 I'm excited to invite Jeff Younger back to the stage here just in a moment. I met Jeff last year, what can you say about Jeff? You can say this, he loves God the Father and he loves his son. He is a father at heart, he is fighting tooth and nail for his son's future. And I love that God has given him an opportunity to bring this to a national stage and also to bring him here to speak to you men here that want to grow in your fatherhood. Jeff is a great example of that. He is a passionate speaker and I'd ask you to invite him to the stage with some applause right now, okay? Okay, thank you brother. Howdy everyone. Now this is the same presentation that I did for the 21 convention, the normal convention track. But this was actually written for you guys. This is actually written for the patriarch track. But I want to start off by a prayer. Oh heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, who are everywhere present in filling all things. Treasury of good gifts and giver of life. Come and abide in us and cleanse us of all impurities and save our souls, oh good one. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both now and ever and to ages of ages, amen. Well, here's what I'm coming to tell you guys. No one things ain't enough. It's not enough and I found out this is the hard way. You want to be a dad? You want to be a father in today's fatherless age? Knowing things is not going to save you. You have to be able to do things. And we're going to talk about what that looks like and we're going into some detail about the environment in which you're going to have to act as a father in the fatherless age. I always precede my talks by telling you that my talk is illegal. That's the gag order I'm under. As you can see, it gives me a lifetime band from making any videos, doing any types of interviews. Documentary, television appearances, radio appearances, internet radio appearances, blog posts, social media posts, social media posts, picturing the children, doing live social media feeds of the children, doing any type of post-blog broadcast or recording, whether written or electronic, discussing the following political topics, cisgender, transgender, gender fluidity, gender dysphoria, gender identity, and whether my children are masculine or feminism. Fuck that. I'm not doing that. So I always tell my judge, Judge Mary Brown. Judge Mary Brown, I have maximum contempt for you as a judge for issuing that unconstitutional order and violating my rights as a tax. And I have maximum contempt for the text of the order. It's piece of tyranny. I will never follow your order. You're obligated under Texas law to give me the maximum sentence for criminal contempt. That's 180 days in the Lou Staird Jail in Dallas County. I'm going to bring a red habeas corpus to the Fifth Appeals District in handcuffs and you're going to come in your judge's robes and we're going to see who's right. And until you do that, I'm going to continue to tell all of America about the injustices that you have meted on my child. So I want to start off with an example of doing something instead of thinking about it and just writing about it and telling other people to do stuff about it. You need to stop looking for leaders that talk about shit. You need to start doing it. Only look at people who have done things. Carnell's an excellent example of a man who's done things. That's why I listen to him. Eloquent words don't mean anything anymore. I ran for political office and I put up my money to do it. The governor of the state of Texas, the speaker of the house put $3 million against my $160,000 and I almost beat him. And next election session, two years from now, those bastards are going to have to spend $6 million to keep me out of office. And you know why they don't want me in office? Because I'm going to impeach all their cronies and I had bills already written to impeach their little crony judges. I had bills already written that would allow us to arrest illegal aliens and send them back to Mexico at Mexico's expense, which Texas can do. I had bills already prepared and written. All of them had been vetted by the legislative council at the Texas legislature as well and they were scared to death. Look at the endorsements I racked up. Texas right to life, all the gun groups, all the conservative groups endorsed me and that's the reason they had to go against me. This is one of my volunteers, a friend of mine from Portugal. This lady was a tireless volunteer for me. You may know that I have had my disagreements with Antifa. These are stills from a video where I was invited by the unconcerned of Texas to speak at the University of North Texas and depending on who you talk to, three to 500 Antifa showed up. And they operate with impunity in my county because my sheriff doesn't do his job. This has come to be known on the internet as Transasaurus Rex. So they use their usual program. They ramp it up until you quit. How many times have you seen conservative speakers shouted down by these things? You've probably seen many videos of that, right? And they just show people getting rowdy and then what happens? They leave after five or 10 minutes. Oh, it's terrible. They won't let free speech and conservative speaker leaves. So I told these communist bastards, hey, I got an hour and a half speaking slot and you sons of bitches are going to have to protest me for an hour and a half and let's see if you can do it. Now I had the microphone and I could out shout them and I made them beat those tables so hard and these little panties couldn't do it for 30 minutes. Hands started hurting. So pretty soon they just couldn't protest me anymore. They just gave out. So I got to do part of my talk. So then they ramped it up. They used her for their, they have a whole platform for intimidation. So they start with a close proximity. So she got up in my grill and this supposedly, this is a man. And since I kept calling her, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, she got real upset. She started yelling at me. So she had a very powerful voice. So that's audio disruption. That's the second step in their deplatforming technique. Anyway, it ramped up till eventually we got to the body fluids part where they started throwing piss on me and spitting on me. You know, and I was just, I was just not going to leave you when they did that. And finally, 300 people surrounded the building and they threatened to burn it down. So the Texas Department of Public Safety put snipers on the roof and they evacuated me. They evacuated out the back. I got a rib broken in the scuffle back there. So I don't know if a guy got a knee or maybe one of these pantyweights actually knows how to throw a punch. Got one on me. Somebody tried to rear naked choke lock me. I gable gripped out of it. And then I got in the cop car and they tried to grab my hair and pull me out. But fortunately, at my age, there ain't enough to do that. So I managed to get away. They put me in a secure cell to protect me for five hours until they dispersed. Why was I doing all that? Why would I put up with all that crap? Because of these guys. That's James. That's Jude. I named him after the brothers of Jesus. James is the one that my ex-wife is trying to transition. How many of you don't know that story? Because I'll spend time on it if you don't know that story. So most of you know that story. Jude has a little bit of cerebral palsy from his birth. There's a story there. Boxing cured him of that because of the cross body motions. And this is us after 24 rounds of boxing looking pretty sharp, I think. That was a lot harder for me than it was for them. This is James after he bagged his first rabbit with a hunting stick. That's the hunting stick in his hand. There he is with his first pair of boxing gloves. That's us at Christmas. James is just a normal boy. And this is what his mom did to him. This is him at eight, just past his fourth birthday. This is a major issue in my court case because we were ordered that wherever James had been presented as a girl, he would continue to be presented as a girl. Wherever he'd been presented as a boy, he would continue to be presented as a boy. And the very next day, she changed him to a girl on her website where he was already presented as a boy, violating the court order. And as Carnell knows, enforcing these court orders when women break them is almost impossible. But this is what she started doing to my son. She's completely socially transitioned him. And I could not get the courts to stop. In fact, the courts gave me less than standard possession time to remove the masculine influence on his life. This is a meme that went around the internet because I was actually enjoying from cutting my son's hair. So my ex-wife wanted to grow his hair out like a girl's, and I kept cutting it in my Marine Corps high and tight. And she didn't like that. So she tried to get an injunction against me. And stating the obvious, cutting his hair is considered abuse by the court, but cutting his penis off isn't. I mean, this is where you are as a father today. I just want to let you know, like, level-set you. Courts actually do these things. They actually rule this way. So we had a 2019 jury trial. And at this trial, the top experts in transgender medicine on both sides of the issue showed up at this little courthouse, 255th District Court in Dallas County. Now I got the men who had founded the original John Hopkins Clinic for transgenderism in the 1970s. Now they closed their clinic because after four and a half years, their data showed they were actually harming patients. Their patients were getting worse. So as responsible physicians or responsible psychiatrists, they closed their clinic down and discontinued these treatments. But these were picked up in 2015 by the American Psychological Association, not the psychiatrists. And so we had psychologists on both sides of this issue. My expert witness, Dr. Levine, destroyed the other side. My depositions of their expert witnesses destroyed them. Let me give you an example. Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy, who takes great pride in castrating boys, by the way. She's absolutely gleeful on YouTube when she talks about cutting little boys' balls off. Absolutely gleeful about it. She loves to do that to boys. I asked her this simple question in a deposition. I said, what is the medical justification for removing healthy body parts from children? And her response was, they're not healthy body parts if they're causing psychological distress. I'm gonna submit to you that an answer like that indicates that a huge change has occurred in the way we think about human beings that such an answer could be given by a physician, openly and under oath to a court, tells you that something radically has changed. And we're gonna talk about what that is and what it means for fatherhood. The outcome from that trial was, I got 50-50 custody and no child support. And just like Carnell's judge, they recused the judge of the 255th, put me into another court with a liberal judge in a transparently corrupt proceeding by a very powerful law firm in Texas. And that judge refused to enforce the jury verdict. Okay, after I got into this new court, I was put on supervised visitation, $600 per visit for two hours. And it had to be supervised by two psychologists. And I was not allowed to change my son out of address. I was not allowed to call him by his legal name, use male pronouns, or even pray with him about traditional Christian sexuality and gender. So I have made a decision that I'm never gonna participate in the abuse of my son. I have failed to pay all kinds of medical child support that I don't pay. Because I'm not gonna pay medical professionals who are gonna tell my son he's a girl. Now in Texas and all the 50 states, there's no exception to child support. So I'm facing a state jail felony on that. But just to tell you, these liberals don't have the balls to take me into the criminal court. Because I'll tell you this, when I get up to the court of criminal appeals in Texas, I'm gonna establish a precedent for the exception of child support. There will be exceptions for child support for the first time in Texas and they know it. So they're not gonna take me up on that. But I'm not paying doctors to hurt my son. So I've refused to go to these supervised visitations. And here's, so see what they do. They put these onerous terms of visitation that your conscience cannot allow you to follow. And then the judge says, well, since you're not visiting your son, it appears to me you've abandoned him. And on that basis, she made another ruling. But first, let's talk about how this all happened. How did I even get here? Because psychology, and to a large degree medicine, has been weaponized against us. In fact, all the professional bodies have been weaponized against us. Even the accounting bodies have been weaponized against us. The left and our enemies are experts at subverting democratic institutions. And our side, our guys, have simply not thought through how to defeat their entryism. We don't have a strategy to stop them from taking over democratically run institutions. Most of these professional bodies are democratically run. Most churches are democratically run. And they're incredibly easy for the left to subvert because they have a proven system for doing it. Probably my best example of this is the Ford Foundation. Henry Ford was probably one of the most anti-abortion and most conservative rich men in the country or the 20th century. And they had a 30 year plan and they subverted the Ford Foundation and turned it into a pro-abortion lobby organization. And the Ford family had to actually walk away from their own foundation. Like, I mean, these people are really skilled at this. So around 2015, I think it had been in the works for much longer, the American Psychological Association decided that gender identity disorder wasn't a disorder but was dysphoria, which means that it's a problem with the culture not accepting a natural human variation. So the problem, when you ever hear gender dysphoria, it's putting the blame on your culture for not accepting it. And that's an official diagnosis in the DSM-5 diagnostic manual. So they wouldn't let me change my son out of address. The most important for me was that I could not even teach him traditional Christian teachings. And that was backed up by court order. In addition, and I think Cornell also can talk to you about some of this stuff. Look, the reason they do supervised visitation, it's not to protect the child. It's so that a psychologist will have infinitely malleable evidence to say that you're a danger to the child. That's the whole purpose of it, right? So the reason they didn't want my son to be out of address is let me ask you a question. You got a red blooded Texas boy, what do you think he's gonna do when he gets around his daddy in a dress? He's gonna be uncomfortable. And they'll report that as fear. You see how that works? That's the game they were trying to play on me. So by not going to supervised visitation, I took that weapon away from him. But on the other hand, I didn't get to see my sons. While I've been gone for a year and three months, this is what's happened to him. That's a picture I wasn't supposed to get from school. See the earring on him. Goes by Luna. Stressed him like a drag queen, presents him to the world like that. Has him flaunt around in high heels. Look at my son Jude's face. I think that about sums up my reaction. When he started refusing to wear a dress, when he got a little older, she's a physician. My ex-wife is a physician. She's a pediatrician. She got him diagnosed with ADHD and put him on speed. That's his eyes, look at his eyes. He can't even keep his eyes straight. He's so drugged. This is me with him on FaceTime. But when he's drugged, he'll be compliant and put on dress. And the courts are allowing it. So this has been my response basically in a nutshell. Yeah, I'm not doing that. Psychology is bullshit. I don't buy into any of your theories. It's all bullshit. None of it has a scientific justification and none of these psychologists should ever be able to testify in a court because there's no scientific basis for what they do. They're merely giving opinions. Psychiatry is a different matter. Psychiatry has a scientific basis, a medical basis, psychology doesn't. And I ain't bound to these sons of bitches. They wanna hurt my kid, they're gonna have to roll over me to do it. So far they haven't been able to do that. But the main thing is that these boys have not had a father for over a year. And it's probably gonna be two years, maybe more. And I'm gonna tell you how it could be permanent in just a second. This is the new court order. This happened just a few weeks ago. My ex-wife realizes that because I just won't shut up and because I have wielded political power in the state of Texas, I tried to pass two bills and two legislative sessions classifying these transgender transitioning of children as child abuse. And by quantitative measures, I created more political power for the passage of those bills than any bill in Texas history. There were offices that were recording 300 lobbyists a day for my bills. More than any other bill in Texas, way more, hundreds more than any other bill in Texas history. But I think it's important to note that with that expression of democratic power, we still could not pass the bills. And so you have to come to grips with reality. Large parts of the government are not in control of people. And we're gonna talk about who is in control and how that works. But this order allows my ex-wife to move my son to California. She testified under oath that she wants to move him to California. Now, why would she pay this very expensive law firm to get this order cost her about $10,000? Why would she go to all that trouble to move to California when she has a successful medical practice in Texas? Here's why. Senate Bill 107, just signed by Gavin Newsom. Governor, Governor Gavin Newsom. It requires, listen to this, it's not optional. It requires California courts to take emergency jurisdiction of children with gender dysphoria. Courts are required to take emergency jurisdiction. They ignore, and it specifically says in the law, they will ignore the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. And they will ignore all state law from the foreign state, even if the child is a citizen of that state. They will not return the children on a court order or for any reason or obey any extradition requests for the parents of those children to return them to the original state. They will not respond to any subpoena. The courts and the people involved don't have to respond to anything from Texas. And finally, the big one, this law removes the requirement of parental consent to medically transition a child. If a court determines it's in a child's best interest, they can sterilize that child and cut their dick off without the parents' consent, even if both parents don't want it. That's why she wants to get my son to California. Now, consider this. This is a Texas judge that just voluntarily ceded jurisdiction of this case to California. Does that make any sense? I mean, if you were operating the way you might think the judiciary operates, would that make any sense? No Texas judge would ever see jurisdiction deprive a child of the protection of Texas laws, right? They wouldn't do that. What's happening here? There is a large movement among the judiciary at the federal and state level to cooperate to transition children. And this is gonna be the future of what you're gonna see that's up against you as a father. Right now you're up against state courts. What's gonna happen in the future is you're gonna be up against multiple state courts as the judges collude to take away your parental rights. It's gonna get much worse before it gets better. So I don't know why this keeps happening to me. I was just talking to Michael Foster about this yesterday. Like the transgender thing, I turn out to be like the tip of the spear on that one. I'm the first one to have to fight it. I had to lawyer up, money up, had to go to jail for a couple of times. I got to fight this thing. Well now, and I don't want this to keep happening to me, it looks like I'm gonna be the first test case for this law because my kid's gonna be the first kid that's gonna do this. So I've had lots of public interest law firms contact me now about how to take this into federal court and take it up to the Supreme Court because it's a blatant violation of the full faith and credit clause. But I'm just gonna have to be the first one to do it again, okay? Because nobody else is doing it. All these other fathers that are going through this are submitting to it. They're giving up, they get one of those gag orders like I got and they shut up, okay? They're not wanting to go to jail. Hey man, a lot of things worse than jail. What's jail? Three hots in a cot, infinite leisure time to finish my book. I mean, jail ain't that bad. Lots of things are worse than jail, right? Having your son's dick cut off, it's a lot worse than jail, right? But a lot of these men are very intimidated. So it looks like it's gonna be me again on this one and I intend to go up to federal court and if I'm gonna do, when I do something like this, California will regret it. It will have political ramifications in the federal judiciary and it probably will result in actual federal judicial taking of some of their courts. You'd think Texas would be fighting this. You'd think, you haven't heard about this, right? The governor, I sent this to the Texas Attorney General. I sent this to the Texas governor. Have you heard anything about it? Not a word. That's because Texas wants me the hell out of there. All right, this ain't the state of the Alamo anymore. Right? Texas wants me gone because, you know, I cost the governor of Texas 100,000, 200,000 votes. You know, going up against Beto now, he's very nervous, right? And I'm telling people what he did, nothing. He did nothing for my son. He has the power to direct the agencies. He did nothing for my son. They want me gone. And if this case gets transferred to California, they have a powerful rhetorical weapon now. They can say, you know what? It's not my problem. It's a California case. Why are we talking about that in a Texas election? And that's the game they're gonna play. They're already starting to play it. I got news for you. I predicted this and they ain't gonna be able to do that. This is a principle that I've learned from my dad. I think my dad learned it from reading Machiavelli. And it's a simple concept. People fake friendship all the time. But people don't fake their enemies, right? People hate you, that's real. People rarely fake that. So you judge men by who their enemies are, not by who their friends are, right? And if a man's hated by the right people, he's a good man. Trust worthy man. Right? So this is a basic principle that I believe our sons have not been taught. Our sons, I think, have been taught to be systematically naive in their dealings with other people. And so I'm gonna apply this principle to myself and how I approach things with my sons. Who are my enemies? Y'all know this painting? Do they know this painting? Recognize that? It's a famous painting. So in the Battle of Kulikovo, right, the golden horde, the Mongols had swept across Russia and invaded Hungary and then they left and they came back with an even bigger army to take over all of Europe. The Russians met them at the Battle of Kulikovo and that's an orthodox monk on the right, Perisevite. Perisevite was not a warrior and had no idea how to use a spear or even how to ride a horse. They had to teach him how to ride a horse and he challenged the Mongol general to a duel. And since he was so weak and not a warrior, the general was forced to accept it. And Perisevite arranged for a mutual kill because even an unskilled man can arrange for a mutual death and a duel. And that's the moment of mutual death. The loss of their commander caused the complete defeat of the golden horde, the first defeat the Mongols had ever suffered and there's a giant 40 foot column. Perisevite is a good model. Even if you're not skilled but you're willing to take the blows, you're willing to take the hits, you can beat anybody. If you're willing to take the hits, you can beat anybody because they deliver one to you, you deliver one to them. Who are my enemies? Well, the courts have hit me. The legislature did nothing twice. The executives, we have a plenary executive in Texas. The governor is split over 14 offices, not like Florida. So we have the executives are against me. Those are my enemies. Certainly they've all harmed my child either by inaction or by direct action. But that's not my real enemy and it's not your real enemy. We talk a lot about politics. We talk about political action. Believe me, I did a whole presentation last year here about being politically active and taking power. But that's not really the origin of political power. You can tell, I generated more political force in Texas for House Bill 1399 than in any bill in Texas history. Didn't get passed. What stopped it? What stopped it is my true enemy, your true enemy, which is the spirit of the times, the zeitgeist. You live in a time when what it means to be a human, what it means to be a friend, what it means to be a father have radically changed in meaning. And we're living in that time of transition. And in many ways, our guys are in denial about this and are not seriously considering what it means. How many of you saw this? What is a woman? How many of you seen that Matt Walsh movie? It's a great movie. You absolutely should see it. He basically goes to the psychologists and psychiatrists who are in favor of these transgender transitioning of kids in particular and just asks the question, what is a woman? And none of them can answer it. It's fascinating to watch them squirm under the question. In fact, the delight of the whole movie, it's like one and a half hours of just leftist who wanna hurt kids squirming under this simple question because they cannot answer it. And it's a great question, but I don't think it's the best question. It's probably a better question for a popular movie, but if you wanna understand what's happening in the world, there is a better question. And it's what is a person? So let me tell you a story. I had an NBC producer who was trying to get interviews with my son. I don't let my son do interviews with liberals. But he kept coming after me. He came down to Dallas, he visited me. And then he finally got me into like a private dinner. And he was definitely recording me. I think he was trying to do some gotcha journalism. So we're sitting here at this Mexican restaurant. I'm drinking a Negra Modello beer. What I could tell he was drinking Shirley Temple or something. And should have been my tip off. So he asked me, you're a Christian, right? I said, yeah. He said, you're Orthodox Christian, right? I said, yeah. He said, well, can I go to church with you on Saturday? So I said, yeah, come with us tomorrow. Come pick up a hotel, come church with us. And he said, well, but I'm gay. And then he has this long pause, you know? And I'm like, all right, man, we'll stop being gay. That's bad for you. You're gonna go to hell if you stay gay and come to church with me and tomorrow. Just try not to be gay until you get to church. And he said, but I couldn't, versus he was taken aback by the answer. I don't think it ever occurred to him that he could stop being gay for a little bit. And then I said, hey, but I couldn't be who I really am if I came to your church. And I said, well, you've hit the nail on the head, man. You have actually hit the exact thing that you and I should be discussing. Because you think you're a biological computer programmed to satisfy largely unconscious desires. And I think you're much more important than that. And I don't think you are a biological computer. So we don't agree on what a person is. Why don't we talk about that? And he started crying. He broke down and started crying right in front of me. Didn't know what to do. I actually ordered him a beer. Thought it might help. Nobody, I don't think anybody ever told him being gay is a behavior. Stop doing that dumb shit. Nobody ever told him that. Like he thinks of being gay as an identity, something that he is, something ontological. Right? Something that somehow constitutes his essential nature. Now this is very strange to me because I grew up on a pretty poor background on a farmer ranch in rural, far rural Texas up in the Panhandle, okay? I mean, my nearest neighbor was five miles away. I literally walked three miles to an asphalt road to go to school. Like, I mean, all those stories that like parents tell, all that shit's true about me. It really was uphill both ways, you know? So, you know, I didn't have a television. I didn't even have a radio. Like I didn't grow up with all these influence. So this is all very strange to me. I mean, if you had asked my father or my grandfather, you know, does your work, you know, you got digging ditches to get water to your cows. You know, do you find that personally fulfilling? You know, my grandfather would look at you and say, what the fuck are you talking about? Personally fulfilling. I don't, we don't even ask questions like that. Like it's just not, you know, does my true self feel actualized when I'm laying a culvert? Or I don't even ask dumb questions like that. You know what I mean? But for people like this NBC producer, these are the central questions of life. They're not, how do I feed my family? How do I get this ditch dug so that I can get these cows grown and sell them? This is not how they think. For them, what is my true self want? What is my innermost being want? What is this actualizing my full potential? These are the kinds of questions they ask themselves. And I submit that those are gay questions. And if you ask questions like that, your ass is gonna be gay. So I read a really good book and I highly recommend all of you read it. It's maybe a little bit academic, but not too bad. Not too bad. It's by a guy named Carl R. Truman. It's called The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. And Truman is asking the same question that my grandfather would have asked or that I ask. Like, when did people start going, would my true self be happy with this? Like, when did people start asking this? His question's a little bit different. He says, when did such a question become possible where you look at a child and it's clearly biologically male and you ask yourself, is it a boy or a girl? When did the possibility of such a question become possible? And then how did it become possible? So this book is about what I call real politics. Politics are really about the attitudes and dispositions. How do these dispositions change? How did that question come to be seen as legitimate? And he starts off with this idea of the social imaginary. And this is what the Germans call Weltanschau. It's the world horizon. You may have heard this in the Red Pill community called an Overton window. It's the boundary of acceptable questions and belief. Beyond that boundary, you won't even ask questions. Like my grandfather would never have asked, do I feel personally fulfilled digging ditches? They would never ask that. He had to dig a damn ditch and he just did it. It was not in his Weltanschau, it was not in his social imaginary to even ask such questions. The modern social imaginary prioritizes victimhood. Now, that's very different than the world I grew up in. The world I grew up in prioritized heroism and valor. And feeding your family through a hard winner on a ranch was actually considered valorous and worthy of respect. The janitor at my elementary school when I was a child was worthy of great respect. My father forced me to say yes sir and no sir to him and to give him Christmas gifts because that man had a job and fed his family and kept the students warm in the winter in the school. There was a concept of that. The modern social imaginary doesn't even question those things. It prioritizes victimhood, victimhood status. Now Truman goes through why this happened. I don't have time to do that, but I encourage you to read the book. He also points out, and this is very important, he has a very good chapter on this, that the moral structure derives from the social imaginary and in this new modern social imaginary around morals, traditional sexual codes are considered oppressive and even life denying. When I say life denying, I mean kills people. So they understand the things that we advocate for, traditional sexual morality, as literally threats to people's lives. And this is just so strange to me and maybe because it's so strange I was able to study it. And maybe some of y'all are a little too close to it and you're in it and it's hard to see it, but Truman's book will help snap you out and give you a, it's like doing four dimensional geometry, I'm a mathematician. You do four dimensional geometry, you slice it up into three dimensional pieces so you can kind of understand it. Truman's book kind of does that for the modern social imaginary. And this is really important too. In this new social imaginary, people believe they have a right to define their own existence. Now that means the right to exist or not exist, like euthanasia and suicide, but also the kind of existence. Now we talked about Roe versus Wade in the panel, and Roe versus Wade explicitly invokes this principle. The basis for the Roe v. Wade decision was that every person has a right to define for themselves their own existence. That's the exact text in the law, in the ruling. That was also the basis for the Bostock decision and lots of other bad decisions. This concept that people by their own ideas and concepts can change who they are in the real world. Is deeply embedded in the modern social imaginary. Now there's a whole intellectual history behind this that goes back into the rise of Freudian psychology and other things where the idea of sexuality became deeply associated with the true self, who you really are. The things that my grandfather would never even talk about. They were just preoccupied with this. And if you've not read Sigmund Freud's civilization and it's discontent, you should definitely read it. Because it shows clearly the transition that is gonna happen to this new zeitgeist. So this is a strange world for us to inhabit. For most of us, we don't think of the world like this. We don't think of ourselves like this. Here's the political angle on this. Because this social imaginary has captured probably a small majority at this point, I would have said 40% a year ago, I think it's a small majority now, has captured people's social imagination. It tends to strengthen groups that define themselves in these terms. And people like us who don't define ourselves in these terms become marginalized. We're life denying. We're preventing people from being in touch with their true selves. And the wider culture gets blamed for it, not the person who has these difficulties. Do you see the relationship between gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria? Where gender dysphoria says it's the culture's fault, that the culture won't accept a natural human variation and this causes anxiety. So it transfers the fault from the transgendered person who has a disordered view of who they are to the culture who won't accept their disordered view. And that's what Truman is getting to, that now the way to exert social and political and now increasingly even scientific power is by being a person in this social imaginary who defines themselves as a victim group and by their sexuality. And what this means is that our battlefield is both moral and ideological. And I think we've approached our fights with our enemies as mainly moral fights and not ideological fights. And the reason is very simple. It's perfectly understandable. We don't really, we can't even articulate their ideology almost. Like we just don't think of ourselves in the way they do. So there's no mapping up of words that we can get our ideas across to them. There's no even possibility of dialogue. That's why our enemies can say they support freedom while censoring us. You see? Their notion of personal freedom is not the notion that we have. They have Rousseau's notion. You ever read Rousseau? You know that Rousseau said that men have to be forced to be free. Think about that for a second. For us, that doesn't even make sense. That's an incoherent statement. But it was the basis for all of our social philosophy and became the dominant philosophy of Europe. And I would argue now in America and the sexual ideology has been laid on top of that. So we can't even talk to them because we're not really meaning the same things by our words and more than meaning the operational definitions aren't the same. Like how we act out the meanings of those words in the world is not the same. So what I've tried to do, the print's a little small, I've tried to map out what this ideological and moral terrain would look like. That your sons are going to have to traverse. And you're gonna have to teach them how to be men like us in a world like that. Okay? And it's not the first time. Remember Christians entered into a pagan world. Okay? The Roman Empire was thoroughly pagan. So it's not an unusual situation for people like us. But I think we've forgotten what it's like to be in that position. We've gotten used to being the dominant view and we're just not anymore. So one of the things I did when I started doing research for this is I noticed there's all these different ways of conceptualizing moral and ideological differences. Okay? And I found that while they all use different words and they certainly have different dispositions or intentions towards the use of these concepts, they all actually line up into fairly consistent categories which was really surprising to me. You can almost say that while there are all these different branches of knowledge there's this unifying base around something and it's probably reality that's unifying them this way. So I started initially by just looking at hermeneutics. The linguistic analysis of sacred texts. And you have the four levels of interpretation, right? And we're gonna get to that because we're gonna talk about some questions that I can't describe literally or even allegorically and I'm gonna have to tell you stories so that you understand what I'm saying. There's sort of philosophical or conceptual analysis. There's ontological analysis. I mean I took that straight from Plato's line of knowledge. Phenomenology, this is from Heidegger. And then I just picked one of the three dominant the theories of the self and psychology, the burn model. The real self, which I make fun of all the time. The real self is the one that chooses which of these other three you're going to present as. But you see that they all kind of line up in categories which are fairly consistent, not perfectly, but fairly consistent. And I think if we think more about this and I don't have this completed, this is a new idea. I don't have this completed. But we're gonna have to map out this new ideological terrain in a way that we can talk about it. Because when we're talking about our enemies, we're not meaning the same thing. We're not being clear about who they are and where they are and I think that's why we often lose. So the next question, once you know the terrain, you have to ask yourself what can be done? What is available for you to do? And this means looking at the instruments of power. Again, we don't talk this way in our movement. We talk a lot about personal development and other things, but in order to find a way to raise your son in this fatherless society, you're gonna have to implement tools of coercion against your fellow citizens and carve out a space of freedom for you to raise your child in a traditional way. Let me say that again. You will have to use power against your fellow citizens to carve out a space of freedom to raise your children in a traditional way. You will not be allowed to raise your children in a traditional way if you cannot do that. So what's available here? I would submit religion is an imperative. Religious societies with high in-group preferences always defeat societies with low in-group preferences. Our enemies have low in-group preferences. They'll include anybody. High inclusion. If we are religiously bound and we have high in-group preferences, we will defeat them. That's really the first thing. And these are, others are just tools. I don't really need to explain them all. You understand what I mean by them. This one you may not. I had to whip out a Greek word. Sorry about that. Because this word encompasses both the notion of technology, but also the notion of technique. We don't think of techniques as a form of technology, but the ancient Greeks did. And I think this is a valuable thing. Techniques and technology. We need better techniques. What are the prerequisites to use these instruments of power? Your ass has to be cancel-proof. Because as soon as you start exerting that political power, you just look at my example. They'll send 400 people to try to kill you. They'll try to cancel you from your job. They'll keep you out of political office. They won't allow you to participate in the democratic process and interfere with your ability to vote, which they most definitely have tried to do. They will smear you across every liberal publication on the planet. A lot of people can't tolerate, to me, the insults of the wicked are praise. So I don't know why people have a problem with that. But a lot of people can't take that. Okay, you gotta be cancel-proof. That's the number one thing. Most of our guys have honorable intentions. Most of our guys have courage. But a lot of our guys do not have the ability to live in a world of confrontation and dissent that's continuous. One of the things that our enemies have done very well is they've done a psychological analysis of us. You should read a book called The Authoritarian Personality. It's an analysis of people like us with an aim towards developing a psychological plan to undermine them in society. It's been extremely successful. And one of the things they point out is that people like us highly prize social cohesion and harmony. So by denying us social cohesion and harmony, they can get us to compromise. And they use that against, Margaret Thatcher called this the ratchet effect. I just put a meme on Facebook. Got warned about it by Facebook. So I got a black mark. It says, conservatives be like, and then it has the transgender flag on one side and it says reject modernity. And it has the gay pride flag that says accept tradition. A lot of our guys simply ratify the last thing the left did. Okay. And that's because we're afraid of confrontation and dissent. We won't tell a gay person, stop being gay. That's stupid. Bad for you. Just won't do it. And it's not just the transgender issue. It's really not even just sexuality. Although sexual, if you notice, people define themselves almost exclusively now in terms of their sexuality. I'm gay, I'm trans, I'm pansexual. Like it's really bizarre to me. But to them, that's the central part of their self, their self identity. Here's what they're doing. My son's a good example. They are going to take your children. They're going to educate them to destroy everything that you built. That is the goal of the modern world. The essential technique is to assert the moral principles of children early, to assert them from the parents and to turn them against their parents for traditional morality. And they have been extremely successful at this. Your children will come back to destroy you. There's precedent for this. Look what happened to the Serbians, an Orthodox country. When the Turks conquered, people don't know Serbia lived for 300 years under Muslim domination. Most of the Orthodox countries did. Orthodox Christians know very well how to live under oppression like this. The Turks would periodically draft children from the ages of five to 10, militarily draft them and remove them from the homes of Christians, take them to Istanbul and castrate them, physically castrate them. Then they would train them to be cavalrymen. The Janissary. Then they were sent back to Serbia to rule over the fathers they forgot and the Turks knew that the Serbs wouldn't kill their own children and would obey them, okay? That's what they're gonna do to you, with your kids. If you cannot carve out a space of freedom to raise your children in a traditional way by using political force against your fellow citizens, that is your fate and it has been done before. But there are also spiritual stakes and these I can't give you a discursive explanation of. These are transcendent ideas. So I have to step into an anagogical frame of mind, an allegorical frame of mind in order to explain this to you. So I'm gonna read some excerpts from some writings. This is an excerpt from an article that Eagle Forum asked me to write for them and this is the only woman's group that I really respect. Phyllis Schlafly formed it. She was very pro-father. She was against Title IV-D. She fought against Title IV-D. One of the very few women who did. They asked me a typical woman question. Jeff, we want you to write an article but your articles are often like really logical. We wanna know how you feel about this situation. So it took me about six months to write this. It's a piece called Waiting for My Father and this is a little part of it. When I was in my mid-30s, I finally located my father. We hadn't seen each other in many years. I wanted to go back to that ditch and make him come back to get me. That ditch where I waited in front of my house every day for him to come back. After a time though, I noticed that my father's absence from his children had broken him. He had taken to drinking. I moralized about this for a year or so but much like my thinking about rights and duties, I saw a deeper truth. Drinking was his ditch. That was how he waited for the family he loved to come back to him. He was still in love with my mother after all these years. This time with my father was tumultuous. My father was irritated by my presence as though I was telling him to come inside, telling him that he couldn't wait for us anymore. After all, I'd grown up and that the time for waiting was over. But he didn't want to stop waiting. And so eventually we just parted forever. I told my friends stories about why I wasn't spending much time with my father. The stories weren't true. The long absence of divorce broke our bond of attachment. We had both been waiting for each other but in the end, there was nothing left to wait for but the waiting itself. And this is from a letter to my son which was actually admitted into evidence against me three weeks ago. And it was this very passage that they entered. During this separation, think back on our life before times, my sons. We swept together in boxing. We cried in pain doing our floor work. We raised our spirits together to hit the bags hard and with skill. We walked fast and long. We endured the heat and the cold, the dry and the wet, hunger and thirst. Even before our separation by evil forces, we suffered. But the effort made us stronger. Likewise, this trying time of separation will also make us stronger and we must bear it as men. Now, the cause of our separation is the unjust rule by effeminate authorities in government and in our society. Effeminate rulers do not even attempt to pursue goodness. They use their power in service of hysterical and fickle emotions rather than justice. Feelings displace fact and power replaces judgments. Alas, my dear sons, we live in extraordinarily effeminate times. Above all, we must not give in to effeminacy, my sons. We must keep the manly virtues. I will resist the evil forces that keep us apart. You will retain the manly way of life that I taught you. And like three towers of stone, we will stand. The time will pass, like black storm waters gushing past us. And when it's gone, we will still be standing as we were before, but wash clean by the dirty waters. This is a speech I gave to grassroots conservative group in Texas who were perplexed how we just couldn't get conservative Republicans to outlaw castrating little boys. A cold civil war is upon us. It's cold because it is so far fought in and over institutions, not land. It's civil because it's a contest over how we will govern ourselves. It is a war because only one side can win. Our society cannot endure divided over whether we will kill babies after birth, divided over basic social norms, divided over the question of basic liberties, like the freedom to rear our young according to our traditional Christian ways of life. Our society has become decadent in the literal sense from the Latin decadence out of step with one another on the most fundamental issues. Now, I do not expect our society to dissolve. In fact, I expect it will be unified. It will become one thing or another, all one thing or all one another. Our traditions will regain their preeminent social status or we will live in a giant university campus with speech codes, lunch cards, single payer health care, and our schedule run by ideological bureaucracies. There will be no compromise. I wanted to give you a sense of the spiritual stakes involved. That can't be done by discursive reasoning and I hope that gives you an idea at least how I see the spiritual stakes. We talked about what can be done. Let's talk now about what must be done, what has to be done. First of all, I don't believe we can organize like our enemies when we should stop trying to. What we need are battle houses. Battle houses that will conquer institutions and build new social norms that reestablish our civilization. Fundamentally, this is a reactionary movement. We want to reestablish a previous social order. And to do that, we're gonna have to truly understand our enemy and not set up large organizations run democratically with leaders because I told you how they subvert those. Instead, we should use swarming tactics. 10,000 small groups. How many of you know about Gamergate? Do I know about Gamergate? Have I ever heard of it? Gamergate's the only instance I know of in which a grassroots group of people successfully defeated the journalism, government, propaganda complex. One of their fundamental principles is no one's in charge. The main technique they use against us, they'll call up somebody, are you the leader of the Manisphere? Sure, I'm the leader of the Manisphere because I'm an alpha male and I say I'm the leader of every dance thing even though I don't know anything about it. And so they grade and then they discredit this person and now they've discredited the whole Manisphere. That's the technique they use against us over and over again. What Gamergate does, journalists would say, are you leading Gamergate? What are you talking about, man? I'm just a gamer. I just want fair journalism and I want games that I like to play. I'm not a leader of anything. They never could discredit it. We need to do the same thing. Small groups, no single leader, no single point of failure. Anytime chance opportunities occur, we don't need a meeting. People just go do it. People who are present, on site, just go exploit it rapidly without any ability for the enemy to prepare. And think in terms of coordination, not managing people. Coordinate with people. Give them information, withhold information if you don't trust their groups. This is the essence of swarming tactics. It's worked against, it's worked in the military, it's worked politically. This was basically the strategy of the Bolsheviks. A good example of our guys is the Genesis Council. How many of you know about the Genesis Council? Everybody knows? Yeah, good. Genesis Council has decided it's gonna focus on aesthetics. So if I had to write their tagline, this is me, not them. If I had to write their tagline, it would be reconquering aesthetic frontiers and building bastions of beauty. That's what they're doing. And they focused on the art. Why would I choose, of all the examples that I could choose to put in my presentation, my limited time, why would I choose this one? When you think about the social imaginary, which I described earlier as the horizon of acceptable thought and questioning, what is it that leads your imagination to different frontiers? It's art. There's a reason why the CIA created the modern art movement. You don't believe me? Go to the Times of London. They did a whole research article on this. Modern art movement was funded by intelligence agencies and it was specifically done to undermine social cohesion and it was very successful. We need to get back to thinking like this. This is a great example of essentially a leaderless movement, a bunch of guys that coordinate rather than manage each other and they're achieving amazing things. In probably the most liberal, liberal environment in America, New York. And I just wanna leave you with some other thoughts. All movements, all of movements, no matter what they are, that are minority movements, reactionary movements, have a tripartite structure. There's people in the vanguard. Remember I was like, I gotta be the one to test this federal law? No, that puts me in the vanguard because I'm the one that has to pay for it and I gotta go do it, all right? Then there are people who maybe they're not cancel proof, but they're supporters, time, talent and treasure is what they give to people in the vanguard who are fighting. And then there's the uncommitted masses. The role of the supporter is to move people from uncommitted to supporters. The role of supporters is to convert more supports, the vanguard is to convert more supporters into the vanguard. There has to be a leftward movement here, right? And I think the best way to do that is through a large number of decentralized organizations spontaneously cooperating. You can't be neutral. You cannot be neutral. And at anybody you meet that says they're a moderate or behaves as a moderate, you shouldn't be very, very suspect. I don't have any respect for neutrals or moderates. They're untrusted allies and unfeared enemies. What good is that type of person? No good at all. But anyway, the enemy's not gonna let you be neutral. You will have to pick a side. Talk to people in big corporations that have the mouth, they have to literally speak transgender ideology in training courses. Things that they don't believe are true, all right? There's a certain humiliation in that to say things that you know are not true. Socialism talks about that. That the primary purpose of propaganda is to show that you are a subject and you have no power. And they do that by making you say things you know are false. You won't be able to stay neutral. You're gonna have to pick a side. I've decided I'm going for unlimited political warfare in my state. I'm not saying that's what you should do. But I am saying, and this is what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna take it down. Believe me, I've done the math. I just developed a strategy. I'm gonna put two million voters out there. The real question here though is what are you gonna do? Maybe you don't wanna do politics. What are you gonna do? You're getting all this knowledge here at the 21 convention. What are you gonna do to carve out a space of liberty by using power against your fellow citizens so you can raise your sons in a traditional way? And before you leave this convention, try out some answers to that question. Because if you can't answer this question, you have no use to us. Thank you.