 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not there is a war on men and we are starting right now with James Hague's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. Hague of the Hague Report. The floor is all yours. Well, thank you James of modern day debate. I love appearing on modern day debate and shout out to the chat and shout out to Brenton Langel. Nice to talk with you again. Yes, there is indeed a war on men, a war on men and children, men and boys. We see it probably most prominently in the last several years with this attack on our real, our greatest president, I don't want to say real, our greatest president, Donald J. Trump, one, once a president, always a president. He is a man and he's hated for being a man. By the way, I'm wearing my men's history month t-shirt. Men's history month was founded by the great Jesse Lee Peterson. I am the host of the Hague Report on the Jesse Lee Peterson Network and he's founder of Bond, a brotherhood organization of a new destiny whose purpose is rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man. And he's seen how black men have been on major decline over the past several decades with them falling to hate and blame and victimhood and being turned away from their fathers, being raised by single mothers, the black men and the black women are at war. And men and women generally, they all hate each other. Honestly, in this country, it feels like all women practically, all women and all Democrats hate men. So that's like two thirds of the country. And then there's like, it just leaves us with the remnant of sane people who don't hate men or who know that it's wrong to hate men and hate women. And so that's Trump. Trump was preaching love, truth, and standing solid on it and just being a man, being himself. And that put the phony politicians, the phony kissing up to women type politicians kissing up to emotions. It put them to shame. He was a man among boys in the Republican Party when he beat out all those Republicans. Also this, so the attack on Trump continues to this day. They still, they want to stamp out the memory of him and anybody who ever supported him whether men or women. And that is part of the attack on men. And even this hatred of Putin, Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, making Russia great again, doing manly things, taking over countries, you may disagree with him. He may be wrong, he may be right, but they hate him because he is standing against this feminist, female-minded world, global homogeneity, global homo, NATO and America, the American establishments, actually anti-American. And the UN give me a break. That's part of the attack on men, the hatred of men. BLM, Black Lives Matter. That is a womanly, if you will, sort of female-minded, passive-aggressive accusation that we don't know that Black Lives Matter. When in reality, it's the blacks who don't know that their lives matter when they're getting themselves killed. And the women who are lauding these people, these criminals as victims, that's such a mama thing. Oh my boy, didn't do nothing. That's not manly. He got what he deserved, is what a Black father would say, an honorable Black father would say. But no, that type of manly mindset is stamped out of the thing. Now they want to blame the cops for when the worse the black criminals get, the more perfect the cops are expected to be. Condemning the proud boys. Remember the proud boys? The proud boys were founded to, originally, to encourage young men to get away from pornography and masturbation and all that stuff. That stuff makes you effeminate. It makes your sexual desires stray into all kinds of perverse things. And they're standing up for Western civilization, unashamed of Western civilization, and it's okay to be white. No, but now you have Joe Biden who kisses up to women, the so-called president of the United States. I call him so-called because he's not acting presidential. He is kissing up to the women and attacking the men. He is not a man. The Me Too movement, this smearing of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and all these others, it's women and gays going after the men. Whether they were right or wrong, they're not saying what the women are doing wrong in this case. And this is really hurting women too, honestly. Jeffrey Epstein, they want every man to, they're eager to do this because to them every man is a pedophile, but when in reality little boys are losing their virginity to older women, if you look at the statistics, Bill Cosby, America's dad, they smear him without evidence. We don't have the manly mindset of innocent and less proven guilty. You just have accusers after accusers. No fault divorce. Most divorces initiated by women is destroying families and children. Men are this domestic violence DV thing. That's an attack on men. They're not saying what the women are doing in this situation. And they don't talk about how violent the women are and what crazy attitude that they bring out of that they do. The abortion, killing the man's child. The woman is God. She decides who lives or dies. And the men have no say in that issue. Transgender madness. They're convincing males to, men don't care what you call them, right? But they're convincing males to be pronoun police. And they're convincing them to take on feminine pronouns or non-masculine pronouns. And so frequently it's mothers who are taking their children to these libraries where drag queen story hour things are happening. Some of the strangest stuff. Homosexuality. Education is anti boys. They're diagnosing every boy with ADD or ADHD and giving them Ritalin. And then they're saying, oh, women are doing better in education because the education is geared towards being emotional and intellectual. Which is not the manly way of being. The NFL has turned pink for breast cancer and pro BLM. Anything but manly. The rock. You know that guy Dwayne The Rock Johnson? Yeah, he's big, but he's this big, hairless. I don't want to say the word because there may be children who listen to my show. Children may be watching the show, but he's a big, you know what? These actors are no longer manly. Women voting is an attack on men's authority. The civil war, really the war of Northern aggression is the attack on this old school manly thing of slavery. Things were tougher back then, but now they want to pretend like we need to take down the Confederate statues. These guys are too manly. They're going after the police with this police brutality, police violence. Police are supposed to be brutal and violent with the criminals. They're banning choke holds and stuff, which is only allowing the insanity, the evil people to run wild. I even have to hide my beautiful rebel flag, which is the Confederate flag. Men let you speak your mind. They want you to speak your mind, but they're banning free speech. I encourage you to check out the Red Pill documentary by former feminist Cassie J. She covered the men's rights activists, MRAs, and she thought that they were a bunch of woman haters. In reality, they're these soft, nice guys who want equality, which to me, that's part of the weakness, but they have valid complaints. So indeed, there are so many other things in the war on men. You got to thank you very much for that opening statement and want to let you know folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. With that, we're going to kick it over to Brenton for his opening statement as well. Thanks so much for being with us again. Brenton, the floor is all yours. Absolutely. Really happy about that. For those of you who are just getting to know me, my name is Brenton Lengel. I'm a writer, playwright, poet, and Appalachian Trail 2000 Myler. I'm also the author of the Ringo-nominated Snow White Zombie Apocalypse series. The Kickstarter for my book is actually going on right now, so check the link below. I think Jane's added it. It's my very first graphic novel. And also Darudy's Shadow of the People, about a personal hero of mine and one of the greatest men to ever live, Buena Ventura Darudy, who defeated the military in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. All right, so let's jump right on into it. So tonight's topic, is there a war on men, is one that I've been wanting to address for quite a while. This is because I'm a man and the father of a three-year-old boy. As such, if there's a society-wide war against me and especially my son, I would like to know about it. Now, to start us off, I want to acknowledge that is more or less impossible to grow up in American society and not encounter a small but very vocal contingent of activists, academics, and thought leaders, whose careers seem to be based upon regularly directing no small amount of vitriol towards the masculine gender, which is seen as something of an acceptable target within polite society. This vitriol prompts less secure men and those with a more positive opinion of our gender to fire back with their own vitriol, which prompts yet another wave of criticism, which is answered by a still greater wave of reactionary sentiment, and on and on it goes, an oroboros of petty stupidity. This is, of course, made worse in the era of Web 2.0, where social media conglomerates employ algorithms to exploit our own addictive tendencies for the benefit of advertisers. It seems that hatred and suspicion are big business these days and everyone and anyone looking to make a buck off them has a not insignificant chance of winning fame and fortune as just the latest in a long, long line of busybody culture warriors. After all, as I have said, tribalism is a hell of a drug. Feelings of certainty and aggrieved righteousness have an effect on the mind that is not unlike cocaine, and many of these people and their respective audiences are more or less addicts, forever seeking yet another hit of dopamine as they tirelessly comb the media for new enemies upon which to vent their rage, feed their egos, and in the case of the most prominent charlatans among them, line their pockets with the wages of discord. But still, if there is one thing that I know, it's that when someone tells you they're hurting, there is almost always a kernel of truth there. So I'm going to take these concerns seriously and really define and really examine if these accusations of a war on men hold water. But before I do, I have to define my terms because so often in complicated emotionally charged discussions like this, people just wind up talking past each other. So what does a man other than a miserable little pile of secrets? The answer might seem simple, but this is actually a question that has been asked since the time of the ancient Greeks and probably a great deal before. Plato quite famously put forth what seems at first to be a reasonable definition. Man is a bipedal, meaning two-legged, featherless animal, which received a great deal of applause from the other Greeks until the far superior philosopher Diogenes strode into the lyceum holding aloft a plucked chicken and shouting, here is Plato's man. Now, Plato, having been completely owned by a master troll, took the L and amended his definition to include broad fingernails. You will notice that this definition also includes gorillas and other species of great ape. The point is gender is a much more confusing and philosophically fraught concept than it initially appears to be. Every human society in recorded history has a different answer to this question. What is a man? In Shakespeare's time, it was fashionable for men to be bisexual. Spartan warriors before battle spent a great deal of time rubbing themselves down with glistening oil and combing their long, luxurious hair. High-heeled shoes were actually first invented and worn by Mongolian cavalry, as the design allowed them to more easily fire arrows from horseback. The point is the men of all these societies behaved in ways that we would consider to be both masculine and feminine today. Okay, so we can't get our answer from history. Let's go to biology. But yet again, we run into a problem. If we try to define a man by his biological role, that necessarily excludes men who are infertile. And then there's the added complication that all life, biologically speaking, begins as female. Both the body and the mind are essentially female until hormones act on them. Ever wondered why men have nipples, guys? That's why. Hate to say it. But scientifically speaking, we are all essentially modified females. So if we can't find the answer in biology, and we can't find the answer in history, at least not a single answer, then there is only one other option. And then the option is society, as in men are a social institution. And because institutions change over time, there is no set criteria. All we have are broad themes. Now, this applies to both masculinity and femininity. So when we do our defining, we must think in terms of mathematical limits. Limits, of course, being a point that a line always approaches, but never actually reaches, like Achilles in the tortoise, we never really get there. We only ever get closer or further, as the case may be. So what we're really dealing with is an ideal, a construction of the human mind. And as all ideals, by definition, only exist in the mind, then it is not a man, then it is not a man, then what is and is not a man is a decision made by a person and their community is the work of an entire culture at a given point in time. So when my interlocutor says there is a war on men, what he means is one, two things, or perhaps both, either that there is a war on a particular concept of masculinity, that specific ideals are being questioned, changed or even overturned in an effort to adapt to the challenges of a perpetually changing world, or that the specific people who belong to this broad social category of men are being oppressed and otherwise abused by the larger society. Now, both of which is actually happening to tell you the truth, which means what it means to be a man is changing. It always changes. It changes the only universal constant. And men are absolutely being hurt and oppressed by our larger society, as oppression is more or less inherent at this point in human history. Now, there's something to be said for that, that we are all under someone's thumb. And those at the top are usually secretly under the held under the enormous weight of their own thumbs. Only just don't take that too piously, because is this really a war in the way he means it? I would contend that it is not. War is what's going on right now in Ukraine. Russians are shelling nuclear power plants, Ukrainians are blowing themselves up to take down bridges. And if we in the west mean to do anything about it, Vladimir Putin has implied he's ready to fire off his nuclear missiles. War is guns, tanks and rockets, which oddly enough bring to mind the feeling that this is all compensation for the sexually inadequate male. And I can't get past the ridiculousness that all of this trouble, which could literally end the world, all of it is being caused by a man who spends his time staging shirtless photo ops, riding around in bond villain submarines and showing off his karate prowess. I think the thing is, because masculinity is an ideal, many of us, if not all of us are a little frightened as to whether or not we are really men. That's why you get insults like cock and soy boy, which tend to say much more about the person who uses it than their intended target. That's why people put together cringe compilations of men acting outside the scope of our presumed social role is why so many men define their masculinity by their sexual conquests, while at the same time society demands that women define their femininity through chastity and subordination. And one only has to look at the Me Too movement to see where that particular contradiction leads to. But you know, we're all out of our hands, because to my mind, if a man has it, he doesn't need to flaunt it. You don't need to make such a big show of everything. Look at the size of my muscles, the vastness of my wealth, the high number and quality of my conquests. All of it is completely unnecessary. It's a joke. If you've got it, you've got it. If you don't try harder. But above all, don't let someone else tell you what a man is because a man should be strong minded and not cruel, capricious or vain. So what is a man? He has an idea, a concept. And like every concept, there are good parts and bad. And it is the task of both the individual society to work out what this means at a given time. That's really what gender is as far as society goes. A baby pops out and the doctor takes a quick look at their anatomy and says, that's a boy or that's a girl. And everyone comes in Uzenazen before this thing can even make memories. People are already extrapolating a whole coast of unfounded assumptions from that fact. From the moment of our birth, and these days off in several months afterwards, society says to us, you are this. And because you are this, therefore you should. And that's what gender is. It is that therefore you should, whether spoken or unspoken, from various individuals and institution. So is there a war on men? Only in the sense that what it means to be a man is changing as it always has since before recorded history. The changes are, as is always the case, something of a mixed bag. And it is our task to sift the wheat from the chest. The point is, if there is a war on men, that is a war against an idea. And as Alan more famously put it, ideas are bullet proof. So much like the war on drugs and the war on terror, it is a fool's errand. You can't kill an idea and you can't fight the future. Largely because the future does not exist. It can exist because it hasn't happened yet. There is only the present here and now and every other moment that has been or will be. So the question is, what do you want to do? Do you want to let professional gadflies tell you who you are for the benefit of Google, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, and the US military? Do you want to chase a collection of shadows made of confusing and mostly conflicting cultural archetypes? Do you want to shackle yourself to the past, a slave to the half-remembered fables of what has been and what never can be again? Or do you want to live in this moment, this eternal now? Do you want to live with integrity and forge your own path to the crags and valleys of this world and the society that we all share? Well, I know not what course others may take. But as for me, I don't let other people tell me what it is to be a man. I write my own destiny and I live up to my own ideals. And I invite each and every one of you to do the same. Thank you. For example, at the bottom right of your screen, evidence for God. Two doctorates collide on whether or not cosmology points to God. That'll be a juicy one you don't want to miss, as well as whether or not white replacement is real. An immigration debate between Brittany of Politically Provoked and Dario. You don't want to miss that one. It's going to be juicy. You know, Brenton's going to be there watching. So hit that subscribe button if you haven't already. And with that, we'll go right into the open conversation. Thanks so much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. That was quite interesting. I have a reaction to one of the early points that Brenton made was that we are, oh, the first one, that we are modified females. I don't know that that's true. I don't believe that that's true. I mean, you can look it up. The Bible says you can look that up. And it's a fact. It's in the Bible. Females are modified males. If you look at even the female anatomy down there, they have a miniature one of what the man has. And so, I don't know. That's really funny. It's funny. I'm partly just having fun here, but the Bible does say the woman came from the man. The woman came from the man's rib. And I mean, the Bible may say that, but like it's a fact. Well, I mean, that's just one book. I could write a Bible and say that it's really the word of God and everything in it is true. If you get the word to make it, yeah, give it a thousand years, two thousand years, you won't be able to tell the difference. So I don't know if you can really jump to scripture, especially when it's like indirect conflict with the actual science that we know. But I just pointed to a scientific fact about the anatomy without getting too explicit. I think you might know what I'm talking about. I know exactly what you're talking about. I intimately acquainted with what you're talking about, sir. And okay, the other thing, okay, common sense, since you don't accept the Bible. Shame on you. I mean, the Bible is as good a historical record as we have from anything from that time. And I just don't think we should be taking facts about reality from like pissed off desert nomads that didn't even have indoor plumbing. How do you know they were mad? I mean, do you see how many wars go on in the Bible? That's manly. But it's also an issue of common sense, whether the female or the male came first. It's an issue of common sense. When you look at a woman, she basically looks like a miniature wannabe man. And the women today want to act like they're men. They want to be in competition with the men doing the man thing. Hang on for just a second. There are species on this planet where the male is smaller than the female. Are you going to say that it's the opposite then? And that in fact, because the female is larger, like I don't know that female praying mantis because they're larger than the male or female spider that the female is a modified male. Because obviously, if it's size you're talking about, I don't see that. But that has nothing to do with men and women, like human beings, men and women. We're not talking about animals. But in society, you see women trying to get into sports. Decades ago, they tried to get into sports. Now they have their sports. Nobody wants to watch it. In some cases, okay, they'll watch it. But it doesn't make as much money. But then they still want equal pay. It depends on what you watch. I was absolutely wrapped. I attended an international Kyokushin tournament in Canada, actually, Montreal. It's very important to understand in a Kyokushin tournament, these are two black belts with no pads lining up and beating the absolute living crap out of each other. And one of the most fascinating fights the entire time was from the female world champion who I've never seen someone do what she did with her legs, just utterly obliterated her opponent. So I mean, women's sports are really cool. Exceptions to the rule. Yeah. Yeah, I grant you that. So really quickly, what I want to do, because we're getting into kind of the minutiae here, can you please define for me what you consider feminism and define for me what you consider masculine? So do feminism first and then? Feminism is two things, hating men and this notion of equality. This equality thing started in the Garden of Eden to reference the Bible again. Satan told the woman she could be equal with God by way of getting this knowledge. And she doesn't have to listen to Adam who listens to God. She can take this fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And now she's all judging everybody and judging herself and guilt ridden. And that's feminism because she wanted to be equal with God. So feminism is wanting to be equal with God? Yeah, it's hating men and wanting to be equal with God. Okay. I mean, I know a lot of them. It's equality, basically, this fake notion of equality, no such thing. Okay, so you associate feminism with equality? Yeah, because they want that equality. Okay. And then what is masculine? Masculinity is logic, common sense, steadfastness, and inside of a man, inside of a male, when a male is those things, that is part of the masculinity. Strength, both physical strength, if he can. I mean, there's times when it's impossible, right? People get infirm. Well, hang on though, what I'm trying to figure out here is you've named a bunch of things that we might consider masculine, but you haven't really defined masculinity. You've just given me examples. So like you had feminism, hating men and the notion of equality. You know, I don't agree with that in either case, but you know, that's your definition for it. What I'm getting here is you're saying logic, common sense, steadfastness, strength. Okay, I understand that. But what is masculinity itself, as opposed to what are things that possess masculinity? Masculinity is perhaps its leadership. It is masculinity is males fulfilling their proper role under God over the women and over the children. Okay, so bang, that last one right there, that seems like what you're saying. So you associate masculinity with hierarchy. Yes, indeed. So feminism is equality. Masculinity is hierarchy. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. I mean, you know, that's definitely not what most people would define either of those terms as. I mean, feminism does have a very strong bead on equality. Feminists are not the only people to advance equality. They simply advance equality between the genders. The anarchist movement from the very beginning has been about equality and against unjustified hierarchy. So I mean, again, like was like Buena Ventura de Rudy, was he feminine? Like when he, he might have been, I don't know. But you sound like you think that he was an honorable man. Oh, yeah. One of the most honorable men to ever live. Yeah. But I said feminism is also hating men. Okay. So it's equality and it's hating men. Yes. It's what I'm hearing. Okay. Right. So let's get this straight here. All right. So feminism, which an ideology emerged in I guess the late 1800s, early 1900s, did people not hate men before then? Did people just start hating men when, but wait, you said the Garden of Eden though. Right. Okay. So the Garden of Eden. Yep. Okay. All right. So if the Garden of Eden is feminism, if Eve's rebellion against God supposedly is feminism, then what is the movement that we call feminism today? Like what is the political movement? Well, feminism, feminism came from that. Okay. I guess you wouldn't call the Garden of Eden, you know, where Eve listens to the serpent. I guess you wouldn't call that feminism, but that's the roots of feminism. Okay. So the roots of feminism are it's grounded in equality. So feminism came after equality. So that's all right. So I'm still a little all over the place, but I'm following you here. All right. So let's then go to masculinity, logic, common sense, steadfastness, strength, leadership. You know, these things are associated with men throughout history. We usually were political leaders, largely because we're bigger and stronger and louder. And you know, I mean, even you go out and you look at, you know, I have a flock of chickens, you go just this morning, I have two roosters. And one of them chases the other one around every day. They're both trying to mate with the other chickens. And I watched them like pop up and fluff up their feathers and crow. And it was the funniest thing because I watched this rooster crow. And then I watched the other rooster immediately start crowing. And neither one was fighting, but they were doing it just because the other one was. So my point being is that oftentimes within species, males tend to be larger in general, because we tend to get into fights, you know, and as a result of getting into fights, you're going to do better evolutionarily if you are more physically present there. So it makes sense that our political structure would perhaps take this form, you know, as we, you know, rise above our animal natures. What I'm, the problem that I'm having here is that logic, common sense, steadfastness, strength and leadership, these are all qualities that women can have and do have. There are tons of them. Well, I mean, a great example I would give you is the YPG in Rojava, some of the best fighters against ISIS, 100% women, only women. And they did a freaking phenomenal job alongside the PKK. They saved Kobani. So they archers or something? No, no, this was like a couple of years ago. No, I'm talking machine guns and that kind of thing. Another great example, I'm writing a screenplay about this right now, the Adelitas in the Mexican Revolution, many of whom either dressed as men and joined the military. They got all the way up to like the ranks of colonel. And some of them served openly as women, depending upon who they were underneath. And it's like a huge part of Mexican culture that they have this culture of these powerful warrior women who definitely have steadfastness, strength and leadership. But look at Mexico now. That's not a very good example because Mexico is a mess now. And they prop up women. They worship Mary. They worship that female saint of death or whatever. You cut out. I can't hear you. You cut out there. I can't hear you. Repeat what you just said. I said, I got to get you on that old Catholic kid. Nobody worships Mary. Mary can be seen as an intermediary. There's the Hail Mary prayer that most don't say but Hail Mary, Mother of God. So I wouldn't say that they worship it. Second of all, Mexico has good and bad things going on in it right now. And it's a direct result of its social structure. Matriarchy. I mean, it's definitely not a matriarchy. It basically is, though. The males act macho, but it's like a false macho-ness. They're all, oh, my corazón. They listen to all their songs. They're pathetic for the woman. This scene, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Have you listened to like any pop music ever? Like 99% of it is about people singing about love. That's why we're on decline. And that's not real love. But I know what you mean. That's why we're on decline because we're all broken up over a woman and we're worshiping this false idea of a relationship when that's not what we should be pursuing. Men should be pursuing God and the woman should be following the man. Okay, so if men pursue God and reject women, what happens to the species? Not reject women. Do we still have sex? Do we still have babies? Yes, but we do it right. We don't have sex out of wedlock. We get married and do it in the orderly way. In the days of your youth, you remember your God. And even if you do, you don't get into this worshiping the women, telling her your problems and then letting her be equal with you, pretending to be equal with you. Okay, okay. Hang on for just a second here. How is telling a woman your problems worshiping her? I mean, there are ways that I would enjoy worshiping a woman, but it ain't talking about my problems. Don't say that, man. Looking to a woman for help is not a way to get help. Well, if she knows how to help you. Because despite these examples that you gave, those are like exceptions to the rule, if they're true. I know I poo-pooed your Mexico women leadership thing. I don't know about the other case, but these are exceptions to the rule. It's natural for a man to lead physically and spiritually. He's more calm. He's more logical. And women in this leadership stuff, they can't handle stress. They try to play the woman card anytime they get faced with a challenge. And yes, males are very weak now and they're subject to women now because we're all out of there. How are we subject to women? Do I have fewer rights within our society? No, spiritually. There's an intimidation factor. If she gets angry, we can barely handle it. Grown men are afraid to confront their mothers. And this is a pretty widespread thing. And there's a worshiping of them? Yeah. Having issues with your parents and being afraid to confront them, that's just being a person. Those are some of the most fundamental relationships of your life. If you're afraid to confront your mother, I'm not afraid to confront my mother. I grew up confronting her. We fought like cats and dogs till I got out of the house. And now we have a much better relationship. But these are some of the most intimate and fundamental relationships within the human family. And you were talking earlier about how important the human family is. So it's interesting that you seem to be putting a locus of female supremacy within the nuclear family. But this is the thing that you claim you want. What do you mean by locus? And I don't want the women to be the supreme in the family. Right. But the family should be intact. And the family is all out of order. And even when the men and women are married and together, you always hear the man, oh, she's the boss. Got to go ask the boss. I got to ask my wife. I was talking. That's a joke. It's a joke, but there's truth to it. Sure. There's definitely truth to it. But also that's your partner. So obviously, you don't want to just make decisions and screw around on your partner because if they aren't happy, you aren't happy. And that would happen if I was married to a woman or a man or whatever. The person you live with, their relationship to you is just really important. I mean, that happened even back when women were essentially property in the Victorian times. Right. These are the basic at-root things. And that's why I'm saying that it started at the beginning. Okay. So there's one other question that I had for you because this really jumped out at me from your opening statement. And I don't want to harp on it too much, but you said slavery was masculine. Yeah. I mean, if you think about the old times, times were rough and rough times men had to had to do things that were that were that seem horrifyingly evil. I don't know if you would call it evil, but to us, because it's kind of like watching a cop do his job. It may look brutal to us, but to the trained eye, they know what's appropriate. And so we're not used to seeing, we live this spoiled life, much easier life than the slave owners lived. And I don't know about that. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. We live like kings today. Yeah. I've heard this point, usually from liberals actually, where they're like, oh, I would rather be a pauper in today's society than a king in medieval Europe. And I think it's actually kind of ridiculous and very disingenuous. First off, it always tends to come from somebody who's fairly high in the social hierarchy anyway. And then you add on to the fact that you have to understand, even having a lot of stuff doesn't necessarily make people happy and healthy. The medieval serfs got one third of the year off and they did not work these long, long hour days. They only worked while the sun was up because you got this issue and the Catholic Church ran everything. There are lots of holidays where serfs had to be... So in a lot of ways, like a medieval serf was actually had a better lot in life than the average American low-wage worker because while they didn't have technology and they were in a subordinate position, but they had a lot more freedom and security than the average American worker has. So I really don't feel like it was necessarily better in the past, even without our current technology. Now, medical technology, that changes a lot of things because people live who otherwise wouldn't have and that's really important. But I really think that people are too quick to praise our current civilization now in comparison to other past civilizations. I think it really depends on where your personal values are and where you fall within the social hierarchy. But you're making my point for me. It's so easy for us to sit back and judge, and it's so female too, and sit back and judge these slave owners as if we're so much better. Give me a break. We're killing babies by the hundreds of thousands every year. It used to be over a million every year. We're such moral people. And slavery, what's so wrong with this? Yeah, hang on. I don't think we're necessarily more moral than people in that time. There were people in that time who were exceptionally moral. Another one would be John Brown. No, man, that's a terrorist. That guy was not moral. He was a terrorist and a murderer. I mean, yes, but in this society that kept a whole race of people in bondage. Not the whole race. Not the whole race. Okay, a whole race within the society. I mean, yes, there were black slave owners, black freedmen. There were black even politicians. Yeah, there were a couple, but more than a couple. The exception does not prove the rule. And who cares? That's the reality of life. There were honorable slaves. The point is, it's so female to sit in judgment on that and win in reality. Hang on, hang on, hang on. You just said it's female to sit in judgment. Who sits in judgment in the Bible? Only God. And is God a female? No, that's why it's so female to want to play God. Eve playing God. Hang on, hang on, hang on. Okay, I'm not convinced that Eve is playing God when she eats the fruit. But she wants to be equal with God. She wants the knowledge. I mean, I'll have to look, I have to reread that story if I read it. That was good for you. Yeah. I mean, knowledge is usually good to obtain, yes. Knowledge of good and evil, but not when it's banned from God. I mean, I kind of feel like that story has a lot in its subtext that isn't necessarily there. Why in the world would your God, you know everything that's going to happen? You know that that serpent is definitely going to come into that garden and you know that Eve is definitely going to eat that apple. So why in the world do you keep the apple in the garden? Why don't you just get rid of it? So that we could do it in fall and then have this interesting life that we have now. Okay. So God's plan is for women to usurp his power on purpose. Right. Why? So that I guess so that, you know, I never understood this argument, but I've started to understand it a little bit. Maybe I don't totally grasp it. But when you allow evil in the world, by contrast, then you realize that there is evil and there is good. There isn't the anchor baby anchor baby's new show. Let me explain an example of this. One of my fellow hosts on Jesse Lee Peterson's network, Nicholas Gonzalez, Nick, he used to be an atheist, but he saw this attack on Trump and he used to join in on it, you know, in the early days for several years ago. And then he looked at Trump and then he looked at the overreaction to him. He's like, this is way out of proportion. This is evil. He realized evil existed from that. And that's how he became a Christian. He realized that God is real because evil is real. Okay. So I actually think you are somewhat onto something there in that we only know ourselves in contrast with something that we are not. You know, you only know about darkness because of light. You only know about men because of women cover because of pain. Yeah, exactly. You know, so there is a sense of having to meet something. But also what you're missing there is that there is a hidden polar relationship between opposites. The way I normally explain this is think of an ink, a black ink drawing on a white paper, our brains hone in on the black ink drawing and we say that's the picture. But that ink isn't floating in space. The only way it can be there is because the white paper is there to be drawn on. So is this really just the ink drawing? Is the paper and the ink two things and only one of the drawing? No, they are both the thing. It's just that the drawing draws our eye to it. So similarly, I think that there is a hidden unity between negative and positive aspects of life. Property and theft, for instance, is a good example, since neither can exist without the other. Or another good one, two poles of a magnet. You will never find a magnet that's only a North Pole or only a South Pole. You cut it in half, bam, North and South. They go together. And so similarly, I think men and women, good all of these things go together. I'm thinking about an overreaction, though, because is it really an overreaction if you take the things seriously? If you were like John Brown and you saw Donald Trump stealing children from their parents and putting them into camps, it would seem to me that one would have a moral duty to act in that situation in such a way that they tried their best to prevent it. In fact, we did have one activist attempt that. Now I'm not saying that's good. Was she a woman? No, it was a guy. It was a female-minded guy, because that is such a... Hang on, hang on, hang on. Wait, is there anyone you disagree with that isn't female-minded? Sometimes I may disagree with godly men, and in which case I would be the female-minded one. Hypothetical godly men, maybe. It seems to me like you're using feminism and female-mindedness just as a catch-all term for everything that's bad in the world. Because think about it, it's out of order for a woman to be leading or for a woman to be finagling doing the right thing, which is separating the illegals who are invading the country and protecting the children. So someone coming here to work, crossing an imaginary line, is the same thing as the freaking Russians shelling a nuclear power plant? No, it's not the same thing, but it is still an invasion. It's a different type of invasion, for sure. I grant you that. We have a soft evil being allowed. We have this soft evil, female version of evil. If Putin is evil, that's a more manly old-school return to evil. There's masculine evil and feminine. Maybe, maybe. I mean, okay, men do evil, right? But usually it's the wars and violence of unjustified violence is so frequently from males raised by single mothers. Okay, so you can maybe say that some violence that happens like every day violence on the street, like the Batman would go and take care of, might come from people raised by single mothers since, you know, one parent is difficult. As I said, I have a three-year-old son. It really takes me and my wife just to make sure everything goes smoothly. But wars? No, no. Wars are caused by the state. These are specifically our political leaders deciding of their own will to sacrifice thousands, hundreds, millions of us to their own vanity. I mean, like really, like just- The state, but the state is made of men and women. And sometimes the men are not so manly. And we have a not so manly man who is in America, so-called leadership now. If Trump had been there, I bet you we would have peace over there right now. I bet you. I think you know it too. We can play that game. Trump would have said, I'm going for Moscow if you go in there. I'm going for Moscow. Yeah, but if he goes for Moscow, then- So here's the thing. If Trump went for Moscow- No, he wouldn't go for Moscow because Putin wouldn't do it. They would know how to behave and make deals like men. But they would threaten each other. This chaos would not be, but we have Biden Blinken. Putin is 69 years old, and the rumor is, I don't know if it's real, but the rumor is he's suffering from a brain tumor. Rumors are female. Yeah, he only has two daughters. He has no sons. Rumors are feet. No, it's just- Yeah, it's hearsay. Female's gossip. It's not the same thing. Anyway, I'm not going to get back. Okay, go ahead. I don't want to get off on that. But yeah, he's got, he doesn't have a male son. He's been grooming one of his daughters to take over Russia apparently, but he doesn't seem to have a very close relationship with them. And traditionally, what the Tsars did was they had a son, and they expanded the Russian Empire. And he can't do one of those, but he can definitely do the second one. And it seems like he's been planning for that. Well, not nice because I mean, you know, tons of people are going to die. It could wipe out all life on earth. It's not his fault. There's a lot of things, but the point is, in the event that he does have a brain tumor, and even if he doesn't have a brain tumor, he's got maybe 10 good years to live max. Probably less than that because, you know, being the leader of a country since I was in high school actually like really heavily ages you, and you can see it. He works very hard to not show anyone, but you look closely enough at the pictures. He's not quite the vampire he comes off as. But my point is, is he doesn't stand to lose anything. He's at this point, because he has like nothing to lose, he's going to die pretty quickly. He has every incentive to do the one other thing to make his brain significant. And that's expanding imaginary line by a few hundred miles. That's going to make him feel like he lived for something when, in fact, it's completely arbitrary and ridiculous. But you're projecting like a mindset on him that you don't know. This is such a woman thing to do. You're doing the same thing with women. Yeah, I know, but it's such a woman thing to do is to say, oh, there must be something wrong with Putin when there's something clearly wrong and a major clear decline in sleepy Joe. I mean, you don't have to turn me against Joe Biden. I hate the man. I don't have an issue with him. Don't call him a man. He's a male. Okay, because he's not a man. I mean, Putin is a man is a man. Joe Biden is no man. I keep seeing you like you sort of talk about the world in such a way that like it almost reminds me of like wishful thinking. Like you don't want to acknowledge that there are men that are different than your idea of men. And you don't want to acknowledge that there is good and evil that may be mailed from your idea of good and evil. No, I know. Yeah, exactly. That's what that's what got us off on this tangent is you you criticizing Trump separating the children from their so-called families. Well, yeah, I mean, think about we don't know that they're families. You have to vet the situation and they're they're coming here illegally with imaginary line or not. This is our country. If you don't have a border, you don't have a country. Yeah, okay. So first, if they were seeking asylum, it's not illegal. And many of them were. That is so long. We should we should get rid of that. Okay, so it's not that is so subversive. I don't care. No, they're really they're illegal. I have a question for you right now really quickly. Does Mike make right? I think in some cases it does. Yeah. Can you explain how and why? Because this things like slavery, things like wars, expansion, colonialism, all these things that the the the female minded communist mindset is is trying to trying to get rid of trying to the communist women or communists now. Communism is a satanic serpent woman mindset. Yes. It seems like a very hasty. Joseph Stalin was pretty manly like he may have. I don't know about it. I'm talking about the communists today. The commie capitalists and the communists today kiss up to Black Lives Matter, the BLM, the feminists, they hate men. They hate Trump the most. Hang on for a second. Please define communism. Communism is lies. Get right. You said this on your show. So all untruths are communism. No, all. No, all communism is lies, but not all lies are communism. Okay. So it's like a thin diagram. Right. And communism is in the circle of lies. Yeah. Okay. So if there are lies that aren't communism, right, can you tell like give me an example of like the why communism is this specific thing that is always all lies? Um, I don't know. I don't want to get too off track here, but my point about bringing up communism is that that, uh, Howard Zinn, he's, he, I've read his book. He caricatured American history. And that's kind of like what you did with your caricaturing Trump trying to secure the border. Aren't you doing that right now? I mean, I'm not caricaturing Trump. He did separate families. We know that the so-called families, but that's what it's right to do because this is, and, and so the female mind wants to judge right as wrong and call wrong right. And so Trump was doing the right thing at the border with the kids and the female mind feels sorry for, oh, the children. She's very selective at which children she feels sorry for. Not the, not the American kids, not the boys that she oppresses, not the babies that she kills. She only cares about the illegal kids or the invader kids. If you want to not call them illegals, who is this woman that you're talking about? This woman is, um, the one who, the one who judges Trump for doing the right thing. Okay. So like, what's her name? Where does she live? How do you know she feels this way? I'm trying to, I'm trying to explain, use her as a metaphor for the people who hate Trump for doing the right thing. Okay. Great. So it's a metaphor. You're using it as an umbrella term for everyone who opposes Trump for any reason. So womanly. Okay. I mean, you can call that womanly if you want to. I'm not, not the right way of being a woman for sure. It's not the orderly way of, because women, you're right. Women can become more manly in a way that she becomes more logical by not hating the man, by loving him and let who loves God and loving what's right. Okay. So I mean, again, I feel like this term is being, there's, there's a term called hasty equivocation. When you take two things that are different and fundamentally are very largely different and you just say that they're the same thing for whatever reason. Um, you know, it's not necessarily deceptive. It's just something some people are more prone to, to and others. I would say, for instance, um, like when, uh, Pita, when Pita compares, uh, like chick, like our chicken industry to the Holocaust, like that is a hasty equivocation. Um, because obviously chickens are very different from human beings, right? As, as, uh, Plato learned and came back to that. So I feel like, yeah, I feel, oh boy, uh, I'm not even going to jump on that because I've got a whole mother debate. No, no, make your point. I'm apologize. Yeah. So I feel like what we've got going on here is a hasty equivocation where things that you want to be bad and you want to see in a bad light, you label them as this thing that you then equivocate with everything bad in the world. Um, and I really don't think that reality is like that. Isn't that what you guys do with separating children from their so-called families? No, that's a hasty equivocation because you're describing it in a way that's, that's leaving out key details. You're leaving out the alternative facts that bring up, bring up the big picture and show that Trump is right in what he's doing. The data for any given view or situation is effectively infinite. So you always have to make a choice in triage, what facts you remember and focus on and what facts you don't. That's just being a person. So what's my hasty equivocation? Well, I think your hasty equivocation is equivocating, uh, women with evil and men and masculinity with hierarchy. Like hierarchy is not something that humans lived with for the vast majority of our time on this planet. Um, we lived as hunter gatherers. We were here, we've been here about 250,000 years and we lived as tribal hunter gatherers, uh, up until about 6,000 years ago. And I don't know, I wasn't, I wasn't around back then, no, go ahead and make your fossil record. And if you look at hunter gatherers today, they have some of the most equal societies on the planet. It really wasn't until we moved into settled agriculture and we built up the institution of the state and we started minting currency that really we began to get into these regimented hierarchies of command and obedience. So I would actually say that the natural state of man of both men and women included in that is a state of equality. Because without the state, without this institution, we are effectively equal. It's only really when there's a group of armed men that will enforce particular privileges for certain people and not others that we run into this problem of, uh, of hierarchy, whether it be arbitrary or earned because sometimes it is earned. I don't see equality. There's, I don't think that there's any such thing as equality. I think it's a lie from Satan. Why? Because when you look at any relationship, any, even us, we are not, we're speaking straight across to each other. We respect each other, but we are, we are not the same. We are trying to, um, trying to get our point across in a, better is like in a family or a marriage or in society. There's always going to be a pecking order. That's natural. I mean, I won't say that it's necessarily natural because again, it wasn't in, for most of our history. You say that, but what was, but you don't know what the real relationships between the men and the women were. I mean, I know what you see the fossils, but that doesn't tell you anything about spirit. I know what is written about hunter-gatherers today. I know, um, what we have in the science of anthropology. Um, and we know from the fossil records, we can determine quite a bit of things. Uh, one of the big things was that, um, previously they had thought that this great war had taken place and that the, they had all of these human skulls with, um, like holes in them, essentially. And so they were sitting there saying, Oh, these were warriors. They were buried here. They fought each other there. And then suddenly they realized something. The holes were perfectly consistent with panther fangs. So like the thing is, is that people often will project our own cultural ideals onto people of the past when in fact that just simply isn't the case. Um, but that's what you're doing. You're projecting the ideal of equality on the people of the past when it wasn't the case. I mean, I'm looking at the people of the past from an objective reasonable logical standpoint. And are you arguing that that's what something what we should aspire to? I mean, you can never, so you can never derive an ought from an is. This is, this goes back to like David Hume. Like you, someone can describe what something is, but it's subjective to say how something ought to be. So I'm not saying we ought to live as hunter-gatherers. I think there's quite a lot for that society and way of life. And I learned that hiking the Appalachian Trail, Maine to Georgia, um, you know, lived in the woods for six months, only what I could carry on my back. So like, yeah, there's something to be said for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but also, you know, like I like modern technology. We could not be having this conversation without it. My wife would probably be dead without it to tell you the truth. So like, this is what we are dealing with here is I'm not speaking in like something that is old should be good or something that is new is bad or whatever. I'm not making those big statements. I'm just talking about something as it is and describing it. I'm trying to kind of remove myself from the situation and remove the judgmental female part of my brain so that I can look at things a little more objectively because, you know, I'm also passionate and I get excited about things. And that's something I like to keep in check about myself sometimes. Okay. So I say that there's no such thing as equality. Women are wanting this equality thing. You see, you hear it all the time, equal pay, the Me Too movement, which, which you seemed to support. I definitely don't. I mean, I support, like I support women who were raped, you know, making sure that the people who raped them suffer some sort of consequences. But there's so many cases where that's an issue between so many of these things are, they got themselves into this situation. They didn't actually get raped. You can't prove it. You're encouraging the women to feed into that judgment that's destroying them and it's also destroying society rather than forgiving and dealing with it privately. Yeah. I actually have a story about this. This happened to me. So a girl that I went to high school with me and she went and joined the military and me and her and somebody else from her unit. And also my friend, we all went out drinking one night. This was several years ago. And what wound up happening was we all came home pretty drunk and like we crashed in the one room and they both crashed in the bedroom and she wound up the next morning. We didn't, we hadn't heard anything. We couldn't confirm it, but she was basically like, I was raped by that guy. So the detectives came around and she went to the hospital, demanded a rape kit, that whole thing. They wouldn't give it to her. And we actually talked to the things and they're like, what did you see? And we're like, well, we didn't see anything. They went in there, but I mean, that's whatever happened in there is between them. And at the time, I even thought to myself, well, maybe she's making it up. Maybe this is like too big of a thing. And then I found out that a week after that, she showed up on the base with a gun intent on killing that guy and was stopped by the other people. So I'm inclined to believe that she was actually raped because I don't see a person resorting to almost murdering someone after they were denied justice for what happened to them. So I always think about that because rape, it's such a hard thing to talk about because it takes place mostly behind closed doors and mostly with people who know each other. But I did want to get back. That's why you have to victim blame because had she not gone in that room, I assume she went willingly into that room with him. Well, now she's really drunk. That's another thing to victim blame because I mean... Well, you don't know if he didn't slip or something in her drink or something. I mean, that happens a lot. True. We have a very immoral society and it's making everybody suffer, including the women. And then... Well, what I said earlier... And so maybe she was wrong, right? Let's say she was wrong. I think she definitely was, but... Okay. And what you do is encourage forgiveness because if she never forgives, then she's going to just be destroyed even after her body is healed. They have that trauma forever because they're encouraged to have this trauma and they have these false solutions to this problem. Women don't come up with good solutions to problems. So as far as forgiveness goes, I can see that being something important to do afterwards. But I would think what would be more important is to get this guy and make sure he doesn't rape anyone else because if he did it to one person, he's probably going to do it to another. He probably already has. So that's why we clean up society and not have this loose, moral situation where men and women are getting involved in having sex out of wedlock in the first place. There's so many cases where women have had sex one way and then the society is so degenerate that the man wants sex a different way. It perverted sex that the woman doesn't want and now she caused that rape. Mattress girl, for example. I don't blame her for not liking that situation. I don't blame her for not liking it. If you're having sex with someone and they don't want something to happen, that is the definition of rape if you force them to do it. I know, but this is why you don't get yourself in that situation and you return to morality. That's good advice, but we're already at this other point. We are, but the Me Too movement is not the solution because they're putting it out in public and smearing and revenge is not good for her or for him. I would agree revenge. Yeah, that's what this is about. I think that's you projecting that on there. Oh no, women are very malicious and vengeful. They can be. People are like that. People are simultaneously some of the most amazing creatures in the universe and some of the most horrifying and savage. It's an issue between them and women like to get or evil people like to get a crowd against the person that they're angry at and so rather than just deal with it. Yeah, I want to ask you, I'm going to do something first, but I really want to ask you what you mean by evil. But before we go into that, there is something that I wanted to get at. You were talking about equality and you pointed out that you and I have differences of opinion. And they're definitely differences between us. I don't know. Okay, let's say let's take James. James interrupts us. He's over us. We can't go against him. James does a very Taoist approach to this. He doesn't moderate very much. It's fine. Run modern day debate as you cook a small fish carefully and as little as possible. But like so with regard to equality, I think there's a big misunderstanding here. When the left or anarchists like myself in particular, like I don't really consider myself a part of the left, but I am an anarchist and they are normally, you know, grouped with the left. Historically, when we talk about equality, we are not talking about sameness. We don't think everyone is the same, and we don't want everyone to be the same. What anarchists are talking about essentially is getting into a situation in society where freedom is maximized and distributed as evenly as possible between as many hands as possible. Now, obviously, it's not perfect because people are different. And some people will always have slightly more power in whatever situation it is. But if we are ultimately skeptical of authority and make decisions involving more people, rather than having to be commanded by a group of elites or a king or whatever, we're going to make better decisions and we are going to be less abusive to others. Because again, each person has roughly the same amount of power. So that's equality. That's what the left means when they talk about it. It's a bad idea. Okay, you may consider it a bad idea. I think it's a great idea. I'll explain why. So why do you think that's a bad idea? And then evil, if possible. I want to get your definition. Okay. So equality is a false ideal in freedom. You guys kind of define it in a weird way where you're really dependent on the government. Well, I don't know about you. Anarchists are dependent on it. No, okay. I'm maybe not you specifically. When I say you guys, I'm talking about these women thing, people who want free childcare and subsidize my birth control and my condom, all that stuff. They're wanting the government to take care of them and the government to become the father and the mother of the children. I mean, people will often so that they can have more quote unquote freedom, but that's not freedom. So you can have more freedom to go out and work and play like she's a man, but that's not actual freedom. That's dependency on the government. That's an illusion of freedom. Yeah. I think there's something to be said for being dependent on the government, being a person who isn't as free as if they were not dependent on the government. Thank you. Yeah. No, I think that's perfectly valid. I think the issue is that, so the state, which is not the government, the state is the military and the police and the court system, the state functions specifically to deploy violence against the people that have no, that don't have property on behalf of the property owners. And that goes back to Adam Smith, the great-in-chief and of men, no, that was John Locke, the great-in-chief and of men uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the protection of their property. Where Adam Smith, civil government, as far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the protection of the rich against the poor or those who have some property from those who have none at all. So like when we're talking specifically about the state, that's what the state does. It has its primary elite constituents and everyone else, it's essentially involved in a cold war against. It doesn't always attack its own citizens unless they become a problem for the elites that it answers to. So like when we're talking specifically about when we're talking specifically about the state and we're talking about hierarchy, like people through, for instance, the workers movement extract concessions from the state through political action, usually direct action. Good example might be the Harlan County War. You know, have you heard that Which Side Are You On song? I have, no. Google it. It's Pete Seeger, like Which Side Are You On, boy? Which Side Are You On? They say in Harlan County, there are no neutrals there. You'll either be a union man or a thug for JH Blair. This long history of people struggling with the government and the state forces the government to give them things. It doesn't want to give them things. It only wants to help its primary constituents. But in order to preserve its power, it will come up with concessions. It will give out welfare. A story, I don't know if it's apocryphal or not, but it really makes sense to me, is that like during the reason people are afraid of hillbillies is that they, before welfare, they used to like mug people as they drove through the mountains and steal their stuff because they didn't have anything else. So obviously, when people are in a pressure cooker, they go to war. And you saw that direct consequence of political prosecution and class warfare. So the state doesn't want to give anyone welfare. It doesn't want to give anyone medical benefits. Except to control them. Well, yes, to prevent them from going to war against the elites. Keep them comfortable slaves. Yep. Yeah. Well, not quite slaves, but yes, I would say wage slaves. It's slavery with extra steps. The point of this is, however, is that you don't want to like when the concessions are extracted, like for instance, the weekend and the eight hour work day and like OSHA and like all of these things that people have fought and died for that anarchists have bled and died for these while they do not solve the ultimate problem, which is the state. They don't they do make people's lives better in the short term. And as long as we're going to have a state, as long as we're going to be in this, I would say hostage situation, what we really need to do is we need to make things as good as possible for as many people as possible. So I'm certainly not going to while I see a problem with I with depending upon the state, I'm not going to begrudge someone something they need to live. But that's not what they need to live. You know, this is this is the women. No, it's not. They they need to it would be better for them if they return to getting married, listening to the husband, staying home, taking care of the kid. We can get rid of all this minimum wage and and all this other stuff that's artificially expanding, raising the cost of living and stuff so that the man can work and provide for his family on one income. So essentially, you're looking for like a kind of 1950s. What's the I don't know if I'm looking for that because that gave way to what we have now. So I don't know if we need to go back somewhere. But everything is where we are now. Right. Time works. I know. But I'm saying there was something wrong with it. There was something wrong with the setup that led to this. And so that's what I mean by that. No, no, I see what you're talking about. The thing is the state is the state is taking away from men in favor of women there. If in a domestic violence situation or in a child custody case, she can be hitting the man, but if she breaks a nail on the man, she can lie on the man and then the cop is predisposed because of the brainwashing and the whole societal structure to arrest the man based on no evidence. I'll give you a chance to respond to Brenton. Then we have to go into Q&A because we have a lot of questions that we've got to move through. Go ahead, Brenton. Yeah, this has been very fascinating. So the one thing that I want to respond to this because I expected this to come up is that stuff with regard to the state and how it discriminates between men and women. Now, it is true. Statistically, it is true that women are treated better than men for the same crime. Men are seen by authority figures as inherently more violent, which isn't necessarily true, though as you pointed out, we've done a lot of violence and most of the time the wars and stuff comes from us. So it's not entirely unjustified. But that perception is not an aspect of feminism. It's an aspect of patriarchy. And it's very important to understand when I say patriarchy, I'm talking about a very specific thing, rule by fathers. And not like really even necessarily rule by fathers because I'm a father and Putin didn't freaking call me and say, hey, I'm going to poll all the fathers who run the world. Do you want me to invade Ukraine or not? No, this is ruled by very specific men in a picture like usually like the grandfather, the head Pumba of whatever, you know, small group of people. This is something that it's the flip side of them putting women into an infantilized and subordinate position. If women are infantilized and subordinate, well, then they aren't capable of great violence or great evil. And their job is specifically to take care of children. So if you're a guy for that's not infantilizing, I don't like how you're lumping those two things together. Lump infantilizing and subordinate are not the same. I mean, should not be sure. Okay, fine. Go on, go on. Subordinate or infantile, however you want to say it. But the point is, is that that is the flip side of them looking at women as somehow inherently less than men. And if you want to challenge that, if you want more equal outcome, what you need to work for is gender equality. So the freaking judges don't discriminate against men. No, you hold women responsible too. We'll jump into the next section, which is Q&A, folks. What remind you our guests are linked in the description. Maybe you've been listening and you've been like, man, this is interesting. A lot of juicy ideas. And maybe you know somebody who likes this topic that maybe you've been talking to about this topic with. Great opportunity. You could hit that share button and maybe you'll think, hey, you know, this is good for them to hear it. They can hear both sides on this issue. And with that, thanks for your question. Mr. Monster says, if you are a man who likes men, can you still be manly? No, you cannot. You can be an imitation of it. And I guess it's, but no, you cannot. Can I hear that question? If you're a man who likes men, I think they mean likes, likes men. Yeah. Can you be manly? I mean, absolutely. It depends. You're going to be manly in a way that someone considers it manly. Manly is whatever people decide it is at a given time. And you know, I'll tell you, I work in the theater. I know a lot of gay people. And I know a lot of, you know, very masculine gay people that do like all the normal things that a man is expected to do. So yes, absolutely. That's because we don't have a clear understanding of what masculinity is in this in now. Well, it's impossible. It's not one thing. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Ozzie and talk says, no war on men. There is a war against equal rights from men who cry when they are being asked to treat people equally to be human is to be emotional. Hake. No, that is not true. And it is, it is both a spiritual warfare to Brent's point and a, and a physical warfare. Though the women are the jealous of the men, there's no such thing as equality. You definitely should not let a woman tell you what a man is or is not. Women love women hate weak men, but they hate strong men. Like I'd say a weak man would be someone who lets another man tell him what masculinity is. Juicy. You can. Yeah, this is going to get from Lin Yan Chin who's got a lot of questions tonight. He starts with gender is the generator of life. It's a binary thing as it really is your sex that quote unquote engenders you with your distinctive life as a he or she broken sexuality is just being validated by man boy. What's man boy? Is that a new term like cat boy or sad boy? I'm not sure. Maybe mama's it may be kind of mama's boy or it may be mammy type of boy where it's female minded males. Maybe you kind of female minded male. As I pointed out, I agree. That's deep. So yeah, I I'm definitely not a mama's boy. As far as like he's just objectively wrong. Like we know that he's objectively wrong because there are edge cases within our society where like freaking men have wound up pregnant. We have no man. The exceptions don't prove the rule. It's ridiculous. They don't prove the rule. I mean, they don't debunk the rule. Whatever. I mean, like I said, on average 99.5% of the time, you know, men are going to be but there are these little edge cases and they're very interesting again, because like as I've said, masculinity is a social institution. It's not tied to biology and like the godly institution. Okay, and it is tied to biology too. I mean, it's informed by biology, but it is not determined. It's informed by biology, but it is not determined by biology. If it were determined by biology, there would be no trans people. There would be no gay people. We would only have like one kind of because it's like how biology works. The idea of having somebody outside of the masculine thing would be the same thing as expecting me to have two heads. If gender were determined by biology, just like I have one head determined by biology. Satan and women thrive on confusion and muddying the waters. So don't fall for this intellectual stuff, guys. Don't listen to the smart guy. That's what coming in from. It's evil. Lin Yen Chin strikes again as Brent stop chasing the emotional high of verbs. That during this, because I've been fasting, my mouth was a bit drier than it normally is, which messed with my opening statement. But you know, like overall, dude, I know how to do this. I've been doing this for years. There's a reason I'm in the position that I'm in and you're not. Shut up. This one coming. Feisty Sunflower says, what has sold more copies? The Bible or the Snow White Zombie Apocalypse series, Brenton? Exactly. Obviously, the Bible, but I don't know if you can really go to capitalism to confirm that the Bible is correct. I mean, that's the bandwagon fallacy. And who knows? Maybe in 10,000, you know, maybe in 2000 years, somebody finds the copies of my comic and they mistake it that I'm talking about God. And suddenly there's a religion founded about, you know, zombies and fairy tales. Stranger things have happened. That's a logical woman, though. This one from Lin-Yen Jinz's masculinity is holding to the inner stillness. This is catalyst of all orientation in relation to truth, aka reality. It renders order out of chaos. Okay, again, what the fuck are you talking about? I would think that you would agree with that because you believe in this meditation stuff as a Buddhist, right? Yeah. I mean, is he talking about meditation? Well, he's talking about inner stillness. He said he said he made a point about inner stillness and then you you act from knowing rather than this this thinking and emotion stuff that the women operate from and female-minded males. Okay, so what I can say to that is I think there is a there's definitely something to be said for meditation and for getting yourself into a position where, you know, you aren't necessarily acting rashly in an overly emotional way. However, we've seen what happens when men suppress their emotions when they don't let it, you know, come through and we don't discharge it. That's another issue. Yeah. But the thing is, like, you look back at these guys, you know, from the 1950s, like my grandfather died of, like, liver failure, you know, at a very young age, at 66, 67. And, you know, he was the patriarch of his family. Like, all of the all of the financial stuff fell on him. He never felt that he could be, you know, open. My grandmother was entirely dependent on him and was like, you know, very much a traditional wife. And after he died, she didn't really have much to do with herself because she hadn't been herself for so long. This idea of masculinity is actually really bad for men. And I will point you towards the SJW cock feminist soy boy George Carlin. Look up Google George Carlin, the male disease. And he spells it out in a way that's very clear and understandable by men. And as well before a lot of this, like stuff from the feminists about toxic masculinity were cut, began to come out of academia. But there's a there is a right way to be still and logical without so-called suppressing and being counterproductive or whatever you were saying. Yeah, I just felt like the question just had a bunch of jargon from like, you call things like sometimes you heard like a word and you'd like, oh, that's a commie word or something. Right. So like a real commie word would be like, for instance, if someone says dialectical materialism, they know what dialectical materialism means. You've probably never heard the term before. I have. Oh, you have. Okay, great. Capitalism a stepping stone to communism. That's not dialectical material. Okay. No, that's dialectic. That's the dialectic something, something like that. Anyway, I will explain dialectics to you later. But like the point is, imagine that you have never heard of dialectical materialism. You have no idea what's going on. And then suddenly someone says, well, you're being undialectical. You respond in much the same way I did. Like what the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, don't use so much jargon when you're talking to someone who is outside of the specific community that you're in that uses jargon. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Sphinxer of doom says politicians seem very willing to bribe voters with welfare in exchange for staying in power. Yeah, especially politicians. And what is that? The advertisers, you know how Brenton made a great point that hate sells. And that is the politicians appeal to the emotions of the women and so do the media and advertisers. It's so true. And they get us into the wrong things like war in Ukraine or something. Well, so I won't touch the war in Ukraine thing right now. But what I will say is, so if politicians were bribing people with welfare to stay in power, and there was there's something of a thing to be said for that, because you got to think about like the political machines and like early, you know, 1800s New York with Tammany Hall. There's probably definitely some of that going on. But politicians have systematically stripped welfare from and other concessions extracted from the state. You know, for since I think Reagan, since like the neoliberals took over and overran, you know, the New Deal. So the idea that politicians are controlling people by offering them welfare, they're literally taking welfare away from everybody. Clinton did that in a big way. So I don't think that reality bears out that theory. It could happen. It's just not happening now. This one from Mark Reed for Hake of the Hake report says, since feminism is quote unquote equality and Jesus advocated for women and the poor, does that make Jesus a feminist and a female rather than a male? No, Jesus was a man. He was not a feminist. He did not advocate for equality. He did not advocate for women or the poor. What about when he saved Mary Magdalene? That's not advocating for women. That's being decent to all people. May he who is without sin cast the first stone. They were just following the law and the law said stoner to death. That wasn't women's equality though. I mean, I would say that equality. So when Jesus was crucified and that wasn't for women, that was for her. So when Jesus was crucified, who were the first people to see him crucified to actually stand in the shadow of the cross? John and Mary. Two women and a child. John was not a child. He was a disciple. Yeah. Well, hang on. Disciple. The disciple whom Jesus loved was John. Oh, right. Okay. So he's the one who's seen. He's the one who had to take care of Mary, I guess. Yeah. Well, he's the one who was often seen as the youngest of them, which is I think why I confused it with a child. And he was also seen to be very feminine. And in fact, like if you read the Da Vinci Code, I never read that whole theory. Yeah. This whole theory where he's secretly a woman. That's no, it's just a stupid book. But like the point is, is the three people who still it wasn't Peter, you know, it was the three people who stood in the shadow of that cross were the people that society said, you don't matter. And not in so many words, but women were basically property back then. They weren't allowed to own things. They weren't allowed to control the society. And so like Jesus never overturned that. But they're the ones who saw Jesus crucified, who stood in the shadow of the cross. And I would argue that one of the big things about that story that's saying is that those who are on the outside of society, the people that Jesus went directly to, those are the ones who have the best feed on those of us within society. Because if you are beyond the pale, if you are an outsider, you can look more objectively at what is happening with the insiders within society. And it's one of the reasons why I'd say Western democracy and Western culture is sick. And it's because we haven't provided for people who don't want to play the game, who want to stand outside of society. That's why the white Christian men of AFPAC, including the great sheriff, Joe Arpaio, and all those guys, and Jesse Peterson, he's white on the inside. Because he's white and pure, washed as clean as snow on the inside. Hang on, hang on. Is he pure on the inside, or is he white on the inside? White, washed white as snow. That's why these men who are the most marginalized and maligned falsely in society today are the ones who are right. They're the ones who are right. How much money do they have? Not so much. How much money does Joe Arpaio have? I don't know. But he is falsely maligned. No other man in America besides Trump. Money doesn't, as you made, as the point you made was money doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter. I mean, money isn't real. It matters. It's just not real. This one coming in from Bubble Gum Gun says, man, you have nothing to lose but your bowels, according to Brent. Bowels? Yeah. I don't understand. Oh, no, they said balls. Okay, sorry. Oh, you have nothing to lose. Are people cutting people's balls off or something? Is this happening? Who loses their balls? Unless you get cancer. Next up, Lin Yan Chin says, 10% of blacks became free during Chateau slavery, about a tenth of them owned other blacks. The output was higher in white plantations versus slave ones. Oh, Jesus. Okay, so first off, it definitely was not 10%. There were some black slave owners in the south. And they were very tough, much tougher than the whites. Oh, Jesus. Okay, I don't care how tough they were. Historical fact. Yeah, oftentimes people are more cruel to people who are similar to them than people who are different than them. There's sort of the vanity of small differences, is the term for that. But like, one, this was very small. And two, whether or not there were black people that did evil and owned other black people, that doesn't defend the institution of slavery. And like, even if you treat a slave well, it doesn't justify the institution of slavery. It doesn't mean justification. It's just a reality of life. What? Okay, so hang on. Be a man. That doesn't mean anything. Oh, my God. It's just a reality of life. What else is just a reality of life? And if it's just a reality of life, why aren't there any slaves now? There are. Yes, but not in the way that they were in the south. We changed it by force, and I'm not sure that we did it right. This one coming in from Mr. Monster says, do you think misogyny is moral? No, no such thing. No such thing as misogyny. Most men hate women and practically all women hate men. So to make a moral statement, I'm going to fall back on my Buddhism in this because that tends to be where I find my locus of morality. And what I will say is we have a concept called fundamental darkness. Fundamental darkness is our tendency to forget our connections to everyone else in the world and to life itself and instead think that we are just ourselves and that we can gain while other people suffer. Yeah, people think they're God. Yeah, as a result, looking down on another human being as if you are better than them, I would say is inherently an expression of fundamental darkness and holding really anyone in that kind of contempt, I would say is definitely unethical and immoral. Yeah, women are so judgmental. This one coming in from Mr. Monster says, Fred's face. He's got the whole debate judging people. Mr. Monster says, the Venus statue proves women have been worshiped for over 20,000 years. Why? I only stick to the Bible. I think they're saying, why should I only stick to the Bible if women have been worshiped possibly longer? Than the Judeo-Christian God. Yeah, not a good thing. Look at where worshiping women has gotten us. We have kids, babies dying. We have kids. No, babies are getting killed. Women, you're right. You can't kill an idea to go back to your point about masculinity as an idea, but you can kill the soul of a child and that's what's happening with these single mothers. And it's also what's happening when the men are weak and the women are ruling over the men when they have the marriage in the home. So the women are killing the souls of the children as the males are standing by hapless. It's such a shame, but that's reality. I really need to do this debate on abortion eventually. I'm not just talking about abortion. I'm talking about killing the soul of the child by way of the way that she raises the child and the way that she's running the show and the man is subservient to her spiritually. How do you kill a soul? Are you talking literally or are you talking figuratively? Like doing figuratively. You're doing injustice to a child. You've seen a child be all bright and his laugh is free and then he goes through adolescence and then he's dull and he's like subdued. And you have children like worse off today. They're having this mental illness stuff and all that. That's the mothers and the weak fathers raising them poorly. That actually reminds me. You mentioned ADD at the beginning, which I have. And by the way, ADD is not a disorder. It's inherited genetic condition. It doesn't fit with our current society now. Especially education, right? Yeah, but the people with ADD, we were the people who went out and discovered new lands and invented new things. Having it, it is a real condition. It does get in the way in certain ways, but it's also like almost a superpower. I have freaking hyper-focus. And if I hyper-focus on the right thing, I can sit there and write for seven hours straight or I stare at a wall for 45 minutes. Do you take Ritalin or anything? No, no, I took Ritalin for a short period in middle school. And you mentioned middle schoolers like checking out and becoming quiet. That's just a phase of life. It is, but that's what's happening. That'll happen regardless. It's just part of human biology. The spirit is breaking. Okay, I think they're just shy because young kids don't really have that. The children live in Samadhi. I'm talking about this is happening to all children, whether they're shy or not. But yeah, I get your point. Shyness is on the rise, seemingly. Right. Well, no, it's not on the rise. That's how our... So when people go through specific phases of life, their brain chemistry changes. And when their brain chemistry and their body hormonal changes come in, their behavior changes. And like kids, when they get into middle school, start to become very self-conscious because suddenly they're aware of themselves in relation to their peers in a way that they weren't before. It's just a phase in the same way that when babies are first born, they don't have a concept of a difference between themselves and their environment. They call it the oceanic feeling. So it's just something that happens to all people and you can't avoid it. You could maybe make it less intense. Yeah, you can mitigate it by the proper raising. This one coming in from you stabbing with a fork says to Hake, does manliness equal having a Johnson? If not, isn't being a man somewhat mental? If so, can't there be an infinite number of describable aspects to it? If so, who decides what aspects are or aren't manly? God does. It is more than just the anatomy. That's true. Funny. And yeah, a man is what he needs to be given the situation. A man is a male who is what he needs to be given the situation. And that's why Trump is so deep and Putin, they're confounding the world because they're not intellectual like the females. They are just charging away, being men, and you can't stop them. Are you saying men are stupid compared to women? The foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, which is the womanly wisdom. So if you want to call, are you calling Trump stupid or something? No, I'm not calling him stupid. So this is really interesting. Oh, because my anti-intellectual thing. Yeah, but yeah, exactly. But this is really interesting because you'll notice that you're gesturing towards a concept of God. And it seems to me that your concept of God is cast in the graven image of an ancient king of the Near East. And this is normal in the West, a lot of it, because we base our concepts of God on things that we understand like human institutions. That's why, for instance, Catholic churches are set up in the same way that a medieval pork would be set up with God as the king. And the priest sort of is like the master of ceremonies or whatever. This is not God. This is very much a graven image. God as a necessary being, as the creator of the universe, they had to burn the sin from Elijah's lips just so he could be in the presence of God, because you would be totally annihilated, supposedly, if you were in this presence, because God is perfect. And if he's perfect, then he can't really be in the presence of anything that's not perfect. That's like standard Christian theology. Yeah, so anyway, the big point is, is that God is not a king. God is not a Lord. God is not a grandfather with a long beard. These are just metaphors that people used in ancient times because people weren't very educated and didn't understand complex theology. Right, but Jesus is king. He's the son of God. Got to use the last word, Hake, and then we got to go to the next one. And my thing about intellectualism, intellectuals will rationalize evil. They'll turn evil to be good and good evil. That's why I am anti-intellectual. I'd like to see... This room, H.M. Tulloford says, real freedom is under chairman Coons. I don't know what that means, but we will give our speakers freedom of speech at least. And want to mention, well, let me keep going. Springtrap Doom says, Paul, we got that one. Also said the man is interested in DV due to just brainwashing. Feminists have lobbied for primary aggressor laws, quote, defining the aggressor as the one who has qualities more common among men. I can't say one way or the other if that's true. I've never heard of such a thing. But if feminists have lobbied for that, it's probably a bad idea. I don't know. I would have to look into the specifics. I zoned out a little bit. I apologize. Do you mind repeating it quickly? Happy to. I just can't figure out what DV, like... Domestic violence. Oh, thank you. Said the man is interested in domestic violence due to just brainwashing. Feminists have lobbied for primary aggressor laws, defining the aggressor as the one who has qualities more common among men. Oh, yeah. Interesting. I don't find it strange that men tend to be the ones who engage in domestic violence. No, it's equal. The women do it every bit as much. Yeah. And also, I think cops do it more often than most other people. They have rough marriages. Yeah. Well, they're rough people. But the point is... No, I'm talking about their marriages are messed up. I'm not talking about violent marriages. But yeah, go ahead. I'm sure that that plays a big role in it. I'm not surprised that men are often the aggressors because our society tells us partially of what it is to be a man is to be violent. I think that's probably a bad idea. As a man, in my opinion, you should be ready to fight and you should be ready to defend yourself and those that you care about. But you should not be violent. And I think it's very important because men who were violent in ancient times caused problems that they didn't need to and got themselves killed. So God held the woman responsible for what she did wrong. He held the man responsible for what he did wrong. And he held the serpent responsible for what he did wrong. What we have right now is women blaming it all, and males, blaming it all on men. When women play a role in this DV thing, they're smacking the men quite a bit and the man can't do anything. Or according to the fake rules of today, and they're doing all kinds of things to get under his skin. It takes two to tango and we need to deal with both issues, not just the man. This one coming in. Go ahead, Brent. I will just point out very quickly that the person who is most responsible for the actions in the Garden of Eden is God himself because he set up that system knowing that would happen exactly. Nice. This one coming in from Sphinxter of Doom strikes again. He says, the same biases slash gender roles in a patriarchal society can be found in matriarchal societies. There are no matriarchal societies. And says, yeah, there are. Yeah, there are. And says, hold on, what's it like? And it was feminists who pushed for bias in favor of women in child custody. Patriarchy is a red herring. It's just not true. It's objectively not true. It used to be men. Women have been seen to be the child care and the child care givers of our society since well before the feminist movement. Well, hold on. Was it not the case that in the good old days, men would get the in the rare case of divorce because we didn't have no fault divorce. In the case of divorce or separation, the men would get the children. Now it's switched over the recent, relatively recent decades. I mean, I would have to look into that. Yeah, look into it. I had never heard such a thing, but again, like. According to Jesse Lee, it was that way. Go ahead. OK. Well, I need I need a source better than Jesse Lee. There is no source. I'm a little surprised. Some day I think we might see Brenton being interviewed by Jesse. You seem like a type that you enjoy. I'd love to talk to him to tell you the truth. He seems to be a very interesting guy. I think, yeah, it's like, that'd be fun to see you guys interact. But this is what we're coming in from. Anna Ash says, Brent, are you aware that there is a difference between feminism and femininity? And if yes, would you be able to explain? Yeah, feminism is a political movement started in the late 1800s, got going in the early 1900s to push for equality of the sexes, you know, with regard to law and culture. Femininity is simply those things which a specific society associates more with women than men at a specific time. It is a set of ideals, much like masculinity is a set of ideals. You got it. Thank you very much for your question coming in from. Mitchell says, why do most basement dwelling neckbeards hold your ideology? Brenton. You're not, it's okay. You have a nice neck and a nice beard. Go ahead. I do thank you. And by the way, yeah, no neck beard, just a regular beard. All right, so I don't think most neckbeards, as we would call them, most shut in people that spend a lot of time and entirely too much online agree with me. In fact, if you look at a lot of the comments coming from very online people under these, you know, a lot of them, I think heavily disagree with me and tend to agree more with whatever right-winger I may be talking to. So I don't think that that's a thing. I think what you're doing is you're just deciding that everyone who disagrees with you is an ugly loser. And that's really stupid because, you know, the thing is, is that even the stupidest person probably has thought of something you haven't thought of and you can learn something from them. So I would say be careful there and just don't let your brain paint someone else as what you want them to be as opposed to what they are. Sphinxer of Doom says if a society has expectations of its members to be part of that society, why should one expect that society to support those who don't wish to adhere to those expectations and instead prefer to live outside of them? Oh, this is a great question. Okay, this is really important. It is because the people who live outside of society, monks, hermits, shaman, traditionally have a better view of society than the people that are in the pale. Their function, because again, we don't understand what something is until we encounter with something that is not, their function is to show people the problems with their society, the hypocrisies, the assumptions that everyone takes for granted but aren't necessarily true. And any society that is secure and functional will allow for these people. But in the West, unfortunately, there's no real chance for a Christian to become a monk. I mean, like the Catholics have made some half-hearted things for it. We don't have shamans and our artists and people who would fill that social role are stuck within the system. So you need outsiders so that the insiders can understand themselves. The outsiders are the incels, the mig-tows, the straight white conservative Christians, the Jesse Lee Peterson's, those who've been marginalized and censored and disavowed by the establishment. And they're telling the truth in society, but they want to clamp, the society wants to clamp down on their freedom of speech. It's such a shame. I mean, the incel, they're still very much within society and within the pale. They are, yeah, they're getting that victim mindset for sure. But they are on the outs with society is what I'm saying. And they have some true things to say. And same with the mig-tow, I'm not supporting. No, I would actually agree with that. As I said before, when someone's hurting, you believe them. Right. So yeah, I think that there is real pain and perspectives that we don't have that incels could potentially provide. I don't think they're necessarily outsiders, though. Over the past week, well, okay. Over the past week, we saw politicians pressured and many of them caved to disavow the America first political action conference, which was. Well, that's because America first, like that slogan is a fascist slogan. Like that's where it started. If that's true, that's like a meaning. It's a meaningless word to me, fascist, because you guys throw it around. I can define fascist. Okay. Well, the point is they are honorable men telling the truth about what's going on. Jesse Lee Peterson spoke there. Marjorie Green spoke there. She didn't disavow. But others did. These people are some of the most censored and marginalized people, regardless of what you say. Joe Arpaio, too. Regardless of how much money Joe Arpaio may have or not. He's almost 90 years old, by the way. Oh, wonderful. Hate keeps you young. A living hero. So all right, I agree that to a certain extent, people who don't measure up to society's main values are also excluded. But that's not what I'm talking about when I'm speaking about the political outsider. When I'm talking about, like, what I'm talking about is, for instance, Yeah, I know. You talked about the shaman, the monk, and the artist. Yeah, you're so right about the artist. They're a bunch of dumb liberals now. They are the establishment. Look at the, anyway, go ahead. Yeah, no, no, you're totally right. So, I mean, as far as fascism goes, this is how I will define fascism. Paleonegenic ultra-nationalism. These are ultra-nationalists who are obsessed with rolling back the clock on society and myths of societal rebirth. They are really, really bad, not because necessarily, like, because of all the stuff that fascists have done throughout the years, but because they inherently destabilize the society and send it into a cycle of violence that will eventually lead to war and death. Like, it is literally a death cult. And so, if you're taking, like, the Christians, the Christians are not fascists. There are some fascist Christians. America first are Christians. I mean, I would have to look into that, but the slogan itself, they pick the fascist slogan to use. All right, so we keep going. Deal, and thanks very much for your question. This one coming in from Lin Yan Qin says, inner stillness is realizing perspective shift into the most unbiased state, granting optimal observation and orientation in every context. Mama Brent. Okay, so into, so the most unbiased state, I would say if you were in an unbiased state, you wouldn't be using snarl terms like mother, like, like Mama Brent or however you want to say that. You don't have to couch what you say in language that implies a particular view if you're looking at things from a more objective perspective. I think that meditation is very, very helpful through this. Mantras are really helpful. Chanting is something that I do a lot of the time. And it definitely does put you into a better head space where you can, you know, observe your emotions rather than be carried away by them. So that is true. I just don't think you're there. And I don't think the tree you're barking up is ever going to get you there. But he's giving you advice. And isn't it kind of mama to be worried about other invaders' children? Falsely, and blame Trump for doing the right thing and protecting our borders from these so-called peaceful invaders? You must move forward. We've just won a job. Go ahead, Brent, and then you want a chance to respond. That's mama. Yeah, sure. That's my point. Isn't that mama? I mean, that's the Buddha. That compassion is key. No, well, this aspect of the Buddha, you would consider it compassion to be a feminine thing. I don't think it's a feminine thing. I think it's a human thing. And it's one of the things that when you are advanced in your spiritual practice and perspective, you will gain a huge amount of compassion for other people because they're still the great Brahma. They're still the universe expressing itself in a specific way. It's the universe eyeing. And we can talk about that because it's high-level religious stuff. But Trump has great compassion for those people. There's one coming up. He's doing Trump sphincter of doom. Says, in the mid-19th century, Catherine Norton and her feminists spearheaded the, quote, tender year's doctrine shifting custody from fathers to mothers. Brent. Okay. I mean, I can look into that, like I said. Never doubt JLP. I don't think, for instance, that even if that did happen, I don't think that mothers were not still seen primarily as child caregivers. For the first three years. For the first three years, yeah. Yeah, okay. This one, go ahead. If you want a chance to respond, Brent. Respond to the, I did respond. What are you talking about? Or what? You seem like you wanted to respond to what I said about the first three years the mother, and then the father takes over and makes the boy a man and the girl a young lady. Oh boy. How do you like them, Apple, Brent? Yeah, the father takes over and makes, I don't think we should be looking to make our children like us. But the point is the father takes over the role rather than the mama, mama-ing the child into adulthood through, we have, we have people not being mature at an old age now. Obama had, Obama had children on their parents, so-called health insurance through the age, what, 25, 26? Well, yeah, that's really important because like- Because we've set up society to where people aren't able to be self-sufficient and we're hamstringing people so that they're not taking care of themselves and becoming mature and responsible. I mean, the reason why medical bills are unaffordable is it's an arms race between the medical industry and the insurance industry. The insurance industry goes to the doctor or the hospital says, I have this many million people, give me a discount or I won't let them see you. The doctor says, okay, I'll give you a discount and raises their prices because there's a certain amount they need to get. So like if my dad wanted $20, he would have to charge over 100. So that, that's the problem. It's not this abstract culture worship. Forward. This is coming in from Black Stepdad says, Brent, chill out on the, let's see, men are direct and simple. All your fancy words make a simple topic complicated. Men are, men are direct and simple. I'm an American. Holy shit, dude. Do you hear yourself like first off, were the ancient philosophers was Plato direct and simple? Like was St. Thomas Aquinas direct and simple? Was freaking Chakka Muni Buddha direct and simple? No, there's a huge long tradition. Wait, how are you saying no? What I'm saying no because there's a, well, in particular with the Buddha, like when he's expounding stuff from like the Lotus Sutra, it's almost impossible to talk about the, the directly about the truth of actual existence. You know, so like, again, this is like we can have a conversation about Buddhist theology and philosophy, but like there is a long, long history of men thinking about things and being like very specific about what we say and very nuanced. And if anybody who tells you that like you shouldn't be thinking about something, that's a dangerous person who's looking to exploit you. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Belize and blasphemer says, rape apologetics is controversial issue. I would like to know what Brent and James Hakes opinion are is on the matter. I'm not familiar with what rape apologetics is, but he's saying like if you're excusing rape or you're, yeah, apologetics is like, you're explaining it in such a way that makes it okay. Well, a lot of the, a lot of the times, you know, like you, you defined rape is, as having sex with someone without their consent or doing a sex act without their consent. And, you know, they're saying that if you're, if you're drunk, then you can't consent. And many times people, well, they're saying that. I didn't say you, they're saying that. And that is, they're just using that to attack men, basically. And so I don't know the rape apologetics thing, but. Well, you just engaged in it. That's, that's what you did. Right on. So my opinion on rape apologetics is it's disgusting and immoral and also like just very unmanly. Like part of traditionally being a man is protecting women. Like that goes back to, you know, the foundations of our society. Thank you. Men are supposed to thank you. Great. I'm glad we can come together on that. Men are supposed to protect those that are weaker than us. That's, that's how, that's what power is supposed to be used for. So yeah, when people try to make excuses for immoral men who rape and take advantage of particularly, and it's not just men, women rape as well, you know, not as many of them, but they do it. You know, I'd say that that is probably one of the most unmanly things you can do. And I think such people need to be held accountable. Most people aren't excusing actual legitimate rape. You, the problem is the excusing the wrong that the women are doing to get themselves into these positions. There's one coming in from, go ahead, Brent. I don't want to, I was just going to say, like, you can talk about like what a person could have done to make something better. But that doesn't they learn from their mistakes and other people learn. Absolutely. That's good advice. But it doesn't remove the fact that a horrible crime has been committed. Allegedly, you know. Well, yes, allegedly. Obviously the courts are there to decide that. This one coming in from, go ahead, sorry. No, no, no, no, no, that's what I was saying. This one coming in from Singer of Dooms says, New School House of Rock Song. Objective perspective. Don't be invective. Nice. Okay, what's invective? What's invective? Somebody define it for me. Invective is insulting. Yeah, okay. Nasty. This one, Lin Yan Chin says, calm. Oh, that's right. You're right. Brent and you are that better. It is insult. Lin Yan Chin says, combat efficiency condenses the body. Unless sumo or similar art is the format of combat you pursue. I think they're saying Brent and like, I think they're saying like men have condensed warrior like bodies, not like sumo, you know, where the. So he's calling me fat. Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's calling me fat. So I practice Kyokushin karate. I fight as a heavyweight. And yeah, like there is something to be said for men with smaller bodies. I'm just not a small guy. I'm like six to, you know, I have spent my life doing crazy shit. Like I can the Appalachian trail and leading international wilderness expeditions. Like that's just me. You know, some they're smaller men. Like I ran the Chicago marathon in 2010. And I had a much harder time with it than smaller guys because, you know, I'm I'm a tank and they're a sports car. But, you know, that's everybody's different. And that's perfectly okay. I didn't think that they were like personally addressing your physique. I thought it was more that they were talking about like combat sports. Sorry. So anyway, so you might not have actually. I mean, there's look, there's men who have done the kind of body conditioning you can do for Kyokushin karate like who are much smaller and thinner and more compact than me that can kick the shit out of me. Several of my instructors were like that. I'd be huge. I could hit much harder than them, but they were still really able to just get in and, you know, obliterate me because they'd worked at it longer. And they had been able to condition their bodies to a point where they could absorb even the really heavy hits I'm capable of delivering. So yeah, there's something to be said for that. I just think like there's a bunch of different body types and those body types can fight in different ways. A great example was the in the Kyokushin match, the female world champion. She had long legs. Sorry to interrupt, but I'm not sorry. I didn't know you were six foot two. Doesn't that feed into isn't it just more natural for men to lead? I mean, you said that it was. You said that it is. I mean, I don't think that I would say men have traditionally led. I don't think it's necessarily natural for men to lead. But like I'm a leader. I have been for most of my life. You know, I run my own business before that. I was a manager and you lead your wife. No, me and my wife are partners. No, don't say that. That's that's the homosexual propaganda. And it's the propagand is having partners. It's having a wife that you love and respect. No, no, no, I'm talking partnership and partnership and equality and all that stuff. That's part of the attack on the men. We're partners in the sense that we work together. Yeah, like we are a team and like she's under you. No, she's not. This one came in. Sometimes she's under me. Let's Lin Yen Chin. Okay, I just got a mental image. This one from Lin Yen Chin says, No, he claimed that fighting made men bigger over time. That is an older super chat negating his claim. I didn't say that. I said it makes sense that men would be taking a leadership position because we are expected to fight. I don't think and that's why we're bigger. Yeah, you said you said we became bigger because we were fighting. We were expected to fight. You said something like evolutionarily or something. So a lot of species have larger males for this exact reason. Like it doesn't necessarily mean that you're always better at fighting. But like you look at a look at a hen and look at a rooster. Like they're much, much larger. Other species do things like where the male birds are incredibly colorful and the females are smaller and brown and like so that they can more easily hide from predators. You see a lot of this because again, nature has sculpted us to be a certain way. Nature is God. Oddly enough, that's the most correct thing you said about God all this entire time. We must move forward. But this one coming in from, do appreciate it. I think that is. We do want to let our guests out of here because it's been so long. I want to give you a couple of things. Folks, our guests are in the description box. You can find their links and you can hear more. If you'd like to hear more as we really do appreciate both Hake of the Hake Report as well as Brenton. It has been a true pleasure, you guys. Yeah, thank you. Appreciate both of you. This was a very fun conversation. So thank you, James and James. 100% our pleasure. I will be back in a moment, folks, with a post-credits scene to give you some updates about juicy debates, like the one that you can see at the bottom right of your screen right now, as well as I got to tell you guys through all that. What was it on Thursday? Got big news about that debate that we hosted on Thursday. But I'll be back in just a moment. I want to say one last thanks to our guests who are linked in the description and I'll be right back. Toys and my dear friends, don't worry. You'll see me in a second. I'm coming back in three, two, one. Where are my full, James? Oh, that's right. I've got to reopen Zoom. I do want to tell you Thursday, big news. We on Thursday night hosted a tag team. It was a controversial topic, obviously. Some people were like, hey, you can't host that. It was on whether or not Russia was justified in their current, you could say move that they've made on Ukraine. And it was true. Some people were triggered and they were like, hey, how dare you? How inappropriate? I've got to tell you though, folks, we raise over $400 for worldwide orphans, an organization, a charity with a great watchdog rating, and they're helping orphans throughout the world. And that's something we were excited about because in addition to hosting a fair platform, we are absolutely passionate about it. We want to make the world a better place. And it's one thing to talk about it. It's another thing to be about it. That for us, to partner with everybody who helped us raise those funds, everybody who supports modern day debate, we want to say thank you so much as modern day debate is uniting people, whether they be politically left, politically right, Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it. We are united in these things. One, everybody wants a fair platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. And in addition to that, everybody wants to make the world a better place. Everybody believes in causes such as being able to help children that are in need across the world. That's something we all agree on. And you can see under the social tab of our YouTube page, I have put the receipt for that donation as we always want to be as transparent as possible. We want to say, hey, if you guys want to see the receipt, absolutely, to see it, we actually made the donation. Absolutely. We're happy to send that via email. And I already just put it in the social tab. I did a copy and paste or a screenshot of that receipt. And so you can see that we actually did follow through with that $400. We are absolutely thrilled for that. And that's something that we said, it's easy for people to sit on Twitter and to think, oh, I'm doing morally good work. I'm doing the Lord's work because I'm sitting on Twitter criticizing people. That doesn't count worth anything. It's one thing to sit around and try to say, oh, I'm making a difference because I'm pointing out evil done by, well, it's almost always conveniently done by the people that oppose them politically, so in some other political group. But not only that, but in your yaskum, well, hey, are you doing anything yourself, though? Are you trying to make the world better? Because even if you are on Twitter just accusing people of things, it's hard to see how that has any direct consequence on improving people's lives that are suffering. Most of them, if I had to guess, most of them would say, well, no, I mean, but I'm on Twitter yelling at people, which doesn't mean anything. If you want to make the world a better place, which we know that a lot of you have because you have supported modern-day debate, and that's something that, whether we be hosting neutrally moderated debates or that fundraiser that we did the other night, and we are doing another one in about a week. In fact, I think it's exactly a week, less than a week, we're doing another fundraiser. So I've got to tell you, we're really excited about that. That is something that we feel passionate about, and we know that you do too as, whether you be, like I said, politically right, we know that everybody agrees on that, namely it's good to make the world a better place, and that sacrifice on our part is important to us because self-discipline makes things move. It brings about change in the world. If you want to make a positive change in the world, you're probably going to have to be tough on yourself you're going to have to use self-control, self-discipline, and that's what we've done as we're excited to have raised in that, what was it about a two or three hour stream? We raised $400 and it was absolutely encouraging for us to get to do that. And that's the trick, folks. It's one thing to be, it's one thing to talk about it. It's one thing to actually make a sacrifice and be about it, and so we want to say thank you so much for supporting modern-day debate. Even if you were like, hey, I wasn't even there, James, your support of the channel more broadly, just by being a subscriber, just by your likes or whatever else it is, that really does mean a lot. We do appreciate that. As we have done charity streams in the past and will continue to do them in the future, that's important to us. And we appreciate you just supporting modern-day debate more broadly as kind of the brand or community that we are. And so thank you for all of your support. As well, I do want to say hi to you all in Twitch chat. Yes, we can. One, two, three, thanks for being with us, as well as RailmanCT says I'm new. Description box, oh, that's right. If you're watching on Twitch, we also stream on YouTube. That's our main platform, and it's growing fast, and we're thankful for all the growth. So thanks for subscribing, folks, as we do appreciate your support. More than you know, for real, we really do appreciate that. I've got to tell you, we are excited just at the turn of the new year, you guys. So two months ago, we hit 60,000 subscribers, which was huge. And we are absolutely thankful for all of your guys' support. Thank you, guys. For me, I'm not saying that for the sake of bragging about numbers. It's not like that. But it's something that I'm excited about is we are seeing that our impact is growing because that's what we care about. We want to carry out this vision. You've probably heard it before. If you haven't, I will say it. We want to provide a neutral platform so that everybody out there can make their case on a level playing field. That's what we are determined to do. And that includes people, no matter what walk of life they are from, we are excited to bring them together for conversations on modern day debate. And we are passionate about the future. We are doing work in the background on making modern day debate a better channel, finding newer, better topics. This is a topic I was excited. People really enjoyed this topic tonight. I was really encouraged by that because we had never done this topic before. I'm just so pumped that people really did actually like it. And so that's encouraging. If you did like it, hey, might as well hit that old like button. We are at 163 likes. We only need seven more likes to get to 170. That's a power number, my dear friends. Do us a favor. If you want to support the channel or this debate, you want more people to see it, hit that like button as we're only seven away from the big 170. And I want to say, though, hello to you in chat, Omega Genesis. We are glad you are here as well as Rock East Shepherd, pumped to have you with us. SciShow Nav, thanks for being here. Pawn Poker, thanks for being here. DM Jones, glad you're with us. Time Lord, glad you're back. Tinkle Tink, glad you're back as well. Sayed Matish, am I saying it right? Let me know. We're glad you are here. And Kimba94 says hashtag help other people. Yeah, absolutely right. Kimba, we are excited about that. Is that like I said, we know that a lot of people, a lot of influencers, and that's why I'm really trying to point fingers at, frankly, is I don't want to say, I don't want to just kind of do the old like pointing fingers thing, because like I said, everybody does that on Twitter so much that it makes you sick. But I want to say, for those people that try to get on the moral high horse on Twitter, you might want to check and see like, are they actually doing anything? Because a lot of people get off to just pointing fingers on Twitter and saying, oh, this person is, you know, greedy or they're a grifter, they're bad, they're evil, whatever else, but they don't do anything themselves. It's like, well, wait a minute, and amazingly, I've seen some, sometimes for example, like this, they'll go, oh, you're doing that topic, you're hosting it as a debate, and you know, for greed, and which is ironic, because the last debate, like I said, we gave 100% of the Superchats a way to orphans, but nonetheless, so it's for greed that you're hosting that topic. And it's like, well, wait a minute, first of all, we gave away the Superchats a charity, but second of all, it's like, well, wait a minute, just because we hosted for a debate, it's about greed, but they can host it in an essay video where they just give one point of view, their own, and it's not a debate, and in that case, even though theirs is monetized, it's not about greed, quite the double standard, that like their friends will do like essay, or maybe even they themselves will do essay videos on the same topics that we just have debates on, and they'll say, but if you do a debate on it, well, then it's for greed, and amazingly though, like I said, they love to accuse, there are some people, they are just accusers, they love to accuse, believe me though, we are gonna make it, brah, we are excited about the future, we have big things in store, and like I said, we are working on improving ourselves. Folks, questions like the question tonight, you will never even see on the mainstream media. You are not gonna see a fair debate on CNN or whatever else it is, Fox News, MSNBC, you're not gonna see a fair debate on this topic. You know that it's always gonna end with, you know, the side of which, the audience at whatever news station it is, wants to hear speak last, which is usually their side, is that it's always set up, it's overly produced, such that you can clearly see the mainstream media is always pushing a narrative of some sort. That's not what we do here though. Something different is happening here at Moderate Debate, we really want it to be fair, we want to let the chips fall where they may, we want to let a thousand flowers bloom, it's authentic, and that's the thing that people are looking for as they are sick and tired. That's why Joe Rogan is grown, like he has, is he's at least authentic. No matter what it is, you might, let's say you have disagreements with him, fair enough, I don't agree with him on everything. I will say this though, his podcast, which by the way, we do have a podcast, if you haven't looked for us yet, find us, it's Moderate Debate, just like the name of the YouTube channel and the Twitch channel, but I've got to tell you, it's at least authentic on the Joe Rogan experience, and it's authentic here because people are sick and tired of the mainstream media pushing this narrative, working so hard to make sure that their view that they desperately want to get out there is put out there. So for us, we would say, hey, we are seriously going to work to become an opponent and competitor, a competitor basically competing with the mainstream media and you're like, James, come on, you've only got 66,000 subs, don't get me wrong, like that's like, you know, not bad, that's tens of thousands, but that's pretty small compared to CNN. Hey, you know what? Back when CNN was huge, when Joe Rogan first started, it took him 13 years to get where he is. We've already been going for three. It could be in 10 years, we are as big of a power relative to Joe Rogan in the, you could say, mainstream media, we could be that big to where we actually are, a genuine competitor of the mainstream media because people want fair debates and that's something they're not getting from the mainstream media. It's going to take time, but leave me, we are determined though and with time with continual chipping away and consistency improving, which is what we are doing, we believe we're going to get there, we will find a way and if you have any doubt, follow me, I will show you that we can do this and I am committed for the long run. I am absolutely committed to modern day debate. I love what we're doing here. I'm excited about it. I love getting to do this whenever I can and I'm excited. Starting in April, we're going to have a lot more shows. It's going to be about two a week on average in the next month and then we're going to kick it up to probably maybe three or four, maybe even five times a week sometimes in, you could say, after the first week of April gets done. So we are absolutely committed. My dear friends, we have got big things that we are dreaming about and pursuing. It's not just about dreaming, we are actually taking steps, working on improving ourselves and saying, okay, where can we clean this up a little bit? Where can we fix that up a little bit? Where can we improve and then putting in the work to actually do it? So we want to say, thank you guys for your support. We do appreciate it. No valve gate. Thanks for being here. I see that you're in the old live chat and Omega Genesis. Thanks for your kind words. It says good stuff. Keep it neutral. I appreciate that friend. Nine or three thousand. Thanks for your support and for being with us. And old school, thanks for being here. Bloodstained hands. Glad you are with us. Steven Will. Glad to have you here. Danimal. Glad you're with us. Christine Stewart. Good to see you again. I see you there in the old live chat. Steven Will. Thanks for dropping in. We are glad that you are here. And Lin Yan Jin. Jin, thanks for coming by. And my dear friends, I've got to tell you, I do like getting to say hi to you. Mitchell, glad to see you there in the old live chat. Rob Nunn. Thanks for dropping in. Based America First, we are glad that you are here. My friends, Rocky Shepherd, good to see you as well. I am excited though. Want to say thanks for all of your guys' support. Thanks for our super amazing channel members. And we do have channel memberships. And for our amazing members, we do shout them out at the end of each debate. So I want to say Don Fulman, Ozzie and Tox, and Scott Mitchell. Thanks for your support as amazing level members in our channel membership. And my dear friends, we are excited though. I had mentioned last thing. If you listen to this tonight, and you're like, you know what? I have a friend who might actually, you know, maybe it'd be good if they heard this debate because I was talking to them, you know, recently about this, is there a war on men or is there a favoritism for women in our society versus for men? If you want to, it's as easy as, if you look right below the video, there's that share button. You can click on that link. Click the old share button. And then you can click on how you want to send it. You can just get the link. That's what I always do. It's pretty easy. You just copy the link there. And then I'll put it into a Facebook message, a Twitter message to a friend. And I'll say, hey, you know, we were just talking about this topic. I thought you might get a kick out of this debate. If you think that it would be good for them in the sense that they would be hearing both sides of the issue, I would highly recommend sending them this debate by clicking on that share button. As that really does, that helps both in terms of them hearing different views, being exposed to different ideas that might even oppose their view. But also, we do appreciate it. Thank you for your support of modern day debate. And thanks, Mr. Monsters, for your support of modern day debate. Says do another Ukraine debate without the angry guy. We are actually planning on doing another Ukraine debate with a Russian gentleman. No joke. We are working on, he is from Russia and he actually wants to make the case that Russia is more justified in this than you might expect. And we're working on getting that together with Adam. Something is the other speaker that we've got to ask him. It's not confirmed yet, but that is something we are hoping to do. So thanks for mentioning that. We are planning on it and want to say thank you guys, though, for all of your support. I love you guys. Seriously, you guys, honestly, it's a blast. You guys are my brothers and sisters, my family out there. You guys have been so supportive of the channel. I just appreciate that. And we actually blew past our goal of 170. We actually hit 179 likes. We're only one like away from 180. An even more powerful number. Help us by hitting that like button if you haven't already. Do a good deed for the day. We do appreciate that support, you guys. And so seriously, though, I want to say thank you guys. This channel is awesome because of you. And let me give you a couple of examples. During the Q&A, you guys are submitting questions for the Q&A. If it was just me coming up with my own questions, it would be terrible. But you guys make the Q&A fun by submitting questions. You guys have helped us by sharing these debates with others because I can tell you, you guys, I actually checked out of curiosity. Our debates actually like even a debate that has a small number of views will usually get between 30 and 40 shares. That's actually a lot. That's a pretty good number. Like that helps a ton. And so that's another way in which people have supported the channel. We appreciate that. Even subscribing, that helps us no joke. And we hope it helps you more importantly because then you get reminders of big upcoming debates. So for example, Brittany from Politically Provoked who you can see at the bottom right of your screen, she will be taking on Dario on whether or not white blank is real. I will let you guys, I will let you guys see that in, it's coming up on Thursday. You don't want to miss it. It's going to be live. It's open to the public, of course, like all of our debates. Other than occasionally we do some special ones, but those are very rare. And you'll know about those, but the vast majority of them right here free to the public, that one included. And also this one as well, which is a fundraiser. I want to show you guys this one. I'm excited about this is the two doctorates colliding on whether or not there is evidence for God, namely whether or not cosmology points to God. That is going to be a fundraiser. Again, that's going to be for worldwide orphans. That is a cause that we feel really drawn to. We really do want to make a world or make a difference in the world. Even if it's in a small way, it's better than nothing. That's for sure. At least we're trying. And so we do want to say, hey, show up for that debate. And 100% of your super chats, if you happen to send one in that day, 100% of it will be going to orphans or on the world. And so we're excited, you guys, about making the world a better place, about pursuing our vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody else can make their case on a level playing field as we get different people from different walks of life talking about the big questions of life. So thanks everybody for your support. We're excited about the future. Thank you guys. And we are excited to make big moves. And thanks for being with us. Join us while we are small because we have big things planned for the future, my dear friends, as we are determined to make it to our goal of 100,000 subscribers by the end of the year. Thank you guys for all of your support and helping us as we are absolutely determined to have that positive impact on YouTube, of being YouTube's premier neutral platform for debates and discussions and panels. Thank you guys for all of your support. I love you guys and I'm excited to see you in the next one, which is this Thursday. Hope you guys have a great rest of your night or day, depending on where you're tuning in. Thanks everybody. Oh hey, it's me. All right, thanks guys. Love you guys. See you soon. Amazing!