is fifty years old and the country's
GDP makes up just four percent of the global economy.
That's a lot less. That's like less than a fourth. Yeah,

(43:43):
what it was measured per hour's work. Japan's economic growth
has always been strong, but at some point, you just
don't have enough workers. You mean men, right, you're talking
about men. You're talking about men mostly, Okay. The fertility
rates that doomed the Japanese economy range from one point

(44:05):
three to one point five. So imagine what's in store
for modern day California, which is at one point zero
six and Chile, which is at one point zero three.
How will they grow with so few workers? How will
they ever become rich if each worker is expected to
provide for so many elderly people. The overly optimistic un

(44:27):
estimates or estimates have obscured just how urgent these questions
really are. Because if the birth rate continues to drop
around the world at its current pace, the economic growth
and workers' retirement prospects will go the way of those
projections adjusting every few years to smaller, sadder, pure poorer future.

(44:48):
Is that the end they don't give me the why, Well,
we have to go somewhere.

Speaker 2 (44:55):
We're gonna we're gonna go to base camp for the why.
I mean, I already knew the why because I had
this discussion a while back, and I.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
Talked about on the show a couple of times.

Speaker 2 (45:05):
Yeah, we talked about on the show. But I mean
I figured that it'd be nice to have something to
respond to.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
So No, it's good, it's I mean, it's I'm glad
that they're saying this. Well, I mean, now now it
comes out like, okay, this is the Atlantic, right m m.
Of course I'm not going to address the why. Nope,
Like because it's like they support the why. They just
don't think there's a connection between the why and the

(45:30):
and what's happening. They're probably thinking like, what, how can
we blame men for this? That's what they're but they
couldn't do it, like we can't find anything, you know what,
Let's just put the info out there and hope nobody
asks questions. But they panic appropriately and give us clicks. Anyway,
I got a super child from Gary Thomas for five

(45:51):
and he says I had a friend who lived in
New York City, was a grad student and had planned
on having maybe one child while balancing her academic career.
She is thirty eight now, has been married for over
a decade, just gave birth to twins, has five other
offspring with her husband, and lives on a farm in
a rural farm in Georgia. According to her, once she

(46:13):
started having children, she didn't want to stop. Unfortunately, she
is an outlier in my friend group. Uh yeah, I
mean again, like, I'm not, you know, when I talk
about the birth rate, some people I won't name any names,
but some people in like I'm the ex they think
I'm making a command to women to have babies or

(46:36):
I'm you know, like essentially prescribing this that women have
lots of babies. I'm not, I never was. All I'm
but what the thing is is that women are making
decisions about their fertility based on bad information. So what
I'm saying is that they should have the correct information
and then make a decision. I'm not. I don't think that,

(46:59):
you know, all women should all have children, because I
don't think that that's you know, some women are just
not cut out to be mothers, some men are not
cut out to be fathers. But what I'm saying is
is that before we decide like what we're going to
chase down in our life, we should know what is
actually the potential outcomes and options and what they eat

(47:21):
really mean. Right. So I'm not making like the go
out and have babies argument. I'm saying, if you're thinking
about waiting, or if you've been told you should wait,
or if you've been told that you know, kids suck
or they're not important, or you're just ingesting all of
this anti natalist propaganda that's basically everywhere, it's ubiquitous, maybe

(47:44):
you should question it and then look into what the
facts are and then decide after that, so that that's it,
you know. I'm not necessarily going either way. I mean,
I'm generally pro family because I think that we need
enough people to maintain civilization, and that requires some people
to have babies, at least a significant number enough to

(48:06):
I wouldn't even say to maintain the birthrate, but like,
you know, steadily increase it. But yeah, I mean that
I'm not. I'm not making demands.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
Of women, so yeah, well, I mean we don't have
to because the solution, well, well let's talk about it
one of the big ones, okay, because I had that
extended discussion with this on with a feminism.

Speaker 1 (48:27):
I do that. Now, are you gonna go to base
camp or what?

Speaker 2 (48:29):
Let's go to base camp. Let's let's see what they have.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
We're gonna look at this video from base camp. Malcolm
is Simone and it's got to got an interesting title. Wait,
the men's rights movement is working and yeah yeah so yeah.

Speaker 2 (48:45):
Also, I just want to point something out, like we
do have to pause it about every fifteen seconds and
make some comment because.

Speaker 1 (48:52):
Okay, well, if you have time codes.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Yes, start at the beginning. I do have time codes,
all right, start at the beginning. We'll start at the beginning.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
And the sound is working on this real quick, and
I will Yeah, it is working.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Okay, Hello, Malcolm, I'm so excited to be speaking with
you today because we are going to talk about men
striking back that didn't come across striking back.

Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (49:15):
Well, they're fighting for their rights and they're finally making progress.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
All right.

Speaker 6 (49:20):
Men have been basically.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
Yep, we're starting to see shared custody initiatives in the US,
so that is progress, all right, continue?

Speaker 1 (49:30):
Yeah, well, no, I mean, I well, she's I mean,
we we've been doing this for a while. I would
I would hope that there we would make some kind
of impact by now.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
No, yeah, and yours plus. But we've been doing this
for ten years plus. Yeah, yeah, actually making progress now,
Like that's the crazy thing, is it.

Speaker 5 (49:57):
For the past fifteen years, the concept of men's rights
has basically been like men being angry about the fact
that they don't have any rights. I guess this might
have been happened.

Speaker 2 (50:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (50:10):
I don't want to be a dance here, but I
maybe I'll talk to them about it because I can
get Malcolm and Simone on the show. I have a
decent rapport with them.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Whatever rapport.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
Yeah, another one. I know. I'm like, I'm like out
of sorts today.

Speaker 2 (50:28):
Man.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
Yeah, maybe it's Halloween or something, but I'm not doing well.
I'm not thinking good today.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
I got a personal question, all right, Yeah, okay, so Jojo,
has Jojo been like sensing things in your apartment?

Speaker 1 (50:50):
I don't know what you mean.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
Well, okay, I'll explain from my from my animals. So,
like a couple of days ago, Scipio was growling at
the ceiling, like a spot in the ceiling, yeah, and
getting gitting, like really really agitated. And we were trying
to figure out what the heck he was reacting to,
and we couldn't see anything, And and then the cats

(51:15):
started to react to things in the kitchen as well.
So we're like, do we have mice or spooky spooks?
Like do we have are we are we have a
poltergeist or something? The cat, the animals are reacting to something, you.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
Know, maybe well, no, we don't have any ghouls or
specters in our house because Jojo has not. Either that
or he's a terrible ghost medium. If you guys understand
the rules of dogs, they know about supernatural they're tuned
in demons and ghosts and shit.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean the thing is that
he he sometimes just reacts to strange things. Apparently we
once went a dog trainer and apparently there's a corner
that all the dogs react to, and she it's just
like she she speculates that there must be there, maybe

(52:08):
there's like spectral activity in that corner or something. But
all of the dogs react to it in terms of we're.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
Like a Lovecraftian monster that lives in corners and it's
a dog. It's like, uh, it like it enters our
plane through corners. It's like some Lovecraft monster. I bet
somebody in the chat knows. I forget what it's called.
But it's like a dog, like a like a other

(52:34):
dimensional beast that's dog like okay, okay, but anyway, so yeah,
so let's uh, let's keep going. Oh but yeah, the
pedantic thing I was gonna say is that, uh, I
know that rights is like this word that gets used
is kind of the catch all for uh, things that
are not really rights. But I do tend to fixate

(52:56):
on that because I think that it's important we use
the right words, because when you say, like when the
feminists labeled us men's rights activists, the point of it
was to make it sound absurd and silent, like yeah,
because technically we have most of the rights. There are
some rights that men don't have that women have, like

(53:18):
bodily autonomy, which is probably a big one. But but
the thing is, you don't want to get caught up
in like the way feminists describe rights is like rights
to like you know, healthcare rights to abortions, rights to
be able to walk home at night without getting raped,
you know, things like that that are completely silly. Rights
to other people's labor, which is essentially like the entitlement

(53:41):
of a slave owner. But that's what that's what feminists
describe his rights. And I don't think MRAs do. Some
probably do. They have like their idea of it, and
I think it's incorrect. And to me anyway, it's important
that we use the right terms. But I basically get
where someone is coming from. Anyway, Well, oh go ahead, no.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
No, let's let's let's do a little bit more.

Speaker 5 (54:04):
Okay, women's rights for the longest time of like, well,
ain't that cute? You guys are so disgruntled about your
lack of rights.

Speaker 6 (54:12):
It's never gonna change.

Speaker 5 (54:13):
Sweet, No, And I love what they would always insaye.

Speaker 7 (54:15):
They'd be like, well, that's actually a feminism issue.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
Well actually having having had these arguments for like twenty
five years is it twenty five yet? No, like twenty two.
The they would essentially get absolutely infuriated and say men
have all the rights, or.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
They would just laugh, Yeah, you just laugh at the idea. Yeah. No,
I had a thing on X back and forth that
I thought was interesting. We see if I can find it.
People got really mad at me, but I there was
a woman who made a post on X essentially kind

(55:00):
of try taking the piss out of Jordan Peterson. But
the purpose of it was to say that women are
She said that women are soldiers for the globalist agenda,
and they are on the frontier of feminizing and castrating
their men. And but she was trying to blame people
like Jordan Peterson for not doing enough or something. And

(55:22):
I said, even if men invented feminism, women chose to
go along with it, because she was trying to say
that feminism isn't women. Feminism is something men created, so
it's kind of like blaming men. And I was like, no,
I mean, like sure, even if you even if you say,
like these men or whatever, you know, these the Kabbalists
or whoever it is that put it out there, even

(55:44):
if you're right, it doesn't matter because women said, yes,
we'll take that, and they went with it, and they
did it for decades, if not generations. And and then
somebody replied to me and said, this woman, this woman,
And she said, sure, what sane person would choose to
be a slave for all practical purposes, so essentially saying

(56:07):
this is why women chose feminism. And I said slave,
what do you mean? And she said, I mean slave
a person who is the property of another person, which
is what the de facto legal situation up until fifty
years ago, wives were de facto property to their husbands.
And I said, this is a pretty insane claim to make.
Does this mean that your father or grandfather effectively enslaved

(56:29):
your mother or grandmother? And she said, well that was
the legal situation at the time, so yes, the man
being the head of the household taking all the decisions
formally and legally. And I said, so you think your
father and your grandfather were oppressors that enslaved your mother
and your grandmother? Do you see how unhinged you sound?

(56:49):
And she's the laws at the time were unhinged. Then
I don't make them. I just tell you what they were.
So and then I said, what laws are you talking about,
because you're saying it was the law. Can you tell
me specifically what laws allow men to own women? And
then she replied, for instance, the one that allows a
woman to open a bank account only if the husband

(57:11):
agrees to it. Not having access to money limits options
extremely And I said, husbands were responsible for the wife's
debts and women usually manage the finances in the home anyway.
Who makes the money matters very little compared to who
the money is spent on. And she she just stopped
talking to me after that.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Of course, answer what they don't have any answer?

Speaker 1 (57:35):
No now. And then they tried, they tried this, well, yeah, men,
men had all the rights all through history. No, no,
that's silly. Men took care of women. Well, actually there
was a period where, you know, the Dowry period, where
women brought something to the table, to the table that
wasn't themselves, and men brought something to the table and

(57:56):
that was the the the you know, those were then
nitions that brought that brought those two together and we
and the whole dating thing is very recent. So and
I think that it's a disaster. I mean, just based
on what I've seen, unless you're meeting under you know,
certain circumstances where your your values are like you know,
at the top, you know, like like in a church

(58:18):
for example, but like just like on Tinder swiping though,
if that's a disaster, I'm sorry. It just I'm just
looking at the outcomes. So hounds of tindalos, thank you? Yes,
they live inside of angels. Okay, angles, those were the Yeah,
they live inside of angles as you do. Yes, yes,

(58:38):
hounds of tindalos.

Speaker 2 (58:39):
Okay, let's just keep going.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
I got on the super chow, great indoors. Looks like
our chat is starting to wake up now five dollars.
I'm sure most will remember back in January twenty twenty,
how the coof was still just a right wing xenophobic
talking point with the potential to cause and was not
to be taken seriously at all, only to develop into

(59:04):
a scare mongering talking point for the left while pushing
their authoritarium battle plan to stop the spread. Now that
our moral betters have come to realize that their dystopian
vision of overpopulation need to be course corrected by doing
sudden handbreak U turn. I shiver to think what kind
of draconian measures the global intelligentsia will conjure up next.

(59:24):
A lot of subsidies, taxes, and other force interventions are
looming on the horizon, none of which work another crisis
I would, I would suspect, but go ahead.

Speaker 2 (59:35):
None of those work but let's just get some more
because I know that you have a time constraint, so
let's I do.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
So, what do you want me to listen more of
the intro? Jump?

Speaker 2 (59:43):
I just listened more of the intro.

Speaker 7 (59:44):
Okay, Well, the feminists never fight for it, and they're like, oh,
once you're in cages, then we'll fight to loosen the
the the.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
What do they call that?

Speaker 7 (59:54):
Zi?

Speaker 5 (59:56):
Yeah, I just basically I was operating under the assumption
nothing would ever change.

Speaker 6 (01:00:02):
But things are actually starting to change, and this is big.

Speaker 5 (01:00:04):
It's huge, and so what we're gonna do is look
at two major areas where finally the dam is beginning
to break, and I think momentum is only going to
build from here.

Speaker 6 (01:00:13):
We're gonna.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
Okay, yeah, I mean I think that once. I also
believe honestly that things have if you look at it,
and it's been tough, but I think that things will
start to accelerate, like exponentially. I think that we've done
a lot in it feels like a long time for
our lifetime, but when you think about how much damage

(01:00:39):
we're trying to reverse, it's actually pretty impressive.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Yeah, maybe just chipping away at it every day made
a difference.

Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
Yeah, like this is years out there now, the talking
points are out there, and I think that of I
don't know there I mean, there's definitely more than a
few MRAs making content. But I think that we have
been the most consistent in pushing stuff out even if
our channel remained small, and that was despite all the struggles,

(01:01:08):
you know, like Mike who used to have like a
channel that should have been in the multimillion subscribers by
now YouTube absolutely hamstringed him. Yeah, and huh yes, he's
not making any money on it anymore. And you know,
Paul has sort of like slowed down, like he still

(01:01:30):
makes content every so often, and Janets and Tom Golden
and some of them. But I think that we've been
the most consistent in terms of like just like what.

Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
You know, hammering away at it day after.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Talking to people and trying to get them to think
about these issues. I mean we you know, like I said,
I'm gonna I'm definitely gonna try and get Malcolm and
Simon back on. I've had talked to them. I had
the pleasure of talking to him a couple of times.
So I want to know, I want to talk to
them because they're doing really weird.

Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Where they're at on the journey. But yeah, it's uh, okay,
let's let's let's finish off this segment so that we
can get to the reason that the Atlantic will not
mention or the potential solutions states where.

Speaker 5 (01:02:15):
By the new default is the new default shocking men
get of matern of.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
Custody physically physical custody, fifty percent physical custody, that's the default.
And there are now states Kentucky, and I think maybe
Texas is looking into it, or maybe Texas is just
talking about the uh this, uh this, this stuff related
to abortion, which I don't really want to focus on
because I think that the shared custody is really what

(01:02:46):
applies to the birth rate. So yeah, there are there
are states now that are instituting a presumption of physically
shared custody. Okay, And while well, I think that's great,
I think we also have to consider that that can
be rolled back. And there are currently feminist organizations, often

(01:03:10):
funded by divorce lawyers, who are trying to get this
rolled back, and they are using the usual narratives to
do it, spousal violence, marital rape, men being a bad fathers,
abusive fathers. They're using these narratives to do it. So
it's really critical to make sure that you have the

(01:03:32):
materials necessary to oppose those narratives. And again, the materials
necessary to oppose those narratives. Is a comprehensive understanding around
the stats regarding rape and domestic violence and how there
is a extremely plausible position that women engage in these
activities equally and I mean both of them, right, So

(01:03:54):
there is a feminists have absolutely no leg to stand
on when they talk when they try to use domestic
violence in particular to reduce men's rights during marriage and divorce,
no leg to stand on whatsoever. And I would like
to point out that the biggest red flag when you're
looking at statistics is this feminist statistics see A two

(01:04:20):
to four times so they in feminist statistics. The number
of male victims that are identified by statistics created by
feminism are two to four times less than non feminist
research into domestic violence and sexual assault. How is that possible?

(01:04:41):
The answer is feminist cook the books when it comes
to domestic violence and sexual assault. And they cook the
books because these are their big weapons to slant divorce
and laws around marriage or policies around marriage domestic violence
and marriage in the favor of women, presumably, right. They

(01:05:03):
slant these things in the favor of women. Of course,
on the other side, they also sacrifice women to maintain
the narrative. So they're trying to repel this stuff, they're
trying to get rid of it, and they're using these
narratives to do so. And why is it that they
always laughed at the idea of men's rights, Because that's
what they're stripping. And they're using the narrative of male malefeasance,

(01:05:28):
this absolutely disgusting narrative that men use rape and domestic violence.
They're using that narrative to strip men of their rights
full stop. So we gotta we gotta keep our ducks
in a row, we gotta, we gotta have our talking
points to make sure that they are not allowed to
get their clause back into policy and start reversing these

(01:05:51):
And it is absolutely critical. This battle is absolutely critical
because it is the battle for the human human future.
And you'll see why as we go a little bit further.

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
Yeah, I also want to mention I am not on
this this new show we just did, but the new
show that I did the week before I covered two
other states that are moving, they're making progress towards presumed
shared custody as well. That would be the state of
Arizona and Philadelphia, so we're also not yeah, Pennsylvania, not

(01:06:29):
phil Philadelphia is a city, Pennsylvania and Arizona. So yeah,
it's going. I think that we're going to see more
of this, I hope. And you mentioned Texas, and there
are other states that are like just starting to look
into this stuff like they're real on like the early
early stages. So yeah, it's it looks like it's you know,
I mean, I think it's fantastic.

Speaker 2 (01:06:50):
So yeah, yeah, and it's it's not just fantastic for
men's issues. I don't know if Simone and Malcolm covered
the whole thing, but let's let's let them finish here
and then I'll move you to a different timecode.

Speaker 7 (01:07:04):
All right, what states is happening happening and not just
like in the law.

Speaker 5 (01:07:08):
Yeah, And it's also just crazy to me that that
like isn't always the default, like the assumption that like, well,
of course each parent shares custody by default, right unless
there's a good reason not to. No, the case and
it's being resolved. It started with Kentucky and now it's
happened in more states. We're going to look at sort
of what's going on there, and then we're okay.

Speaker 2 (01:07:26):
So okay, so move to three point fifteen because they
move into like the Texas heartbeat law, and I'm like,
as much as that would be an interesting conversation, we
are restricted in time, so I'm going to keep it
to the shared parenting.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Yeah, I mean, if you if they're if I guess,
like a combination of common sense restrictions on abortion, I mean,
like you know, I'm I'm I think that you can
there is room for compromise. I just think that the
pro abortion people are not willing to do that. But

(01:07:59):
if if you have some of that and fifty to
fifty shared parenting, you'll see like dramatic changes in a
family formation at least. Right.

Speaker 5 (01:08:08):
Many people have the comments of our videos have said, hey,
like please highlight this issue of the men's right sphere,
which we'll see if you can guess. So let's get
into it, starting with the Kentucky divorce laws. And just
so you know, there's a really good Wall Street Journal
article talking about this, titled Divorce Plunged in Kentucky equal
custody for fathers is a big reason why a law

(01:08:29):
setting fifty to fifty shared custody as the state's standard
was hailed as a victory for fathers, but critics say
it puts mothers and children at risk.

Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
Exactly right there. Then this is where they're going to
try to push back. So get your facts in order
and make sure that you have them and make sure
that you have the ability to do the arguments that
neutralize it, because this is where they get you. This
is where feminists, in particular feminists get conservatives, right, They
get them under this narrative of male malfeasance because conservatives

(01:09:01):
see the male role as protection and provision of women,
and they are keyed to violations of that role and
condemning women or men based on violations of that role. Well,
you got to kick that out and start to realize
that men also are vulnerable in relationships and their vulnerabilities.
You need to understand them because they are the counter

(01:09:24):
argument to the feminist nonsense about domestic violence and sexual
assault and that they should be a the divorce lawyers
should continue to have their cash cow because men are
so evil to their children and wives. That is the argument,
and conservatives need to be able to push back. And
the big blind spot that conservatives have in these issues

(01:09:45):
is that they hold men to the standard of leadership
and provision and protection, but they do not see that
men need the support to be able to fulfill that role.

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
Yes, and you need to be in part.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Part of that support is being able to recognize the
vulnerabilities that men have in relationships and recognize that they
also get abused, they also get sexually exploited. Therefore, in
that completely defangs the feminist narrative that is trying to
destroy relationships okay, and has this unholy alliance with divorce lawyers.

(01:10:23):
Let's be frank. When I asked GROC, what is the
annual revenue that feminists command, it basically came back with, well,
a bunch of stuff, but also the annual revenue from divorce.
So GROC was making this association between feminists and devoice lawyers.

(01:10:43):
And that is if I haven't drilled down on it,
but I will probably if I did, I would find
out where that's coming from. And it likely is a
collusion between those those organizations, feminist organizations and divorce lawyer organizations.
And why because divorce is the cash cow of divorce lawyers,
and a lot of them are feminists because they know

(01:11:05):
what side they're They're bread is buttered on.

Speaker 1 (01:11:09):
Okay, yep, all right, what's if you want to be
playing more of this? Or is it time more of this?

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
Because we got up to like six minutes here.

Speaker 5 (01:11:17):
Okay, happened in Kentucky, and this is important because it
happened in twenty eighteen, so we have enough time to
see what has happened since this legislation was passed. But
Kentucky in twenty eighteen became the first state to pass
a law making equally shared custody the default arrangement and
divorces and separations. And since that happened for other states,

(01:11:38):
so this is Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri have
passed their own versions of this this custody bill.

Speaker 1 (01:11:46):
Okay, so that's that's not even the ones I mentioned.
So the ones I mentioned Arizona and Pennsylvania where they're
in the uh, they're preparing I think they're about to
you know, alter these these, but these have already done it.
So let's see what the results have been.

Speaker 6 (01:12:04):
Yeah, twenty more states. Keep in mind there are only
fifty US states are considering or close to passing simpilar laws,
according to analysis by National Parents Organization. That is big.
I mean, if this quickly, we're already getting.

Speaker 7 (01:12:20):
Right, So how quickly did the first one go to
passing to twenty states being kids?

Speaker 2 (01:12:23):
Okay, we can skip forward a little bit to four
thirty nine.

Speaker 1 (01:12:30):
Well that's literally like right there. Okay, I don't think
I can go okay, right, whatever, We're gonna play it
from here.

Speaker 7 (01:12:40):
Passing to twenty states being considering it now?

Speaker 5 (01:12:42):
Well, I mean it's twenty twenty five now, and that
was twenty eighteen, seven years, six years.

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
I remember in twenty eighteen, I said that our society
was going to crater along the lines that men's rights
point out. So, in other words, we are pointing out
the problems that society has. And I said this, I
actually said this probably even earlier than that, that men's
rights activists we don't have a men's issues problem because

(01:13:09):
we are contending with these issues. Society has a men's
issues problem because it isn't. And I said that probably
I know for sure I said it in twenty eighteen,
but before then. But it is heartening to see that
there is now political will behind recognizing this.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
Okay, and let's let's get a little bit further in yep.

Speaker 1 (01:13:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:13:33):
I mean from a legislative standpoint, it's kind of like, are.

Speaker 7 (01:13:37):
We seeing a changing an outcomes thet like do you
see any we are are?

Speaker 5 (01:13:41):
And I'm also going to compare sort of this changing
outcomes to China, because we did do an episode on
like China trying to reduce divorce rates and increase fertility
rates through.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
China already has substantially different family laws. So for example,
that does not have community property laws. When you divorce,
you get back what you put in, and that is it. Yeah,
so if a woman is a stay at home she

(01:14:12):
gets back exactly what she put in financially, too bad.
So sad and I believe that custody is shared, so
children are shared, community property is not. And you know,
like it's funny how a lot of the commis, the communists,

(01:14:33):
feminist communists really like China. Yeah, I don't think.

Speaker 1 (01:14:40):
You, Oh, I don't look I'm China. I don't know,
because you know, they're not very like open with the
way they run things. I do know that they're they
definitely have a communist party running the government. But I
don't think that means that the actual country is communists, right,

(01:15:00):
Like I think that it's like it's weird. Yeah, it's
a hybrid because they have to make stuff and they
have to sell stuff, and so, you know, like they
are still producing. They produce a lot. So I don't
think it's quite a communist country. I think that they
would like I think they would like to say it
is because they want to point to something that is

(01:15:21):
a successful, you know, stressful model, But I don't think
it is. I think that's the reason why it's still
you know is And I well, anyway, that's the secondary thing. Yeah,
I think that they're run by they're definitely a communist
party in charge, but they're like sort of compromising with Yeah,
this is really secondary.

Speaker 2 (01:15:38):
Let's get back.

Speaker 5 (01:15:39):
Yeah, I know, I know, I'm sorry, And I think
you'll also find that quite interesting.

Speaker 6 (01:15:44):
But let's just start with what happened in Kentucky.

Speaker 5 (01:15:48):
And what's interesting is since because now in Kentucky we
have enough data, the divorce rate plummeted between twenty sixteen
and twenty twenty three.

Speaker 6 (01:15:58):
It fell twenty five percent.

Speaker 7 (01:16:00):
Whoa, So it's not just outcomes.

Speaker 1 (01:16:01):
They're changing divorce rates.

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
When you make women responsible.

Speaker 7 (01:16:06):
They stop getting divorces twenty percent reduction just because fifty
to fifty custody law.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
Yes, And here's the thing. The reason why the divorce
plummeted is because shared custody. When women realized they would
have to share custody, suddenly all of the irreconcilable differences
became reconcilable. All right, Well, if women weren't granted winner

(01:16:35):
takes all in divorce, suddenly they realized, oh hey, maybe
maybe maybe the fact he hangs the toilet paper the
other way around isn't irreconcilable. Maybe the fact he snares
isn't reconcilable. Maybe the fact he sleeps on his sofa,
you know, at five, and I really that really makes

(01:16:57):
me irate because I want him to be up and working.
That's not irreconcilable. Like suddenly the bar for irreconcilable differences
raises a bit. And most of those divorces didn't happen
as a result of abuse. Again, it was irreconcilable differences.
That is the predominant reason why women have been divorcing.

(01:17:19):
And when you simply put a little bit of a change.
And this is a change that is beneficial to children
and fathers and you know what else it's been, ironically,
and this is going to floor people. Women indicate a
greater level of happiness with shared custody arrangements than previous

(01:17:40):
They're happier, The children are happier, the men are happier.
Everyone is happier except the feminists and the divorce lawyers.
When we're happier, those people are not happy because they
I don't know, if the divorce lawyers don't get their
next their second Porsche, you know, they don't get to
upgrade the pool, whatever else. And the feminists don't get

(01:18:03):
to have the ability to destroy other people's relationships through
false narratives. You know that they're their ability to stick
their noses into things and and make people miserable and
then justify it as, oh, you would be more miserable
if patriarchy was allowed to make your choices for are
you right? This is this, This all goes away. Everybody

(01:18:25):
else is happier, but they're not. But why are we
continuing to structure society? Like I said a while back,
why are we allowing feminists to define the relationship between
men and women, spiritually, socially, economically, legally, in terms of policy,

(01:18:46):
and in terms of all of these things. Why are
we allowing this right? And then they're saying, oh, we're
going to define all of these things for our benefit
at the apparent expense of everyone else. So yes, shared
custody makes everyone happy except the feminists and they're pals

(01:19:07):
of the divorce lawyers.

Speaker 1 (01:19:10):
Okay, okay, should I play more of this?

Speaker 2 (01:19:13):
Yeah, a little bit more. I'm gonna I have one
last I have one last thing that I really want
to bring in that brings these two things together, So
let's finish this time code.

Speaker 1 (01:19:22):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:19:22):
This is tempered by.

Speaker 5 (01:19:23):
The fact that there has actually been a nationwide decline
and divorce of eighteen percent, So you know, we're talking
about a marginal seven percent, but that's meaningful.

Speaker 6 (01:19:36):
That's huge.

Speaker 2 (01:19:37):
Yeah, this is this is but also the national the
national divorce rate decline could also be because shared custody
initiatives are going around everywhere now, so you know, it's
it's difficult to disentangle this. But yeah, and also the
national divorce rate, we'd have to look at the national
marriage rate, because the national marriage rate is declining, then

(01:19:58):
the divorce rates going to decline.

Speaker 1 (01:20:00):
Gonna say, like, it depends on how many people are
getting married, yes, to begin with, because we know that
men are not dating like they're like, they're not talking
to women that are approaching women, So the few that
are are probably like more committed, so then they're they're
So it's a matter of like how many people are

(01:20:21):
getting married based on you know, or how many people
getting divorced based on how many have already gotten married,
so that that might be a lower number because of
you know the fact that like only the people who
are really gonna make it work are are the ones attempting?

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):
So mm hmm uh okay, So let's see the marriage
The Kentucky marriage right compared to the national average is
about the same now, But in twenty twenty one it
was six point three to five point one. In twenty
twenty it was four point nine to six three point six.

(01:21:02):
So up to twenty twenty, it seems like Kentucky actually
had a higher marriage rate than average than the US generally.
So I could probably look back further. I could ask
what is the for the last ten years.

Speaker 1 (01:21:28):
My guys here to drop off the stuff, But how
about this. Okay, I'll turn off my camera. You get
those statistics. I'll take care of this and come back here. Okay,
good for a little bit longer.

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
Okay, sure, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:41):
I'll be right back. Guys, Sorry about this, Go ahead, Alison.

Speaker 2 (01:21:44):
So, Kentucky's average for marriage has exceeded the US average,
not at least eight year, nine seven, no, six years,
for the last ten substantially too. So if it was
it didn't, actually it didn't. Actually it was lower, but

(01:22:06):
never never as much as it was higher essentially, So
the so that this is something that's significant, This is
something that's very significant. Looks like especially in the last
few years. Actually it looks like it's roughly the same.
So take that for what you will. It seems like

(01:22:28):
it's been in the last few years. It's actually been higher,
but for the last ten years it's about the same anyway,
So this may be something that is substantially, like even
more significant than what they're saying. I have to look
a little bit more closely at it because I'm getting
some inconsistencies with GROC, which means that it's drawing from

(01:22:49):
different sources that may not have the same methodologies. So
take that with a grain of salt anyway. So the
but the overall point is that there is a substantial
at least no, you know, like a seven percent out
of twenty five is almost one third. So we're looking

(01:23:11):
at a substantial decrease in Kentucky. And then we have
to also we have to also include the other portions
of this, which is that there are more shared parenting
initiatives going out in the US, which will reduce the
marriage rate or the divorce rate overall throughout the US.
Based just on that, okay, but there is even more

(01:23:34):
interesting stuff that's going on. And of course I don't
know if I should wait till Brian gets back or
tell you guys, give me an idea. Let me see
if there's any superchows. Actually, nope, there's no additional send
them some superchows. So I have something to do while
we're waiting for Brian to come back, and then we
can talk about how we're going to tie all of
this together. Because Kentucky's shared parenting law does have a

(01:23:58):
connection to the birth rate, and it's I think it
is absolutely critical to talk about that because it has
a lot of implications for how we can solve this issue,
and again it has a lot of implications for what
I was talking about years ago, that society, it's not
men's issues advocates that have men's issues problems. It's society
that has men's issues problem. Men's issues advocates are the

(01:24:21):
ones who have the solution. And what I mean by
that is all of us here that can talk about
these things, that can exist in a space where we're
not constantly absolving women of responsibility and exist in a
space that can recognize men's vulnerabilities without losing our shit.
We are the people who are capable of dealing with

(01:24:42):
men's issues, of advocating for men's issues, for holding people
to the grindstone on these issues. It's like we just
have this natural ability to deal with something that other
people find utterly toxic. Like they're just they're just they
just don't like we'd Like I said, we're just some
strange prototype, some mutant, high powered mutant as mutants of

(01:25:02):
some kind. We've got gills, we can breathe underwater. Nobody
else can do it. Other people this stuff is just
it just makes them shut down and turn off and
flick inside out and screech and read and implode and
try to force you away as quickly as possible. And
it's because they're too damn weak to hold it. They're
two damn weak to look at it, they're too damn

(01:25:25):
weak to analyze it. And yet this is the problem
that our society is facing. So that's why I say
the solution comes from us. The solution has to come
from us, It has to come from everybody listening to
me now, has to come from me and Brian, because
we can actually look at the problem, we can actually

(01:25:46):
analyze the problem. It doesn't induce existential terror in us,
like we're not screaming at the sight of Cthulhu like
the rest of the fricking world. And yeah, that is
demonstrating a week mindedness. I'm gonna go I'm gonna come
out right out and say it. It's weak minded and

(01:26:07):
uh I mean. And the reason why I started talking
about this is because I had people who common and
they be they'd be despairing over these issues and ever
getting them faced, and I try I told them to
frame it in a different way. Okay, yeah, this is
painful stuff, it's extremely painful, but you're getting gains because

(01:26:31):
you're learning to manage it emotionally in a way that
other people just can't. Right, for whatever reason, we have
a natural athleticism when it comes to men's issues, and
it's really our responsibility to exercise it and development as
much as possible because we are the frontline soldiers when
it comes to these issues. We're the ones who can

(01:26:51):
identify it and there were ones who can carry it
because it's a heavy burden. Right, So yes, it's painful,
but it's painful pain with a purpose. It's pain the
pain of exercising a natural talent and developing it. And again,
the world, like the West, like our culture, is our

(01:27:13):
societies that we live in, our friends and families. They
aren't going to save us by solving men's issues. We're
going to save them by advocating for them and making
sure they're never forgotten or brushed under the rug, like
feminists want to do, like we're seeing with the shared
custody initiative. Of course, there are criticisms because feminists want

(01:27:34):
to regain control over divorce. They want to continue to
advocate for their policies and procedures because they give them
power over people, and of course, because they're friends the
divorce lawyers gain a lot of money from them. You're
scared of Cuthulhu just saying okay, but are you scared

(01:27:54):
of men's issues? Because men's issues exist, Kathuli does not.
All right, get the super chows in guys, feed the
Badger dot com slash just the tip. And also remember
we are doing our monthly fundraisers, So help us out
and feed the Badger dot com slash support. And I'm
gonna look at the uh, I'm gonna look at oh

(01:28:14):
oh uh Okay, we got a we got a big,
big support that I should probably think and I'll do that.

Speaker 5 (01:28:23):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:28:23):
You just have to wait while I log into what
word press, which is always it is always a bit
of an adventure word press. You never know what you're
gonna get. Okay, so let us see what we got here.
And I do want to make sure to thank this
dude because as you will see, it is it is substantial.
I wish I had access to like the things that

(01:28:46):
Brian used to do with those little thank you all right,
so I'm gonna just go with Jeff. I want to
do a big thank you to Jeff for one thousand
dollars put to the fundraiser. Feed Thebadger dot com slash support.
Thank you. So we're we're funded big thanks to Jeff.
Guys put some thanks in the chat. Yeah we're good

(01:29:10):
because we had seven hundred dollars and now we're now
we're fully funded. So either was my yapping that convinced
Jet Jeff or he was always going to help us out.
Either way, thank you Jeff, big thanks, Thank you for
forwarding the cause of recognizing that society needs to actually
deal with these issues. And again, guys, you're not the

(01:29:31):
ones with the men's problems men's issues problems society is.
You're the ones that are gonna help them fix it
because you can actually deal with sight of them without
running and pissing your pants. Stubborn people, stubborn men, stubborn women.
Pride yourselves on that. Give yourself a patent the back
for that. Let's see if Brian's back. No, he's still

(01:29:54):
do this is like I guess that he's getting a
dining room set, So that's gonna take a while. I'm
guessing because you know dining that have multiple things in them,
so I could just imagine Brian arranging everything in his
dining room. So we may we may have to chatter
for a little bit. So I'll go, I'll look at
the I'll look at the chat with you guys. See
what you're saying. Any super chows and Jeff, if you

(01:30:20):
want to say anything, just tag me and you don't
have to put it through for that, you know, don't
you don't. Just Just give me a tag and I'll
all right. So let's see what you guys are saying.
Take that with the groc of sand. Yeah, I always
take groc with the groc of sand because groc sometimes

(01:30:42):
gets into some interesting conundrums. Not so much anymore because
they did an upgrade onto Grock, which makes it rely
more on empirically sound data. So it went from spouting
off all kinds of crap from feminist sources to actually
citing evo psych sources, which I've had this discussion with

(01:31:05):
an individual who's currently pursuing a PhD in criminal science.
Evo psych is the competitor for the definition of the
relationship between men and women relative to feminism, And when
I say evo psych, it's actually the academic arm, so

(01:31:26):
it is pretty rigorous. It's got empirical merit. Feminism has none.
All feminism has right now, is what perplexity AI terms
authority because it has multiple citations and the people who
are creating these papers are considered authorities in the subject area.

(01:31:46):
So the subject area is the relationship between men and women.
Feminists came in and colonized that, and academia were like, oh, yeah, sure,
go ahead, well, you know, go do whatever you want
with that, and feminists were like, yes, thank you. We
will use the perception of the relationship between men and
women to pursue our own ends, which in those ends

(01:32:06):
will be political control and money. And we don't give
a crap about what anybody else We don't. We don't
give it. Not only do we not give a crap
about men, we also don't give a crap about women.
We will pursue the interests of feminism, their interests of
our ideology. It's sort of like, you know, islamis pursue
the interests of their version of Islam. Same difference. So

(01:32:28):
there were they just redefine the relationship between sex is
to just basically be whatever feminism needed it to be
at the time, to do what feminism wanted. And they
said this and academia was like, sure, yeah, knock yourselves out.
That can't possibly go wrong for us or for all
of human society. No, that sounds awesome. Let do that. Yeah,

(01:32:50):
we're not gonna say no, We're not even going to
give you any oversight. You can create as much empirically,
you can create as much false and muscl eating bullshit
as you want, and we will sign off on it.
We'll let you continue to grow like a cancer. Have
a And also, politicians love feminism. Divorce lauras and politicians

(01:33:14):
love feminism because feminism makes them feel like they're doing
anything aside from stealing from real people. Was that okay, all.

Speaker 1 (01:33:25):
Right, I'm back, So we can go till about three
if you want.

Speaker 2 (01:33:30):
Yeah, I don't want to go till three okay? Oh no, No,
three is in twenty three minutes. I thought you meant
three my time.

Speaker 1 (01:33:37):
No, no, no until Yeah, like, we can go until the
top of the hour if you want. Because the guy
showed up a little bit earlier than I thought, but
he was willing to help me carry the tables inside,
so it made it easier. I saw that thing, and
it was like.

Speaker 2 (01:33:53):
So Metallica says, men's issues don't scare me quite as
much as the average Normany's ability to listen to my
weltha that arguments, only to mentally throw them out the
very next second. Yes, isn't that fascinating? Like you, you
can talk to a normal person and you'll explain everything right,
and then they'll just the next second they just default

(01:34:15):
back onto you know what they've been trained to to
vomit forth from their pie horse.

Speaker 1 (01:34:22):
Yeah, yeah, because it's way too challenging to their world ring.

Speaker 2 (01:34:25):
Oh got it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:27):
It's so hard. It's way because they even if they
don't like things the way they are, they're comfortable with
them being the way they are, even if you like,
you know, it's hard. Man. I got a super chow
from Betty Adams just now. Thank you Betty, and she
gives us ten dollars and says, could what is different

(01:34:49):
about us? Men's issues? People have to do with being
low in politeness and high in compassion. I recall that
your Big Big five personality test results show that you were,
and I know mine were. If there is a massive
cultural pressure to extend more compassion of women than men,
then being low in politeness might allow us to ignore

(01:35:09):
that to some degree, while if we are high in conscientiousness,
our sense of justice would demand men get their fair
share of compassion.

Speaker 2 (01:35:18):
Yeah. Yeah. The the problem with the Big Five personality
test is conflates two aspects of compassion that end up
making that that element of the Big Five I think,
lose a lot of its explanatory power. And what I
mean by that is there's being polite and then there's
being compassionate. Right, so people will be polite in order

(01:35:42):
to maintain their own their agreeableness. Well yeah, yeah, agreeableness,
But agreeableness has compassion and politeness. People can be polite
out of selfishness because they simply don't want to They
don't want to bear the cost of truth. But people
who are low in politeness behind compassion will bear the

(01:36:07):
cost of staying the truth as they see it, regardless
of how much social pressure they have to be polite.
And the problem is that the Big five complaints those
two things and it's capturing completely different things. It's actually
also capturing things completely like mentally, people who are who

(01:36:29):
express politeness versus compassion, those that they occupy different parts
of the brain. Okay, so social like adhering to what
is expected of you socially is not a form of compassion.
It's a form of conformity that is intended to get
what you want out of other people, right, I mean,

(01:36:51):
in a certain degree, polite politeness can be considered compassionate
if it if it if it's a situation where you
are foregoing your own interests in order to benefit another person.
But that's not always the case, so it's not the
social conformity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actually compassion.

(01:37:13):
So I would say the Big Five agreeableness is not
a really good metric of anything. That section on agreeableness.
But yeah, so I scored really low in politeness, I think,
surprising no one, and high in compassion. So if I
feel like some there is a lie that is inhibiting

(01:37:34):
a person from a benefit that they would get if
they don't believe the lie, I'm very likely to point
out what the truth is, even if they hate me
for it. And I mean that even goes beyond compassion
to the fact that I really really detest people lying

(01:37:55):
to themselves or people lying to others. I really detest life.
Now it's some of that, Like I really had a
problem with white lies. You know, as I get older,
I think I've gotten a little bit more Okay, with
them because I've realized that when people engage in white lies,
it is a form of compassion. They're trying to make

(01:38:18):
you feel better. It's just that I don't I just
I'd rather the truth, even if it pisses me off,
you know, And I really can't stand the feeling of
being handled like often people will use a white lie,
or they'll use like politeness, a polite thing in order

(01:38:39):
to soften the blow. And to my autistic brain, that's
that feels manipulative. But you know, like I said, I've
tried to not follow the autism as much as I
get older, But anyway, that's me. And yes, I think
it is true. I think people here probably are low

(01:39:00):
on politeness, high on compassion, or at the very least
high on wanting there to be consistency and principles and truth,
which you can want even without necessarily being high on compassion. Right,
So I think, yeah, I mean, honestly, we're the stubborn ones.

(01:39:21):
We're the ones who refuse to step away. Like everybody
here who's continued to listen to us day after day
after day. You guys are the guns who ground, who grind,
And I mean, I know a lot of times we
get pushed back because we don't have like a million
subscribers on our channel, even though I think that they're Like,
when we talk about stuff, you'll notice other YouTubers with

(01:39:42):
a wider reach start picking up on it. Yeah, lots
of people have noticed this and pointed it out to
us that we sort of get to it first, and
by getting to it first, you guys who listened to
us get it to even more first. Well, no, we
get to it first, and then you get it to
it first. After that, Okay, mind anyway, So but my
point is that you guys have stuck with this day

(01:40:03):
after day after day, those of you who have This
isn't about being popular. It's about grinding and getting gains
when it comes to advocating for men's issues, becoming stronger
and more capable of finding and deploying the arguments that

(01:40:27):
shut feminists down. And that's what we need to do now,
is we need to shut them down because the world
is healing, even if it's a small like if it's
a little small thing Kentucky shared parenting, the world is healing,
and feminists take offense at that because apparently they want

(01:40:51):
to destroy everything and themselves. Well, I mean, they just
don't they don't have any foresight. Okay, so let's let's
finish this off.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
Do you want to finish this off?

Speaker 2 (01:41:05):
Actually, you know, I don't know if you heard Jeff,
who is somebody that I don't know. I'm just let
me double check. Gave us a thousand bucks, So we're.

Speaker 1 (01:41:18):
Jeff. I wish I had like a sound effect I
still don't have. Yeah, I was.

Speaker 2 (01:41:21):
Talking about that too.

Speaker 1 (01:41:23):
Yeah, I'm working on it. I'm working on it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:29):
Yeah, I'm almoso need to work.

Speaker 1 (01:41:32):
On starting to but then like my the soundboard that
I was using for some reason, it's not liking any
of my sounds, so I may have to start over
with it, which kind of sucks. So yeah, but yeah, So.

Speaker 2 (01:41:49):
Thank you to Jeff. Big thanks to Jeff. And so
I just wanted to tell you that because that's pretty
cool and that means we're funded because we only had
seven hundred dollars left.

Speaker 1 (01:42:00):
Awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:42:02):
Oh yeah, it looks like he's he's actually a supporter,
So thank you. Although it's been a couple of years
since he supported No, no, it's been a year one year.
But no, that's great. Thank you for coming back, Jeff,
It's nice to see you. Okay, Right, so.

Speaker 1 (01:42:23):
We've been playing more of this.

Speaker 5 (01:42:25):
Yep, equal custody, which is huge for them, but.

Speaker 7 (01:42:30):
Shows how many women just you divorce as a I
don't have to do anything and I get, you know,
a check for the next eighteen.

Speaker 2 (01:42:36):
Years, no crap.

Speaker 1 (01:42:39):
Yeah. Yeah, I'm glad that he brought that up because
a lot of people would just say, like something else,
like definitely that whole thing about like, you know, women
should be I don't know, like that that whole idea
of pathologizing husbands against their wives. Yes, you can encourage divorce.
That is definitely a myth that has to die.

Speaker 2 (01:42:58):
Oh yeah, I mean the myth of the pathologize the husband,
not that they are doing this because they are definitely.

Speaker 1 (01:43:05):
No, no, no, no, no, the myth, the myth that they're perpetuating,
is what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:43:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and it really like conservatives really need
to close off that blind spot.

Speaker 1 (01:43:15):
Another thing too, is that like, well, I mean, yeah,
I think that women are using divorce to get paid,
but I also think that women could be using it
for revenge, They could be using it for you know,
for petty reasons. The fact that there is almost no risk,
and there's a lot of incentives to do it, and

(01:43:35):
they get you know, coerced into it by divorce lawyers,
by peers, buy the media. It's everywhere. Like I said,
it's normalized like this. You know that. How many stories
and films and stuff have you seen where they show
like a married wife as miserable because she's married and
there's something that tempts her away to get divorced, whether

(01:43:58):
it's you know, like another or uh not. Well that
used to be a thing, but now it's less of
that Now it's more like, you know, a job and
like something fulfilling single women around them, getting them to
leave their husbands or whatever. So yeah, there's a lot
of factors. But but yeah, I think that that's a
big one. All right, So more of this.

Speaker 7 (01:44:19):
Things about equal custody is I'm pretty sure it's like
way harder to get a good alan, right, Yes.

Speaker 5 (01:44:25):
So yeah, that kind of happened actually a little bit
after this legislation was passed.

Speaker 6 (01:44:30):
Because again, men have no rights. Aha, it's nothing it's
gonna ever could change.

Speaker 5 (01:44:33):
But fortunately recently Kentucky's legislature did decide that parents who
spend more time caring for their children should also pay
lesson child support, so to be fair, in these divorces,
men still often are saddled with child support.

Speaker 6 (01:44:50):
However, at least now.

Speaker 5 (01:44:52):
The state's like, oh wait a second, you fifty percent custody.

Speaker 6 (01:44:57):
What's going on here?

Speaker 5 (01:44:58):
And I've actually seen this show up organically in like
financial audit interview YouTube channel shows where mothers who are used.

Speaker 6 (01:45:09):
To getting child support are complaining about this.

Speaker 1 (01:45:13):
So it's financial you mean, like that guy that's always
got viral videos where he's like talking to he's trying
to help people balance their budgets, okay, off their beds. Yeah, back, Yeah,
there's there's a surprise. Well I'm not surprising if you
if you're here, but there's a large number of women
that are angry that child support payments are not even

(01:45:35):
like they're losing them, but they're just being like maybe
they're being reduced, you know, or they're not able to
increase them or something. Mm hmm yeah, yeah, all right,
is there another keep going? Yep, they're freaking out.

Speaker 7 (01:45:50):
They're like, what what am I supposed to get a job.

Speaker 5 (01:45:54):
They're like, and now my child support's gone down because
my husband is you know, has fifty So this is
showing up like in the wild and naturally I think
if that's really.

Speaker 7 (01:46:05):
For pernatalism, this is something we should push more sore.
I think forced equal custody and forced no child support
when there is equal custody, because there shouldn't be child
supported in equal custody cases.

Speaker 1 (01:46:15):
I mean, I.

Speaker 5 (01:46:17):
Get child support in the event that a woman like
completely draws.

Speaker 7 (01:46:23):
Yeah, no, I agree, like she she went into the
marriage to be a homemaker and never had a job.

Speaker 1 (01:46:27):
I get that. I don't want to say anything about it.
That whatever, it's fine, Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:46:35):
Honestly, like I think most men's men's issues advocates are
probably fine with that as long as men have equal
shared custody physical custody. This is an outcome that's like
a lot of fathers have primary custody and still pay

(01:46:55):
child support.

Speaker 1 (01:46:56):
Well. The other thing too, is that, like the thing
about child support is that, like does it actually go
to the child? Probably not, But like that that's the
thing too, is that a lot of times child support
I don't think there's any way to control, no, not
at all, only to the child or if the mom
just uses it for whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:47:15):
Yeah, No, there's no way of controlling that. And I've
heard stories of fathers who have to pay child support.
They don't want to go back to family courts or
at least this is a wild act because they didn't
want anything to be changed. They were just they were
fine paying child support as long as they had access
to their kids, and they didn't want to rock the
boat because of the kind of bias they were facing

(01:47:39):
in the courts. But it sounds like people are finally,
you know, cleaning up the feminism. We need to start.
We need an aggressive, clean guys. We need it out
of our NGOs, We need it out of our schools.
We course need it out of the family courts, and
we need it. We need our politicians too. It needs

(01:47:59):
to be political suicide to start talking about feminism, at
least the feminism that says, I mean, we could talk
about equal rights, that's fine. Not the feminism that frames
men as abusers, oppressors and using domestic violence and sexual

(01:48:20):
assault to oppress women. That is, it is unsubstantiated malarchy.
Remember years ago, I don't know if you remember this,
she got involved in this. I did a tweet that
said the assertion that men oppressed women is as it

(01:48:48):
is a radical assertion which requires no it's an extraordinary
assertion which requires extraordinary evidence, and which has not been supplied.
In fact, there's no like literally, there is no evidence.
And where there is evidence, it's against the assertion. And

(01:49:11):
she retweeted it and she got shit. I don't know
if you know about that. She she got she got
flambayed for it, although I think now she'd probably agree
with it, like wholeheartedly. Anyway, Yeah, should we watch a

(01:49:32):
little bit more. It seemed to you seem to have
you seem to have trailed off, so perhaps we should
do a bit more.

Speaker 1 (01:49:37):
I mean I was just listening to you and looking
at the chat.

Speaker 7 (01:49:39):
Yeah, I think the sort of the worst you make divorce,
the less divorce we're going to have, right and.

Speaker 5 (01:49:47):
Kind of, but we'll see a comparison there. Actually, I'm
just gonna jump to it because we should. We should
compare how this how this is related to China. So
while this reform obviously is focused on first and foremost
creating a fair or system like, this legislation wasn't passed
within knowledge that it was going to reduce to horse rates.
It was just to it was it was it was

(01:50:08):
creating a system that incentivized less adversarial breakups.

Speaker 1 (01:50:14):
M all right, I'm just pausing for the banana and
like I don't know, but yeah, I mean that's the thing.
You don't have to start from the we want to
lower divorce rates. You just balance. You can just do
it for like what they said, because it's a more
just system to presume a fifty to fifty shared parenting
and to like presume that you know either party, if

(01:50:36):
there is an abusive party, it could be either up
one of them, and instead of having the sort of
like you know, inherent favor of yeah, it's like a
and it's based I mean, if they if there's data,
they're probably pulling it from feminist sources that will claim,
you know, what we've been saying on this show for
you know, the entire time, and it would just have

(01:50:57):
the side effect. That's that, And that's like what the
best outcome honestly, because like then you don't really have
to you don't have to necessarily be like, you know,
a pro natilist person in the sense of policy, because
you can't really put into policy like mandated marriages. But
if you make marriage like not a disaster for men,

(01:51:20):
then you're and and it will benefit them and children
and women at least, and that way, like if they're
because the thing is right now, marriage and child support
and alimony, they're all just kind of like salad bar
items that a woman could take if she wants to,
and there's no commitment, no matter what, she can just decide,

(01:51:41):
you know, I, you know what, I don't want to
get married anymore. I think I'm just gonna like get
a divorce and collect payments from this guy, just like
to do with children. I don't want to be pregnant.
I'm just gonna get an abortion. I'm just gonna take
some you know, some aspirin or whatever kind of whatever
it is to kill my baby, right and the because
there's no negative repercussions for that, women are gonna do it.

(01:52:03):
But if you do have these things in place, they're
not even negative on women. They will just be like
a thing they have to take in consideration. So it's like, well, okay,
marriage is gonna involve it's gonna be a lot harder
for me to get out of without losing something potentially,
So now I gotta be really thoughtful about whether or
not I want to do to begin with. And so
the women who say, well, I'm gonna get married anyway

(01:52:24):
because I want kids, I want a family, and I
want to be married to a man who I love,
then they're gonna do it regardless. And then the ones
that think of it in a sort of like a
disposable flighty way, well they're not gonna do it. And
that's it's better that a woman who has no intention
of committing to someone. It's better she never get married,

(01:52:44):
is what I'm saying. So she never does, and that's
good for her, and it's good for him because he
doesn't like a man who's entering marriage probably doesn't have
that same like mindset of seeing it as disposable, so
he's gonna be destroyed by the divorce. And it's good
for any children that might get involved. So I think
this is just like a win win win regardless.

Speaker 2 (01:53:07):
Oh it's even more than that, because there's another entity
that's winning. We haven't even covered by the way I'm
going to spurg out on you in terms of my
design early sense, when we are in that the vertical
stream where it's where you have the responding thing in
the middle, your video is not going all the way

(01:53:28):
the end edge it like driving me nuts because I'm
an artist, and I apologize.

Speaker 1 (01:53:35):
Yeah, we just don't change anything right now, but.

Speaker 2 (01:53:37):
Yeah, you just have to stretch it when it's well,
I mean, you can't do it until we are like anyway,
it doesn't matter, but I'm just pointing it out. Okay,
let's finish this.

Speaker 5 (01:53:47):
So there's like less money spent on lawyers, less fighting,
less people just divorcing to try to get a bunch
of stuff out of their partner.

Speaker 6 (01:53:55):
And in contrast, China's policies.

Speaker 5 (01:53:57):
Which we did go over in an episode a while ago,
more on slowing or preventing divorce by regulation and delight.

Speaker 7 (01:54:04):
I remember I thought I had a positive Effectai effect.

Speaker 2 (01:54:06):
So wait, wait, wait wait, I'm curious. Now, let's see.

Speaker 5 (01:54:12):
Both have reduced divorce rates, but China's approach also appears
to have discouraged both marriage and childbearing, which is an
effect that is not seen.

Speaker 7 (01:54:22):
Why is it? I don't understand how this could affect
marriage in childbearing?

Speaker 6 (01:54:25):
The Chinese policy, well, that's interesting. Different.

Speaker 5 (01:54:29):
Since twenty twenty one, China requires a mandatory thirty day
cooling off period for couple seeking an uncontested that is
to say mutual consent divorce and either party can withdraw
during this time, which halts the process. And the cooling
off period did lead to a drop in divorce, but
honestly it's lower. So their divorce rate fell from three

(01:54:51):
point four percent in twenty nineteen to around one point
eight percent in twenty twenty three.

Speaker 6 (01:54:56):
I think that's lower.

Speaker 1 (01:54:58):
I think change is much better.

Speaker 5 (01:55:00):
So then at the same time, marriage rates declined as well,
and the birth rate continued dropping, which suggests that more
people now are just avoiding marriage entirely.

Speaker 2 (01:55:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, well it China's like, you know,
their system is a bit better, but maybe not as
good as what we're what they're meant what they're constructing
in Kentucky. And you know why, Like you know what
this is being constructed from, guys, It's been constructed from
the men's issues, men's rights talking points. What's happening in Kentucky. Yeah,

(01:55:34):
because we kept this stuff alive. They're constructing policy based
on it, and they're finding downstream effects.

Speaker 1 (01:55:43):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:55:43):
I don't know if if some simone and me'll come
talk about So let's just keep.

Speaker 1 (01:55:50):
Going, all right.

Speaker 5 (01:55:52):
That's the difficulty of divorce and there has been no
measured decline in marriage or birth rate pack because.

Speaker 7 (01:56:01):
Here I suggest people watch our video on nobody wants
to marry Chinese women anymore, there is any Chinese cultural
change your.

Speaker 1 (01:56:08):
Own women where they.

Speaker 7 (01:56:10):
Like woke women in the United States and they're just
nobody wants to marry them anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:56:16):
And so I don't think I believe that. I mean,
I know that's true that like well Asian women are
are in China, South Korea, I know for sure those countries.
I think Japan too. Their their standards are crazy high.
They're like super high pergamas, and they're the men are
just they find that they're worth it. So I think

(01:56:37):
that Chinese birth rates in those countries, well, Chinese birth
rates are low, not birth rates. Marriage rates are low
because the women are impossible. So and that's great, like
worse than the woke women in America, so that they're
super cooked. I yeah that super.

Speaker 2 (01:56:59):
What Like Chinese women are insanely hypergrammag So I think
we're gonna to get like ear pods for you because
you're not like, uh, maybe you're not hearing me completely.

Speaker 1 (01:57:10):
I heard you. It was just that I was talking
when you were talking. So I couldn't myself.

Speaker 2 (01:57:18):
Because I'm quiet and Canadian and you're loud in Chicago Ian.

Speaker 1 (01:57:22):
I'm loud in Puerto Rican.

Speaker 2 (01:57:24):
That well yeah, okay, so all right, so let's uh,
I think we're almost like, I don't I don't know
if they actually cover the the item that I found out.

Speaker 1 (01:57:41):
Okay, well, do you want to just tell me because
it's just like a long video.

Speaker 2 (01:57:46):
Yeah yeah, let's let's I'll just you know what, I'll
just I'll just tell I'll tell everyone. Okay. So I
was having an argument. I know, it's a shock, guys.
I was having an argument with a feminist on Twitter
and we were just discussing the association between divorce and actually, no,
it wasn't divorce. It started off we're talking about birth rates,

(01:58:10):
and the feminist said, well, if we wanted to increase
birth rates, we would men would do more chores around
the house. And we got into an extended discussion and
I pointed out that men doing more chores is associated

(01:58:30):
with divorce, and she kept bringing up, oh, but but
women say that they're more satisfied in relationships where men
do more chores. But and what was happening was groc
and then later she moved to chat chat GPT because
GROC wasn't giving her the answer she wanted. Was drawing

(01:58:52):
from studies that asked women, do you feel it's more
fair if your partner does more chores? And the women
I said yes, and they were extrapolating from women's feelings
that this would result in fewer divorces. But when you
actually looked at the empirical evidence, and this is I
went through this with CHATDPT, Chat GPT gave me a

(01:59:14):
whole bunch of crap based on these feminist studies and
women saying, oh, it's more fair, I feel like it's
more fair, I feel like I'm less taking advantage of
I feel like I feel I feel I feel And
I said, stop, give me the numbers. What is the behavior?
What is the association with men taking on more chores

(01:59:38):
and divorce the behavior of ending a relationship and chat
GPT is like, oh yes, actually looking at empirically sound
findings and associations between behavior is what we should be doing. Oh,
by the way, there is a strong association between men
taking on equal number equal chores and divorce. And the

(02:00:02):
overall argument was whether or not chores increase the birth rate.
So I said, okay, chat GPT, you know, discount Grock.
That's what I'll call chat.

Speaker 1 (02:00:11):
Is not just stupid.

Speaker 2 (02:00:16):
Okay, chat GPT is bargain basement Grock. Now are a
sales bin Grock? This dollar store Groc? Okay, dollar store Groc.
What is if you look at if you include the
negative effect of divorce on the birth rate, does men

(02:00:40):
increasing their chores result in a positive increase in the
birth rate. No, it's a not negative when you include
the fact that that leads to the wars. More So,
I pointed this out to the feminist and she fawned
off because it's like id wrang, Now, you're wrong, we
hate women. You hate women, you hate them. I'm like, okay, whatever.

Speaker 1 (02:01:03):
But she saw a TikTok video that made this claim. Alison,
Oh yeah, yeah, she read on a medium blog. It's
data basically, you know what I'm dealing with.

Speaker 2 (02:01:11):
Now on Twitter, there are feminists. You remember we went
through the Manifestel bullshit with the Bonnables. There are feminists
using those arguments now on me and Twitter.

Speaker 1 (02:01:22):
Oh my god.

Speaker 2 (02:01:23):
Yes, these influencers, guys, these female influencers are arming legions
of women with these retarded arguments. Thankfully Groc has gotten
that upgrade, so it's a lot easier to annihilate them.
But anyway, so the original.

Speaker 1 (02:01:41):
Of rock Well No Finisher story.

Speaker 2 (02:01:43):
Okay, so the original argument was the relationship between men
doing chores and men or increased birth rates. But through
the conversation, Groc said something to me that I ended
up drilling down on. And what it was was that
shared parenting is associated with increased birth rates. Guys. So

(02:02:08):
remember we went through that whole thing about how, oh
we're all going to hell like birthrate hell because you know,
nobody's having children anymore. Shared parenting increases birth rates, right,
And then I drilled down on that on what's going on,
started bringing up the Kentucky stuff. Apparently they're having more
children and the reason why they're having more children. Here's

(02:02:29):
the thing is that when women have an involved partner involved,
like a man who is involved in the raising of
his children, highly involved, they're more likely to have more children.
It's not just providership. Okay, that's actually not you know,
it may be important, but it's not sufficient. What is

(02:02:53):
sufficient is that men involve themselves more in the day
to day raising of their own children, which incidentally, many
fathers want to do. And what was preventing this involvement
was the fact that men did not know if they
were going to be able to have that relationship protected

(02:03:13):
legally right, so they created distance because they didn't know
if they were going to lose their child in a divorce.
But once that fear was taken away, they got more involved.
The women saw the involvement of their partners increasing, maybe
they didn't see it consciously, but unconsciously, and they were
more likely to say, yeah, I'll have a second child,

(02:03:35):
Yeah I'll have a third child, Yeah I'll have a
fourth child, because their partner was more involved, and he
was more involved because he knew his kids weren't going
to be taken away, and that increased the birth rate.
So get this, guys, The things that we have been
talking about for myself for like twenty years, me and
Brian for ten, these things are fixing society's problems. Men's

(02:03:59):
issue is recognizing men's issues, dealing with them, advocating them
is advocating for society, and it's advocating for the human future.
So you guys were never We're never in a position
of being the victims like they constant, people constantly, Never
the whiners. You were the truth tellers that kept the

(02:04:23):
flame alive. The solution to the problems that everyone's facing now,
the solution to the problem of the breeding colony collapse
that everyone is facing now. All of our economic problems
are a result of that. A lot of our political
problems are a result of that, because we can't find
cohesion anymore. Now we're arguing over things that are functional.

(02:04:48):
Like they are functional. There are mechanisms of a functional country.
Controlling immigration is a mechanism of a functional country. Now,
it's an argument that is ridiculous, It should never be
an argument. But that is a sign that social cohesion

(02:05:08):
is collapsing, right, and they and it's essentially what's happened
is nobody is invested in the concept, or not nobody,
but half of the maybe half of the US population,
to use an example, because this is rife everywhere in
the West. They're no longer invested in the idea of

(02:05:30):
a society, the idea of a cooperative relationship with their neighbor.
They're no longer invested in that, so they no longer
want to protect it. Why, because we have embraced a
corrosive narrative about how men and women relate. And that
means we have embraced a corrosive narrative about how everyone relates,
and there's going to be more and more problems that

(02:05:52):
are caused by that narrative because it is the foundation
of the trust required for our productvity, for our political systems,
for our medical systems, for our justice systems, for our roadways,
for our infrastructure, for our education. It that trust between
men and women is required for everything. It is the

(02:06:16):
foundation of everything. There is nothing that it does not touch,
which is probably why one of the most critical statements
in the Bible, just to bring Christianity, I know everybody's
groaning now, is that women submit to men. What did
that functionally mean? Women demonstrate trust because that is the

(02:06:37):
foundation of trust in everyone in everything. Okay, yeah, you know,
instead of women's greatest weakness, it's actually their greatest power
because that demonstration of trust supercharges cooperation between people in

(02:07:00):
every capacity that you could possibly imagine.

Speaker 1 (02:07:03):
Okay, all right, well now I do have to go Okay,
so I got to pick up lindsay, So all right,
then what what I said?

Speaker 2 (02:07:12):
All right, then let's let's let's wind it down all right?

Speaker 1 (02:07:16):
Oh your camera froze, Allison.

Speaker 2 (02:07:18):
Oh shit, when did it freeze?

Speaker 1 (02:07:19):
Oh? Yeah, no, it's back up. Now, it's back up now.
I don't know it just did for okay, fine.

Speaker 2 (02:07:24):
Now, okay, was it freezing while I was yapping?

Speaker 1 (02:07:27):
No, no, it just did briefly. But it's fine now, Okay.
Either that or you were very still, which I don't
believe so.

Speaker 2 (02:07:36):
Well. I am on my Fort's cappuccinos, so probably not.

Speaker 1 (02:07:40):
No, there's no way you could be moving so fast
that it looks like you're sitting still, kind of like
you know, when you spin a propeller, it starts to
like look like it's going in the opposite direction.

Speaker 2 (02:07:51):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (02:07:51):
Anyway, if I ever.

Speaker 2 (02:07:53):
Start looking like if you ever start seeing something that
looks like the angels from the Bible, you know, with
the multiple eyes and like, you'll just know that I
have broken the time barrier. Time barrier kinetic kinetic miss Okay.

Speaker 1 (02:08:15):
So yeah, we're gonna go ahead and do the things.
And I'll do the things, all right.

Speaker 2 (02:08:19):
So I'll just double check to see if there's any
more thank you just to give. Sometimes you guys do
a little bit more on that score, and again, big, big,
big thank you to Jeff, thanks for coming back. Man
really appreciate it and doesn't look like there's any additional
thank yous, big thanks to telling Our and ok f

(02:08:40):
S because they also got us over the edge at
this this fundraiser. A big thanks to everybody who supported
us earlier. Very much appreciated because you know, we we
are making progress. I know it seems slow and agonizing.
I think grock is going to actually really help. You
should start outsourcing a lot of these.

Speaker 1 (02:09:01):
You should check out Grokipedia, Alison. We're We're on there
really and it's actually a very fair article.

Speaker 2 (02:09:08):
Yeah, yeah, I'm not surprised.

Speaker 1 (02:09:11):
Yeah, look at look up men's rights activists, gamer Gait
and a honey Badger brigade on Rockipedia. You'll find that
it's actually quite fair. And I'm like, wow, this is
not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is sweat and bullets.

Speaker 2 (02:09:26):
By the way, good because they need to they've just
been they've just been running rough shot over everybody ideologically.
But okay, so I just want to remind everybody that
you don't have the problem like that. You guys hear
you think that you know, and I don't want it
need to minimize your pain. But the truth is that

(02:09:47):
the fact you can recognize these issues, that you can
exist in the space where you're not deflecting blame from
women and you're actually recognizing the vulnerabilities of men mark
you as uniquely star. And the solution is going to
come from us and you, not from the world. I
mean it will come from the world adopting what we

(02:10:09):
talk about, like it did here, birthrate problem. What's the solution?
What a shock? It was a men's issues have all along,
that was the solution, shared custody. Okay, I'm gonna hand okay, right,
feed Thebadger dot com slash just the tip at anytime after
the show, and we will respond to you at the
next reasonably appropriate show. And I would say feed the

(02:10:34):
Badger dot com slash support, but we got what we need,
so it would only be giving us more, which you
can do if you want, so, Yeah, feed the Badger
dot com slash just the tip to send us those comments.

Speaker 1 (02:10:48):
All right, Brian, All right, Well, if you guys like
this video, please hit like, subscribe to not already subscribe,
to hit the bellfonification, leave us a comment. Let us
know you guys think what we'll we discussed on the
show today and please please please share this video because
sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for coming
on today's episode of Maintaining Frame number one eight seven

(02:11:08):
on an Undercover Cop, and we will talk to you
guys in the next one. Have a good Halloween hallow Zeve,
all Saints and all that. See you guys next week.