Pearl - Who LOST America？ Feminism's WAR on MEN! ｜ Pearl Daily

00:00:00.000 good afternoon good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to another episode of pearl daily here

00:00:19.860 at the audacity network before we get started today we have a couple announcements to go

00:00:25.280 through the first guys I want to be free from YouTube I want to bring on the most controversial

00:00:32.100 guests I'd like to bring on you know look into old cases that maybe have been dead for years

00:00:37.680 that YouTube could potentially punish us for in order to do that we need to get 10,000 members

00:00:43.660 on the website this will cost $80 a year and $10 a month this allows me to have zero outside funding

00:00:51.560 and interview people that no one else will interview and be completely free from YouTube

00:00:57.780 guidelines, at least on the website, not here. Now, this also allows us to fly in guests for

00:01:05.780 the channel. And if we can get 10 signups a show in a couple of months, we can bring on the most

00:01:14.360 controversial person you guys can think of. All right. But we need to get 10 signups a show. So

00:01:20.500 if you don't mind the other thing you get out of that is i am able to read your chats during the

00:01:25.720 show so on youtube you would normally have to do a super chat in order to get it read it's cheaper

00:01:31.420 for eight bucks a month and you get unlimited chats to read on the show okay and last announcement

00:01:39.760 we are trying to get monetized on spotify so please go download your spotify apps and look up

00:01:46.620 pearl daily we are on spotify now so please go do that okay so today and this may be a reoccurring

00:01:55.360 thing where on fridays i interview people as you know a change of pace so today i was

00:02:03.220 on twitter the last couple of months and there was a guy that was in some of my replies and he just

00:02:11.460 had some of the most thought-provoking comments I'd seen and he really seemed to understand what

00:02:17.740 was going on. I end up looking at his profile and it is Stephen Bakerville. He is a professor of

00:02:25.080 politics at Collegium Intermarium University of Warsaw and he's actually the author of a book

00:02:33.760 Who Lost America? And today I actually decided to bring him on the show and tell us more

00:02:41.240 about why the united states went communist and what we can do about it welcome to the show how

00:02:47.340 are you well thank you it's good to be here thanks for coming um so tell me i saw you how

00:02:56.060 long have you been on twitter for have you been on it for a while no it's fairly new for me um

00:03:01.480 social media is a um a new uh acquired taste for me yeah i would see you in some of the replies

00:03:09.120 And I was thinking that the way that you wrote was very different, as opposed to a lot of the Spurgs that tend to be on Twitter. 1.00

00:03:17.800 I was like, wow, he's very thoughtful.

00:03:19.340 And then I clicked on your profile and I was like, wow, he's actually a whole author.

00:03:25.860 That's right.

00:03:26.560 Yeah, I do try to write about things in depth.

00:03:29.500 My field is politics.

00:03:31.040 And I try to look at the politics behind things.

00:03:33.460 For example, the book you mentioned, the most recent book, is the culmination of several books I've written.

00:03:39.120 the first one was on the politics of the divorce industry, which I know you talk about a lot on

00:03:45.440 your show. And it tries to look at not just the surface injustices and inanities of the

00:03:52.460 divorce machinery, but to look behind it and explain the politics behind it and where it 0.88

00:03:59.220 came from, the governmental machinery, the interest groups, and so forth. So that's my

00:04:04.640 contribution to all this yeah so how did we get here how do we get to a point where in america

00:04:11.040 um the single motherhood rate is going up so high um it we're essentially paid to leave our husbands

00:04:19.120 how how did we get here where did it start there's a number of things i place primacy on

00:04:24.960 ideology i think ideology has a lot to do with it feminist ideology has been around for a long time 0.92

00:04:30.640 It's been in the margins of our politics for a couple hundred years since the French Revolution,

00:04:37.620 but it really emerged in the post-war years, and it's really taken its place in the sun

00:04:44.060 since the 70s, and it's really displaced all other forms of leftist ideology. I think it's

00:04:50.780 displaced Marxism and liberalism and so forth, and it's really the dominant form of radical ideology

00:04:57.160 today is sexual ideology. And I still think that the most powerful, homosexualism, transgenderism 1.00

00:05:05.500 are important, but I still think feminist ideology is the most potent. And today it's 1.00

00:05:10.680 the cutting edge of the left. And feminism has insinuated itself in our institutions in many 1.00

00:05:19.920 ways that most people don't realize. The first political and governmental institution that was

00:05:26.100 created after feminists got the vote in the early 20th century was the welfare state. And the 1.00

00:05:32.160 welfare state was a, from the beginning, was a matriarchy. From the beginning, it was infused 1.00

00:05:38.820 with radical, especially feminist ideology. Jane Addams was among the founders of it,

00:05:44.740 anarchist and communist and feminist. And the welfare state was really, as I argue in the latest

00:05:51.540 book the first uh deep state it was the original deep state because it's the first but it was the

00:05:56.980 way the government first insinuated itself into the private lives of law-abiding citizens it was

00:06:04.020 the first time that the government claimed the right to enter the lives of legally innocent

00:06:09.300 people and take control of their of their homes and their families and their children

00:06:14.500 and this was what the feminists created very soon after getting the vote now it took decades 1.00

00:06:19.860 to work through to its logical conclusion but this is what we are seeing today is how the welfare

00:06:25.380 state first took control of the lives of the poor and then uh spread out from there through the

00:06:31.460 family court system and the wealth and the and the uh you know the the divorce machinery to take

00:06:36.580 control of middle class lives as well and from the beginning it's been intrusive invasive uh

00:06:42.740 disrespectful of private life and implicitly or explicitly hatred of men so when you say that

00:06:51.860 family court evolved after the vote i know i've seen some writings i think from the 1800s

00:06:59.860 but i don't think divorce from what i've i've read divorce wasn't as prevalent then

00:07:04.660 like what it was the difference between then and now like why is it so much more common

00:07:09.940 and what like changed in family court? Right. Well, a number of things. It was people at the

00:07:17.940 time were quite shocked about it. Even back in the 19th century, you had the socialist Belford

00:07:22.100 Bax who writes about it as if it was as bad in Victorian times as it is now. But gradually it

00:07:28.660 expanded. It expanded largely by feminism. Feminism was not only the creation, not only 1.00

00:07:34.800 created the welfare state in the early 20th century, but it also created the no fault divorce

00:07:39.420 system. People don't realize this. The feminists were drafting no-fault divorce laws back in the 1.00

00:07:43.600 1940s. They couldn't get them implemented. They got them implemented in the 1960s and 70s when

00:07:50.760 nobody was looking. The attention of the country was on Vietnam and civil rights and Woodstock,

00:07:58.340 and there was this very permissive atmosphere, culture that was very tolerant of sexual

00:08:06.500 experimentation and, you know, Woodstock hippies and all that. So they slipped it in under Ronald

00:08:12.680 Reagan's nose. In many ways, the no-fault divorce system simply codified what was already being 1.00

00:08:18.020 practiced in the family courts and in the welfare agencies for decades. But this is what it does.

00:08:24.620 The welfare system extended this throughout the family, the poor communities, especially the

00:08:30.560 African-American community. They instituted things like false accusations of child abuse, 0.99

00:08:36.740 false accusations of domestic violence, and of course, child support enforcement. All of these

00:08:41.840 were very anti-male. All of these were very unconstitutional in many ways. And they implemented 1.00

00:08:48.500 these, they imposed these on poor families, especially poor black men. And from the 1970s

00:08:55.580 Well, earlier, but really the floodgates opened in the 1970s with the no-fault divorce laws.

00:09:02.380 And the whole welfare machinery went from being imposed on poor black men to being imposed on men and families generally, middle class as well.

00:09:11.800 And so that's what's really done it, is the combination of radical feminism, the welfare state, and the huge increasing power of the judiciary throughout our society, but especially starting with the family courts. 1.00

00:09:25.580 and how has the right allowed this to happen like right under their noses you know what i mean like

00:09:31.980 they've been because that was something baffling to me was i would hear um conservatives talk about

00:09:39.020 traditionalism and i would listen to the daily wire and trad cons but i i once i started looking

00:09:45.500 into like why men weren't getting married anymore i um it baffled me that they're not talking about

00:09:52.540 this because this seems like uh like for what they want like the utopia that they want it would seem

00:09:59.900 like that's a pretty big piece you know stop paying the women to leave so how does that happen

00:10:05.500 why don't they talk about this well it's a very good question that's exactly the question i answer

00:10:10.540 in my in my most recent book because when i wrote my my first book taken into custody on the divorce

00:10:15.260 system i was frustrated and baffled and i thought i could appeal to the conservatives and they'd

00:10:20.060 listen to me. And so I wrote another book called The New Politics of Sex, in which I tried to show

00:10:28.060 that it wasn't just divorce. It was the whole panoply of issues that had been taken over by

00:10:33.420 the sexual radicals, especially the feminists. And still, I thought the conservatives, oh, sure,

00:10:37.980 they'll listen to me now. But they just keep their lips tight. And so the third book, the most

00:10:45.180 recent one, is tries to explain the politics of the last five years, when basically since the

00:10:50.280 COVID crisis, I argue the left has basically staged a coup d'etat and taken over the United

00:10:56.080 States. And they did it by they got their foot in the door by the through the divorce and the

00:11:02.000 welfare machinery. I would say it's two things. One is that the left, as I said before, is

00:11:07.540 innovative, that the sexual ideology is a new form of political radicalism that the right doesn't

00:11:14.440 understand. It's not exactly called cultural Marxism, but

00:11:18.680 it's not, it's not the same as Marxism. It's different. It's

00:11:21.760 it's a, it builds on Marxism, but it departs from it in

00:11:24.940 fundamental ways. So the one it's a combination of the left

00:11:28.780 innovating in its ideology, ideological innovation by the

00:11:33.260 left. And secondly, the right not understanding those

00:11:36.520 innovations, not knowing how to oppose it, trying to shoehorn

00:11:40.900 all into categories they know, trying to refight the Cold War and refight the politics of the 60s

00:11:47.460 and 70s and denial, basically denying that this is a new ideology that they don't know. And

00:11:56.580 feminist ideology, sexual ideology is very innovative. It is disarming. I've written 0.79

00:12:01.460 three books on it and I find it very different. I learn new things all the time. It's not easy

00:12:08.580 to understand its implications. It insinuates itself into corners of our society and changes

00:12:16.540 them fundamentally in ways that are not obvious. And the conservatives don't understand this.

00:12:22.280 They want to, as I say, shoehorn this into the categories they know. They call it cultural

00:12:28.580 Marxism, and they want to refight the 60s politics. But it's innovative. And the other

00:12:36.600 thing about sexual ideology, feminism, is it emasculates. It emasculates, it neuters its own 1.00

00:12:43.480 opposition. It emasculates men. And if you look at the conservatives, the men who run the organized

00:12:53.860 conservative movement, the interest groups, the think tanks, the Republican Party, all of these

00:13:00.440 men, they're very diffident. The late Phyllis Schlafly, who was a great crusader, who defeated

00:13:09.020 the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. And I worked with her a bit. And she was one of the

00:13:15.520 10 most influential women of the 20th century or something. But the words that always came out of

00:13:20.800 her lips when she was talking about Republican men and conservative men, professionals, was 0.96

00:13:26.480 cowards she called them cowards yeah and um she was right she was right well even um 0.95

00:13:36.400 because sometimes i'm like you guys go on whatever podcast i don't understand how you 0.81

00:13:41.360 you see what's going on i know whatever podcast is like um obviously they're going to be a little

00:13:46.400 bit more theatrical do you know what that show is do you know whatever oh no sorry i forgot so

00:13:52.880 So whatever is like a podcast where they bring on like college women to argue with basically 1.00

00:13:57.960 and debate.

00:13:58.640 I used to do a show similar like a year or two ago where you like bring on people off

00:14:03.500 the street and like women off the street and debate them. 1.00

00:14:06.900 And you can see like it for example in young women the increase in like sex workers.

00:14:13.780 Like that's something that's exploded in the last five years where if you asked me 10 years

00:14:18.160 ago I did not know a single sex worker.

00:14:20.880 but when you move into the city it's really not abnormal to meet only fans models to meet like

00:14:26.260 like that's not and um i i had a i still would have a hard time when i argue with conservatives

00:14:33.440 getting them to acknowledge this is like a reality because it makes women look bad like i had a 1.00

00:14:39.000 private investigator on the show and he said like attractive women it's probably like three in ten 1.00

00:14:45.020 or four in ten i've done some sort of sex work and like that's that's pretty unflattering but

00:14:49.920 whenever I bring up things like that, it's tough to even get conservatives to admit it if it makes

00:14:55.640 women look bad. You know, the conservatives seem determined to make women out to be victims 0.98

00:15:02.280 and to, you know, to absolve them from any kind of responsibility, to really take, to infantilize

00:15:08.580 women and absolve them from any responsibility for their actions. This is one of the ones, 1.00

00:15:14.020 one of the ways that, as long as you mentioned sex workers, this is one of the ways that feminism 1.00

00:15:19.360 insinuates itself, wheedles its way into our society.

00:15:23.360 I talk about this in my book, The New Politics of Sex.

00:15:27.360 You know, the feminists push very hard for the legalization of 1.00

00:15:31.360 prostitution, sex work, what they call that. But they also

00:15:35.360 push very hard. They were also the ones that invented this

00:15:39.360 narrative of human trafficking, right? So human trafficking is bad.

00:15:43.360 Human trafficking is a crime, even though most human trafficking is simply

00:15:47.360 sensual prostitution by far, overwhelmingly. That's most of what it is. But human trafficking

00:15:54.160 is criminal and bad, but sex work is okay, and that's good. And so basically what it is,

00:16:03.260 is they want to create a system in which only men are prosecuted for prostitution, right? In which

00:16:10.060 the women are not prosecuted for selling sex, only the men are prosecuted for buying the sex. 0.86

00:16:17.360 So it's it's a it's one of these ways that the feminists have engineered injustices, flagrant injustices in the legal system, much like they've done with, you know, with no fault divorce and with accusations of domestic violence, child abuse and so forth. 1.00

00:16:33.920 yeah that's what I noticed was I couldn't believe um how many women were lying of abuse because what 1.00

00:16:41.940 happened was I was interviewing women in England and when someone said they were abused by their

00:16:46.880 ex-boyfriend I I just you know when someone tells you a sad story you sort of believe it

00:16:51.560 until someone in my chat one day told me to ask like two or three questions like ask them

00:16:56.860 specifically what happened and it would probably be every other show a woman said she was abused 1.00

00:17:03.740 or raped and if i asked them three questions 85 of their stories would fall apart or they wouldn't

00:17:11.900 talk about how hate they hit them first or they would sort of switch it it wasn't abuse it was

00:17:17.040 emotional abuse why do we have such a widespread um problem of false accusations in this country

00:17:27.720 like how did we get here where you know women have an awkward hookup and sometimes i thought 0.94

00:17:32.740 they really believed they were assaulted at some points. Right. Well, again, several things. I think

00:17:40.060 one of them is the use of language. This term abuse, it's very ambiguous. Does abuse mean

00:17:46.360 physical violence? Does it mean criminal violence? Or does it simply mean shouting or yelling or

00:17:52.620 calling insults or whatever? And if you look at the domestic violence statutes, which are

00:17:58.080 codified in the Justice Department, the U.S. Justice Department, the Home Office in Britain.

00:18:04.920 They include things like insults and so-called psychological violence and economic violence

00:18:12.480 and all these things which have no meaning. And this is one of the ways in which feminism has 1.00

00:18:18.060 perverted the criminal justice system, because it's a cardinal principle of sound criminal law,

00:18:24.660 that the law has to be precise. The law has to be exact. A jury or a judge has to know why they are

00:18:31.520 being asked to put someone in behind bars. And if they're being told that there is abuse,

00:18:38.280 what does that mean? And, you know, they started out with, you know, sexual harassment and then

00:18:43.460 sexual harassment became sexual abuse. And then sexual abuse became sexual misconduct and sexual

00:18:49.200 misconduct became sexual violence. And, you know, this is, you don't know at what point you're

00:18:54.000 really talking about physical assault. So it's debased the language, debased the legal terminology,

00:19:00.980 and therefore it's debased the legal system. Now, your question about where it came from,

00:19:06.220 I think chronologically, I think, again, much of this comes from the divorce system,

00:19:10.320 because one of the main incentives for these false accusations does come from custody cases,

00:19:16.300 child custody. If you look back in time, these false accusations or questionable accusations

00:19:22.180 of child abuse was one of the earliest ones. I can cite you scholars going back to the 80s

00:19:28.060 and even earlier who are sounding the alarm about false accusations of child abuse.

00:19:34.940 And this didn't work too well because they found that the child abuse, in many cases,

00:19:39.620 the abuser of children turned out to be the mother, especially the single mothers, 0.97

00:19:42.680 overwhelmingly. So that shifted. They stopped using child abuse. They started using domestic

00:19:47.300 violence, because that was a way of shifting the accusation from the family generally to the

00:19:52.780 specifically to the father, the male. But child custody was the big concrete incentive, I think,

00:20:00.980 that started this. And from there, you got to false accusations, of course, of rape. And of

00:20:06.300 course, that's where the Me Too movement is, because they found it was so effective against

00:20:11.260 fathers in custody cases, that why not use it against Supreme Court nominees? Why not use it

00:20:18.400 against Donald Trump? Is that our side or his? Oh, okay. Oh, guys. While he, I'll read the chat

00:20:38.340 while he reconnects because i think you guys can still see me right we'll bring him back just i

00:20:45.060 think he got caught okay so remember guys if you want your chat read for sure you go to the network

00:20:51.380 page the audacitynetwork.com the links in the description you get the monthly or yearly plan

00:20:58.020 and then you get your comments read the whole year what a time to be can you believe it amazing

00:21:03.620 all right so Yaakov says it's not enough to know something and means to reverse the problem must

00:21:11.180 be identified to make the change so what must happen okay where did he go

00:21:18.100 it's okay it's all right it happens sometimes let me look at the chat and see if you guys

00:21:24.520 have any questions for him let me know um oh you're back hello okay why i don't know how much

00:21:34.440 you heard of what i was saying but i i was i was just pointing out that your your your question

00:21:40.080 about where did these accusations came from i think they began very much in family court um and

00:21:45.420 they spread out from there into the political sphere you know if you can if you can get custody

00:21:49.880 from fathers, you can, why not, why not disable, why not neuter Donald Trump and your political

00:21:55.280 opponents? And I think that's where this is, this is why my argument of my latest book is

00:22:00.200 that the poison, the legal poison that has come out, that the family courts have spread is now

00:22:07.040 poisoning our entire, our entire judicial and political system, as I predicted it would in

00:22:12.620 my earlier books would you say that the police back up um false accusations like would you say

00:22:21.780 a large percentage of men in jail for like rape and abuse are in because i know family court is

00:22:27.820 different than criminal court so i'm curious if you think it affected criminal court as well

00:22:32.740 oh i think it has i don't think there's any doubt about that uh i cite books

00:22:40.640 I spoke in my previous college

00:22:48.660 high-sight studies

00:22:53.380 Paul Craig Roberts

00:22:56.220 investigated the criminal courts

00:23:01.660 I hope you can hear me

00:23:07.480 I'm told my internet connection is unstable

00:23:09.640 um they they've looked into these criminal courts especially comes to low-income rt defendants

00:23:15.240 accused of crime and rape of murder and rape uh that the um there's big injustice so it's it's

00:23:22.840 uh no there's well at the low income levels okay because essentially if they don't have money for

00:23:29.600 a lawyer then like they're kind of screwed is that what you're saying

00:23:33.560 well that's part of it yeah there's uh there's the um you know the the the public defenders are

00:23:43.120 just you know overwhelmed they can't they can't properly defend their clients and if you look at

00:23:47.680 the i mean you can see videos of of the way these courts operate there's assembly line justice uh

00:23:53.080 you know uh not not necessarily in murder trials or rape trials but if you look at things like

00:23:58.580 again, the family court, things like domestic violence or child support cases. You've got

00:24:06.220 queues of men lining up. Each case takes about a minute or two. People call it assembly line

00:24:11.860 justice, and that's basically what it is. I mean, there's no weighing of evidence. There's no due

00:24:17.320 process of law. They just queue up and wait for the judge to read out a formulaic sentence,

00:24:22.720 So basically a robotic judge listening to a robotic prosecutor, issuing boilerplate sentences, you know, one after the next.

00:24:33.280 And that's what our justice system has become.

00:24:35.960 And family courts had a big, big role in that.

00:24:38.740 Big role.

00:24:40.040 And do you think, do you foresee any change with the new administration?

00:24:44.600 I think people are very hopeful now that Trump is taking office.

00:24:48.300 um but for me i'll just tell you my my opinion i have a hard time believing

00:24:54.720 it'll change just because there's so much um money involved like they're they're divorce lawyers

00:25:03.820 there's politicians involved you know like abolishing something like title 4d

00:25:09.940 i i i think that's gonna be tough but i'm curious if you have a different opinion with the new

00:25:17.180 administration coming in? Yeah, well, this is a very good question. I think I think if we had

00:25:24.440 Kamala Harris administration, it would get worse. And being herself a prosecutor, I think she 1.00

00:25:31.800 personifies the the the abuses and the injustices that I just described a moment ago. And this is

00:25:39.740 a this is a trend throughout the English speaking world. If you look at not just left wingers like

00:25:44.580 Kamala Harris, but right-wingers like Josh Hawley in the Senate, who wrote this book

00:25:49.380 about, you know, urging, scolding men for not getting married, his career path was almost

00:25:54.260 exactly the same, you know, going from prosecutor to attorney general to, you know, what is

00:26:01.200 a governor or senator or whatever.

00:26:03.560 The idea that prosecutors should be the career path for politicians is very disturbing.

00:26:09.780 You can see it's spreading to the UK now.

00:26:11.280 Keir Starmer, the new prime minister in Britain, is a prosecutor, a career prosecutor, very much

00:26:18.400 similar to Kamala Harris. So that would have been, I think, worse. But as far as the Trump

00:26:27.380 administration, I'm not real hopeful by the new appointments. I'm a little disappointed by them.

00:26:35.020 I haven't seen any indication that he wants to take on justice reform generally, in general,

00:26:42.600 let alone, you know, family court or family law, justice in particular, even though he himself was,

00:26:49.480 of course, Trump and his associates have been victims of these lawfare operations,

00:26:53.420 which again, very much began in family courts. I'm a little disturbed, for example,

00:26:58.200 I'm disturbed by someone like Gabbard, Tulsi Gabbard. A lot of people, MAGA Republicans,

00:27:06.860 Trump Republicans, really admire her. And I can understand why in some ways, but I was very

00:27:12.380 disappointed in some of the statements she made about the lawfare operations. I know she's an

00:27:17.920 attorney herself, and I thought her statements were designed more to cover up, to cover up more

00:27:24.540 than that they revealed. For example, one of the cliches that you used to hear during the lawfare

00:27:28.860 operations, you know, when they were going after Trump for, you know, this trivial, trivial offenses

00:27:34.400 and trying to get him out of the race by prosecuting him. Tulsi Gabbard and others would

00:27:39.860 say, well, if they can do this to Donald Trump, then after that, they'll be able to do it to

00:27:43.880 ordinary Americans. Okay, that's, that was the, that was the narrative. So we shouldn't allow 1.00

00:27:49.140 this. If they can do it to Donald Trump, they can do it to any of us. No, no, that's, that sounds

00:27:53.980 good. It's a good principle, but it's not. We're way past that. The point of the lesson to be

00:27:59.600 drawn from the lawfare operations, they did it to Donald Trump and his associates because they

00:28:04.520 were already doing it to ordinary Americans. In other words, they've been practicing on

00:28:10.260 defenseless Americans in private, again, secret courts, family courts, and I know there's probate 1.00

00:28:16.560 courts, you name it. They've been practicing these lawfare, these highly unjust legal proceedings

00:28:23.820 against ordinary American citizens.

00:28:26.200 They've been practicing it for decades.

00:28:27.580 They've honed the tools, the weapons,

00:28:30.460 down to a fine art.

00:28:33.400 And so now they're able to use them

00:28:34.860 not only against the divorced dad

00:28:37.300 and the low-income black father

00:28:42.680 from the south side of Chicago.

00:28:45.400 Now they can use it against the big fish

00:28:47.200 like politicians like Donald Trump.

00:28:50.300 So I was disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard

00:28:52.920 And I thought she was, you know, not concerned with exposing or bringing to light the legal abuses, but instead she was concerned with covering them up.

00:29:06.720 And I think many people, even very well-informed commentators, fail to understand just how crooked and corrupt the American judiciary is.

00:29:16.520 I think of all of our institutional structural problems in the United States, I think the most serious sector of corruption is the judiciary.

00:29:26.580 I think it's more important than the deep state, the bureaucrats and the functionaries and so forth.

00:29:32.380 The judiciary is really the place where injustice is systematically doled out to American citizens and increasingly to opposition political figures.

00:29:45.900 And what do you mean by, because family court is separate from criminal court, right? Do I

00:29:52.240 understand that correctly? Right. So when you say to the judiciary, are you referring just to family

00:29:58.580 court or like, what are you referring to? I'm referring to the whole thing, the entire

00:30:03.140 American court system, state, local, state, and federal, of which the family courts are a part,

00:30:10.080 criminal courts are a part, the federal courts are a part. But I believe that the poison,

00:30:14.940 the corruption, I think, is largely coming from the bottom, not from the head, but from the tail,

00:30:20.340 because these courts are secret. They violate every principle of the common law. In my earlier

00:30:27.500 book, Taken into Custody, I go down the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution generally,

00:30:33.160 and I show that virtually every article of the Bill of Rights is routinely, systematically

00:30:38.320 violated by the family courts, as well as other protections in the Constitution.

00:30:43.800 So these courts are thoroughly corrupt. They have no reference whatsoever. They violate basic principles like secret justice. Again, you know, it's an old principle of the common law that justice has to be open. It has to be public. Justice must be seen to be done.

00:31:01.700 In other words, we must all be able to look at the courts and see that they are administering justice justly.

00:31:08.680 And if courts don't operate in secret, it's a formula for systematic injustice.

00:31:14.320 It's the gag orders, right?

00:31:16.280 Gag orders?

00:31:17.100 Absolutely.

00:31:17.480 Yeah.

00:31:17.960 There you go.

00:31:18.960 Because that's what I was, when I tried to interview, there were some pretty high profile people I got interested in the divorce documentary we're doing.

00:31:27.700 but the challenge was a lot of them were under gag orders and just didn't want to you know once a

00:31:34.740 guy's divorce is settled and they're done they don't really want to you know they just want to

00:31:38.840 move on with their life and so you know there was some pretty high profile people I couldn't get

00:31:44.820 even though they would have been open to it like I couldn't get interviews with them because of

00:31:49.420 is it just gag orders or are there other things too well that's that's bad enough but yeah there's

00:31:55.920 just general secrecy. But the gag orders are highly dishonest. I mean, they claim that the

00:32:01.480 gag orders and the secrecy of the family courts is to protect family privacy. But this is nonsense.

00:32:08.560 This is completely dishonest. It's not to protect family privacy. It's to provide a cloak for the

00:32:15.860 courts to invade family privacy with impunity, right? They can invade family privacy and none 0.88

00:32:22.480 of the rest of us know about it because of the gag orders. And this, too, was very disappointing

00:32:27.700 in Donald Trump because he was the object of a gag order. He was not allowed to defend himself,

00:32:34.300 to proclaim his innocence when these clearly bogus charges were leveled against him because

00:32:40.120 of this gag order. Well, why didn't he use that opportunity to proclaim, to question the whole

00:32:44.920 concept of gag orders? What right does any court have to issue gag orders to silence

00:32:51.600 American citizens to violate their First Amendment protections and to operate in the courts, 0.85

00:32:57.580 operate in secrecy. This is accepted in the most extraordinary circumstances. And yet these have

00:33:03.860 become routine. These courts are, yeah, there are other ways in which they are secret.

00:33:09.240 The press is regularly excluded from family courts. Even family members, other family members,

00:33:14.980 can be excluded from family courts simply on the say-so of a judge. So, you know, this concept of

00:33:21.400 secret courts, drag or gag orders. This is, you know, this is something that people like Donald

00:33:27.820 Trump and Tulsi Gabbard and the new attorney general, they should be, they should be shouting

00:33:34.240 from the rooftops on this. And they're just completely silent, I suspect, because most of

00:33:40.660 them are members of the bar associations. And the bar associations would have their scalp

00:33:45.400 if they start blowing the whistle.

00:33:50.480 Can you talk more about how family court violates the Bill of Rights?

00:33:57.040 Well, start with the First Amendment.

00:34:00.660 Again, the gag orders, we've covered that.

00:34:04.380 Violation of religion, they give orders to parents 1.00

00:34:06.720 that they cannot practice their religion with their own children.

00:34:10.100 They cannot take their children to court.

00:34:12.320 You know, that's one of them.

00:34:14.260 The Fourth Amendment is flagrantly violent.

00:34:16.500 The Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

00:34:19.680 I mean, the first thing they do is seize your children.

00:34:21.700 The first thing they do when a divorce is filed, what's the first thing they do?

00:34:25.740 They seize control of your children and throw the father out of the home.

00:34:29.440 I mean, that's the very first thing they do in a divorce proceeding is they remove the father.

00:34:34.900 And that's very revealing.

00:34:37.280 They say it's temporary.

00:34:38.680 Or we're just doing this temporarily, but it's never temporary.

00:34:41.900 It's permanent.

00:34:43.380 Once the father is removed from the home, once he's thrown out of his house, once he's separated

00:34:47.440 from his children, once his bank account was taken away, the burden of proof is on him to get it back

00:34:54.760 again. There's no burden of proof on the court for why they take away his children, why they take away

00:34:59.380 his, throw him out of his home, why they take away his, raid his bank account. He has to prove

00:35:06.100 why they should be given back again. So the fourth, and they ask him intrusive questions

00:35:11.320 about his relationship with his children he's interrogated behind closed doors his children

00:35:16.040 can be interrogated about their relationship uh in their home life and their relationship with their

00:35:21.320 their father and mother uh what is this if it isn't an unreasonable search and seizure of

00:35:26.200 interrogating family members about the legally innocent family members about the you know the

00:35:32.520 the privacy of their lives. So the for due process of law is completely disregarded by the family

00:35:49.100 courts. I mean, there's a presumption of guilt. Everyone who's been in family court knows that.

00:35:52.860 The very concept that legally innocent people can be hauled into court and have their lives

00:36:00.480 controlled by a court, when they haven't committed any illegal offense and they're not

00:36:08.900 suspected of committing any illegal offense, this violates a very old principle of the

00:36:14.340 common law.

00:36:24.320 And yet the devotion, if that principle were enforced, the divorce courts would be out of 0.96

00:36:29.140 business, because the first thing they do is assume control over the private lives of legally

00:36:35.300 unimpeachable citizens. Citizens are suspected, convicted, and even suspected of no legal

00:36:42.640 wrongdoing, either criminal or civil. And how did they deal with this before? Before we had

00:36:48.080 this entire system, before family court, what happened to the children?

00:36:51.860 well at one time there was a presumption of father custody the presumption was that fathers

00:37:00.220 would have you know if the children were the property if you like of the father uh and the

00:37:05.940 fathers um were uh you know if there was a divorce uh the father would would get custody

00:37:11.560 um that was the assumption and that fathers a married father not not unwed fathers not sperm

00:37:18.500 owners, but legally married fathers were presumed to be the father of the child and were presumed

00:37:24.820 to have custody. Now, I'm not saying that was entirely just. I mean, if the father, I suppose,

00:37:30.120 was unfaithful or broke the marriage contract, then maybe he shouldn't necessarily get custody.

00:37:36.600 But the presumption was that the father would have custody. Now, when exactly that was eroded,

00:37:44.400 how I think it was a gradual process that took place over the course of the late 19th century

00:37:50.280 and throughout the 20th century, culminating in its codification with no-fault divorce.

00:37:55.320 But John Stuart Mill, the political philosopher, was writing in his essay of 1850, I believe,

00:38:02.500 that they are in law his children. And the law, you know, the divorce rate was, you know,

00:38:10.880 was extremely low. So, you know, it's something that happened gradually over the course, it was

00:38:16.400 about that time, of course, if the radical feminist movement began to be, began to be 0.99

00:38:21.880 militant. And divorce was one of the first planks in their platform from the very beginning,

00:38:28.580 the Seneca Falls Declaration back in 1848, and the English divorce, English feminist movement,

00:38:36.900 the Pankhursts and so forth, all of them, they've stuck. Divorce was part of the agenda from the 1.00

00:38:42.520 very beginning. Today, if you look in the global South, the feminists in the United Nations, 1.00

00:38:47.500 the feminists are pushing divorce on the global South, the same way they pushed it on the West. 1.00

00:38:53.320 And you hear nothing about this. We hear a lot about abortion. We hear a lot about, you know,

00:38:57.340 equal pay for it. We hear a lot about the other aspects, but we hear almost nothing

00:39:00.940 about divorce. And yet, I believe, and I believe this thoroughly, and I'm not the only one,

00:39:06.900 that the essential cornerstone of the feminist platform, the feminist agenda, is divorce. 0.85

00:39:13.620 They won that battle before they even started. The rest of feminism since 1969, 1.00

00:39:21.100 the decades, what is it, half century now, has been just a mopping up operation. They've just

00:39:25.780 been consolidating power because they won the battle in 1969 when they passed the first no-fault

00:39:32.360 divorce law in California. And that's the essence of feminist powers, is control over the 1.00

00:39:39.880 reproductive system. Yeah, and birth control. I mean, we're in 100% in control of who's born.

00:39:45.760 Men have no say. I think that's a big role. Yeah, my Catholic friends point this out, 1.00

00:39:50.360 and they're right. Of course, that's not a legal innovation necessarily, although legalizing it

00:39:54.860 was. But you're right, it's control. And this is what I believe why abortion is so important to 0.89

00:40:00.220 the left way out of proportion to what one would have thought is its you know its importance but

00:40:05.920 it's control over the reproductive system and uh as long as feminists control the reproductive 1.00

00:40:10.680 system you know it's the old uh like the old poem says the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand

00:40:15.780 that rules the world yeah it's crazy i went to um i was trying to do a video the video broke

00:40:23.360 so it like i didn't end up doing it but i went to this feminist um event in a women shouldn't 1.00

00:40:29.580 vote shirt it's pretty funny they were like spurging and um the one of the issues that they

00:40:37.600 talked about was women can't get abortions in certain countries still and one of their solutions 0.84

00:40:44.380 was to mail them the abortion pills to those countries and it was so crazy to me that they 0.86

00:40:51.680 want abortion so bad that they're willing to go to cultures that are different from theirs and 1.00

00:40:58.500 almost like force it into their culture and i was just thinking you guys are like college

00:41:05.300 you know white women in england what are you like why do you guys care so much 0.90

00:41:09.620 about you know women aborting their kids in other countries 1.00

00:41:15.300 no it is i know it is it is irrational it seems irrational to us uh but i think that's uh the way

00:41:21.380 to explain it is that is that larger process of controlling the reproductive system generally

00:41:26.740 which they really, really began and really, I think they won most of that battle when they passed,

00:41:34.960 when they codified the no-fault divorce laws in the 70s.

00:41:38.300 And it swept through the legislatures, the state legislatures in America, the parliaments of Europe, Western Europe.

00:41:46.720 They didn't know what they were passing.

00:41:48.500 They didn't understand.

00:41:49.240 Ronald Reagan didn't understand it.

00:41:50.640 The legislators, legislatures didn't understand it.

00:41:53.300 They were told it was, you know, divorced by mutual consent. You know, all these stories about, you know, phony narratives about, you know, inventing affairs and so forth. But it was a sleight of hand from the beginning. I mean, the feminists had drafted these laws. 1.00

00:42:11.320 If you look on the website of the National Association of Women Lawyers, they brag about this.

00:42:17.920 They were drafting these laws back in the 1940s, and they were just waiting for an opportunity to slip them through when nobody was looking.

00:42:26.100 And that's what they did in the 70s.

00:42:28.320 The National Association of Women Lawyers.

00:42:31.160 It says this on their website?

00:42:33.400 It's on their website.

00:42:34.680 Yeah, I could cite you somewhere.

00:42:36.080 I've got the citation.

00:42:36.980 I owe that to a historian named Judy Perico, by the way.

00:42:39.740 She discovered that.

00:42:40.920 Wow.

00:42:41.320 You have a couple of questions. So, guys, if you go to the Audacity Network, if you have any questions for him, you can submit them on the website. So Brian Dew wants to know, is there anything ordinary people can do to push back on the current corrupt family court system?

00:42:58.840 um well there's there's various reforms that you can do uh i outline that those in my earlier book

00:43:09.220 taken into custody but i i don't like to just issue wish lists that'll never get passed i have

00:43:15.660 all the things that i think would be perfect and um if you just implemented everything i like um

00:43:20.820 then uh everything would be okay so in my latest book i have a new approach to how to solve this

00:43:26.320 problem, and that is to harness the power of the marriage strike. You probably, I'm sure you're 0.98

00:43:32.220 aware of this, how men are, well, I've seen on your show, that men are refusing to marry when

00:43:38.200 they find out what's going on in family court. They're simply not marrying because it's just

00:43:42.720 not worth it. There's a good book on this. Helen Smith wrote a book on this about 10 years ago

00:43:47.260 called Men on Strike, and she outlines, it had been going on for at least a decade before that,

00:43:54.860 So it's been going on for a good 20 or 30 years of men refusing to marry because they know what's going on, you know, because they know the injustices, what can happen to them, how they can be destroyed by the family court.

00:44:06.540 Well, my argument is that this provides enormous leverage, like any strike.

00:44:13.400 It shouldn't be an end in itself.

00:44:15.640 It shouldn't be just indefinite.

00:44:17.140 I mean, men, I think men, most men want to marry.

00:44:19.880 They want to have children.

00:44:21.020 Most people want to have family lives.

00:44:24.340 So I don't approve of marriage as a marriage strike, marriage boycott, as a lifestyle choice for its own sake indefinitely.

00:44:35.320 But I think it provides enormous leverage for men and for women to start demanding reform of the laws.

00:44:44.000 And if you look at the women, the women, too, are complaining that men won't marry them, men aren't getting married, men don't love them, because of the divorce laws.

00:44:55.100 So I think we need to say to the women and to the men, look, the reason you can't get married is because of these ridiculous laws. 0.99

00:45:03.480 All you have to do is change the laws.

00:45:05.760 And I know that politicians are stubborn.

00:45:07.440 They shut up about it.

00:45:09.120 They won't deal with it. 0.99

00:45:10.180 They're feckless. 1.00

00:45:11.440 They're cowardly. 0.99

00:45:12.880 But if you mobilize and if you get the women mobilized, too, I think that this marriage strike furnishes enormous leverage to say to the to the to the politicians, to the churches, churches, especially another useless, feckless sector of society that complains about that men won't marry, but won't do anything about it. 0.96

00:45:37.020 If you want men to marry, just change the laws. Change the divorce laws. Get rid of these family courts with their injustices. And restore a just system of equitable divorce. And men will marry again. And you can have children, but you can't have it both ways.

00:46:00.520 how should men conduct themselves on a daily basis given all this is a question from tony

00:46:08.260 yeah that's a good question um i wrote i wrote a book a few years ago recently um not too long ago

00:46:16.400 about a gentleman's guide an old it's an old genre of uh you know books about manuals guidebooks for

00:46:22.780 how to be a gentleman these go back to the renaissance they've been around even the middle

00:46:26.800 ages. And I wrote one. So I began to think about that kind of thing. How do you how do you? How

00:46:34.320 should men do this? Um, I think men, you know, there's a lot of talk about men needing to be

00:46:41.040 more manly, more, you know, self-reliant, more. And I agree with that. I think that we've all

00:46:47.760 been feminized. I see it in myself. We've all been neutered in some ways by by feminism, 0.90

00:46:55.460 and by political correctness.

00:46:57.680 Men need to be, you know, 1.00

00:46:59.780 I think men need to be not be afraid of women.

00:47:02.200 There's no reason for them to be afraid of women.

00:47:04.560 They have nothing to lose nowadays,

00:47:06.860 especially if they're not going to marry them anyway.

00:47:09.700 So I'd like to see maybe more of the tough,

00:47:11.600 maybe the tough guy image I prefer

00:47:13.100 is not so much John Wayne and Clint Eastwood

00:47:15.980 so much as, you know, Humphrey Bogart,

00:47:18.080 who never, who refused to take nonsense from women 0.93

00:47:21.820 in some of his movies like Lauren Bacall.

00:47:23.700 Well, I think, you know, there has to be a code of conduct among men to adopt, you know, codes of manliness, codes of gentlemanly behavior.

00:47:38.480 But that doesn't mean, well, I'm sure your listeners know what gynocentrism is, and it doesn't mean pandering to women, and it doesn't mean cheap, false chivalry.

00:47:48.500 So, you know, how to strike that balance is very difficult to say, but I do talk about that in my book.

00:47:56.180 It's called A Gentleman's Guide to Sex, to Manage Sex and Ruling the World. 0.85

00:48:03.420 Another one was, if you had to picture society in a hundred years, that's a good question.

00:48:09.560 If you had to picture society in a hundred years from now, what do you see happening to relationships between men and women?

00:48:18.500 Well, the current situation is unsustainable. You cannot have no society, I think, that I know of has ever existed without marriage. I mean, this idea that, you know, you can have cohabitation, you can have, you know, men and both men and women refusing to marry, refusing to have children.

00:48:39.700 it's not sustainable. Either our civilization will be, will decline, will be overrun by stronger 1.00

00:48:47.760 civilizations like the Muslims, who still value marriage to the extent that even they do. 0.95

00:48:54.900 But, I mean, we're seeing the decline of the West already. And I, so either we clean this up,

00:49:00.560 either we take control of this, or we, or, you know, it's lights out for the Western world.

00:49:07.860 Let me just add, though, one thing that I kind of glossed over here.

00:49:12.860 Men have also—the other thing I criticize men for, especially men's rights, some men's rights activists and some MGTOW, some men's marriage strikers, is this idea of renouncing marriage altogether and this idea that marriage is obsolete marriage.

00:49:29.780 I don't think that's true.

00:49:31.280 I don't think it can be true.

00:49:32.400 I've never seen—there's never been a civilization without it.

00:49:36.020 I don't think a civilization can exist without it.

00:49:39.560 But even more than that is that marriage exists.

00:49:43.840 Marriage and fatherhood are inseparable.

00:49:46.840 Marriage, people talk about this a lot.

00:49:48.660 What is the purpose of marriage?

00:49:49.740 Why does marriage exist? 1.00

00:49:51.140 You know, in conservatives a few years ago,

00:49:52.780 the traditional conservatives were always up,

00:49:55.760 as you know, they were always preaching

00:49:57.300 about what a wonderful thing marriage was.

00:49:59.480 And their main opponents in that was same-sex marriage

00:50:02.240 and the homosexuals and so forth. 0.91

00:50:04.520 and they were, you know, singing the praises of what a wonderful thing in marriage.

00:50:08.400 So they said marriage is for reproduction, marriage is for having children, for strong families.

00:50:14.720 But they never quite got it right.

00:50:16.780 As usual, the trad columns were more romantic than they were accurate.

00:50:20.580 The purpose of marriage is fatherhood.

00:50:23.380 The purpose of marriage is fatherhood.

00:50:26.200 And that's why fathers, more than anyone, have a stake in the perpetuation and the enforcement.

00:50:33.900 enforcement, the enforcement of the marriage contract. They have to do this. They cannot

00:50:38.400 renounce marriage. They cannot live in, you know, cohabitation or without women, without children, 0.95

00:50:44.500 without families. It is up to the men to champion and enforce the marriage contract. And if you look 0.81

00:50:50.940 at this, this is why the marriage contract exists. After all, the bond between a mother and her

00:50:56.800 children is biological. Everyone knows who the mother of a child is. You can't avoid it, right? 0.93

00:51:03.540 So the biological link is, you know, is clear.

00:51:09.440 The bond between a father and his children is not biological.

00:51:12.900 It is the important bond, at least, is social and socially constructed by marriage, by marriage, not by sperm tests, but by marriage.

00:51:22.740 In the English common law, under what was known as Lord Mansfield's rule, the father of a child was the man who is married to the mother, not the sperm donor,

00:51:31.560 not the biological contributor, but the man married to the mother. And the purpose of this

00:51:38.760 was to preserve marriages against the wife's infidelity. The father had a choice. The man

00:51:46.180 had a choice. If his wife was pregnant and he knew it wasn't his, he could either divorce her 0.99

00:51:51.420 or he could accept the child as his own. And the child would be presumed to be his own under the

00:51:58.180 law, and the sperm donor, the interloper, would have no rights whatsoever to the child.

00:52:04.180 And this was, and what this showed was the inseparability of marriage and fatherhood.

00:52:12.180 And it was the same in the Napoleonic Code.

00:52:14.060 It's the same in other legal systems as well.

00:52:17.760 So it's the purpose, the bottom line, the purpose of marriage is fatherhood.

00:52:22.060 And if you look back a few years to the last couple of presidential administrations, the Bush administration started all these marriage.

00:52:31.400 Sorry, it was the Clintons started this.

00:52:33.280 The Clinton administration, who first perceived this fatherhood crisis, they started these programs to so-called restore fatherhood.

00:52:42.620 And they were going to restore fatherhood and, you know, get fathers in touch with their children.

00:52:48.340 And they never said how they were going to restore fatherhood, but they were going to restore fatherhood.

00:52:53.040 And they never did anything.

00:52:55.200 It turns out really all restoring fatherhood met with some psychotherapy, mostly feminist psychotherapy, coupled with increased child support enforcement.

00:53:03.560 So the Clinton administration was completely disingenuous.

00:53:07.040 Their programs completely failed.

00:53:08.880 It didn't do anything about the fatherlessness crisis.

00:53:12.180 Then the Bush administration came along.

00:53:13.920 And they basically took the same programs and they relabeled them as marriage promotion.

00:53:19.380 We're going to promote marriage.

00:53:21.260 It was exactly the same programs.

00:53:22.860 They didn't change a thing.

00:53:25.060 And the content was the same.

00:53:28.720 It was feminist psychotherapy coupled with increased child support enforcement. 0.99

00:53:34.200 So it didn't do anything to restore marriage, to increase the marriage rate, to restore families.

00:53:40.080 And both of the programs were, you know, were abysmal failures.

00:53:45.460 But the point is that they both could interchangeably talk about marriage and fatherhood.

00:53:52.240 That's the grain of truth in this, is that they are inseparable.

00:53:55.760 And that's why fathers have to be the champions.

00:54:01.320 And I think the men's rights activists and red pillars and all this, I don't think they can run away from this. 0.97

00:54:08.640 i don't think they can accept um i think a society of cohabitation and uh and and you know

00:54:17.120 lack of families so i think what they would say though is they wouldn't see a difference between

00:54:23.100 a girlfriend and a wife in 2024 and i think like a collective experience of them is that once the

00:54:30.600 woman knows that you can't leave that they just start getting fat they start uh you know being 0.99

00:54:36.620 very quarrelsome. And like, I know one guy, he went to my gym in London. He, he waited 10 years

00:54:42.920 to marry his girlfriend. She divorced him within a year after they got married. It's like the same 0.89

00:54:48.220 guy, you know, you know what I mean? And I think that's like, I think that's why they say that is

00:54:53.860 because once women get the leverage, they're just not too good with it. Well, they're correct about 1.00

00:55:00.260 that. They're right. The marriage contract does not afford fathers any rights. The man doesn't 0.98

00:55:08.380 have any rights if he's married and doesn't have any rights if he's unmarried. But my point is that

00:55:14.640 I think the only way to rectify that is for the father. It should be that way. Marriage should

00:55:21.980 confer parental rights. If you really want to restore marriage, if you really want to, 0.60

00:55:26.240 If the tradcoms really want to reinforce marriage against the homosexuals and against others, the way to do it is to is to is to enforce the marriage contract so that a man knows if he marries and plays by the rules, he will have absolute inviolable rights to his children. 0.88

00:55:46.200 In other words, if he marries and has a family, you cannot take away his children.

00:55:51.760 You cannot interfere with his relationship with his children.

00:55:54.760 As long as he keeps his nose clean, he doesn't, you know, he's not unfaithful.

00:55:57.720 He doesn't deserve, he doesn't, you know, there's certain grounds for marriage, certain grounds for divorce.

00:56:02.660 As long as he doesn't transgress those grounds and he knows it, then his rights to his children are ironclad and inviolable.

00:56:11.060 And once that's the case, then, you know, then marriage will be restored.

00:56:16.700 Fathers will, men will marry. 0.99

00:56:18.600 We'll have the birthright will go up.

00:56:20.820 I mean, it's not rocket science.

00:56:23.740 It could be done, but I don't see any alternative.

00:56:26.860 I don't think prenuptial agreements can substitute for that because they're not, they're not enforceable in court when it comes to child custody.

00:56:34.680 I don't think I'm pretty sure about that.

00:56:37.600 So, and it shouldn't have to be prenuptial agreements.

00:56:40.740 It should be ironclad rules in the law. 0.56

00:56:42.940 Now, the grounds can vary according to jurisdiction.

00:56:45.520 They might vary a little bit here and there.

00:56:47.940 But the basic is, you know what the rules are.

00:56:50.680 You marry according, you play by the rules.

00:56:52.980 You don't transgress them.

00:56:54.360 And you have the rights, your rights to your children are inviolable, are guaranteed by the courts.

00:57:00.540 So what would happen in that situation if the, because I just know how they're going to hear this, right?

00:57:08.820 and i i'm thinking they would not want to be with a woman that doesn't want to be there

00:57:14.420 and so if because i don't know when a woman doesn't want to be there sometimes she can make 1.00

00:57:20.020 a man's life a living hell and so what would happen in situations like that where the woman is 0.58

00:57:26.740 hell-bent on leaving would she give up the right to her children or how would that work okay that's 1.00

00:57:31.620 how it works she would leave she would leave with the clothes on her back and you know this i suppose

00:57:37.380 was the same with a man. If she doesn't have grounds, if there's no legal transgression on

00:57:43.420 the man's part, then the courts have no right to interfere with his children. And you don't need a

00:57:50.240 law for this. You simply need to enforce the basic principles of the common law, that if a citizen,

00:57:56.420 any citizen, is legally innocent of any legal transgression, then you don't have a right to 0.51

00:58:01.300 interfere with his private life. So as long as you had the children within wedlock, as long as you

00:58:07.160 obey the laws of marriage in your jurisdiction, the courts can interfere. If she wants to leave, 0.90

00:58:13.140 she knows where the door is. I suspect that most women would not leave. I suspect they would make 1.00

00:58:19.920 accommodation the way our grandmothers and great-grandmothers did in these circumstances.

00:58:24.720 When divorce was difficult, you learned to live together. You made accommodations. You made

00:58:31.400 compromises. And I think the amount of love and devotion and loyalty was much greater in those

00:58:37.420 days. I'm not one of these nostalgics for the good old days. But I think in that respect,

00:58:44.440 if you can't leave, you learn. You learn to get along.

00:58:50.980 Yaakov has another comment. It says,

00:58:53.440 is not what he is saying fully contradictive. You cannot beat the current system. It must be

00:58:59.900 undone before marriage can be viewed as anything reasonable. Do you think that's true?

00:59:07.200 Well, I think a lot of this has to be dismantled. I mean, a lot of this is negative. The problem is

00:59:12.440 mostly negative. I mean, there's no reason for family courts to exist, okay? Specialized courts

00:59:18.940 of any kind are a prescription for disaster and for injustice. They're a formula for injustice.

00:59:25.000 The great English jurist A.V. Dicey said that the rule of law is only obtained, is only achieved in the ordinary courts of the land, the ordinary laws and the ordinary courts.

00:59:38.920 Whenever you create special courts, specialized courts to deal with a special problem, you can be pretty sure the courts are going to destroy what it is they're supposed to be administered.

00:59:48.760 There's no need for family courts.

00:59:51.220 People who break law, marriage has to be a legal contract.

00:59:55.260 If you break the legal contract, there are civil courts for dealing with the party that breaks the contract.

01:00:02.100 And these courts are just completely lawless, and they need to be put out of business.

01:00:06.700 I don't see any justification for specialized family courts.

01:00:13.740 And I would add about the welfare agencies, too.

01:00:16.540 much of this chicanery and much of the evil machinery of this uh began with we inflicted 1.00

01:00:21.820 it first on the poor and then it spread to the middle class so i think you know the welfare state

01:00:26.780 also needs to be you know i don't think there's any justification the welfare state doesn't solve

01:00:33.180 poverty it perpetuates poverty um just quick is there are you tapping the microphone or something

01:00:40.300 I hear it yeah I don't it's okay I was just making sure it was your end and not mine um I wanted to

01:00:46.560 read one of your tweets to you and I wanted I was hoping you could explain it a little bit further

01:00:51.400 you said um I had a list of reasons why women join churches and one of them was that um they 1.00

01:00:59.480 like the flower dresses and the trends um two was the like I think the concerts I can't remember

01:01:06.820 exactly what i said but you said churches are catering more to women's preferences creating a 1.00

01:01:13.200 dynamic where men's roles in the family and society is often trivialized trivialized as

01:01:19.880 ornamental true spiritual leadership is not about empowering current and future fathers

01:01:25.180 not women well that's i yeah i think that's that's very true i i uh the churches have become 0.80

01:01:34.760 matriarchies. The pastors and priests have become, you know, wimps, simps. They, you know, 0.97

01:01:41.560 the power in many churches is the wife of the main, of the clergy. And the evidence for that, 0.68

01:01:48.480 the evidence for that is very plain. The evidence for that is their failure, their complete

01:01:51.960 fecklessness when it comes to standing up for divorce and for the wronged party in a marital 1.00

01:01:58.900 breakup or in a family crisis of any kind. And I mean, I think this has contributed more than

01:02:04.240 anything to the decline of the churches the decline of christianity the empty pews

01:02:09.120 is the failure of the churches to deal with it what how many of us uh how many people in in the

01:02:14.560 western world only go to church on important family occasions the most important of which

01:02:19.440 is when you get married right or when your children are baptized um this this is what

01:02:24.560 churches look to so you go to church you go to a nice you have a nice marriage ceremony lots of

01:02:28.640 flowers and bridesmaids and groom and, you know, grooms and everything. Everybody has a wonderful

01:02:35.100 time and everybody feels good. And then a couple of years later, there's, you know, there's a

01:02:39.280 divorce. And so the wronged party, the innocent party, typically the father, goes to the priest

01:02:45.700 and says, you know, you consecrated this marriage. What do I do now? And the priest or pastor

01:02:52.080 typically comes back and says, well, I'll pray for you. And, you know, maybe I'll help you find a

01:02:59.680 lawyer, too. No, no, no, no, this is not right. Okay, a church that's serious about the family,

01:03:05.000 a church that's serious about Christian values, what would a church in those circumstances do?

01:03:09.820 First thing they would do is they would demand the two parties come into the church,

01:03:13.500 and the church would sort it out. And they would knock their heads together and force them to

01:03:19.580 behave. The second thing the church would do is they would

01:03:22.680 demand standing in the legal case. And they would go into that

01:03:26.900 courtroom and say, Look, we consecrated this marriage. I, the

01:03:32.280 priest or pastor, married this couple under the rules of our

01:03:36.460 church, our congregation witnessed this. And you, the

01:03:41.400 judge have no right to break it up. Okay, this is what a church,

01:03:45.960 a really brave churchman would do. And this is what brave churchmen have done over the centuries.

01:03:51.700 If you look at some of the greatest episodes of Western history, is when brave churchmen

01:03:57.240 stand up to the civil magistrates, the civil authorities, take the bony finger at them and say,

01:04:04.200 you are encroaching on God's turf. John Fisher, Cardinal Monsenti, Richard Wurmbraut,

01:04:10.620 the great martyrs of the Western churches. And I'm talking about Orthodox and Catholic and

01:04:17.700 Protestant. You know, they are John Fisher, Thomas More, you name it. They stand up to the

01:04:27.000 civil authorities and say, you have no right to do this. You're violating God's law. This is what

01:04:32.040 the pastors and priests of the Western world should be doing in divorce cases. They should

01:04:36.940 go into the courtrooms, and they should demand standing to be heard. And they should say,

01:04:41.420 we consecrated this covenant, you the civil authorities have no right to tear it up. And,

01:04:46.940 you know, that's not a legal argument, but it is a moral argument. And it is one that I think gives

01:04:53.420 them. Well, I think it is one that gives them legal standing to be heard in a case in a courtroom

01:05:01.820 over this. And that's what they would be doing. But they don't do this because they're, you know,

01:05:05.900 they're and if they if she leaves basically then she gives up the rights to her children 1.00

01:05:12.460 like that's the if she leaves without grounds yeah like because she's because she's great

01:05:16.780 because she's breaking the legal contract she's breaking the legal i mean i shouldn't say that 0.95

01:05:23.020 the the least intrusive measure for the civil authority for the state for the government

01:05:28.300 is to simply leave the children with the spouse that remains faithful to the marriage contract

01:05:34.380 If one spouse is faithful to the marriage contract and the other spouse is breaking it, either by infidelity or by desertion or by leaving, then the minimal state intervention into that household is to simply leave the children in the household with the spouse that remains.

01:05:52.580 And if the other spouse wishes to leave, then they, you know, they know where the door is.

01:05:57.540 Got it.

01:05:58.120 It could be simpler.

01:05:58.840 but but what would happen with all of the because what what i'm thinking of is i find that church

01:06:05.820 women have a tendency to accuse the men of abuse even more um because for them it's their reputation 1.00

01:06:14.000 where liberal i actually find like i found worse divorces amongst more religious women 0.60

01:06:19.760 and my um reasoning was because the religious women it matters more to their reputation 1.00

01:06:28.100 so they have to have been abused where the liberal woman it won't hurt her standing as much because 1.00

01:06:34.900 I mean you know it's not really something her social circles care about this is just the people

01:06:41.260 I've interviewed I'm not saying it's like a huge sample size just what I found so if then the woman

01:06:47.020 comes back and says I was abused how like how do the courts take that then you know like how do

01:06:55.540 they, because then don't they have to investigate into personal matters? Like, how would they deal

01:06:59.540 with that issue? Right. Well, you're correct that there would certainly, if my prescription

01:07:06.380 were followed, you're correct that there would certainly be an increase in the allegations of

01:07:11.220 domestic abuse. There's no doubt about that, because it would be the only weapon left.

01:07:15.940 But I don't think we can avoid that. I think we have to grasp the nettle. You have to bite the

01:07:19.520 bullet on that. You know, false accusations are a criminal offense. You make false accusations 0.99

01:07:24.380 of a crime against someone. And it's, you know, that itself is a crime, and it has to be punished.

01:07:30.780 And our failure to punish that is exactly why these accusations are out of control now,

01:07:35.560 not just domestic abuse, but, you know, all the others that the Me Too movement is pushing.

01:07:41.700 Now, at some point, you have to decide what crosses the line in domestic abuse. I mean,

01:07:46.240 is it a physical crime, arguably, that, you know, a man that truly, really does beat his wife

01:07:51.240 physically, with physical violence, has given grounds for divorce. I mean, that's an old

01:07:57.800 principle. If he just, you know, a few insults or whatever, meaningless things like psychological

01:08:03.660 abuse or economic abuse, not giving her money, you know, these sorts of things, this is different.

01:08:10.400 But again, the law has to be precise. And you're talking there about criminal law. You're talking

01:08:15.500 there about someone who, if he's beating his wife, he belongs in jail. Yeah. Not just divorce. You

01:08:20.820 either put him in jail. In fact, I knew a man once who did that. He was accused of abuse in a

01:08:26.300 domestic case. And he said, he demanded of the judge, he said, I want to be formally charged

01:08:30.980 with physical assault. And I want to be tried for with the jury of my peers. Either that or I want

01:08:36.400 the charges withdrawn. I don't know if it succeeded or not. But I mean, that's a good,

01:08:41.080 interesting strategy to, you know. No, that makes sense. So that's how you would combat it,

01:08:47.300 as you would need he would be it's either he's in jail or he's not essentially yeah

01:08:54.740 so if some some proper criminal punishment yeah

01:09:01.060 no that makes this this this vagueness of you know is absurd where you you know you haven't

01:09:06.420 actually where the obvious purpose of these allegations is to get the man out of the house

01:09:10.900 pardon me and to establish a fait accompli uh to get him out but he's never you know he's never

01:09:16.500 charged with a crime. He just spends a weekend in jail, and then he has to go to classes where

01:09:22.040 he's indoctrinated into feminist ideology, and he loses his children, and he loses his home and his

01:09:26.980 bank account and all that. I mean, this is obviously a legal fiasco. And then people that

01:09:34.200 aren't religious could just not enter the contract. So if you're not religious and you don't want to

01:09:41.220 do the marriage route, then you just don't enter that contract. Right. It would still be a legally

01:09:46.920 enforceable contract for people who are not religious. But think about the advantage of 0.96

01:09:50.900 getting married in a church. If you got married in a church, and if the churches did their job,

01:09:55.000 like they're supposed to do, then when your spouse, wife divorces you and tries to take 1.00

01:10:00.420 the children, you've got a whole congregation of people to go into that courtroom and fight for

01:10:07.260 you and publicize it and shame the woman like, you know, churches are supposed to do the old 1.00

01:10:11.320 punishment of excommunication. And, you know, it can be reversed. The math, the man is the

01:10:16.420 wrongdoer. But my point is that, you know, churches would mean something. Their doctrine,

01:10:21.420 wouldn't be just some abstract doctrine that sounds good on Sundays. Churches would have a

01:10:25.720 real role in our private lives and in our public life. And people would, I think the pews would 0.73

01:10:32.000 fill back up. I think people would start to see that a church is an important institution. And I

01:10:36.720 believe it is. I believe that, you know, viable, if I may say so, masculine, manly churches,

01:10:43.140 you know, virile churches are an important institution and we've paid a dear price for

01:10:48.740 losing them. Yeah. I'm just wondering how that would go because like, I think back when I was

01:10:54.560 in London and if you go to, I went to an evangelical church once, someone like took me there and it

01:11:01.680 was oh my gosh i'm catholic so it was i don't know if you've ever been to like the tongues churches

01:11:07.540 where they speak like tongues pentecostal churches oh no it was that's what i said

01:11:12.260 evangelical i meant pentecostal and it was crazy it was like a show and it was the biggest spec

01:11:17.920 like oh my it was so theatrical and i look around and there's all these women right and the pastor

01:11:23.620 is obviously pretty wealthy like um they they're really nice so nothing against them but they're

01:11:29.080 clearly making a lot of money off of this operation. So it's like, what incentive would

01:11:34.500 they have to stop making money off of single women? You know, like, how would you, what would 0.99

01:11:42.340 like, how would you stop that? I just can't, you know what I mean? See that going.

01:11:48.140 Well, it's very true. This is, this is what's happened is we have a whole industry of people

01:11:52.800 in the churches, in the state, in the legal profession that have a vested interest in all

01:11:59.160 of this and perpetuating it. And that's sad. I mean, really what happened, the reason that the

01:12:04.200 lawyers and the judges and the psychotherapists and all these people make so much money is because

01:12:10.320 they've populated, they've filled the vacuum that was left by the churches. At one time,

01:12:17.540 the churches would have sorted out family crises, family disputes. The churches would have done,

01:12:22.300 And it wouldn't be the pastor's main job.

01:12:24.320 So he wouldn't make any money at it.

01:12:25.540 He wouldn't get any, he wouldn't have any financial incentive.

01:12:28.280 He would have an incentive to sort the matter out as quickly as possible so he could go

01:12:33.400 back to preaching and saving souls.

01:12:35.900 So his incentive would be to knock their heads together, make them get along, go into church,

01:12:42.700 make sure that the judges and the lawyers behaved.

01:12:46.040 And you'd have minimal state interest because the churches would fill that vacuum and no

01:12:50.140 for psychotherapists because the churches would fill the role of the psychotherapy which is the

01:12:56.060 churches were of the original psychotherapists so um it's it's the abdication of the churches

01:13:01.660 they've left this vacuum and that's been filled up by these special interest lawyers judges

01:13:07.260 psychotherapists guardians of light and you name it and that's why this that's why this system is

01:13:13.900 entrenched and people are making such and as you say even even some churchmen are making money on

01:13:19.580 it now and have a have a financial interest in profession which i hadn't thought about before

01:13:24.620 oh a lot it's all of the eve like i would say that it's a little bit slower in catholic and um

01:13:35.020 uh what's the other one orthodox circles i would say that's like the last

01:13:40.620 church's semi standing and even some of them you go into and i mean you know it's funny i asked my

01:13:46.860 dad because my dad's um he he's very like he doesn't smoke doesn't drink like he's very like

01:13:52.940 lives a very clean like lifestyle but he's not that religious and i asked him why once and he

01:13:58.380 said he was sick of being lectured by gay men like the priests and so and and i was funny because my

01:14:06.540 dad doesn't know any of this stuff but even he like felt it and just naturally was like nah not for me

01:14:12.060 and um but if you go into protestant churches it's like all women oh my gosh it's it's all 0.99

01:14:20.300 it's like 80 percent women 90 percent women yeah i i was uh i'm a church of england basically

01:14:28.260 which has kind of catholic side and protestant side to it um but uh yeah i found that in the

01:14:35.260 episcopal church in america it was all run by women feminists and i lived in the um i lived

01:14:41.600 the state of virginia which had a very conservative anglican establishment and they broke away from

01:14:46.800 the the dominant episcopal establishment and they created a conservative um they called the anglican

01:14:54.400 church in america and they you know they they went back to they they refused to accept same-sex

01:15:00.240 marriage and they wanted you know literal interpretation of scripture and in all respects

01:15:04.480 They wanted to be, you know, traditional, orthodox, you know, Protestant Christians.

01:15:11.020 But they, too, refused to take on the divorce situation.

01:15:16.800 They refused.

01:15:17.760 And they, too, it was only a matter of months before I started listening to female preachers getting up talking about, you know, the sin of domestic violence. 1.00

01:15:27.480 And so this is my theory, is that if you don't deal with the divorce issue, it deals with you.

01:15:35.880 You're either defeated or it will defeat us.

01:15:38.200 So you said that we have all been feminized, as in men.

01:15:42.960 What did you mean by that?

01:15:47.320 That's a big one.

01:15:48.140 I'm only really starting to understand that myself now.

01:15:51.420 I mostly deal with the legal and political matters.

01:15:54.860 That's my area of specialty.

01:15:56.820 But I do feel that.

01:15:58.260 I mean, I look back on my own youth and my own life.

01:16:01.440 You know, I never was a, I never accepted when I was young, manly virtues and so forth.

01:16:09.380 I kind of laughed at that and poo-pooed it.

01:16:11.980 And it's only taken me, I think a lot of men are like this.

01:16:16.200 When I went through, when my eyes were opened about the divorce machinery and the injustices,

01:16:21.820 I began to re-question everything about my upbringing, about my beliefs.

01:16:25.840 I was liberal left. I was a leftist. I was a socialist.

01:16:28.680 Really? You were a leftist.

01:16:30.840 I was. When did you switch? How long?

01:16:34.680 I switched basically when I found out about how the divorce system worked.

01:16:38.640 I realized that everything I had been brought up to believe

01:16:41.200 in a liberal left household was wrong, was false.

01:16:46.240 I had grown up in Washington, in and around Washington, D.C.

01:16:49.800 My parents were federal employees.

01:16:51.880 All my friends' parents were federal employees.

01:16:54.140 We accepted the narrative of the of the liberal left.

01:16:59.100 And I just grew up with this without question.

01:17:01.980 And when I realized what happened,

01:17:05.740 you know, when I saw the divorce system, how it operated,

01:17:08.860 I saw the way my liberal friends, my parents, friends responded to it.

01:17:14.020 I saw the way other government employees, you know,

01:17:16.860 I realized my parents were not typical government employees

01:17:20.620 and that the federal, you know, so much of the federal bureaucracy

01:17:23.260 was geared to this chicanery. And I just questioned everything. And I think a lot of 1.00

01:17:29.260 men this happens to. They just, they're radicalized by this. I think you can see it in black men today.

01:17:34.920 Young black men have been radicalized in the Trump election. A lot of them started voting for Trump, 0.71

01:17:41.880 deserting the Democratic Party. They've come to realize, as I wrote in several recent pieces,

01:17:47.160 that the whole welfare machinery, the whole, you know, great society programs and the war on

01:17:52.720 poverty. None of this benefited black men in any way or black

01:17:56.800 children. The only people that benefited was black single 1.00

01:17:59.480 mothers. They were the ones that benefited from the war on 0.91

01:18:02.760 poverty and the welfare system and all this. It's done nothing

01:18:06.700 but destroy the black male. And from there, it's been destroying 1.00

01:18:10.480 the white male, the middle class males. Well, I maintained that 0.91

01:18:14.560 the black male, I say this a lot in my newest book, the black 0.99

01:18:17.720 male is the is the canary in the mineshaft. And he's that's why 0.99

01:18:22.280 he's deserting the Democratic Party and the liberal left. And, you know, very similar to

01:18:27.720 my experience as well, even though I was middle class and affluent. But I've grown up and I grew

01:18:35.180 up in inner city, part of my childhood in inner city of Washington. So I saw the way the welfare,

01:18:40.960 the devastation of welfare on the black community. And I could recognize it spreading to the white 0.81

01:18:46.780 community. Yeah, I noticed the same thing where some trends seem to hit the black community first

01:18:54.120 and then move into, like now it seems like it's in middle class, maybe white America,

01:18:59.980 and then the upper class is last. Would you agree with that? Because that's just based on my

01:19:05.260 observations. I think so, yes. This often happens, that the poor are, you know, the poor are most

01:19:13.220 devastated. But this is true of a lot of things, you know, when you think about it, think of all

01:19:16.100 the vices that we all have in the middle class and we can we can pretend that they don't hurt

01:19:20.580 anybody you know social drinking recreational drug use casual sex you know all these things

01:19:25.940 we can we can do these things in the middle class and we think oh what harm is it doesn't hurt

01:19:29.640 anybody but then they spread to the the poor uneducated communities and they're devastating 0.83

01:19:35.120 you know alcoholism destroys the community drug addiction um uh out of wedlock births

01:19:44.020 destroyed. So things which seem like harmless vices to the middle class and to the affluent,

01:19:49.960 they can devastate the poor. And sometimes that devastation spreads from the poor

01:19:56.260 back again to the middle class. And I think that's part of what's happening here. 0.85

01:20:00.740 The other thing too, I would add, would be left-wing political ideology too. We can indulge

01:20:06.680 in fashionable socialism and leftism in the middle class and genitonic socialism.

01:20:12.480 but um you know when socialism takes root in poor countries and you know the global south or in the

01:20:19.700 you know the inner cities of america then the result is uh you know it's just it's just economic

01:20:25.140 devastation you know it's interesting um i have a friend who's an art dealer so his whole job is to

01:20:32.100 like really really wealthy clients he sells art to and he told me that if they're over a certain

01:20:39.060 net worth it's like almost guaranteed they're liberal i can't remember the exact net worth but

01:20:44.340 he said there's like the first class of rich people which are going to be conservative but

01:20:49.300 once you get over it's like and i don't know if it's maybe that they're so rich that they don't

01:20:54.420 have to deal with like day-to-day problems like i don't know i don't know what it is

01:21:01.300 i think that's i think that's true i think that that is it yeah that we um you know it's it's the

01:21:07.220 the real, I mean, hate to use Marx's terms, but it's the

01:21:10.040 bourgeoisie, the liberal bourgeoisie. And that's, you

01:21:15.740 know, it is affluent people and they, we, I should say we, I

01:21:20.540 used to be one of them. You know, we've imposed this on the

01:21:23.840 poor. And it's, you know, it's, it's coming back to haunt us.

01:21:28.100 It's, you know, what we've done to the poor is coming back to

01:21:30.620 to haunt the rest of us. And that's what I think has happened

01:21:33.680 in America in the last five years as the liberal left basically staged this coup d'etat or tried

01:21:40.000 to stage this coup d'etat and to take over America. And for all of its flaws, I can only pray that the

01:21:48.180 Trump administration at least managed to slow this down and stop it from getting any worse.

01:21:56.400 Why is the media censoring anything that talks about this? And why are the governments

01:22:03.000 interested in that? That's a good question. Yeah, this really, the divorce system was really the 0.66

01:22:10.000 first news blackout. This is another example, I think, of the way the divorce system, I think, 0.89

01:22:15.960 has created the blueprint for what goes on, for example, in the last few years with the Trump,

01:22:23.260 with Donald Trump and his allies. I mean, they've been subject to news blackouts

01:22:26.920 on so many things.

01:22:30.900 And yet, I tried to point this out to them.

01:22:34.400 The original news blackout was this one

01:22:36.200 against fathers and families in the divorce system.

01:22:41.000 So again, I've been fighting this for years,

01:22:43.700 trying to get anything.

01:22:45.060 A few years ago, I got an op-ed

01:22:47.380 in the Washington Post of all places.

01:22:49.800 But it's like pulling teeth

01:22:52.580 to try and get the media to cover anything.

01:22:55.280 You just, you mentioned this to a reporter or an editor, and this look of fear just comes

01:23:01.560 over their face, and they refuse to deal with it.

01:23:04.980 They change the subject.

01:23:06.000 They find an excuse to walk away.

01:23:08.400 The same is true of priests, by the way, and pastors.

01:23:10.820 Sorry, touching the microphone.

01:23:13.140 And they, it is amazing.

01:23:16.840 But I guess the simplest explanation for me is that, again, feminism is on the vanguard today of the left. 0.94

01:23:26.820 And what the feminists do in one context, the divorce system, they will do throughout the rest of the left and the rest of society. 1.00

01:23:35.080 So I think that I think the reason for the news blockouts is that the, you know, again, the feminists have learned that men are an easy touch if they if they present themselves as damsels in distress.

01:23:54.480 Let me just make sure there's no other ones.

01:23:57.140 Well, I think that's all my questions for you today.

01:24:01.300 Okay.

01:24:01.960 Well, thank you very much.

01:24:02.820 These have been very intelligent questions, I have to say.

01:24:04.900 Yeah, thank you very much for coming on. We'll definitely have you back when there's like,

01:24:11.220 what do you call it? Sometimes we have commentators for different news stories. So

01:24:14.740 for family court ones, would you want to come back and comment on them?

01:24:18.580 Oh, I'd be glad to. Actually, that was kind of odd. I got an out-bed in the Washington Post

01:24:24.740 because of Jesse Jackson, you remember the old civil rights leader, and he was caught up in a

01:24:29.140 child support issue so the washington because that gave me the news hook and so the washington

01:24:34.580 post managed to you know to listen to me for 30 seconds long enough to get an article in

01:24:39.700 so um yeah news hooks like that are very helpful so no i'll be glad to come on and talk at any

01:24:45.220 time about it because i don't think this is going away anytime soon but i think we have a chance

01:24:49.380 here with the trump administration to um to look at this we'll hope uh hhs is the key uh is the key

01:24:57.700 governmental body now justice department too but hhs especially uh robert kennedy i think he's more

01:25:03.780 concerned with health than with family issues so i'm not sure he's well uh informed about this but

01:25:10.580 it would be interesting to see what kind of appointments he makes in the areas of governmental

01:25:15.700 agencies like the administration for children and families and the office of child support

01:25:20.180 enforcement so um you know there's a there's a possibility that uh if he could if his eyes could

01:25:25.460 be opened we might get some some change in the in the trump administration i had um terrence do

01:25:31.860 you know who terrence pop is no yeah it's if you're not super in the youtube trenches you

01:25:38.420 might not know but he's a really um he's been working with um helping prevent suicide in men

01:25:44.740 for like 20 years so i saw an interview you interviewed him a few days ago yeah a few days

01:25:49.860 ago and he mentioned that one solution could be making public the names of um people of judges

01:26:00.180 that are unfair and ha like and then giving the complaints like getting all of the complaints

01:26:08.580 of people on certain judges and giving it to whoever is running against them

01:26:14.820 that kind of thing i've seen a lot of efforts like that over the years

01:26:17.780 they never seem to come to anything i don't want to say they can't uh you know uh that's good a

01:26:25.220 good plan in conjunction with others um the public it's hard to get the public interested in local

01:26:32.020 issues even where judges are elected uh most people don't take much interest in the election

01:26:37.140 of judges uh it doesn't hurt it's it's a it's not a bad thing to do if you can mobilize people

01:26:42.900 But I think I would like to see a more kind of, you know, cutting the Gordian knot by dealing with the constitutional issues from the top down.

01:26:52.680 Again, I also see every father that runs afoul of the family courts talks about a federal class action suit.

01:26:59.020 I've seen a dime a dozen.

01:27:02.420 They never go anywhere either.

01:27:03.820 Um, so I hate to be discouraging about this, but I, I would love to see, you know, more

01:27:09.160 pressure put on the, on the Trump administration and on the, um, uh, well, on politicians like

01:27:15.360 DeSantis and Josh Hawley, who claim to be concerned about the family, but, you know,

01:27:20.400 don't, don't really do very much that's of substance, but, you know, all of these things

01:27:25.240 together, I think, uh, you know, they, they compliment one another.

01:27:28.520 So it's, it's not, it's not a bad thing.

01:27:30.660 Well, thank you so much for coming on.

01:27:32.720 where can the people find you? My books and recent articles, they can find them on my website,

01:27:39.840 stephenbaskerville.com. That's Stephen with a PH. And there's a link there to my sub stack,

01:27:46.420 my most recent articles since the book was published in June. I've been trying to update

01:27:51.920 it with with articles on sub stack and in published journals. So between my website

01:27:58.020 and my sub stack they can get my most important writings and interviews okay great well guys go

01:28:06.020 buy his books go follow him on on there and um thank you very much for coming on it's my pleasure

01:28:13.700 thank you for addressing these issues it's it's extremely important thank you okay guys so if you

01:28:20.580 you guys liked doing the one-on-ones um let me know in the comments this might be a a weekly

01:28:27.460 friday thing that we do as a um as a show so let me know in the comments guys please like the video

01:28:36.260 on your way out and subscribe to the channel and please go to the audacity network.com

01:28:41.060 i'm getting a lot of push to bring on uh i'm not going to say his name but certain controversial

01:28:48.320 people and look we can do that if we get a certain level of members okay you have to go to the

01:28:59.020 audacitynetwork.com and get our monthly or yearly memberships if we get okay if we get like four

01:29:05.500 yearly memberships a day five in a couple of months we I can bring on whoever whoever you want

01:29:13.800 so just hit the audacitynetwork.com and then you also get first access to our documentaries and

01:29:21.160 i read your comments during the show this show we had yakov i mean you guys can make your usernames

01:29:28.200 whatever you want i can't i cannot promise i'll pronounce it right rob fields uh santiago is

01:29:35.880 was always in the chat what a guy tony tony uh brian yaakov again a lot of a lot of you know

01:29:45.500 motion going on there okay guys please like the video on your way out and subscribe and

01:29:52.180 um yeah go to the audacity network.com i'll see you next time bye

Pearl - November 15, 2024

Who LOST America？ Feminism's WAR on MEN! ｜ Pearl Daily

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript