 Boom. What's up, fam? Anthony Johnson here today, founder of 21 Studios, 21 Convention, 22 Convention, 21 University, here with Mr. Jeff Younger in Orlando, Florida. We're at a Republican event, a black robe regimen event, and I'm asking a few questions today about his experience with his son, Family Court. In my view, he has one of the most egregious, if not the most egregious, Family Court case in recent American history, maybe all of American history. I'm not that extensively familiar with it. It's something real, though. It's unbelievable. A lot of you might have been seeing it on Twitter and social media the past couple of years. Hashtag, save James. Anyway, without further ado, welcome to the show. Oh, thanks for having me on. Yeah, man. Glad to be here. I really enjoyed your speech today, too. You gave it the Republican event badass. Oh, thanks. Thanks. It was a good time, and it was a good audience. Yeah. So from an audience who doesn't know you, can you tell me a little bit of the basics of what's been going on in your life with your son in recent years? Right, yeah. So starting about two years old, my ex-wife, we were still married at the time, started to push my son to be a girl. She began putting him into timeouts saying, the monsters only eat boys, you know, don't be a boy when they come, that kind of thing, scaring him. And, you know, I started to push back on that and pretty strongly. It's kind of weird, right? And so she she fought for divorce and forced me out of the house. And as soon as she did that, she immediately began to teach my son that he was a girl, exposed him to transgender books, gay pornography, cross-dressing him, and telling him that he was really a girl. This woman is a medical doctor with a pediatrician, right? That is correct. Unreal. And, you know, telling him that he had a boy's brain in a girl's body. Wow. I'm sorry, girl's brain in a boy's body. And, you know, remember she's a doctor, so he takes that as pretty authoritative. And this happened right after his third birthday. Wow. If you go on to YouTube and you Google, you know, mommy says I'm a girl, it went viral. So there's hundreds of people who posted it. And you'll see it out there. And that's me learning for the first time what she was doing to my son. And then it progressively got worse. And if you can believe it, it got worse and worse. She began to take him to transgender events where there were, you know, half-naked, naked transgender men present, the drag queen story hours. She began to dress him like a drag queen with like long wigs and high heels. And this is all going on in Republican Texas. This is in Republican Texas. The custody evaluator in my last trial had two trials. The custody evaluator in my last trial flat out stated that she had gone way overboard pushing the transgender ideology. And she started to take him to all these gay events and really push this on my son. The final straw, I kept trying to reason with her. The final straw came when she registered him in school as a girl under a fake girl's name. And the school began to teach my son that he was a girl. So the school counselor, the teacher, the principal, the police officer, they all affirmed my son was a girl. So he had every authority in his life telling him he was a girl. It was just me and his priest telling him that he wasn't. And he really didn't know who to believe. So I really started pushing back on this and I found lots of non-judicial ways to do that using the court order. And so she filed to terminate my parental rights. And it took two years to get to trial. During that time I was under temporary orders and I was prohibited from teaching my son traditional Christian teachings on sexuality and gender. I could not teach my son that he was actually a boy. I could not present him to third parties as a boy. All sorts of things. That went on for two years. And then when we finally got to trial it was like the giant battle of transgender experts on both sides. We both hired the top experts. Can you actually spend over $1.1 million doing this? That's correct. These experts were not cheap. So I got the guys that founded transgender medicine at the Johns Hopkins Institute in the 70s. And they closed their clinic within four years because their data showed they were harming patients. That was repeated in the 90s and they closed it down again at Johns Hopkins. And so these guys really know their stuff. And one of the experts I trained up, Dr. Levine, wound up being the key expert witness in the United Kingdom where they outlawed sex-trained surgeries on kids. So I felt like I really contributed by training him up. You made an impact. Yeah. And I made it very clear to him I expected him to go save kids because he charged me an arm and a leg. So I paid a lot of money and I said, you're going to win more cases than mine. And he agreed to do that and he actually did it. At that trial I won 50-50 parental rights. And that allowed me to stop her attempts to chemically castrate him. So he's nine years old now. So I've been doing this continuously for six years. That stopped those not permanent. Is it temporary or permanent? It's temporary. A judge could overrule it tomorrow. Wow. I have a trial on July 2nd, Friday at which they're asking for it to be overturned. It's also a criminal trial because I'm not supposed to be talking to your audience. A judge has put me under a gag order which I believe is illegal and unconstitutional. Yeah, that's unbelievably un-American and disgusting and illegal. I think the sheriffs in that county should be arresting the judges. It's sick. I think sheriffs, it's a good point. Sheriffs need to begin to exercise their rightful authority. That's right. They are a check and balance on the judiciary. And the judiciary should not be violating the rights of citizens of their color of law. Especially... Any more than the sheriff's officers should be doing that. That's right. And as my understanding, sheriffs, every county in the United States are the supreme law enforcement officer. They have the capacity to do this. That is absolutely right. I know under the Texas Constitution, they're actually the only constitutionally mandated law enforcement officer. Wow. They're super powerful in Texas. They need bigger balls, though, like you. They do. They need bigger balls. Yeah. We'll see. They say don't mess with Texas. Don't fuck with Florida. Let's see how it goes. Yeah, yeah. I'm rooting for you, man. Thanks, man. I mean, the deal is with the judges. Basically, we have created a system, one, where the justice system is inaccessible to people without a specialist education. Right? It's virtually impossible to learn the... I mean, it's taken me six years to learn how to navigate the system. Never mind an insane amount of money. Oh, yeah. This is 7.1 million bucks. Yeah. No one has even a tenth of that cash. I know. Absolutely right. Yeah. And so that's the first thing. How can the justice system serve the people when the people can't access it? Yeah. That's a huge issue under and of itself, right? Yeah. The second thing is we really don't have any check and balance on the judiciary other than impeachment. And it's pretty clear from the history of the United States, impeachment is too high of a standard. Or jury nullification in some states. Yes. And Texas, it's legal, but the judges have ways of getting around that on jury trials. Now, one good thing about Texas, Texas does not allow judges to remove the parental rights of an individual with children. A jury is required. A jury is required. You have to convince 12 of your fellow citizens that you shouldn't have your kids. And this is different per state in America. I think we're the only state. Wow. This is the only state that even allows any juries. In most states, it's so much worse. The judge is a one person tribunal that decides everything. It's crazy. It's crazy. There's no check and balance on it. So I think we need to make it easier to get rid of bad judges. We need to provide legal and constitutional ways for higher courts to supervise lower courts. Right now there's a lot of incentives for them to stay hands off. So we need to fix that. And we need to make it a lot easier for people to bring claims against judges. There needs to be some form of adversarial adjudication against judges themselves. Yeah. That sounds very American. Yeah, because the hard hole justice system is based on an adversarial presentation of evidence. And the judges preside over such a system precisely because it tends to produce the most bad outcomes over the long haul. In particular cases, sure, you're going to have bad outcomes. But the judges have insulated themselves from adversarial shows. Like they're above the law. That's right. You just send a letter to a judicial commission and they just do whatever they want. There's no way to put the judge under oath to get discovery and that needs to happen. So I think overall, one of the things we have to dispense with is absolute immunity under the law. Judges should only have qualified immunity. Meaning that if they know what they're doing is illegal or should have known that what they're doing is illegal, they have no immunity protections. And that's what police officers have. Police officers don't have absolute immunity. They have qualified immunity. Prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity. Meaning even if they knowingly commit felonies on the bench in the course of their duties, they cannot be prosecuted. It seems like it's entirely context dropping, you would say, philosophically. Completely context dropping. And it's designed that way. So I think this is one area where we have to admit perhaps the founders were mistaken. The founders truly believed that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of government. And if you read in the Federalist Papers, Federalist 51, you'll see that they really worried it wouldn't be strong enough. But with the advent of judicial review, which I don't think they anticipated, and with the advent of an expansion of contempt powers, which are virtually unlimited, they have become an injunctions. I just can't believe you're under a gag order to just even speak to these issues, even in general. Yeah, I mean, it's not even contemplated by the founders, right? Or even by the authors of the Texas Constitution would never contemplate that a judge would say you can't say whether your kid is a male. It seems to be in our mind no matter how clear you put things into writing, like the First Amendment, like you shall not, you know, free speech and all these things. It's like people don't even fucking read it. Like this is plain, simple English, like letter to the letter. You're right. This is one of the things that I've come to in my journey here is I'm not so sure that constitutions are effective at limiting government. You can certainly create structures, but if you have bad people in government, they will pervert any good law. Well, the founders were aware of this, right? They were. A moral constitution. It presumes. A moral people. It does, yeah. So what really matters is who is in power in government? What kind of people are in power in government? Because even if you have really bad laws, but you have a good person, you know, the so-called benevolent dictator, the people can still flourish and have freedom with a good person. Like a king. Yeah. What really matters is I think the quality of the people that are in office. Well, let me also get known to the dominant philosophy and culture of giving people like America. And obviously that's changed in 1776. Radically changed. I would claim in actually, and I say radical, I mean that in the mathematical sense, like getting to the root. Like at its very fundamental origin, I don't think modern people understand what a human being is in the way that the founders did. The anthropology is so different that we don't even, what we call a person today is not what they call the person. Let me run this by you as well. In my view, and I'd like to know your thoughts on it. In my view, the founding fathers in particular and the founding men, the generation who fought is very masculine. It's one of the best examples of masculinity in world history by far. Yes, absolutely. And so therefore America, in my view, is very masculine at the founding. And since then, for different reasons, not even just feminism, but that's a big one, it's become increasingly effeminate in a way and less masculine. No question. And I wonder if that has an influence on this as well alongside philosophy and culture and morality along the way. I think it may be the root cause of it because from a social perspective, you know, civilizations are created by men, not women. And there's a very simple reason for this. Women have very few deep relationships. Women talk a lot, but don't communicate very much, right? Men don't speak a lot, but they communicate a lot when they do speak. And men have the capacity to have many fairly shallow relationships that are morally dependable. Morally dependable, even though they're not like we spend every day together, right? Men have this experience of not seeing someone for two years and picking right up where they left off and the trust is still there. It's like men are much more tribal and like blood brothers almost. Yeah, that's easier to accomplish. You can't build a civilization on a few deep relationships. You build a civilization on a network of trust. And that's fundamentally masculine culture, right? You know, Madison talked about how he had to study the arts of war so that his sons could study the arts of carpentry and farming so that their sons could study the arts of painting and ceramics. And that sounds good, but if you think about it, that's progressive feminization of the culture. And it's a cycle until it collapses in here in the back of square one. That's right. In my view, the Founding Fathers have succeeded so strongly that they changed the cycle of history. It may be. They elevated us above and beyond. It may be. And I think we had two really shocking events too that helped. One was a civil war where a third of manhood in the country was essentially eliminated. Yeah. The most masculine brave men, too. They were gone, yeah. And so what was really modern war selects for the survival of betas? Fuck. We're doomed. You follow me? I do. Yeah. I've thought about these issues as well. Yeah. And it's one of the reasons why I'm telling my sons you should not go into military, right? It's much more important for you to raise sons than to be a soldier, right? Yeah. But we also know from the revolution, you don't have to be a soldier to be a fighter. Yeah. You know, that's another thing. And the other thing that I think we kind of got away from is the extended family. You know, the natural. Dingo. Yeah. Social unit is the gang. And the gang originally was out to your second cousins. Yeah. Out to second cousins. You know, in the Bible, the word brother, they talk about Jesus's brothers. Well, that meant out to second cousins. It meant somebody in your gang. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. And also think to some degree, modern laws regarding assault, self-defense, the advent of law enforcement as opposed to policing. You know, policing was originally intended to create a generally productive and peaceful environment. And sometimes that meant you had to allow educational beatdowns to occur. Well, this is also why they used to be called peace officers. Yes. They don't do that anymore. Now it's law enforcement. Yeah. If you touch somebody, you're going to jail, even if they needed that education. Wow. You know. I had somewhere I wanted to take this second ago that got me. Man, you're amazing with this stuff. I'm tipping my tongue, son of a bitch. We'll come back. We'll circle back. We'll circle back, girl. Right. Circle back, girl. You mentioned earlier though that you won 50-50 custody with your son. Yeah. Which to me sounds like that should be the default common-sensing to do. America's supposed to be about equality, right? Yeah. That's obviously not with the exception of Kentucky, which had an equal-shared parenting. That's right. That's right. So talk to me about equal-shared parenting. Do you support that in all 50 states? Movements like that? Anything in Florida? I do. I think, I don't think a lot of people are aware that in every state it is statutorily presumed to be in the best interest of the child that one parent get 20% of the time of the child. Yeah, that's crazy. It's in statute and it's, and so let's say you're the father. You're selected as the loser parent most of the time. And you're going to get 20% with the child. You have to overcome that statutory presumption with evidence. And it's very difficult to produce evidence that you are a great father unless you had a thought, like one of the things that saved me was, I had an incredibly detailed journal. Yeah. I have 5,000 pages a year. Wow. And photos that I take because I found I couldn't prove it in the divorce. Well, basically father's being treated as guilty to proven innocence. That is correct. That is correct. At least morally or some sort of behavior pattern. Yeah. And think about it this way too. It's a great way to think about it. You know, if a stepfather comes into a house, right? He doesn't have to prove anything. There's no custody evaluator or psych evaluation for him. That's a good point. There's no duties that are even assigned to him anything. But the father is continually under the scrutiny. Yeah. There's something quite off about that. That's a clear contradiction. Just a logical contradiction. Stepfathers too are known for, I think, the abuse status. I don't know. It's 10 times. 10 times. It's actually 10 times. That's worse than I thought. Shit. It's 10 times. So you're one of the few men I've ever seen actually, it seems like, realized that not only is the nuclear family under attack in America falling apart, the extended family is too. Yes. And it's really rare. The only one I've ever seen, that's my friend DDJ, is a paralegal family law of like 20 years. Wow. That was just probably the reason you realized that. Yeah. But I really love and I appreciate that. I'm an uncle myself. I have three nephews now. It's a very important role. Yeah, I love it. Yeah. It's an essential role. Yeah. You know, growing up, my dad was quite an interesting character. I mean, my dad was a bare-knuckle boxer in the 1950s. Jesus. He prize fought, illegal prize fighting in Texas and got enough money to buy an old Derek and started his own oil business. Wow. I mean, he was a hardcore guy and he was terrified of his brother. Yeah. Just to let you know. Damn. Yeah. So his brother, however, was a talented artist. I got all of my interest in reading, all of my interest in drawing and art from him. And my interest in boxing and wrestling from my dad, from the interaction between the two, watching how they work together. You know, they rebuilt a semi-diesel engine right in front of me one time and just learning how men cooperated. Yeah. You know, and once I had helped them, suddenly I realized they brought me into this. So now they're around drinking beer. We're fixing tractors, fixing things. And I'm part of the gang. And you're learning by observation too. That's right. You're learning by experience and even osmosis in a sense. And all of the ethical requirements to be in that gang had to be met. We call them, in our manuscript thing, we call them sometimes one author. Jack Donovan calls them the tactical virtues. Yeah. Like masculinity. That's a great way to say it. Strength, courage, mastery and honor. I love it. And these are kind of the key four that universally men thread history. You got to have it. You got to have it. And there's competition even in that gang. Yeah, of course. But it's the kind of competition that never breaks people down but makes the whole unit stronger. Yeah. Right? And there's an understanding that you have to be the kind of person that can do that. Yeah. Right? You know, it's like you're doing jujitsu with somebody, you know, you need somebody that can go hard and fast but not hurt you. Right? That's a gang. You're in the gang. And make it tougher and they make you better. That's right. That's right. And the whole group just gets better the whole time. And I, you know, I've been watching your story on and off for the years on Twitter and on the Internet and I had no idea you had this depth of knowledge with masculinity and these issues. I've had to confront them in my own life. Like one thing that you don't know about me is my parents divorced when I was eight. Okay. Then have a dad, had a stepdad and my stepdad basically laid down an ultimatum. Him or me. And my mother chose him. Fuck. And on Christmas Eve at midnight, right at the, right at Christmas. I, she asked me to leave the house. She woke me up and asked me to leave before. How old are you? 13. Wow. So I left home. I had a bank account from working and I lived on my own in Lubbock, Texas for about a year. Then I went back to my house in Plainview and I broke into the house because I knew how to break in. Yeah. Stole my birth certificate. You might not remember it's maybe too young, but there used to be a typewriter called the IBM Selectric typewriter. And it was the first typewriter that lets you select the fonts. Oh well. So I forged my birth certificate, made myself 18 and joined the Marine Corps. Damn. Yeah. So I was 15 when I shipped out to boot camp. Then I got caught in a TS1 security clearance check after two years and they kicked me out and said dumbass, don't come back until you're 24. So you've been through hell obviously with family court and all these issues with your son and that's ongoing. Yeah. God bless, fight to the death. Thank you. My question is given what you've been through, do you think feminism has played a role in your challenges as a father? And is that true for other fathers as well then? Absolutely no question. The presumption at law, all the presumptions at law now are all feminist presumptions, right? You actually could characterize family court as simply the application of feminist stereotypes to particular cases. Wow. It's literally that bad, right? So men can't nurture their boys. And this is not always the case. This is a recent development in America. Absolutely. You know, there's this false belief like men didn't raise children. That's not true. It was only in the 1950s were ever so rich where we could have crazy things like that where one parent raised the children. What happened was women raised girls and young children in most societies to the age of nine. Some societies like Jewish societies and the Romans did it to the age of 12, which is why, you know, Italians and Jews were considered mama's boys by the pagan societies around them because they left their mother at nine. They went to work with their dads and the dads raised them from then on. So men have always participated in childhood, a child rearing of boys. That's just like a complete, like something that's just completely made up by feminists that men didn't raise the kids. The other thing is women have always worked. Okay? People weren't rich enough where one person couldn't work. It's just silly. The whole word cottage industries was work that was designed to give to women in their homes where they raised their kids. Men did hard work outside. And women worked from home. And they worked from home. But they always worked. Well feminists have also delegitimized motherhood and wifehood as a job. Like this is important stuff. It's the most important job, right? And in fact, what feminists have done, and they've done this knowingly, okay? If you read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, she initially gets this. She's like, women can never be free until men are liberated from their burdens as well, right? She kind of envisioned some kind of almost like egalitarian utopia where people had no responsibilities, right? But she later kind of recanted that and joined the anti-male chorus. And basically, you know, really played a big part with Andrea Dworkin, who, you know, well Andrea Dworkin single-handedly changed almost all of the laws in the United States to be feminist. I mean, she was an amazingly influential and in a devastating way. But it's to the point where, you know, fathers, like for example, in my case, I was told I was simultaneously an unemployed narrative well because I ran a business from home. See, that's the thing. I was a stay at home dad that raised my kids. I raised her kids, too. And I ran a successful business from home. You even. I know. So I was called an unemployed narrative well for working from home. I've even heard this word narrative well. Oh, it just means a person who's, you know, unemployed habitually doesn't take care of themselves, a homeless person, right? So I was simultaneously like, you know, a bum who deserve maximal child support. Wow. That was literally the argument they made. Delusional. Like literally two sentences. That's actually in the testimony. Wow. And the judge went, yeah, that's what he is. He's a bum who deserves maximal child support. Well, which one am I? Do I make, am I in the top 1% and I deserve maximal child support or am I just a total bum? So this, but this is what I mean by the application of stereotypes. That was the application of the male power stereotype on the top 1%. I should pay. But I'm also a scumbag who, you know, obviously couldn't keep his wife. So, you know, he's a bum too, right? So they'll, they'll, they'll apply inconsistent moral categories to you in court in these, these really childish ways. It's so transparent and absurd. And it can only be justified if you live in this feminist world where, you know, women lack all moral agency. Yep. And men are responsible for everything that's bad and women are responsible for everything that's good. It's ironic in the, it's projection, of course, I think, but they're, the feminists talk about, they're basically infantilizing women. They are. They accuse men of doing this, treating women like mansplaining and stuff. It's like, no, you're the one doing it. Yeah. And it's this constant projection. Yeah. And I think they create a lot of their own problems. Like if you, if you actually treat women the way feminists want to be treated, right, women will hate you. Exactly. Bingo. Bingo. Big red pill right there, boys. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a woman loves you most when she has your red handprint on her ass. Honestly. I mean, that's honestly the truth. Yeah. They're like bad boys and assholes. Yeah. At least to some significant massive degree. That's right. Yeah. And good husbands are men who can sort of tame that a little bit and just stick around with one woman. You know, like there's some good, good husbands have a little bit of beta characteristics with that alpha that let them stick there. Well, it's like with women, you know, the angel and the succubus, the Madonna and the Horcomplex thing, they need to integrate both of these, both ends of the spectrum, the light and the dark. Men do as well, I think. Yes, we do. Absolutely. Yeah. And I think Western society really achieved the right balance in this. If you look at, you know, Asian societies, Muslim societies, African societies, it really is just, you know, concubines, harems. Yeah. Monogamy had a very profound and important effect on male behavior. Yeah. And I think it struck an excellent balance between warrior ethos and ethos that would allow you to build a civilization stable enough. You know, what you essentially need for men to be are stationary bandits. Okay. You know what I mean? Stationary bandits. Yeah. Yeah. You need to be a roving warrior who sticks in one place, you know. And the West figured out how to do that. And I think it was probably the reason for its rise. Yeah. Yeah, and like you mentioned other cultures as well, like in some Muslim countries still, they can stone women to death for adultery. I've seen one video, a woman had her head chopped off in the street. I think it's Saudi Arabia for, you know, adultery. Adultery is really, really serious and unbelievably terrible. It may be that she'd meet, you know, an America civil, you can sue someone civilly for it, and stuff like that. But chopping someone's head off for it is just insane. Yeah. And that's like, this is, that to me is an imbalance. Way, way, way, way, way too far. Yeah. Yeah. You see that a lot. And the feminists are fighting against it, right? Yeah. No. You never hear them criticize Muslim societies. Yeah, of course. They just, they criticize the societies in which they're the most advantaged. Yeah. And this is one characteristic of feminism that's odd is it's very consistent in the sense that it inverts all moral principles. That's right. Exactly opposite. That's how I make all my hats. I just think that what do feminists hate? Exactly. Pretty much everything that they hate is a good thing. Exactly. Hate hierarchy, fatherhood, family, toxic masculinity, mansplaining. Yes. It's a whole fucking checklist that's why you remember that it was a slogan that was pasted. I forgot what state it was in. But they just said Islam was right about women. Yeah, I remember that. And it creates such cognitive dissonance in the feminists. That's right. It reveals their contradiction. It absolutely does. Total hypocrisy. That was total genius who ever did that. Yeah. Meanwhile in America they still talk about smashing the patriarchy. And it's like you're fucking delusional. You've been smashing the patriarchy for over 100 years. When is it going to end? Yeah. You're right. You're smashing the ghost. You're right. I've had many talks about this because you know John Lott, the statistician who did all of the gun control statistics that showed, he's the guy that showed that when you have carry licenses for guns, crime goes down. He's the guy that showed that. Not surprised, yeah. His first work though was a work that was done at Harvard where he showed that the leftward tilt in American politics did not begin with a new deal. It probably began with women voting. It began with women voting and no other factor can explain it. And it's a bend that accelerates. Yeah. Right? And we're seeing that. Telling national debt. That's right. Right around the same time. So I've had many discussions with feminists because a lot of feminists are against transgender. Right? A lot of the radical feminists are against it. Yeah. I've seen some big ones now like the author of Harry Potter I think. Yes. And it is interesting the battle that they're having this in Civil War. It is interesting. So I've actually had a lot of the radical feminists, the most manhandling feminists support me. Wow. Because I'm fighting on their side on this issue. Yeah. So I've had these interesting discussions with them. It's strange in life we find allies sometimes. I know. Yeah. And they'll ask me things, you know, and this has been done online so there's records of this where they'll ask me questions like, you know, how can it possibly have been fair that black men got the vote before women did? Like why didn't women have the vote? That's very simple. All you have to do is go back and actually read the news articles of the time, right? Black men got drafted. Yeah. And it was just considered unfair that they got drafted and they couldn't vote. Well, there were a lot of women back then who did not want the ability to vote because they thought they were going to get drafted. And it will ultimately lead to them getting drafted, right? Yeah. And I've brought this up many times. You know, giving women the right to vote was an incredible act of benevolence that's probably never been seen in human societies before. Because men just gave it to women for no additional social responsibilities whatsoever. Bingo. Well, that's why I think that women getting the right and ability to vote in America was basically the death of equality. It was the death of equality between rights and responsibilities. Bingo. They killed it. Bingo. And it's a celebration of equality and it's like, no, you actually killed it. You fucked it all up. You really brought up a subject that, you know, I've done, I'm actually writing about this right now. Nice. Because I am a... Oh, off to jail you go. Yeah, that's right. I'm a severe critic of the Enlightenment. Yeah. I first just kind of got into this just trying to be a reasonable person. You know, I thought, you know, all we ever read is these triumphalist accounts of the Enlightenment by the Enlightenment thinkers themselves, Diderot, Voltaire, Locke, all these people. Who was writing against it? So it turns out there was a giant French counter-enlightenment. Okay. I didn't even know about this. And all of the... It's interesting. All of the things that they predicted were going to happen that were bad from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment thinkers themselves agreed with. Wow. Voltaire, Diderot in particular were very open about the problems that they saw coming. They just thought that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. And things that work themselves out. Yeah. And so what's very interesting is it was incredibly self-aware movement. Most historical movements are not that self-aware. And what I've come to come to is the fundamental mistake in the Enlightenment was separating rights and duties. The ancient conception of a right was that it began with a duty. If you had a duty to protect your family, then you were given rights that were concomitant with that that would allow you a scope of action to fulfill the duty. Right? In family law we have this actually in most states. In Texas particularly, a parental right, let's say the right to decide about the education of your children is directly concomitant with the duty to educate your children. You have the right to decide where your children live precisely because you have the duty to house them. Yeah. Okay? So the duties and rights in family law are actually exactly the way the ancients would have conceived rights and duties. Which sounds pretty level-headed, reasonable and rational. Yeah. It's one of the only good things about family law right there. That we don't have. Now you have a right to freedom of speech. But what are your concomitant duties for such a right? You have a right to vote. What are your concomitant duties that go along with that? We never talk about that anymore. Yeah. And so what it's caused I think particularly among feminists is this profusion of rights. Since there's no duty associated with it you could invent infinite rights. Yeah. Yeah. Because there's no duty in the physical world what objectivists would call concretes. Yes. It never reduces to a concrete. It's just an abstract right and you just get to do it. A floating abstraction. Floating abstraction. Yeah. You know it's my view and based on my research of history that in America voting was not even ever seen as a right. And nor it was even a privilege. It was an administrative duty, almost like jury duty. That's right. And for most of history no one today even knows this. No one has a fucking clue if you have any thoughts on that. Do you think voting is a right or is it something that is more like jury duty? If voting was a right wouldn't it be in the Bill of Rights? Yeah, bingo. It's not in there. I haven't seen it. It's not in there and nothing would be more fundamental than that if you know actually voting rights comes from the Voting Rights Act. It's a statutory right. It's a civil right. Civil rights are not human rights. They're not constitutional rights. They're things granted by the government. So you have voting rights by statute. The government grants it to you, right? Which also means that it should be within democratic control. And we could ask sensible questions like who ought to be allowed to vote. Bingo. You know, I may harken back to highlights. That could be like taxpayers. That could be married people. People over 30. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean there's a, you know, if you have you read Starship Troopers by Roman Hyatt? No, I have. I need to read it. The book actually begins with a civics lesson by a one-armed former infantry commander. And it ends with the boy who was in the civics lesson meeting him again at the end. After he successfully completes a combat tour in the infantry. And the principle of the book that Highline is sort of using science fiction to sort of sort out philosophically. It's a philosophical novel. Is what if you had a society that was organized in such a way that the only people that made decisions were the people that had to bear the brunt of the disease. People with skin in the game. That's right. And consequently in that society, only people who had to fight wars were allowed to vote because that's the fundamental function of the state. Right? The state has created buy-in-for-war to protect your rights. And if you're not willing to take a bullet to protect your fellow citizens' rights, you don't get to vote. That's it. I'm down with that. And I really think that's what the original concept of landowners being able to vote with the original constitution. All the states, the only people who could vote were people who had land because people forget that every landowner had the duty to defend that land. In fact, once you got so much land, you were required to buy a cannon. Wow. You had to contribute a cannon on your own. That's all because they basically had a stake in what was going on. That's right. That's right. People who were not willing to defend the land had no right to vote. Yeah. Circling back a little bit, we talked about feminism earlier. I want to hit on that a little bit more, get thoughts on this. My view is that basically, this is not super specific because they've done a million little things, but almost everything feminists have ever done in America has been done in the worst way possible. Voting is an easy one. It's like you got women the capacity or right, whatever to vote, and you did it from day one without the duty to be drafted in the military. Which means they can vote for a president and congressman who will take the country but you were never even a risk of going. That's right. Do you have any thoughts on feminists and they fuck everything up to put it bluntly? Yeah, I mean the whole concept of feminism is to create incentive systems that reverse the patriarchy. So, you could take any traditional practice and when I say traditional practice, I don't mean Christian practices. I mean traditional practices in the Hayekian sense of that. Practices that have emerged and have worked over a long period of time in a particular place in a particular time. Right? So, you know, you have heard of Chesterton's Fence Principle. Chesterton wrote this great essay where he said, look, he was critiquing the progressives in England and he said, listen, calm down kids. Okay? Chill out. You know, if you're walking down the road and you see somebody's built a fence across the road, which seems stupid. Don't tear it down. First, come back and tell me why it was built. Then you can tear it down. Right? Feminists have never, ever taken the time to figure out why things are the way they are. Just a pause and check. Yeah. They envision this idealistic egalitarian society and they're just going to get there by hook or by crook. Right? Yeah. But I do think feminist thinking in that regard is idealist in the classical sense of, you know, Platonic idealism. Right? Okay. They have, in their mind, a perfect society in which women will rule it. It's not egalitarian in the sense that you and I think of equality. Yeah. It's one in which the natural superiority of women would be allowed to rule. Wow. That's what's really in their mind. Feminists from day one in the 1840s even in America ruled, or not ruled, but advocated from the position of moral superiority over men. Correct. 1848 on. That was completely based on that. Yeah. That completely based on that. And I think there's interesting, some interesting things from Abraham Lincoln, you know, in his response to the temperance movement because he was against temperance laws. Okay. He thought, he precisely thought it would lead to crime and criminality and drive things underground exactly what actually happened in the 20s. Right? Wow. So he was asked to give a speech to a woman's temperance league. And you know the guy that he was, he said, he decided to speak on how to end public drinking. That was his speech. And it came to be called the bonnet speech because he told him, he said, look, you know, if you really want your men to not get publicly drunk and to, you know, besot themselves and public like that. What you ought to do is make being drunk ridiculous to young women because men don't look as ridiculous to young women. And if you can make drinking so stupid and ridiculous there would be like a man wearing his wife's bonnet to church on Sunday. Young men are not going to drink because they are not going to look stupid in front of those women. So utilizing social mechanics and shaming to, you know, force behavior. Yeah, that's right. Another good example of this would be the way that Israelis get a lot of females and they get 20% higher scores. Yeah. Clever. Clever. Yeah, that's what they do. So, you know, there are some aspects of this where, yeah, we could make social changes like this that might even be socially desirable to a feminist or a temperance organizer. Yeah. But the problem with the feminists is that they want to rid themselves of something that can't be gotten rid of. That brings me to patriarchy. Bingo. So, and I agree and I want to give you a quote from a good friend of mine, Pastor Michael Foster. Okay. I want to have speakers in my conventions. He's been a pastor for a long time now. Okay. He says that patriarchy is inevitable. Yeah. It's built into our DNA. It's built on our history. It's built into our species. Do you agree with that statement? Absolutely. Yeah. The sexual act itself is a form of dominance. It is very clear. You know, if you look at the the DNA studies, we know that 20% of men appropriated and 80% of women appropriated. Right. So, there's no doubt about it throughout all of human history, even prehistory. Right. Men have been in a competition for women and that competition produces changes, social, physical, intellectual, moral. It changes a man that it has not produced in women. Damn. That's a big red pill, boys. Holy shit. We're not like them. That was a, yes. We're not like them. We're not like them. That was a big window the red pill has opened up in the history of our species. Yeah. I understand what you're saying. That's savage. Yeah. We have been on separate evolutionary tracks. Bingo. When you have that big of a difference between procreation rates. Do you think this difference has been increasing as the time goes on? I think one of the things that has happened with the advent of monogamy, many more men were able to have children. Okay. Right. And so that slowed down with monogamy. But what you're going to find in the hypergamist's future when the hypergamy of women is unleashed by feminist law and feminist customs is it will simply return to that, right? And the way to see that is just look at college campuses. 20% of the guys get all the pussy. Yep, that's right. Yep. It directly matches the DNA record that we have. Yep. Right? Yep. And the other guys just don't get anything. That's why I find it frustrating when people blame the behavior of women today. They were very, very promiscuous. We called open hypergamy at this point, basically. Yes. They blame men. It's like, what do you mean by men? Because 80% of them have a partner count of like two. That's correct. The other 20% are like 20, 30, 40, 50, 100. That's right. That's right. But you're blaming the behavior of 80% of women on 80% of men who are not getting late. That's right. This is mathematically delusional. Yeah, that's right. I mean, these traditional conservatives, like, they mean well trying to, you know, curtail the behavior of men or something. That's like, you're not, you're completely missing the point. Totally. And you're reinforcing the problem by ignoring the women who are behaving this way. You're right. And, you know, the one, the all civil, I'm going to say this bluntly, you know, all civilizations have been built on the sexual subjugation of the female sex drive. That's right. Every religion does this. By violence, by the way. By violence. Well, religions do this too, though. They do. By violence. By violence. Yes. Any other methods as well? Violence is what it takes. Yeah. You know, it's just how it is. You know, think about it. I mean, you know, you need strict laws to enforce paternity. That's right. For example, and these laws have to be pretty harsh. They involve confiscation of property, loss of status. I mean, we don't think of like loss of property as violence, but it's an act of violence by the state. It's an act of use of force to steal from you and take your stuff. You know what I find amazing today is that, you know, of course, good that things like rape, you know, male and female rapes outlawed as a crime. Okay, good. But if a woman, and I view that as a maximal expression, a hyper expression of the male sexuality on women. Yes. But if women literally physically cuck a man out of the genetic gene pool. Yes. This is basically a fraud. Yes. This is basically a genetic murder. It is. But it's legal. It's perfectly legal. It's insane. And in fact, there have been cases of men being forced into sex and you think, that's not even possible. Yeah. The FBI used to not even consider that rape. Correct. Well, no, there are cases from colleges now where women introduce Viagra into a coke can. Guy passes out drunk and she gets pregnant. She gets pregnant from him while he's unconscious. Fuck. Should he pay child support when he was raped while he was unconscious? The courts have said, yeah, because men can't be raped. And if he doesn't go to jail. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's like basically slavery. That's right. Yeah. The other thing is, you can look in male populations if you want to study rape, rape as a form of subjugating men. You know, if you include prison rape, more men are raped than women. That's right. Right? And it's used as a form of social control. Yeah. Yeah. It's been an amazing conversation. Yeah, man. Talk to me a little bit about your, we'll wrap up after this. Talk to me about your history with objectivism. You mentioned to me that for a while you were a Randian atheist. Most of my life. Yeah. Actually, yeah. But you converted now to Orthodox Christianity. I did, yeah. So if you can, discuss in brief your history with objectivism, the philosophy of iron rend and converting to Christianity. How'd that go? You know, I'm going to be very honest with you and I use objectivist terms. I mean, I expect an objectivist to scoff at what I say because I'm using these terms that they usually deride. I'm fascinated. But, you know, I actually had a mystical experience. Okay. And what happened was I encountered a drug addict who was asking me for money and I looked at him and I spoke with him briefly and it was very clear to me that he was not acting volitionally. He was not acting on his own volition. I don't know if it was the chemical or whatever it was. And I lost my skepticism towards the existence of spirits. Okay. From that. And once you do that, then you have to inquire in at least the natural way for me, was to say, well, if I've lost the skepticism towards spirits, what have people in the past said about spirits? I don't know anything about spirits, you know? And so I investigated it. Part of that came out of, you know, back in the 80s, I spent six months at a Zen colony in Japan. You know, I've never done that. I've never done any drugs. Unfortunately, because I was in the Marine Corps at an early age and the kind of work I've done, I've been under random drug testing my whole life. Got it. Since I was 14 years old. Wow. So I have done no illicit drugs. I have never done any shamanistic drugs. The third eye growing. Nothing like that. But when I started looking at, I looked at things more philosophically. So I asked myself, well, okay, there's Buddhism. What is Buddhism's fundamental question that it seeks to answer? And it, you know, it addresses the same question Hinduism does. Why do people suffer? That was its fundamental question. It's not a bad question. It's not exactly the kind of question that someone who has a natural inclination to like the Norsement ethic, you know, who finds a kind of joy and fighting and, you know, that kind of thing. It's not, it's not the kind of question somebody like me would ask, you know. And then I asked, well, what answer do they give? And the answer that the Buddhist gives as well, you know, you don't actually exist and you believe that you exist and that's what causes you to really exist. And though through a process of systematic extinction of the self, you can end all suffering. So I didn't think that was a very good answer. And I didn't, although I was persuaded by some of their interest, there's some very good arguments they have around the way things function in the world, what they call dependent origination. There are arguments from causality and they make some very interesting observations, which are actually valuable and I've even used in business. So they're applied things. You know, I know that Buddhists in Japan often laugh at Wessoners who come to study Buddhism there. Because, you know, Buddhism was basically came about to liberate Hindus from their belief in infinite reincarnation, like you could achieve enlightenment now, right? And so they're like, why would you adopt these Hindu beliefs you never had to come study Buddhism to liberate yourself from them? Like they find this very strange. And then there's the whole hippie culture, right? Where people sort of go over there just to be different from something else, right? Trendy bullshit. That's right. I looked at Islam very seriously because I was attracted to the masculinity of it. Okay. And it is truly a warrior's religion today and it's probably the only living warrior religion left. It's like hyper-patriarchal. Yeah, big time. Even the feminists there are making inroads though. Yes. For better or for worse. Yeah. Well, I think, you know, Islam never had a kind of reformation the way Christianity had. And, you know, Al Ghazali convinced the Caliph, the second Caliph to, you know, dispense with Greek learning. So they were at the height of all intellectual attainment in the world. And then they just, they all just disappeared because they just literally consciously jettisoned all pagan learning. Wow. So. Your study at Ashinta. Yeah. So I've done some Shugenja stuff when I was in Japan and stuff like that. But then I started looking at Christianity and there seemed to be basically three basic approaches in Christianity. They're hyper-intellectual theologies, which I would just call it Roman Catholicism is probably the best example of that scholasticism. In fact, one of the issues I have sometimes with objectivism is like, you know, Thomas Aquinas is just dismissed with the wave of a hand like some crazy guy. To my knowledge, I ran and liked him a lot that person. Yes, she did. And that's why I'm always surprised by that. She considered him a champion of reason. He was amazing, actually. Yeah. And not that he was right about everything, but he was just truly an intellectual honesty. I learned that from him. Yeah. Reading his books. You know, when you read the summa, he presents the absolute best arguments against his thesis before he ever presents his own argument. Wow. And I mean, he picks the best one. And a lot of times you wonder if he actually overcame them. Like he did not skip that. Like he really gave you, like he really went hardcore against his own positions. Yeah. You know, talk about, we call it steel manning today. So that approach, unfortunately for me, seemed to be, you know, prone to nominalism. It did. It could not account for mystical experiences. And when I say mystical experiences, I don't mean the shamanistic visions or whatever. I'm not about the typical artifacts of human consciousness that we see around us all the time, right? We are creatures that hope. We, we have aspirations. We have, feel a sense of failure or sometimes we feel triumph. We have a soul. We have a soul. It's something different than an intellect. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm getting at when I say mystical. Well, Eastern Orthodox is also still more patriarchal than other denominations. 100% patriarchal. Yeah. Well, all Christianity is patriarchal, my understanding. Supposedly. Yeah. Yeah. You know, there's a joke in Eastern Orthodoxy, you know, how many Eastern Orthodox does it take to change a libel change? Change. Got it. Yeah. So the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church today is the same ecclesiology that was used by the apostles. Okay. It's just a larger, right? Same thing. In fact, I go to an Antiochian church. That's because the sea that was the church that was founded in Antioch by Paul, that's the church I go to that still run out of the same church, right? Yeah. Nothing has changed. So there have been heresies and things that came up that they've had to deal with. But fundamentally, it is also a mystical religion. And whereas, you know, in Roman Catholicism, they have this notion of papal infallibility. Yeah. They have the notion of, you know, irrational theology. You know, if you, if you ask the Roman Catholic, let's go do some theology. They probably take you to a library, right? If you ask an Orthodox, hey, let's go do some theology. They would probably go around and start fixing old people's houses, mowing lawns for widows, feeding the hungry, you know, doing some charity work. That's what we understand theology. Act a non-verbal. Yeah. It's done, not thought. Yeah. And because of that, there is no systematic theology like that in Orthodoxy. So how do we know what the theology is? Well, we have the church councils and those are rational arguments for particular theological positions, right? Taking sacred texts as their axioms. And, but then we have the testimony of the saints themselves, which is higher than any bishop or pope. So, you know, when a monk on Mount Athos, who is enlightened, says, takes a certain theological position or makes an encyclical, what the Roman Catholics would call an encyclical, this is higher than even the patriarchs, even though he's not even a priest, right? So in some sense, there is no hierarchy in that way. And the, if you're interested in this, there was a number of great debates between a western priest named Barlon and an eastern priest, whose name escapes as a monk, escapes me right now. I'll think of it in a minute. And it was over whether these mystical experiences were really mystical, or whether they were tricks of likes and physics, right? And the council came down on the side that they were real. They were spiritual experiences. But there are, there are actually genuinely weird things that happen, like the Holy Fire in Jerusalem. Have you ever seen that? I've loosely been there with it. It's a very strange thing that happens. It happens. It's the longest running continuous miracle in Christianity. The patriarch of the Jerusalem church just shows up on Pascha, and his candle just lights by itself, and then he lights all the other, like hundreds of thousands and thousands of people show up, and they just all bring their own candles, and he lights the candles from the, and it doesn't burn you. You just have people like holding it underneath their face and doesn't burn them. And this has been going on for a long time. There are other things that, and I personally witnessed that. So, you know, I can't describe it. It's a strange, it's a city flame. It's not a normal flame. I don't know how to describe it. One year the Muslims prevented the patriarch from entering, and a pillar next to it exploded and caught fire, and set the whole area on fire. And that was recorded by the Muslim historians. And it could not be put out. They couldn't put it out. It just burned everything. So there, you know, as an objectivist, you're like, wow, there's got to be some, there's got to be a materialist explanation. I'm active-minded enough to pay attention. Yeah. To me, I love Dan Rant's concept of being active-minded, not open or closed, like truly active. Yeah, absolutely. And anything's possible. Yeah, anything's possible. There's a philosopher, an atheist philosopher, Nagel, who has written a book called Mind and Kosmos. And for the materialist, if you're a materialist, it's a great way to enter into a critique of the materialist worldview, which I think is valuable to self-critique, right? And he took a lot of flak for writing the book, and it's called Mind and Kosmos, why the materialist neo-Darwinian view of the world is almost certainly wrong. I wouldn't consider myself a materialist. Okay. Yeah, definitely leaning away from that. The objectivists that do that tend to be a leftist. Leftist. Leftist. Yeah, and that's a lot of objectivists today, unfortunately, including at the institutes. Yeah, unfortunately, that's pretty much all I've encountered. Yeah, there's other ones. Okay. They're called Ein Rant's Eagles. Okay. And like the bugger recommended to you, so he's one of them. Yeah, okay, great. I would consider him one. The objectivist in the sense that Ein Rant was not this, you know, hyper-modern, like all its vote Hillary crap. Right on. That's a sec. Right on. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, a lot of it comes down to what Toolman calls wants, you know, what counts as an explanation, right? This comes up in our society all the time. You know, people will show me statistical disparities in hiring. And I go, well, that's not proof of discrimination. Yeah. You know? But some people say it is, right? The dispute is really over what counts as an explanation. Yeah. I really think we need to get back to something more like Aristotle's Four Causes. So certainly materials explanations are valuable. Right? That's the third of Aristotle's. The third of the physical world. Yeah, absolutely. And it's lawful. Right? Anything with regularity is currently valuable to master regularity, right? That's how you get power over things. Even in boxing, it's about mastering the regularity of the rhythm of the opponent to hit him. Like everything is based on that. But, you know, Aristotle talks about there's other ways to think about explanations. We could reference explanations to what he called final causes or the tellos of a thing. What is the purpose of a thing? Right? We could reference the design of a thing. You know? What do you call the formal cause? You know, the formal explanation. What is the design of the thing? You know, a clock has a certain design to it. And you could explain it based on this design characteristic rather than the material components. There are two different ways of looking at it, right? And we just kind of have abandoned that in the modern world. But, well, here's one way I could explain it to you. And I have to give this example to Roger Scruton. I got it from Roger Scruton. You know, the most important questions that we ask in our lives really just can't be answered by materialist means or even by science, right? So, for example, let's take a merger trial. I want to know, did Mr. Smith kill John Depp, right? And Mr. Smith foolishly agrees to take the stand and not be silent. And the prosecutor says, you know, why did you kill John Depp? And he says, well, you know, it all started about two weeks earlier when I ate a big meal of beef, potatoes, and corn. And a very complicated chemical process began in my body which metabolized it into sugars and proteins and other things. And that culminated in a kind of light sensory process in my brain and that terminated in some electrochemical interactions in my fingers which caused my finger to do this. And that pulled a lever on a machine and that triggered a series of mechanical processes that launched a chemical process and propelled a piece of metal down it. Well, that's not what we're asking. That's the materialist explanation. We could think of chemically all of the facts that led to the bullet hitting and all of the physical facts that caused that to his life processes to cease, right? But that isn't what we mean at all when we say, why did you kill him? That's not a sex satisfactory explanation. And intuitively, we all know that, right? It's exiting the relevant context. What we really want is the final cause, what Aristotle called the final cause. We want to know what you aim to achieve by killing him. And that is not materialist, you know? And in mind and cosmos, he talks a lot about this kind of thing. Like the way we, it's very difficult for the materialist account to explain how our consciousness perceives the world. It's very difficult for it to do that. Now, you know, there are the new atheists, the debaters out there say neuroscience is going to solve that for us one day. I think mind and cosmos provides a pretty convincing argument that no such explanation would be possible. A lot of these atheists are really aggravating losers to me. I agree. They tend to hate on Ren too, which is a circle to me. And they still have the brain as a computation machine. I mean, that's how they said, when you get some more sophisticated computation models of the brain, you'll be able to reproduce consciousness and all this stuff. And it's pretty clear that's just not true, you know? Yeah. They don't want to hear it though. No, they don't. They don't want to hear that. So that's, this is all roundabout way to say, these are the kinds of philosophical questions that were floating in my mind. And what it basically came to is in the way we actually live in a consciously observed world, there is always a mystical component. And that the questions that are asked are fairly consistent. Christianity also asks, why do humans suffer? They do not answer by saying, because you exist, your existence causes suffering. Actually, Christianity says, no, your existence isn't the problem. The problem is you arrive in a world where you have an improper relationship with the world. Is this original sin? Yeah. Yeah, we call it that. So we don't believe in original Orthodox Christians have never believed in original sin in the sense that you're guilty of Adam's sin. Okay. What we call, in fact, to distinguish it, the Orthodox for a long period of time for over a thousand years I've called it ancestral sin. What it just means is you have the same error of judgment that Adam had. That's a descendant. Yeah. It's not that you're guilty of whatever bad thing he did. Okay. You're born, you're not guilty of that. That sounds a lot more reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. This is the original sin doctrine came from a mistranslation from the Greek to the Latin Bible. Okay. It was discovered. It was about 200 years. And by that time, the Roman Catholic Church had built an entire theology around it. Wow. Yeah. But that has never been taught by the Eastern churches all the way back to the Apostles. Rather, you have the same, the church would call it a sickness. You have the same propensity to err in your conscious judgments about things that he had. And so because of that, you need to take precautions and develop habits that help you overcome those errors. Right? And that's the concept of a sacrament in the church. It's kind of a medicine to help you overcome the error. We're going to start wrapping up. Yeah. It's been super fun though. It's been fun. Yeah, yeah. To put it very crude terms. No, it's all good. To wind down, I do want to ask, how can we help you in your fights with your son and the family courts and those crazy feminist garbage? Well, you know, probably the best way is to stay up to date on what's happening because the more people know and the more that they can fight this themselves. Got it. I'm all about spontaneous individual action. So the best way to do that is to go out to Facebook, search for Save James. Link in the description. And you'll see a page there that's run by volunteers. It's not run by me, so the court can't shut it down. At the top, there's a donate link that goes to my legal fees. Below that, you're going to see all kinds of international news, other people that I'm working with in other states. And you'll see just how vast this issue is. Yeah. I have no doubt family court is an issue that a lot of my friends have studied for a while. And I'm aware this is a particularly horrendous case. You know, fathers go through crap similar to this on a daily basis in America. Some of them killed themselves. They do. At record rates. They do. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. So long. Appreciate it. Take care. Peace out, guys. Later.