 We can win this war. We can win this war? OK, well joining us from Orlando, Florida is the man in that clip, Anthony Dream Johnson, who says he wants to abolish feminism and make women great again. No, but it also says, with a trademark, make women great again for women. Always great. Make women great again. But they're going to do a three-day seminar for women led by all men. In mansplaining news, a three-day conference for women led by men hopes to make women great again. How the 22 convention will make you the greatest you ever. Raise your femininity by 500%. First of all, how is a man supposed to tell a woman how to be the ultimate woman? A woman needs to be taught how to be great again. Oh, yes, we do. How to land a husband. How to lose weight. How to pump out a bunch of kids. Why do men think they need to fix the problems of women? Well, it says the world's ultimate event for women. In Orlando, Florida, that's going to be the scene of the crime. It's mansplaining platoosa. And say no to the toxic bullying feminist dogma. Taught by men to make women great again. Taking the stage now is the founder of the 22 convention you're in for a treat, Mr. Anthony Dream Johnson. Anthony Dream Johnson. The first president of the Manosphere. It's run by all men, which promises to, quote, make women great again. This course is guaranteed to raise your femininity by 500%. Together, we will make women great again. Excuse me. I'm mansplaining here. She said there's nothing wrong. Welcome back to the 22 convention of 2021 in Orlando, Florida. This is a special rare event. This is what happens when you ladies get together and voice what you would like to see happen. And you requested the following individual to come and specifically speak about a topic dear and near to many of the Manasphere's hearts. And he's going to be doing it today. He's an individual I've come to know over the last couple of months. And in the hours and days of this convention, we've spent a tremendous amount of time talking and sharing ideas. His personal story is one of true and work. But in this particular case, he's going to be talking about a little bit different subject. One near and dear to my heart on which I too am facing. And this is simply the fact that men are on marriage strike. We simply refuse to submit to civil marriage under the conditions in which marriage exists today. And so without further ado, I'd like to introduce Jeff Younger talking about why men refuse to get married. Thank you. Thank you, Socrates. I really enjoyed my discussions with Socrates and he's a lovely and gracious wife. He's been so kind to me. There's a movement. And nobody talks about it. Even men don't talk about it very much. A movement to avoid marriage. And it's mostly among young men. And often, you know, when I try to talk to people about this, particularly women, women get very angry with me. Like, I'm not advocating this. I just want you to know I'm not advocating this. I'm an Orthodox Christian and I deeply believe in holy matrimony. Holy matrimony is not what civil marriage is today, though. It's actually the opposite. So I'm going to ask you not to shoot the messenger here. Yeah. I'm trying to just describe things. I'm not advocating for them. I was actually interviewed for this book. This is a book by Helen Smith. If any of you follow the blog Instapundit, which is one of the most popular blogs in the world, Glenn Reynolds, who's a law professor in Tennessee. This is his wife. And she is a psychologist, a social psychologist, and she did a lot of study on this. Why men aren't marrying? Well, here's the good news. Divorce rates are declining. Here's the bad news. They're declining because marriage rates are declining. And we don't really talk about that. Look at women's marital status. You see how the never married and married are coming together? And the divorce rate is moving up slightly. Look at men. Same thing, same pattern. They're beginning to converge. Men in particular, you see that line steeper, men in particular are refusing to marry. And there's some reasons for that, that I think you'll find surprising. Things that are somewhat counterintuitive even. First of all, I would like all of you to Google this and download this study. It's one of the few comprehensive studies that have been done on why women file for divorce. In your state, at least 70% of all divorces will be sought by women, not by men. In my state and in Dallas County, where I live, it's upwards of 90% are sought by women. By the way, the stereotype about Dallas divorce lawyers is true. Dallas has the highest divorce rate of any county in the United States, and it's way higher than the closest one behind it. You can go get rich in Dallas doing divorce law. But there's a quote from the final conclusion that I wanted to read. We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce. When they ran different statistical models and they did surveys, what they found was the main reason women were filing for divorce was to get sole control of the children. And that allowed them to get sole control of property and money. One of the big issues here is that we have no fault divorce. There was a time when I was born, 1965, you couldn't just get divorced if you wanted to. There were only five reasons in the state of Texas where I'm from that you could get a divorce. Divorce only happened for cause. In marriages without children, it would often be granted, just as no fault divorce. But marriages with children, neither parent was allowed to run out on the children unless one of five things happened. These are things like marital fraud, domestic violence, infidelity, things like that. But right now, marriages can just be terminated. So people think of marriage as kind of a contract, but it is not a contract. You can't run out on contracts anytime you want. But you can marriages. Here's one of the main issues, driving divorce and has gotten the government involved in promoting divorce. Government promotes marriage in order to promote divorce. Government makes money on divorce. Title IVD is a federal program which gives matching funds for the collection of child support. It's about 66 cents on the dollar. I don't know about other states, but I know Texas, it's about half a billion dollars, comes from the federal government to the state in Title IVD funds. It funds our entire Attorney General's office. So when you hear Ken Paxton is suing the federal government for something Texas doesn't like that they're doing, all that's being funded by child support. Okay? In Texas and most states, judicial retirement comes out of Title IVD funding. The more child support that is issued by a judge, the larger their retirement when they're off the bench. Let me tell you a little story. A good friend of mine, his name is Josh in Texas. He and his wife came to an accord. He was watching the kids 10 hours a day because she was pursuing a career. He has a construction business, but he can work at night. So he was watching the kids for her. They're divorced, friendly. He was watching the kids for her 10 hours a day and he was still paying $1,800 a month in child support. So they just came to a rational agreement and said, hey, I'm going to waive the child support because you're taking care of the kids all the time. Why don't we just share the kids equally and we'll just dispense the child support. So they came up with their own agreement because these judges are required to take mutual agreements. So they show up to the judge and what they think is going to be signing this mutual agreement. No child support. They're going to equally share custody. And they had a real nice flexible arrangement where when she had to travel, he could keep the kids so they could just change it up how they needed to. The Texas Attorney General sent a lawyer to court and said, you cannot do this because they will not be paying child support. They interfered with an agreement for equal custody because they would lose the matching funds and it's a lot of money. Over the lifetime of a child, it's a lot of money. That's the degree to which the states are involved in promoting divorce. I'm not one of these guys that blames women. I just don't think that way and I think a lot of women blame men. I experience it a lot. But I also know a lot of women that have no blame for it. They understand that there are perverse social incentives that are affecting both of us. I think, my God, if I was a woman and I had been told that I need an alpha man who's going to get things done and everything who never tells me what to do. I want an ambitious man who runs a business who's going to make lots of money who spends all his time with the kids. If I had believed these logically inconsistent things, I'd probably be unhappy. I'd be unhappy too. You've been given these crazy messages from this culture. Let's think about some of the temptations that women are under in marriage. A lot of men will get real angry about this, but it's the state that has created these incentives. It's no fault divorce. A woman can file for divorce and she's got it in Texas. She'll have a 95% chance of getting soul control of the children. That means in Texas that she will be able to direct their religious, moral, and intellectual education. The man will not be able to direct that. For most men in Texas, it averages about 30% of their gross income and non-deductible expenses. A lot of people think that men get to deduct child support. Actually, they don't. The recipient, the woman, gets to deduct the child support that the man pays. This makes child support for the IRS a revenue-neutral event because the woman deducts what she receives so it doesn't change anybody's income. The IRS loves that because there's no paperwork. I know millionaires, multimillionaires, who cannot absorb 30% in gross income in non-deductible expenses. It's just impossible. In Dallas County, when you drop below $40,000 a year in income, you literally can't afford housing at that point. She gets the right to 30% of the man's income for up to 20 years in Texas because it can go into college. She gets half of the marital assets. She may get spousal support. In Texas, we really don't have alimony. You have to have been with a man for 10 years and then you can get temporary alimony for two years. You may get that. You're asking women, think about how easy it is to just file and you get that. You get all of this money in sole control of the kids. You're asking women to not do that. Marriage is sometimes tremendously difficult. I'm often fond of quoting Aristotle that happiness is not an emotion. We used to have a different distinction between joy and happiness. Joy is the emotion you feel, but happiness is not an emotion. Ask people who have climbed Mount Everest and they say, hey, it was the happiest day of my life being on Mount Everest. Yeah, you're dying. Yeah, you go above that oxygen zone and you start dying and the question is, can you come down before you die? You're in absolute agony. I have a friend of mine who plays a professional rugby and he's like in the championship. He broke three ribs, played through it. He was in absolute pain. He says, happiest day of my life was playing that game. He felt no joy yet. He was happy. Happiness is an activity in accord with virtue. Joy is an emotion. You could be happy in a marriage, but not be experiencing joy all the time. You're doing the right thing and you know you're committed to doing the right thing. But you're asking women who may be at difficult times to not push this win button and get all this. So control the children and everything. It's a huge temptation. I don't think men adequately understand that temptation. I would ask men, what if you had the power to do that? If you could take half the marital assets, the kids, you could get all the money. Man, that's a temptation for you to push that button when you get upset with your wife. It's a tough one. So this is a little bit skewed. You've probably heard the statistic 45% of marriages end in divorce. That's true, but a lot of those are remarriages. If you only look at first time marriages, you're really down in the 20%. But that's still significant. If you're thinking about doing a business deal, would you do a deal if you have a one chance in five of totally going bankrupt? You probably wouldn't enter such a contract. It's still bad is what I'm trying to say. And here's the issue. So we have all these issues of female temptation. I've heard some men say, hey, I'm just one bad mood away from losing my kids. She could just file for divorce and take my kids. Men feel this. I know women that use that as power over their men. They can make their men do whatever they want because they can take their kids anytime they want. And they use it as a form of power. And California is infamous for that. California divorces are just infamous for that kind of control. The issue for men, though, comes down not so much to these temptation issues. And honestly for men, it's not the money. I'll give you an example for me. When my ex-wife divorced me, she was trying to transition my son to a girl without my consent. I've been fighting that. I spent over a million dollars fighting that. I offered her $20,000 a month in child support and 50-50 custody for 50-50 time with my son because I knew if I had 50-50 time with my son he would reject a female identity because he's never presented as a girl with me. She turned down that money to keep that control, you see. So you can see that even in my case and most fathers, it's not the money. It's being secure in their posterity. Men have an intense, and I mean an intense desire to raise their children. I mean, I'm just getting chills even talking about it because I have that feeling in my... I don't know if you're not religious. You might say it's some kind of instinctive reaction from evolution, you know, whatever. It's deep, and it's not something... It's one of those things that men cannot control. You can't control your mothering instincts. We don't have those. I remember when I had children, I just marveled at that, at the instincts that women had about the needs of the children. It was just absolutely marvel. I can't believe it. It was almost like ESP. Men have an intense desire to direct the ethical upbringing of their children. And the inability to do that is a tremendous blow to their masculinity. It's probably the only thing worse would be castration. So I want to tell you how the laws make men insecure in their posterity. First of all, yet law fathers presumptively lose the kids. This may surprise you, right? But I'll give you an example in the Texas Statutes. We have something called the Standard Possession Schedule. About 80% of men who get custody of kids get this. It may be higher. It may actually be higher, because we don't have records for some counties. So this gives a man 24% of the time of this child. It's the every other weekend thing, right? So you've heard psychologists up here talk about anything less than 40%. It's a single parent home, right? So the father is really removed from the mental, moral upbringing of their children by the Standard Possession Schedule. But the Standard Possession Schedule, since it gives 24%, which is less than 25%, maximizes Title IV D reimbursements to the state. So it's no accident that that's the standard. Here's the thing. That custody arrangement is considered to be statutory at law in the best interests of the children. So when you go into a divorce, presumptively the judge assumes that it's in the best interest of the children for the father to have 24% of the time of the kids. And the father has to rebut that presumption to get it changed. And that rebuttal has to be powerful enough that the state loses Title IV D monies, a lot of Title IV D monies. You see where I'm going with this? Fathers are presumed at law to lose their kids. Fathers lose all privacy. Let me give you an example for me. I've been under continuous litigation for nine years. Every time you've seen me in there getting coffee, any time you've seen me buying a drink in here during our little soirees in the evening, all of those transactions, I am required to deliver to my ex-wife to be scrutinized. My entire financial life, all my bank accounts, bank statements, credit card transactions, cash transactions, any receipts that I receive have to be delivered to her. So most fathers endure this because it's integral to child support calculations. Suppose I want to reduce my child support. The court is going to say, yeah, but you bought lattes at that conference. You could have given that to your kids. That proves to me that you're not thinking about your kids. No, I'm not reducing your child support. That's why women ask for these things and have the court order us to give it to them. So we have no financial privacy. That goes for my business that I have as well, by the way. All my bank accounts, all my client lists, everything. Fathers lose their constitutional civil and customary rights. So this talk I'm giving to you right now is illegal. I'm violating a gag order from a judge by talking to you. Now I've told this judge, and I'll tell the judge again, I'm never following your gag order. It's illegal, and I will never follow it. And if you believe that the gag order is legal, you're obligated to give me the maximum sentence and criminal content to put me in jail. I have a writ of habeas corpus judge, and I will go to the Texas Supreme Court and we'll see who's right. I always tell her that because she watches these things. I don't have a constitutional right to tell you that my son's a boy. I don't have a constitutional right to speak to you about any issue regarding transgender, LGBT issues, or anything regarding marriage. Totally unconstitutional. Family courts routinely give men restrictions like this, which are totally illegal, and men have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to appeal to hire courts to give them a return. It's very common. Gag orders like this are probably 100% of cases are done. Okay, so it's very common. I told you about losing gross income, but fathers also become vulnerable to continuous litigation. Okay, so America has a really nice system. We have very flexible legal procedures leading up to a trial, giving both sides lots of leeway, discovery, everything. But once a verdict in America is delivered in a civil court, there can be no relitigation of that fact. Okay, you may not like it, but that's it. The benefit is huge for our society because it means that we're not constantly relitigating things. Okay, in Spanish courts, you can relitigate. So you've got families that have been litigating for hundreds of years in family courts, I mean in civil courts. Okay, so in the English court system in America, once the judgment's done, you're done. You cannot litigate that issue again. Family court is the only exception. So I've been continuously sued for nine years without break. Never stop. Okay? And they have a right to do that in family court. And because of that, I become vulnerable to other kinds of litigation. So they may find something in discovery that they think they can sue my business for. They get discovery from my business, and they think they might be able to cooperate with a European partner and try to sue me over some business deal. I'm not making this stuff up. Okay, you become very vulnerable to litigation after a divorce decree if you have a contentious divorce. Fathers become very vulnerable to false charges of domestic violence. So I was accused of domestic violence. I had a $50,000 criminal trial. It was something called assault by contact. Here's what is required for an assault by contact charge. Assault by contact. It only requires touching that a reasonable person would find offensive. In Texas, that carries a maximum fine of $500 and a minimum fine of $0. The judge can just say, hey, I wasn't that bad. But here's the deal. If it's in the context of a dating relationship, a marriage relationship, or a family relationship, it is considered domestic violence, even though it's incredibly minor. In most states, if you are convicted of any domestic violence offense, you can never have primary custody of a child. In most states, you cannot have any state licenses. If you're an electrician, you can't be one. The federal government has interpreted this to mean you can't carry a weapon, so you lose all of your second amendment rights. And you cannot be employed by the federal governments. Just for that. I know a guy who invited a friend of his to lunch. It turned out the guy was gay and was sexually interested in him. He said, I'm not gay. I'm not interested. And when he left, he tapped him on the shoulder, convicted of domestic violence assault by contact, and he cannot carry a firearm. Another issue for men that doesn't get talked about a lot, and we have a speaker that's going to talk about this, is paternity fraud. It's very common. The American Society for Blood Banks, which does genetic testing on kids for bone marrow transplants and things, has removed a study that showed that one in three of the children that they test don't belong to the husband. The UK studies, which were much larger studies, showed between one in 10 to one in 25 of men will be raising children that are not genetically theirs. So when a wife has an affair and has a baby at law, the child is presumed to be the husband's. Presumed to be the husband's. There's no penalty for women to do this. There is no criminal or civil penalty for this. And it may shock you to know that millions and millions of men are paying child support for children that they can do genetic tests on and prove aren't theirs. The state will not allow them to renounce their obligations to children that were conceived in infidelity. This happens to millions of men. Texas recently reformed this a little bit, and when a qualifying event happens, you have one year to file with the state. But after that, you're on the hook for child support until the child's 26. And this is, yeah, because in Texas you can go on until they go to get out of college and that includes a master's degree. You get to pay child support. So this is something that can't happen to women. Women are always secure in their motherhood. Men are not always secure in their fatherhood. And it's a very common event. Also, conservative rights. Generally, fathers don't get to direct the upbringing of their children. If you think, I get accused all the time that I've had women say, well, you just don't want to pay child support. True, I don't. I'd rather support my child than pay child support. I want to spend the money on the things I want my child to have. That's a big part of how men want to interact with their children and raise their kids. And I've lost complete control of the religious upbringing of my children, for example. We're orthodox, but they're being sent to a very liberal Methodist church, which is teaching my son that he's actually a girl. Female hypergamy also increases, reduces marriage rights. So women are doing really well. Hypergamy. It's the tendency for women to marry up. Men don't do that. Women are doing really well and we should be happy about that. And it's true when it comes even to money that's earned. And this is a breakdown of who's earning more and taking into account what feels. Women are just doing well. Women, young women, out-earned men, they're doing well. But here's the thing. Since women marry up, as they do better, they move up in education, they move up in money earnings. Their number of attractive male mates decreases because they can only marry up and as you go up the pyramid, there's fewer and fewer. For men, it's quite the opposite. Since men marry down, the higher the pyramid they go, the more attractive mates they have access to. And this creates perverse incentives. Men, I don't think anybody would disagree with this here, should men be manly? Should they be sacrificial towards their family? Should they be chivalrous towards women? Is he nodding? Should they be guardians of excellence in our social norms? Preserving our social norms and making sure that we have a peaceful, orderly society? These are the visions we have of a sort of a 19th century gentleman. Dare I say, it might be the sort of man you'd meet in a romance novel. What do women do in our society? How do they behave in our society? They can have any identity they want. They can dress in men's clothes or women's clothes. A wife can choose to work or not to work. Men don't have that choice. They can take on any identity that they want. Essentially, no social norms constrain their behavior anymore. Think about that for a second. That's a pretty deep one. I don't have time to get into it, but it's an issue for both men and women. For example, men in the workplace really don't know how to compete with women. We don't have rules for that yet. We don't know how to disagree with a woman without being threatening to her, for example. A lot of women perceive male disagreement as very threatening. And men disagree with each other all the time. We don't mean any threat. So we haven't worked that out in the workplace yet. Not all women are like that. You hear that a lot. And those rare exceptions will be used to sort of excuse a lot of obvious things that we notice. The courts and the law basically treat women as though they don't have any moral agency. You know, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which since the 1960s has been studying disparities in criminal sentencing, and they control for geography and the type of crime and everything, they find that women get a 30% sentencing discount for the same crimes. Women bank robbers get 30%. Women thieves get 30% discount. Men are punished much more harshly by the justice system. In family court, it almost goes like this. Anything good she did was because she was able to overcome the husband, and anything bad she did was because the husband made her do it. She's literally treated as though she has no moral agency. It's infantilizing women in a way. I find it very offensive in court. And in short, I could just sum it up that women are allowed to be 21st century feminists. Do you think it's sustainable to expect men to be 19th century gentlemen and women to be 21st century feminists? Probably not. Probably not sustainable. I call these postmodern social norms because of the way women are able to invent their own identities. And men are not allowed to do that. And young men have seen their father's lives completely ruined by divorce. Most young men have seen that. Most young men have seen that. I don't mind who just watched his father live out of his car. He had to visit his father in his car, right? While his mother is in this, you know, what we call a McMansion, you know, in Texas, right? She got everything. He went on to be a priest and he's not forgotten that. He's not forgotten that. All right, so I'm trying to give you some ideas to think about why young men are not marrying and how you might need to talk to your sons, how you might need to talk to your friends about marriage for men. And I think my main message is this. Marriage is a good deal for women. Marriage is good for... Marriage to a good man is probably the best thing for women. But you know what? Marriage to a good woman, it might not only be good for men, it might be essential for men. I kind of think that women have, particularly in monogamous societies, are what has allowed Western civilization to occur. Women have a profoundly... You know the only successful eradication of a terrorist group in history? The Mossad created a dating agency in Lebanon and systematically married off the members, and it turns out that men with children don't do terrorism, okay? Women have a profoundly civilizing effect on men and it allows them to turn their energies from these some destructive alpha male behaviors to socially productive behaviors. We want marriage to be good for men. And I'm afraid because of the social conditions we're in, only you women can do that. So I came to plead with you. Make marriage good for men, make it good for women, and good for children. Thank you. Questions, yeah? This is a short one, so we have very little time, I think. I'm firing military, so I was wondering if you have any experience and shout-outs for advice for the military men out there who are probably worried about the same sort of destructive marriages that we see a lot in the military community? Yeah. So a lot of you may not know but I was in the Marine Corps, I was also in the Army, so I've seen both of them. I was in the combat arms in both. The Marine Corps doesn't have that notion, but you know, combat units. So I think if you're in the military and you're deployed a lot, you need to seriously think whether you should be married at all. You know, I think, you know, the Army talks about having a professional soldier, but being a soldier is a vocation. It's not a profession. It's much more than just a profession. It's a moral dedication to it and the expectations for that job are so high. It's very difficult to be married and it takes an extremely special woman who can do that, who can be married to someone in the military, which is one of the reasons why all of us, when troops are deployed, we should all be visiting the wives of service members. We should all be helping them care for their children, helping them get their yardwork done, helping them get their kids to school, and that's something you can do right in your own neighborhood. You've got someone that's deployed. I had a neighbor who's deployed to Kuwait. He's a weatherman for the Air Force. He was deployed to Kuwait. He works at a drone unit doing essential work, but he was away for nine months. I got his kid to take one dough. I got his kid to boxing. I helped his little brother with his crazy little math homework and about twice. Every other week, I'd go check on their mom, make sure she was okay. We need to do these things for each other. Divorce courts have a profound, profound bias against giving military fathers custody. They often get, in Texas, less than standard custody. Less than standard custody. So you need to, if you're going to the military, whether you're male or female, you need to be very careful about getting married and think very carefully about that. Good question. Anything else? Thank you very much. We could win this war. We could win this war. Okay, well, joining us from Orlando, Florida, is the man in that clip, Anthony Dream Johnson, who says he wants to abolish feminism and make women great again. It also says, with a trademark, make women great again. Always great. Make women great again. They're going to do a three-day seminar for women led by all men. In mansplaining news, a three-day conference for women led by men hopes to make women great again. How the 22 convention will make you the greatest you ever. Raise your femininity by 500%. First of all, how is a man supposed to tell a woman how to be the ultimate woman? A woman needs to be taught how to be great again. Not my words. How to land a husband. How to lose weight. How to pump out a bunch of kids. Why do men think they need to fix the problems of women? Well, it says the world's ultimate event for women. In Orlando, Florida, that's going to be the scene of the crime. It's mansplaining Palooza. Say no to the toxic bullying feminist dogma. Taught by men to make women great again. Taking the stage now is the founder of the 22 convention you're in for a treat, Mr. Anthony Dream Johnson. Anthony Dream Johnson. Anthony Dream Johnson. He's the owner of the Man-O-Sphere. It's run by all men which promises to, quote, make women great again. This course is guaranteed to raise your femininity by 500%. Together, we will make women great again. Excuse me, I'm mansplaining her. She said there's nothing wrong... This is Will Spencer from the Renaissance of Men here with the new 21 report and Jeff Younger. How do you do? Doing well, sir. How are you? Well... So, talk a little bit about your speech at 21 Patriarch's event. Well, I wanted to inform people about what's happening to my son. My ex-wife has been trying to transition my son to a girl since he was three years old. And I've been fighting her every step of the way. He's now nine years old. About $1.2 million into this fight. And I'm going up against the American Psychological Association, which is publicly opined on my case, which is very unusual. The Texas Psychological Association, the Endocrine Society, all of the counselors, the Dallas County Courts, and I'm facing all of them down in court. It's usually me versus three other lawyers in court, because I have an amicus attorney and they always bring in other lawyers. So, it's been a rough battle. So far, I've been able to keep him from being chemically castrated, but I have not successfully stopped what they call social transition. They cross-dress him. They're teaching him that he is actually a girl. He's enrolled in school as a girl. He goes to school like a drag queen and have not been able to stop that, even though I have a court order, which actually two court orders that say that he's a male by sex, a boy by gender, and his name is James Damon Younger. The courts are still allowing it, won't enforce their own order for ideological reasons. And the objective of my talk was to explain what's going on there and relate that to the attacks on masculinity. We talk a lot about how they're pathologizing masculinity. But the next step when you get a disease, when something's a pathology, is to fix the disease. And this transgender movement is a surgical hormonal attempt to fix this pathology that they've defined, which is masculinity. And then finally, to get men to realize that talking about it on social media is not enough. Talking to each other is not enough. So I wanted them to see how I have exerted political and social and economic and ideological power in Texas to force the governor of our state to outlaw sex change surgeries on kids. And I did that by forcing him to do it. He didn't want to do it. And give some of the insights from real examples of how I've exerted actual power as a man. Not just talking about being masculine, but okay, you've done all the self-development, what are you going to do with it? And so I wanted to tell him some of the lessons I've learned, some of the failures that I've had. And, you know, my next step is to try to outlaw the chemical castration of children. And then my third objective is to outlaw the social transitioning or cross-dressing of children. What are some of the examples of the power that you brought to bear in this situation? So a couple of things. And I was pretty new to the political process, you know? So I went through a session, not this last, we only allow our legislature to meet every other year, because we're afraid they'll do something bad. So we give them a very limited, they have four months every other year, and you can't meet any time other than that. Unless the governor calls a session. We don't want them to pass laws. We don't want to have freedom in Texas, right? So not this last session, but the previous session, so it's four years ago, was my introduction to this. And I learned a lot from this session by my failures. So I thought I could go talk to, you know, for example, conservative legislators and tell them what was going on. And I could probably expect them to act, right? Because I have great arguments. It's a morally unambiguous situation, right? And it's repugnant to all of their values. So you'd think that they would act on it. Couldn't get any action at all. I got one sponsor for a bill in the Senate, and our lieutenant governor blocked all legislation on these bills. I mean, the conservative Texas Senate blocked legislation to protect kids from sex chain surgeries. I mean, it's just a mind bog. So I failed miserably in that session, and I did a thorough analysis of where I went wrong. And so the way I approached it was to think through what are the sources of strength of my enemies and what are the precursors that are required for them to exercise those strengths. And I systematically undermined those things. So here's a good example. Here's an insight I had. I was invited to a donor event, and a guy came up, I didn't know him. He said, you're that Jeff Younger guy with that kid, right? The kid that's being transitioned. I'm like, yeah, that's me. And he said, what has, and I won't tell you the legislator's name, what has so and so done to help you? And I said, well, so far nothing. I've got no legislation introduced, no commitments or anything. So he pulls out a cell phone, and he says, listen you motherfucker, you will help this man, or I'll pull $100,000 out of your campaign. And the next day, magically, things are happening. So I was like, okay, I see how powers actually exercise. I was grateful for this experience. I mean, I was not horrified by the corruption at all, but I mean, I really like, I was grateful. This is how powers actually exercise. So I began, for example, to start looking at donors. So I had a representative that really should have been on my side, should have been pushing this for me in the house, Texas house. I went to his donors. I got the donor list. It's all public information. One example is I showed up to a bank and a bank president, which I donated to this candidate. And I said, you know, this candidate is not supporting this obvious common sense moral legislation, right, to protect children. And he said, well, we don't want to get involved in stuff like that. And I said, oh, really? And so I pulled out a flyer where I had this bank president's face superimposed over a rancher castrating a bull. And I had his name down there. And at the bottom, I had three banks near his. And I said, look out your window. There's 50 people out there passing these flyers out telling your customers that you support the castration of kids. And there are three banks that we're recommending that they go. And those banks have already said that they'll offer massive discounts to take customers away from your bank. And they're going to be out here every day for a month unless you make a phone call for me. So I stopped asking, what are the means of persuasion? And I started asking, what are the means of coercion? If you're, if you can't, this is so, such a morally unambiguous issue on the life of boys that I said, okay, if you're not, if you're not persuadable on this moral issue and I'm not going to spend much time trying to persuade somebody about it, it's so obvious, then you're a person that I have to coerce. And I'm going to coerce you. You will not be elected. You will not have a business. Your family, I went and told children what their fathers were doing. Adult children. But, you know, I went and told their families what they were doing and shamed them into doing it. You know, so I just adopted a completely different mindset that, you know, I'm not begging you to do the right thing. I'm going to make you do the right thing. It's just a question of how much damage you're willing to accept until you do it. And I was able to exert tremendous power. I also went into underserved communities of men. So Texas has all five climates. We have high plains, mountains, tropical, you know, we have all that. We have a big desert area in Texas. And those counties don't get a lot of political attention because they're sparsely populated. Senate districts over there are massive because there's not much population. So I went into these counties and talked to the sheriffs, got meetings, mostly men showed up there, whereas in all the other counties, mostly women show up. Because the men are working. So these are all ranchers and farmers and they can control their time and they showed up. When they heard about this stuff, I mean, we had conversations where the sheriff is like, boys, this is not the time to get your guns. We're going to write letters. We're not going to get guns. They were pretty pissed. But they helped me generate a tremendous amount of grassroots pressure, so much so that at times, legislators in Texas were recording over 300 lobbyists for my bills a day. Wow. We shut down their phone trunks twice. We shut down all the phones to the Capitol twice. We generated a tremendous amount of power. And in the process, what I wanted to focus on was teaching these groups how to cooperate with one another. So a lot of men get isolated, right? They're out in their county. They're ranchers. They have their friends around them. So I provided through technology a communication mechanism for them to cooperate with other like-minded men, even in urban areas. It's a big cultural divide in Texas between urban and rural areas. So when they realized there's all this common ground, these grassroots movements began to coalesce in a super powerful political force. And I think men, particularly men who have been roughed up by the system, we have not done a good job of binding them into a social identity. One of the things I love about the 21 Conference is that it's really what it's about. And I was really surprised by that. I have enjoyed it so much more than I thought. It's really binding men who have been hurt by the system or men who see the threats and gives them a common social identity. And that social identity in a democracy is incredibly powerful and will allow us to exert power so that we can protect boys and men. Say more about your experience with the men, the speakers, and the attendees here at the 21 Convention. Right. So one of the interesting things, I've clicked with a lot of guys. I'm usually one of those people like, I have a few people that I click with and so forth. But I've clicked with a lot of guys here. And interestingly, almost all of them are into combat sports, just like me. I'm a boxer. There's a lot of judoka here. There's all these guys. One of the things I've been super impressed with is how well-read everyone is. I mean, I'm really not used to that, honestly, from Texas. Especially, you know, we're reading masculine-less literature and so forth. And it's just been amazing talking about that. The other thing that I was really surprised by was Arthur Kwong Lee. Wow. And, you know, it really, you know, if you learn one thing new when you go somewhere, you know, that's very valuable. You don't often actually learn something completely new. And I really had never thought about it. We don't have art. We don't have a kind of masculine romanticism. And that has to affect the way we think about the world and the way we're using their art and we're idolizing their ideals, where in words, we're not in accord with that. And that was one of the most powerful insights I've gotten here. Have you gotten the chance to talk to any of the women, either speakers or attendees of the 22 convention? Yeah, I've spent a lot of time in the 22 convention. In fact, they invited me to talk to them. Oh, wow. So I had to produce a new talk kind of on the cuff. I'm speaking right after this, actually. Oh, great. And what they wanted me to speak on, interestingly, was not about my situation with my son, but about some of the comments that I've made online about why men are choosing not to marry and how fathers need to start educating their sons about what marriage really is and what the legal regime really is and the distinction between holy matrimony and civil marriage. And unfortunately, I think a lot of our guys, young guys, are confusing the two and they're going to get harmed if they don't understand the distinction. So the ladies actually asked me to come and talk about them. What is the distinction? So holy matrimony is this unbreakable union for the purposes mainly of getting you and your children to heaven. You know? I'm an Orthodox Christian, so marriage is conceived of as a form of asceticism, like being a monk, in which two people forego other aspects of life. And it's actually, you know, if you talk to monks, actual monks who are celibate, they can't believe that people can get to heaven being married. Like they idolize married people the way we think they're so superhuman, you know? They're like, wow, you have so many cares of the world, how can you do it, you know? Oh, wow. That's amazing. I never heard that before. Yeah, it's very interesting. So, you know, it's two people who decide to cooperate together and give up these worldly things to try to get to heaven and to try to get their children to heaven. Holy matrimony therefore has a transcendent purpose, right? It's not just a sexual purpose. It's not a purpose just of self-fulfillment. In fact, entering into marriage, you would expect all kinds of trials, self-denial, difficulties, you know, as you try to become holy and become good. Whereas civil marriage has everything to do with money that goes to the government, the disposition of property, all the things that in holy matrimony, you're supposed to downgrade the importance of civil marriage elevates that importance. And in fact, civil marriage doesn't address any of the aspects, spiritual aspects or cognitive aspects or emotional aspects of marriage. Just to give you some examples of some of the things I'll talk to the women about, a lot of people don't understand the Title IV-D system, right? So, Title IV-D is a federal law and it provides matching funds for the collection of child support. It doesn't sound very bad. Like, it seems like you wouldn't want to incur the state to take care of kids, right? It's 66 cents in the dollar in most cases. In Texas, it's a half a billion dollars for the collection of child support. So, here's the thing. If you give 50-50 custody to fathers in divorce, there's no child support. The state doesn't get the money. So there's a massive 100 million dollar incentive to always cut fathers out of the lives of children. So that's one example of where we need to exert political power to change that, right? It should be the opposite. You should only get reimbursed if you can convince a father to stay 50-50 in the lives of their kids. Then we'll reimburse you, right? If you cut fathers out or the father chooses to fall out, the state should not get reimbursed. We should need to reverse the incentives, right? But Title IVD is really the origin of a lot of the problems with civil marriage. Most of the states actually altered their laws around divorce to maximize reimbursements from Title IVD. So, for example, the judges that are in family court, their retirement in most cases comes from Title IV. The more child support they issue, the higher their retirement. So you have these terrible incentives to push fathers out of their lives. You know, in Texas has a statute in the family code, we have something called the Standard Possession Schedule, which gives you 24% of the time with your children for fathers. 99% of the time, it's fathers. I think the Texas Attorney General's office told me, Kim Paxton told me, that it was 94%. It's higher than that, but it's 94% of the time it's fathers. So there's a statute that says that Standard Possession Schedule, 24% of the time is presumed by the court to be in the best interest of the child. But you know from your background, anything less than 30, 35 to 40%, depending on what you talk to, you're in a single parent home. You have no influence. So the idea is that it's statutorily presumed that cutting the father out of the child's life is in the child's best interest. Why? Because under 24% of the time, under 25% of the time, you maximize your Title IVD payments to the state. That explains a lot. It's, yeah. I had a friend of mine who came to a court with his ex-wife and they wanted to do 50-50 custody, no child support. And in fact, she agreed to let him have the kids, you know, most of the time, like 10 hours a day in some cases. Oh no, I don't like where this is going. So it was all good. He was happy with it. He has a construction business. He could work it all out. So they go to the judge to just sort of make this happen, right? Guess who shows up and says that they shouldn't do it? The Texas Attorney General's office sent a lawyer to argue against them doing 50-50 custody when they jointly agreed on it. And do you know the judge said, well, the Attorney General doesn't agree. We're going to have to wait until we find out more information and wouldn't let them do it. What? Yeah. That is how bad it is. So civil marriage and holy matrimony are two completely different things. One points to heaven and one points straight to hell. Men understand it then when you explain it that way. Right. Well, can men be in holy matrimony without a civil marriage? It isn't possible in any of the 50 states. And a lot of people, you'll hear a lot of people say this. They'll say, well, just don't get a marriage license. The problem is that in all the 50 states, marriage is defined by various criteria, not just the marriage license. So as soon as you represent yourself as being married, you're married in most states, right? As soon as you have children and represent yourself as married, you are married in all states. You simply have to represent yourself as being married. So a religious marriage, by definition, is presenting yourself as being married. So regardless, you will fall up under the civil laws of the state. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that there's no way for us to achieve our goals of saving traditional masculinity, saving boys without exerting political power. And a libertarian hands off, let's keep the state out of it, isn't going to work because the state's already in it. When you explain this to legislators, as you have to me, what's, I guess you might say, their major malfunctions? Like, is it that they just don't want to take this on? Is that there are active collaborators with it? Is it that they can't put the pieces together? Like, what's going on that doesn't bring out the same level of outrage in legislators that it does in everyone that you speak to? You know, there's, first of all, if you understand, and Texas is a big state, you think of the federal government as being run by agencies, right? Yes. And elected officials don't really run the government in the federal government, agencies run the government. It turns out in the states, the states have all implemented their own agency systems based on federal agency law. And so most states are run by agencies, and legislators have some influence through the law on how they run. But to give you an example, the way I outlawed sex change surgeries in Texas, I had realized that I wasn't going to accomplish it through the legislature, so I did it through an agency. I went, I did a couple of commercials with a candidate that's running against our governor and forced the governor to tell the Department of Family and Protective Services to outlaw it. So it was outlawed by regulation rather than by law, right? Another example, I had to figure out what the levers of power actually were, right? So what they do is they'll consult the agencies and they'll say, well, what would be the effect of 50-50 parenting? And the Texas Attorney General's office is going to say that would be the total loss of all of our budget because our entire budget is funded. There you go. So then the legislator has to deal with the fact that this is a bill that is not revenue-neutral. Now, anytime you have a non-revenue-neutral bill, you have to go through a budget process. There's a whole new process for those bills. And he has to then find that money and he has to convince the other legislators to give that money. Now, that means that there are programs that other legislators want that money for that it's not going to get funded, right? So it introduces like a whole multi-year battle to get something like that done. And most of them are not willing to sign up for that. Now, I've had some amazing relationships, though, in Texas with like Representative Brian Slayton, Senator Bob Hall, Representative Biederman. And these men were just simply willing to do the right thing no matter what, no matter what. But just to tell you how powerful our opposition can be, they redistricted two of these Republicans completely out. They don't have a district anymore. They can't run again. Precisely because they did that. Wow. So, you know, that's the first thing. The second thing is you think like conservatives would be on our side on an issue like this. I don't really think it's a left-right issue. If you look at the polling, you got 90% of conservatives and 60% of liberals. They want to ban sex chain surgeries on kids. Like it's probably of all the policy issues out there, it's got the most unanimity of any policy. But you kind of expect maybe this is being funded from the left, driven from the left, right? Oh, no. The transgender movement in the United States is being funded by Republicans. What? Yes. What? So there's a really good article you can get at the Federalist. It's called Who Are the Rich White Men Funding the Transgender Movement by Jennifer Bilak. And Paul Singer, who funded the Human Rights Campaign, is a Republican. He's a hedge fund billionaire. And he's been funding this movement and pushing it all over the place. And he's Pritzker, who now calls himself Jennifer Pritzker. He's a very ugly man in a dress now. Funds the Child Transgender Movement. And he's the brother of the governor of Illinois. That's why I know the name. Yeah. So it's Republicans doing this. It's the first, the largest donor of the Republican Party and the third largest donor of the Republican Party. Now, they used to wash their money into Australian NGOs and then run it back by having those NGOs donate to NGOs in the U.S. So we didn't know about this. But COVID revealed them because they can't get their money in and out right now. So all those NGOs have shut down. So we know where they're spending their money now and we know what they're doing. So those guys donate tremendous amounts of money to political candidates at the state level because, you know, with very little, with a $50,000 donation, you can hugely influence a state legislator, right? And they, and $50,000 to them, they have a lot of, a lot of $50,000 donations every year that they can still out. So they can acquire massive influence in the state. And so what happened in Texas was our speaker of the house, a guy named Dave Phelan. I call him Dave Phelan, was essentially bought off by these guys and blocked all legislation. Wow. Yeah. Wow. The world's not what you think. Yeah. If you look at it and you can start to understand how to actually exert power. But it's not what you think. The world doesn't work the way the government textbooks say. Do you find that the men here who listen to you speak are feeling like I do, which is like, what can I do to help you? What can I do to help change this? What small steps can I take right now? Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, if there's anything that I would like to see in future conferences here, it would be less emphasis on describing the problem and more emphasis on what we should do. So in my talk, I really tried to give concrete examples of this. So here's a good example. We're in Florida, right? So I've had several gentlemen come up to me and say, hey, I did what you said. I called up my county precinct chair and I'm now a volunteer and I'm working to get the vote out on men's issues. I've talked to several Republican women who are all on board with it. Like they were surprised at the reception that they get. And the other thing that they learned was that the people that are showing up to exert this power, they're all 60 and up. When a young man walks in ready to donate his time, a lot of these guys I've talked to are veterans, they can't believe the respect that they're given because young people aren't showing up. And so these people who've been running these voting precincts, running the counties, pushing legislation are so eager for young men to show up. And I've gotten that feedback from five people here already who listened to my talk and literally did what I asked them to do. Go to the website and make a phone call telling me I want to volunteer. And here's the thing. The Republican Party, for example, is very grassroots. So if you show up and volunteer and you block walk and you do the work, it's remembered. And when they look for candidates to run for office, they don't look for these rich guys. They look for the people that showed up for the work, people that were ideologically reliable and would work. You show up for a couple of election cycles and show that you can get the vote out. They're going to tap you to be a candidate. And eventually our guys are going to be exerting political power that way. And again, we can forge ourselves into a social, political, economic and technological force to be reckoned with by our enemies. That's beautiful. Where can people go to find out more about you and what you do and go to the website that you mentioned? Right. So the court, you know, through its illegal gag order is always trying to shut down all my stuff. So there's a network of volunteers that run a Facebook page. And just go on to Facebook and search for Save James and you'll see a Cowboy Boot logo come up. And on that page, they cover my case. They cover other cases in Canada, which are equally egregious. They cover the international issues, issues going on in the counseling community. We have counselors that volunteer there. We're always looking for moderators. So anybody who has expertise, you just ask the admins of the page and they'll allow you to post. And so it covers globally the whole issue, not just my case. You'll see there it says Save James, Save Thousands of Children. We're not just focused on my son. My son's just the tip of the spear, as you said. He's the tip of the spear, but there's a lot of children that are going to be hurt that are falling behind him. We're always very aware of that. You can go there and get all the information that you need. And if you want to contact me, you can also go there. They pass out my contact information to the media and stuff. You can definitely get me there. I think what's so important about what you're doing is not just protecting kids, but also revealing the scale of corruption that's affected our institutions. It's enormous. Very brave. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's a pleasure talking to you. It's a pleasure talking to you as well. This is Will Spencer from the Renaissance of Men here with the new 21 Report and Jeff Younger. Thanks very much.