00:03:31.040And I try to look at the politics behind things.
00:03:33.460For example, the book you mentioned, the most recent book, is the culmination of several books I've written.
00:03:39.120the first one was on the politics of the divorce industry, which I know you talk about a lot on
00:03:45.440your show. And it tries to look at not just the surface injustices and inanities of the
00:03:52.460divorce machinery, but to look behind it and explain the politics behind it and where it
0.88
00:03:59.220came from, the governmental machinery, the interest groups, and so forth. So that's my
00:04:04.640contribution to all this yeah so how did we get here how do we get to a point where in america
00:04:11.040um the single motherhood rate is going up so high um it we're essentially paid to leave our husbands
00:04:19.120how how did we get here where did it start there's a number of things i place primacy on
00:04:24.960ideology i think ideology has a lot to do with it feminist ideology has been around for a long time
0.92
00:04:30.640It's been in the margins of our politics for a couple hundred years since the French Revolution,
00:04:37.620but it really emerged in the post-war years, and it's really taken its place in the sun
00:04:44.060since the 70s, and it's really displaced all other forms of leftist ideology. I think it's
00:04:50.780displaced Marxism and liberalism and so forth, and it's really the dominant form of radical ideology
00:04:57.160today is sexual ideology. And I still think that the most powerful, homosexualism, transgenderism
1.00
00:05:05.500are important, but I still think feminist ideology is the most potent. And today it's
1.00
00:05:10.680the cutting edge of the left. And feminism has insinuated itself in our institutions in many
1.00
00:05:19.920ways that most people don't realize. The first political and governmental institution that was
00:05:26.100created after feminists got the vote in the early 20th century was the welfare state. And the
1.00
00:05:32.160welfare state was a, from the beginning, was a matriarchy. From the beginning, it was infused
1.00
00:05:38.820with radical, especially feminist ideology. Jane Addams was among the founders of it,
00:05:44.740anarchist and communist and feminist. And the welfare state was really, as I argue in the latest
00:05:51.540book the first uh deep state it was the original deep state because it's the first but it was the
00:05:56.980way the government first insinuated itself into the private lives of law-abiding citizens it was
00:06:04.020the first time that the government claimed the right to enter the lives of legally innocent
00:06:09.300people and take control of their of their homes and their families and their children
00:06:14.500and this was what the feminists created very soon after getting the vote now it took decades
1.00
00:06:19.860to work through to its logical conclusion but this is what we are seeing today is how the welfare
00:06:25.380state first took control of the lives of the poor and then uh spread out from there through the
00:06:31.460family court system and the wealth and the and the uh you know the the divorce machinery to take
00:06:36.580control of middle class lives as well and from the beginning it's been intrusive invasive uh
00:06:42.740disrespectful of private life and implicitly or explicitly hatred of men so when you say that
00:06:51.860family court evolved after the vote i know i've seen some writings i think from the 1800s
00:06:59.860but i don't think divorce from what i've i've read divorce wasn't as prevalent then
00:07:04.660like what it was the difference between then and now like why is it so much more common
00:07:09.940and what like changed in family court? Right. Well, a number of things. It was people at the
00:07:17.940time were quite shocked about it. Even back in the 19th century, you had the socialist Belford
00:07:22.100Bax who writes about it as if it was as bad in Victorian times as it is now. But gradually it
00:07:28.660expanded. It expanded largely by feminism. Feminism was not only the creation, not only
1.00
00:07:34.800created the welfare state in the early 20th century, but it also created the no fault divorce
00:07:39.420system. People don't realize this. The feminists were drafting no-fault divorce laws back in the
1.00
00:07:43.6001940s. They couldn't get them implemented. They got them implemented in the 1960s and 70s when
00:07:50.760nobody was looking. The attention of the country was on Vietnam and civil rights and Woodstock,
00:07:58.340and there was this very permissive atmosphere, culture that was very tolerant of sexual
00:08:06.500experimentation and, you know, Woodstock hippies and all that. So they slipped it in under Ronald
00:08:12.680Reagan's nose. In many ways, the no-fault divorce system simply codified what was already being
1.00
00:08:18.020practiced in the family courts and in the welfare agencies for decades. But this is what it does.
00:08:24.620The welfare system extended this throughout the family, the poor communities, especially the
00:08:30.560African-American community. They instituted things like false accusations of child abuse,
0.99
00:08:36.740false accusations of domestic violence, and of course, child support enforcement. All of these
00:08:41.840were very anti-male. All of these were very unconstitutional in many ways. And they implemented
1.00
00:08:48.500these, they imposed these on poor families, especially poor black men. And from the 1970s
00:08:55.580Well, earlier, but really the floodgates opened in the 1970s with the no-fault divorce laws.
00:09:02.380And the whole welfare machinery went from being imposed on poor black men to being imposed on men and families generally, middle class as well.
00:09:11.800And 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
00:09:25.580and how has the right allowed this to happen like right under their noses you know what i mean like
00:09:31.980they've been because that was something baffling to me was i would hear um conservatives talk about
00:09:39.020traditionalism and i would listen to the daily wire and trad cons but i i once i started looking
00:09:45.500into like why men weren't getting married anymore i um it baffled me that they're not talking about
00:09:52.540this because this seems like uh like for what they want like the utopia that they want it would seem
00:09:59.900like that's a pretty big piece you know stop paying the women to leave so how does that happen
00:10:05.500why don't they talk about this well it's a very good question that's exactly the question i answer
00:10:10.540in my in my most recent book because when i wrote my my first book taken into custody on the divorce
00:10:15.260system i was frustrated and baffled and i thought i could appeal to the conservatives and they'd
00:10:20.060listen to me. And so I wrote another book called The New Politics of Sex, in which I tried to show
00:10:28.060that it wasn't just divorce. It was the whole panoply of issues that had been taken over by
00:10:33.420the sexual radicals, especially the feminists. And still, I thought the conservatives, oh, sure,
00:10:37.980they'll listen to me now. But they just keep their lips tight. And so the third book, the most
00:10:45.180recent one, is tries to explain the politics of the last five years, when basically since the
00:10:50.280COVID crisis, I argue the left has basically staged a coup d'etat and taken over the United
00:10:56.080States. And they did it by they got their foot in the door by the through the divorce and the
00:11:02.000welfare machinery. I would say it's two things. One is that the left, as I said before, is
00:11:07.540innovative, that the sexual ideology is a new form of political radicalism that the right doesn't
00:11:14.440understand. It's not exactly called cultural Marxism, but
00:11:18.680it's not, it's not the same as Marxism. It's different. It's
00:11:21.760it's a, it builds on Marxism, but it departs from it in
00:11:24.940fundamental ways. So the one it's a combination of the left
00:11:28.780innovating in its ideology, ideological innovation by the
00:11:33.260left. And secondly, the right not understanding those
00:11:36.520innovations, not knowing how to oppose it, trying to shoehorn
00:11:40.900all into categories they know, trying to refight the Cold War and refight the politics of the 60s
00:11:47.460and 70s and denial, basically denying that this is a new ideology that they don't know. And
00:11:56.580feminist ideology, sexual ideology is very innovative. It is disarming. I've written
0.79
00:12:01.460three books on it and I find it very different. I learn new things all the time. It's not easy
00:12:08.580to understand its implications. It insinuates itself into corners of our society and changes
00:12:16.540them fundamentally in ways that are not obvious. And the conservatives don't understand this.
00:12:22.280They want to, as I say, shoehorn this into the categories they know. They call it cultural
00:12:28.580Marxism, and they want to refight the 60s politics. But it's innovative. And the other
00:12:36.600thing about sexual ideology, feminism, is it emasculates. It emasculates, it neuters its own
1.00
00:12:43.480opposition. It emasculates men. And if you look at the conservatives, the men who run the organized
00:12:53.860conservative movement, the interest groups, the think tanks, the Republican Party, all of these
00:13:00.440men, they're very diffident. The late Phyllis Schlafly, who was a great crusader, who defeated
00:13:09.020the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s. And I worked with her a bit. And she was one of the
00:13:15.52010 most influential women of the 20th century or something. But the words that always came out of
00:13:20.800her lips when she was talking about Republican men and conservative men, professionals, was
00:13:26.480cowards she called them cowards yeah and um she was right she was right well even um
00:13:36.400because sometimes i'm like you guys go on whatever podcast i don't understand how you
00:13:41.360you see what's going on i know whatever podcast is like um obviously they're going to be a little
00:13:46.400bit more theatrical do you know what that show is do you know whatever oh no sorry i forgot so
00:13:52.880So whatever is like a podcast where they bring on like college women to argue with basically
1.00
00:13:58.640I used to do a show similar like a year or two ago where you like bring on people off
00:14:03.500the street and like women off the street and debate them.
1.00
00:14:06.900And you can see like it for example in young women the increase in like sex workers.
00:14:13.780Like that's something that's exploded in the last five years where if you asked me 10 years
00:14:18.160ago I did not know a single sex worker.
00:14:20.880but when you move into the city it's really not abnormal to meet only fans models to meet like
00:14:26.260like that's not and um i i had a i still would have a hard time when i argue with conservatives
00:14:33.440getting them to acknowledge this is like a reality because it makes women look bad like i had a
1.00
00:14:39.000private investigator on the show and he said like attractive women it's probably like three in ten
1.00
00:14:45.020or four in ten i've done some sort of sex work and like that's that's pretty unflattering but
00:14:49.920whenever I bring up things like that, it's tough to even get conservatives to admit it if it makes
00:14:55.640women look bad. You know, the conservatives seem determined to make women out to be victims
0.98
00:15:02.280and to, you know, to absolve them from any kind of responsibility, to really take, to infantilize
00:15:08.580women and absolve them from any responsibility for their actions. This is one of the ones,
1.00
00:15:14.020one of the ways that, as long as you mentioned sex workers, this is one of the ways that feminism
1.00
00:15:19.360insinuates itself, wheedles its way into our society.
00:15:23.360I talk about this in my book, The New Politics of Sex.
00:15:27.360You know, the feminists push very hard for the legalization of
1.00
00:15:31.360prostitution, sex work, what they call that. But they also
00:15:35.360push very hard. They were also the ones that invented this
00:15:39.360narrative of human trafficking, right? So human trafficking is bad.
00:15:43.360Human trafficking is a crime, even though most human trafficking is simply
00:15:47.360sensual prostitution by far, overwhelmingly. That's most of what it is. But human trafficking
00:15:54.160is criminal and bad, but sex work is okay, and that's good. And so basically what it is,
00:16:03.260is they want to create a system in which only men are prosecuted for prostitution, right? In which
00:16:10.060the women are not prosecuted for selling sex, only the men are prosecuted for buying the sex.
0.86
00:16:17.360So 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
00:16:33.920yeah that's what I noticed was I couldn't believe um how many women were lying of abuse because what
1.00
00:16:41.940happened was I was interviewing women in England and when someone said they were abused by their
00:16:46.880ex-boyfriend I I just you know when someone tells you a sad story you sort of believe it
00:16:51.560until someone in my chat one day told me to ask like two or three questions like ask them
00:16:56.860specifically what happened and it would probably be every other show a woman said she was abused
1.00
00:17:03.740or raped and if i asked them three questions 85 of their stories would fall apart or they wouldn't
00:17:11.900talk about how hate they hit them first or they would sort of switch it it wasn't abuse it was
00:17:17.040emotional abuse why do we have such a widespread um problem of false accusations in this country
00:17:27.720like how did we get here where you know women have an awkward hookup and sometimes i thought
0.94
00:17:32.740they really believed they were assaulted at some points. Right. Well, again, several things. I think
00:17:40.060one of them is the use of language. This term abuse, it's very ambiguous. Does abuse mean
00:17:46.360physical violence? Does it mean criminal violence? Or does it simply mean shouting or yelling or
00:17:52.620calling insults or whatever? And if you look at the domestic violence statutes, which are
00:17:58.080codified in the Justice Department, the U.S. Justice Department, the Home Office in Britain.
00:18:04.920They include things like insults and so-called psychological violence and economic violence
00:18:12.480and all these things which have no meaning. And this is one of the ways in which feminism has
1.00
00:18:18.060perverted the criminal justice system, because it's a cardinal principle of sound criminal law,
00:18:24.660that the law has to be precise. The law has to be exact. A jury or a judge has to know why they are
00:18:31.520being asked to put someone in behind bars. And if they're being told that there is abuse,
00:18:38.280what does that mean? And, you know, they started out with, you know, sexual harassment and then
00:18:43.460sexual harassment became sexual abuse. And then sexual abuse became sexual misconduct and sexual
00:18:49.200misconduct became sexual violence. And, you know, this is, you don't know at what point you're
00:18:54.000really talking about physical assault. So it's debased the language, debased the legal terminology,
00:19:00.980and therefore it's debased the legal system. Now, your question about where it came from,
00:19:06.220I think chronologically, I think, again, much of this comes from the divorce system,
00:19:10.320because one of the main incentives for these false accusations does come from custody cases,
00:19:16.300child custody. If you look back in time, these false accusations or questionable accusations
00:19:22.180of child abuse was one of the earliest ones. I can cite you scholars going back to the 80s
00:19:28.060and even earlier who are sounding the alarm about false accusations of child abuse.
00:19:34.940And this didn't work too well because they found that the child abuse, in many cases,
00:19:39.620the abuser of children turned out to be the mother, especially the single mothers,
0.97
00:19:42.680overwhelmingly. So that shifted. They stopped using child abuse. They started using domestic
00:19:47.300violence, because that was a way of shifting the accusation from the family generally to the
00:19:52.780specifically to the father, the male. But child custody was the big concrete incentive, I think,
00:20:00.980that started this. And from there, you got to false accusations, of course, of rape. And of
00:20:06.300course, that's where the Me Too movement is, because they found it was so effective against
00:20:11.260fathers in custody cases, that why not use it against Supreme Court nominees? Why not use it
00:20:18.400against Donald Trump? Is that our side or his? Oh, okay. Oh, guys. While he, I'll read the chat
00:20:38.340while he reconnects because i think you guys can still see me right we'll bring him back just i
00:20:45.060think he got caught okay so remember guys if you want your chat read for sure you go to the network
00:20:51.380page the audacitynetwork.com the links in the description you get the monthly or yearly plan
00:20:58.020and then you get your comments read the whole year what a time to be can you believe it amazing
00:21:03.620all right so Yaakov says it's not enough to know something and means to reverse the problem must
00:21:11.180be identified to make the change so what must happen okay where did he go
00:21:18.100it's okay it's all right it happens sometimes let me look at the chat and see if you guys
00:21:24.520have any questions for him let me know um oh you're back hello okay why i don't know how much
00:21:34.440you heard of what i was saying but i i was i was just pointing out that your your your question
00:21:40.080about where did these accusations came from i think they began very much in family court um and
00:21:45.420they spread out from there into the political sphere you know if you can if you can get custody
00:21:49.880from fathers, you can, why not, why not disable, why not neuter Donald Trump and your political
00:21:55.280opponents? And I think that's where this is, this is why my argument of my latest book is
00:22:00.200that the poison, the legal poison that has come out, that the family courts have spread is now
00:22:07.040poisoning our entire, our entire judicial and political system, as I predicted it would in
00:22:12.620my earlier books would you say that the police back up um false accusations like would you say
00:22:21.780a large percentage of men in jail for like rape and abuse are in because i know family court is
00:22:27.820different than criminal court so i'm curious if you think it affected criminal court as well
00:22:32.740oh i think it has i don't think there's any doubt about that uh i cite books
00:28:50.300So I was disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard
00:28:52.920And 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.
00:29:06.720And I think many people, even very well-informed commentators, fail to understand just how crooked and corrupt the American judiciary is.
00:29:16.520I think of all of our institutional structural problems in the United States, I think the most serious sector of corruption is the judiciary.
00:29:26.580I think it's more important than the deep state, the bureaucrats and the functionaries and so forth.
00:29:32.380The judiciary is really the place where injustice is systematically doled out to American citizens and increasingly to opposition political figures.
00:29:45.900And what do you mean by, because family court is separate from criminal court, right? Do I
00:29:52.240understand that correctly? Right. So when you say to the judiciary, are you referring just to family
00:29:58.580court or like, what are you referring to? I'm referring to the whole thing, the entire
00:30:03.140American court system, state, local, state, and federal, of which the family courts are a part,
00:30:10.080criminal courts are a part, the federal courts are a part. But I believe that the poison,
00:30:14.940the corruption, I think, is largely coming from the bottom, not from the head, but from the tail,
00:30:20.340because these courts are secret. They violate every principle of the common law. In my earlier
00:30:27.500book, Taken into Custody, I go down the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution generally,
00:30:33.160and I show that virtually every article of the Bill of Rights is routinely, systematically
00:30:38.320violated by the family courts, as well as other protections in the Constitution.
00:30:43.800So 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.
00:31:01.700In other words, we must all be able to look at the courts and see that they are administering justice justly.
00:31:08.680And if courts don't operate in secret, it's a formula for systematic injustice.
00:31:18.960Because 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.
00:31:27.700but the challenge was a lot of them were under gag orders and just didn't want to you know once a
00:31:34.740guy's divorce is settled and they're done they don't really want to you know they just want to
00:31:38.840move on with their life and so you know there was some pretty high profile people I couldn't get
00:31:44.820even though they would have been open to it like I couldn't get interviews with them because of
00:31:49.420is it just gag orders or are there other things too well that's that's bad enough but yeah there's
00:31:55.920just general secrecy. But the gag orders are highly dishonest. I mean, they claim that the
00:32:01.480gag orders and the secrecy of the family courts is to protect family privacy. But this is nonsense.
00:32:08.560This is completely dishonest. It's not to protect family privacy. It's to provide a cloak for the
00:32:15.860courts to invade family privacy with impunity, right? They can invade family privacy and none
0.88
00:32:22.480of the rest of us know about it because of the gag orders. And this, too, was very disappointing
00:32:27.700in Donald Trump because he was the object of a gag order. He was not allowed to defend himself,
00:32:34.300to proclaim his innocence when these clearly bogus charges were leveled against him because
00:32:40.120of this gag order. Well, why didn't he use that opportunity to proclaim, to question the whole
00:32:44.920concept of gag orders? What right does any court have to issue gag orders to silence
00:32:51.600American citizens to violate their First Amendment protections and to operate in the courts,
0.85
00:32:57.580operate in secrecy. This is accepted in the most extraordinary circumstances. And yet these have
00:33:03.860become routine. These courts are, yeah, there are other ways in which they are secret.
00:33:09.240The press is regularly excluded from family courts. Even family members, other family members,
00:33:14.980can be excluded from family courts simply on the say-so of a judge. So, you know, this concept of
00:33:21.400secret courts, drag or gag orders. This is, you know, this is something that people like Donald
00:33:27.820Trump and Tulsi Gabbard and the new attorney general, they should be, they should be shouting
00:33:34.240from the rooftops on this. And they're just completely silent, I suspect, because most of
00:33:40.660them are members of the bar associations. And the bar associations would have their scalp
00:41:50.640The legislators, legislatures didn't understand it.
00:41:53.300They 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
00:42:11.320If you look on the website of the National Association of Women Lawyers, they brag about this.
00:42:17.920They were drafting these laws back in the 1940s, and they were just waiting for an opportunity to slip them through when nobody was looking.
00:42:41.320You 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?
00:42:58.840um well there's there's various reforms that you can do uh i outline that those in my earlier book
00:43:09.220taken into custody but i i don't like to just issue wish lists that'll never get passed i have
00:43:15.660all the things that i think would be perfect and um if you just implemented everything i like um
00:43:20.820then uh everything would be okay so in my latest book i have a new approach to how to solve this
00:43:26.320problem, and that is to harness the power of the marriage strike. You probably, I'm sure you're
0.98
00:43:32.220aware of this, how men are, well, I've seen on your show, that men are refusing to marry when
00:43:38.200they find out what's going on in family court. They're simply not marrying because it's just
00:43:42.720not worth it. There's a good book on this. Helen Smith wrote a book on this about 10 years ago
00:43:47.260called Men on Strike, and she outlines, it had been going on for at least a decade before that,
00:43:54.860So 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.
00:44:06.540Well, my argument is that this provides enormous leverage, like any strike.
00:44:21.020Most people want to have family lives.
00:44:24.340So I don't approve of marriage as a marriage strike, marriage boycott, as a lifestyle choice for its own sake indefinitely.
00:44:35.320But I think it provides enormous leverage for men and for women to start demanding reform of the laws.
00:44:44.000And 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.
00:44:55.100So 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
00:45:03.480All you have to do is change the laws.
00:45:05.760And I know that politicians are stubborn.
00:45:12.880But 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.
00:45:37.020If 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.
00:46:00.520how should men conduct themselves on a daily basis given all this is a question from tony
00:46:08.260yeah that's a good question um i wrote i wrote a book a few years ago recently um not too long ago
00:46:16.400about a gentleman's guide an old it's an old genre of uh you know books about manuals guidebooks for
00:46:22.780how to be a gentleman these go back to the renaissance they've been around even the middle
00:46:26.800ages. And I wrote one. So I began to think about that kind of thing. How do you how do you? How
00:46:34.320should men do this? Um, I think men, you know, there's a lot of talk about men needing to be
00:46:41.040more manly, more, you know, self-reliant, more. And I agree with that. I think that we've all
00:46:47.760been feminized. I see it in myself. We've all been neutered in some ways by by feminism,
0.90
00:47:13.100is not so much John Wayne and Clint Eastwood
00:47:15.980so much as, you know, Humphrey Bogart,
00:47:18.080who never, who refused to take nonsense from women
0.93
00:47:21.820in some of his movies like Lauren Bacall.
00:47:23.700Well, 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.
00:47:38.480But 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.
00:47:48.500So, you know, how to strike that balance is very difficult to say, but I do talk about that in my book.
00:47:56.180It's called A Gentleman's Guide to Sex, to Manage Sex and Ruling the World.
0.85
00:48:03.420Another one was, if you had to picture society in a hundred years, that's a good question.
00:48:09.560If you had to picture society in a hundred years from now, what do you see happening to relationships between men and women?
00:48:18.500Well, 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.
00:48:39.700it's not sustainable. Either our civilization will be, will decline, will be overrun by stronger
1.00
00:48:47.760civilizations like the Muslims, who still value marriage to the extent that even they do.
0.95
00:48:54.900But, I mean, we're seeing the decline of the West already. And I, so either we clean this up,
00:49:00.560either we take control of this, or we, or, you know, it's lights out for the Western world.
00:49:07.860Let me just add, though, one thing that I kind of glossed over here.
00:49:12.860Men 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.
00:50:16.780As usual, the trad columns were more romantic than they were accurate.
00:50:20.580The purpose of marriage is fatherhood.
00:50:23.380The purpose of marriage is fatherhood.
00:50:26.200And that's why fathers, more than anyone, have a stake in the perpetuation and the enforcement.
00:50:33.900enforcement, the enforcement of the marriage contract. They have to do this. They cannot
00:50:38.400renounce marriage. They cannot live in, you know, cohabitation or without women, without children,
0.95
00:50:44.500without families. It is up to the men to champion and enforce the marriage contract. And if you look
0.81
00:50:50.940at this, this is why the marriage contract exists. After all, the bond between a mother and her
00:50:56.800children is biological. Everyone knows who the mother of a child is. You can't avoid it, right?
0.93
00:51:03.540So the biological link is, you know, is clear.
00:51:09.440The bond between a father and his children is not biological.
00:51:12.900It is the important bond, at least, is social and socially constructed by marriage, by marriage, not by sperm tests, but by marriage.
00:51:22.740In 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,
00:51:31.560not the biological contributor, but the man married to the mother. And the purpose of this
00:51:38.760was to preserve marriages against the wife's infidelity. The father had a choice. The man
00:51:46.180had a choice. If his wife was pregnant and he knew it wasn't his, he could either divorce her
0.99
00:51:51.420or he could accept the child as his own. And the child would be presumed to be his own under the
00:51:58.180law, and the sperm donor, the interloper, would have no rights whatsoever to the child.
00:52:04.180And this was, and what this showed was the inseparability of marriage and fatherhood.
00:52:12.180And it was the same in the Napoleonic Code.
00:52:14.060It's the same in other legal systems as well.
00:52:17.760So it's the purpose, the bottom line, the purpose of marriage is fatherhood.
00:52:22.060And if you look back a few years to the last couple of presidential administrations, the Bush administration started all these marriage.
00:52:31.400Sorry, it was the Clintons started this.
00:52:33.280The Clinton administration, who first perceived this fatherhood crisis, they started these programs to so-called restore fatherhood.
00:52:42.620And they were going to restore fatherhood and, you know, get fathers in touch with their children.
00:52:48.340And they never said how they were going to restore fatherhood, but they were going to restore fatherhood.
00:52:55.200It turns out really all restoring fatherhood met with some psychotherapy, mostly feminist psychotherapy, coupled with increased child support enforcement.
00:53:03.560So the Clinton administration was completely disingenuous.
00:53:28.720It was feminist psychotherapy coupled with increased child support enforcement.
0.99
00:53:34.200So it didn't do anything to restore marriage, to increase the marriage rate, to restore families.
00:53:40.080And both of the programs were, you know, were abysmal failures.
00:53:45.460But the point is that they both could interchangeably talk about marriage and fatherhood.
00:53:52.240That's the grain of truth in this, is that they are inseparable.
00:53:55.760And that's why fathers have to be the champions.
00:54:01.320And 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
00:54:08.640i don't think they can accept um i think a society of cohabitation and uh and and you know
00:54:17.120lack of families so i think what they would say though is they wouldn't see a difference between
00:54:23.100a girlfriend and a wife in 2024 and i think like a collective experience of them is that once the
00:54:30.600woman knows that you can't leave that they just start getting fat they start uh you know being
0.99
00:54:36.620very quarrelsome. And like, I know one guy, he went to my gym in London. He, he waited 10 years
00:54:42.920to marry his girlfriend. She divorced him within a year after they got married. It's like the same
0.89
00:54:48.220guy, you know, you know what I mean? And I think that's like, I think that's why they say that is
00:54:53.860because once women get the leverage, they're just not too good with it. Well, they're correct about
1.00
00:55:00.260that. They're right. The marriage contract does not afford fathers any rights. The man doesn't
0.98
00:55:08.380have any rights if he's married and doesn't have any rights if he's unmarried. But my point is that
00:55:14.640I think the only way to rectify that is for the father. It should be that way. Marriage should
00:55:21.980confer parental rights. If you really want to restore marriage, if you really want to,
0.60
00:55:26.240If 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
00:55:46.200In other words, if he marries and has a family, you cannot take away his children.
00:55:51.760You cannot interfere with his relationship with his children.
00:55:54.760As long as he keeps his nose clean, he doesn't, you know, he's not unfaithful.
00:55:57.720He doesn't deserve, he doesn't, you know, there's certain grounds for marriage, certain grounds for divorce.
00:56:02.660As long as he doesn't transgress those grounds and he knows it, then his rights to his children are ironclad and inviolable.
00:56:11.060And once that's the case, then, you know, then marriage will be restored.
00:56:23.740It could be done, but I don't see any alternative.
00:56:26.860I 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.
00:56:34.680I don't think I'm pretty sure about that.
00:56:37.600So, and it shouldn't have to be prenuptial agreements.
00:56:40.740It should be ironclad rules in the law.
0.56
00:56:42.940Now, the grounds can vary according to jurisdiction.
00:56:45.520They might vary a little bit here and there.
00:56:47.940But the basic is, you know what the rules are.
00:56:50.680You marry according, you play by the rules.
00:58:53.440is not what he is saying fully contradictive. You cannot beat the current system. It must be
00:58:59.900undone before marriage can be viewed as anything reasonable. Do you think that's true?
00:59:07.200Well, I think a lot of this has to be dismantled. I mean, a lot of this is negative. The problem is
00:59:12.440mostly negative. I mean, there's no reason for family courts to exist, okay? Specialized courts
00:59:18.940of any kind are a prescription for disaster and for injustice. They're a formula for injustice.
00:59:25.000The 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.
00:59:38.920Whenever 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.
00:59:51.220People who break law, marriage has to be a legal contract.
00:59:55.260If you break the legal contract, there are civil courts for dealing with the party that breaks the contract.
01:00:02.100And these courts are just completely lawless, and they need to be put out of business.
01:00:06.700I don't see any justification for specialized family courts.
01:00:13.740And I would add about the welfare agencies, too.
01:00:16.540much of this chicanery and much of the evil machinery of this uh began with we inflicted
1.00
01:00:21.820it first on the poor and then it spread to the middle class so i think you know the welfare state
01:00:26.780also needs to be you know i don't think there's any justification the welfare state doesn't solve
01:00:33.180poverty it perpetuates poverty um just quick is there are you tapping the microphone or something
01:00:40.300I 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
01:00:46.560read one of your tweets to you and I wanted I was hoping you could explain it a little bit further
01:00:51.400you said um I had a list of reasons why women join churches and one of them was that um they
1.00
01:00:59.480like the flower dresses and the trends um two was the like I think the concerts I can't remember
01:01:06.820exactly what i said but you said churches are catering more to women's preferences creating a
1.00
01:01:13.200dynamic where men's roles in the family and society is often trivialized trivialized as
01:01:19.880ornamental true spiritual leadership is not about empowering current and future fathers
01:01:25.180not women well that's i yeah i think that's that's very true i i uh the churches have become
0.80
01:01:34.760matriarchies. The pastors and priests have become, you know, wimps, simps. They, you know,
0.97
01:01:41.560the power in many churches is the wife of the main, of the clergy. And the evidence for that,
0.68
01:01:48.480the evidence for that is very plain. The evidence for that is their failure, their complete
01:01:51.960fecklessness when it comes to standing up for divorce and for the wronged party in a marital
1.00
01:01:58.900breakup or in a family crisis of any kind. And I mean, I think this has contributed more than
01:02:04.240anything to the decline of the churches the decline of christianity the empty pews
01:02:09.120is the failure of the churches to deal with it what how many of us uh how many people in in the
01:02:14.560western world only go to church on important family occasions the most important of which
01:02:19.440is when you get married right or when your children are baptized um this this is what
01:02:24.560churches look to so you go to church you go to a nice you have a nice marriage ceremony lots of
01:02:28.640flowers and bridesmaids and groom and, you know, grooms and everything. Everybody has a wonderful
01:02:35.100time and everybody feels good. And then a couple of years later, there's, you know, there's a
01:02:39.280divorce. And so the wronged party, the innocent party, typically the father, goes to the priest
01:02:45.700and says, you know, you consecrated this marriage. What do I do now? And the priest or pastor
01:02:52.080typically comes back and says, well, I'll pray for you. And, you know, maybe I'll help you find a
01:02:59.680lawyer, too. No, no, no, no, this is not right. Okay, a church that's serious about the family,
01:03:05.000a church that's serious about Christian values, what would a church in those circumstances do?
01:03:09.820First thing they would do is they would demand the two parties come into the church,
01:03:13.500and the church would sort it out. And they would knock their heads together and force them to
01:03:19.580behave. The second thing the church would do is they would
01:03:22.680demand standing in the legal case. And they would go into that
01:03:26.900courtroom and say, Look, we consecrated this marriage. I, the
01:03:32.280priest or pastor, married this couple under the rules of our
01:03:36.460church, our congregation witnessed this. And you, the
01:03:41.400judge have no right to break it up. Okay, this is what a church,
01:03:45.960a really brave churchman would do. And this is what brave churchmen have done over the centuries.
01:03:51.700If you look at some of the greatest episodes of Western history, is when brave churchmen
01:03:57.240stand up to the civil magistrates, the civil authorities, take the bony finger at them and say,
01:04:04.200you are encroaching on God's turf. John Fisher, Cardinal Monsenti, Richard Wurmbraut,
01:04:10.620the great martyrs of the Western churches. And I'm talking about Orthodox and Catholic and
01:04:17.700Protestant. You know, they are John Fisher, Thomas More, you name it. They stand up to the
01:04:27.000civil authorities and say, you have no right to do this. You're violating God's law. This is what
01:04:32.040the pastors and priests of the Western world should be doing in divorce cases. They should
01:04:36.940go into the courtrooms, and they should demand standing to be heard. And they should say,
01:04:41.420we consecrated this covenant, you the civil authorities have no right to tear it up. And,
01:04:46.940you know, that's not a legal argument, but it is a moral argument. And it is one that I think gives
01:04:53.420them. Well, I think it is one that gives them legal standing to be heard in a case in a courtroom
01:05:01.820over this. And that's what they would be doing. But they don't do this because they're, you know,
01:05:05.900they're and if they if she leaves basically then she gives up the rights to her children
1.00
01:05:12.460like that's the if she leaves without grounds yeah like because she's because she's great
01:05:16.780because she's breaking the legal contract she's breaking the legal i mean i shouldn't say that
0.95
01:05:23.020the the least intrusive measure for the civil authority for the state for the government
01:05:28.300is to simply leave the children with the spouse that remains faithful to the marriage contract
01:05:34.380If 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.
01:05:52.580And if the other spouse wishes to leave, then they, you know, they know where the door is.
01:15:17.760And 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
01:15:27.480And so this is my theory, is that if you don't deal with the divorce issue, it deals with you.
01:15:35.880You're either defeated or it will defeat us.
01:15:38.200So you said that we have all been feminized, as in men.
01:23:16.840But I guess the simplest explanation for me is that, again, feminism is on the vanguard today of the left.
0.94
01:23:26.820And 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
01:23:35.080So 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.
01:23:54.480Let me just make sure there's no other ones.
01:23:57.140Well, I think that's all my questions for you today.
01:24:02.820These have been very intelligent questions, I have to say.
01:24:04.900Yeah, thank you very much for coming on. We'll definitely have you back when there's like,
01:24:11.220what do you call it? Sometimes we have commentators for different news stories. So
01:24:14.740for family court ones, would you want to come back and comment on them?
01:24:18.580Oh, I'd be glad to. Actually, that was kind of odd. I got an out-bed in the Washington Post
01:24:24.740because of Jesse Jackson, you remember the old civil rights leader, and he was caught up in a
01:24:29.140child support issue so the washington because that gave me the news hook and so the washington
01:24:34.580post managed to you know to listen to me for 30 seconds long enough to get an article in
01:24:39.700so um yeah news hooks like that are very helpful so no i'll be glad to come on and talk at any
01:24:45.220time about it because i don't think this is going away anytime soon but i think we have a chance
01:24:49.380here with the trump administration to um to look at this we'll hope uh hhs is the key uh is the key
01:24:57.700governmental body now justice department too but hhs especially uh robert kennedy i think he's more
01:25:03.780concerned with health than with family issues so i'm not sure he's well uh informed about this but
01:25:10.580it would be interesting to see what kind of appointments he makes in the areas of governmental
01:25:15.700agencies like the administration for children and families and the office of child support
01:25:20.180enforcement so um you know there's a there's a possibility that uh if he could if his eyes could
01:25:25.460be opened we might get some some change in the in the trump administration i had um terrence do
01:25:31.860you know who terrence pop is no yeah it's if you're not super in the youtube trenches you
01:25:38.420might not know but he's a really um he's been working with um helping prevent suicide in men
01:25:44.740for like 20 years so i saw an interview you interviewed him a few days ago yeah a few days
01:25:49.860ago and he mentioned that one solution could be making public the names of um people of judges
01:26:00.180that are unfair and ha like and then giving the complaints like getting all of the complaints
01:26:08.580of people on certain judges and giving it to whoever is running against them
01:26:14.820that kind of thing i've seen a lot of efforts like that over the years
01:26:17.780they never seem to come to anything i don't want to say they can't uh you know uh that's good a
01:26:25.220good plan in conjunction with others um the public it's hard to get the public interested in local
01:26:32.020issues even where judges are elected uh most people don't take much interest in the election
01:26:37.140of judges uh it doesn't hurt it's it's a it's not a bad thing to do if you can mobilize people
01:26:42.900But 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.
01:26:52.680Again, I also see every father that runs afoul of the family courts talks about a federal class action suit.