#427 - Carl Benjamin - Surviving The Madness Of 2022

How much effort was that? How much sweats and tears and toils if you achieve this moral virtue that is saying something really extreme. You didn't build a house, you didn't climb a mountain, you didn't raise a child, you didn't construct a building, you said something on the internet. It's amazing that that gives people credit.

I am very happy to see how well you're doing with the lotus leaders at the moment, man. It's really impressive. It seems massive. It's huge, isn't it?

It's like 13 people in the office now. We're waiting for the next office next to us is the transport police that you saw when you came down. We're waiting for them to leave so we can expand into their office because they've got a huge office and we're just going to essentially just take it over. I'm looking forward to it.

Getting another set. What does it feel like going from being just some blokey YouTuber to now a proper company media team research? It's exciting. Because before, I could feel myself getting weirried by, right now I'm going to have to read these things and do this and you have to do all the back end stuff.

It was just hiring and it sapped the motivation to do the things. But now we've got two people who do video production and then we've got other people who are doing other things. And it's lots of other, because we're all in the same office and I've been very insistent we work in the office. You get lots of different ideas being thrown into the ring and it's not just me having to think of everything myself and having to do everything myself.

And so it makes it a completely different environment and the office is really chilled place and everyone seems to have a good time there as well. And so everyone's being very creative with what they're doing. It's starting to quite the little think tank. I'm very, very happy then.

It's definitely a good idea. And I'm so I knew it would be, I had this instinct was like, yeah, that would probably be a good thing to have. And it would be nice to be able to bring other people in to do stuff. And I'm glad that was correct a good instinct.

Yeah, man. It doesn't surprise me. I went down the atmosphere is cool. I mean, you've got your own servers and shit in there as well.

You're as protected as you can get. It's some, you know, what you guys do is the closest thing I think we've got in the UK to the daily wire. And that's one hell of a fucking operation. Yeah, I mean, we're no any of the scale of the daily wire, but some, you know, we get some like seven or eight million views a month on our YouTube channel, 200,000 website, which is not that bad actually.

Speaking of speaking of YouTube dramas and people that worried about losing their business, what's your thoughts on Ethan Klein's recent spat with John Peterson? I think that what we're witnessing is the inevitable radicalization of Ethan Klein because of his Twitter usage. Ethan obviously used to be sort of anti social justice commentator. He used to mock all of this and little by little.

And I think it's because of the natural environment of Twitter having heard so many conservatives and suppressing conservative viewpoints that essentially just makes it seem like the only and most sensible and common viewpoint is that of the far left. I mean, it's written in Twitter's terms of service that you can't miss gender people and things like this. And there are so many, the political environment is so skewed on the platform that it becomes a sort of watering which you swim. And I don't think Ethan Klein is the smartest person in the world.

And so I don't think he recognizes that. And I mean, take for example, the way that he disavowed Jordan Peterson, he was like, you did something transphobic, you said something you said that. And essentially, it was just a list of crimes against progressivism. But I mean, that's the same as an imam coming to me and saying, well, you've eaten bacon, you've drunk alcohol, you've fornicated before marriage.

I'm like, okay, I'm Muslim. You know, these are not my standards. I don't, I don't agree that these are things I should care about. And even Klein has adopted them unthinkingly because other people on Twitter, these are the things that the big Twitter, you know, viral Twitter threads and tweets highlight.

And so it's put it into his mind that these are important things. But are they important things? Or is there something more important in Ethan's life, like his wife and children, perhaps, you know, rather than a very tiny friend's minority, of which he probably knows very few people. But this is, this is the thing, this is the problem with Twitter.

And so, and you can see this dramatic left with shift in his content. And now he's hosting a podcast with a guy called Hassan Pica for anyone who doesn't know he's a, he's a literal communist and the kind of communist that one would call a tanky. He thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea. And that America deserved 911.

And so he explicitly said America is a 911. Yes. He had to go. He's the nephew of Jen Kuger, the young Turks, and he was working at the young Turks at times a couple of years ago.

And he had to go on the untax with his uncle and essentially be told he had to disavow this position. He can't say that America deserved 911. And things he refused to do so. Now he's no longer at the untax because even Jenk, who obviously hates America himself, was like, look, we can't just say that.

You know, you can't just say, you know, we're Americans, we're in America. We're not going to say that America deserved the worst terror attack is ever experienced. But Hassan for some reason thinks the ISIS position is the jihadi position is more legitimate than the American position. And because Ethan's got him on a podcast now.

Yeah, it's called the leftovers, which is a really stupid name, but then they're not very bright people. But the interesting thing about this is that Hassan looks like the smart guy next to Ethan, but the best part, though, the best part, even though he's a literal communist, Ethan is basically a communist himself. The best part about it is now phenomenal success. Their set costs $3 million.

And in the middle, like, between the segments of their thing, I watched that in episode of it. And they have to do like three adverts of, you know, for, by this product and your group, I don't know, some sort of anti-capitalist chest hair or whatever it is they sell. But it's the most hyper capitalist thing in the world. And you can see during the shilling, Hassan's face, he just looks like he's dying inside his sight.

This just doesn't work for me. Exactly. You got to pay for it all. Got to pay for that $3 million mansion that you listen.

And so by promoting communism, they're literally being as capitalist as possible and dying on the inside. And I kind of love to watch it. I kind of love. Because I've never done a show.

I've never promoted a product. I've never had any corporate contract or anything like that. And anything I do, I do want a gentleman's agreement, because I think there's something important there, right? Because it's about not just you are going to be forced to keep it where, but it's about the desire to keep it where it shows goodwill and good faith in what you do.

And so that I think there's something there. But the fact that I've never had to do the shill, and I'm pro-capitalist, and these communist who constantly raging about Lick's face capitalism are the ones shilling, shilling their hearts out. It's there's just a beautiful irony. So it's Ethan, are you thinking that Ethan's sort of been passively peer pressured in just based on what he sees on Twitter?

I don't think it's peer pressure. I just think that Ethan is not really a very philosophically minded guy. And these people, the ideology itself and the people who are the authors of the main strains of thought within the ideology are very, very smart. And what they've done for the last 50, 60 years, probably since the, since post-war Europe, the time of post-war Europe, established that look, the way things are working in the United States is not going to bring about communism.

And therefore we need to undermine this and deliberately engage in what communist Antonio Gransky called a war of position. So we can see that the society is a very powerful society. It's not going to be overthrown in a revolution like Lenin did against the provisional government. And so what they need to do is wear away the society in order to open up the possibility of going towards communism.

And so for the past, I mean, probably nearly 100 years now, that they've been creating memes, right? They've been working on ways of cracking open the contradictions or the inconsistencies within our philosophy as the sort of like classically liberal enlightenment West. And trying to break it apart slowly, but surely just as if you've got this, you've seen the, you've seen the videos, the viral videos, you know, Facebook of like some guy in India or something, it's giant stone and he's got like just a couple of metal chisels and hammer and he puts a couple of them in and then crack the whole thing splits open, right? It's that kind of effect that they're going for.

They're like, right, there's a contradiction here, there's an inconsistency here, there's something that's just not filled out here. If we just hammer on these bits hard enough, the whole thing starts breaking apart. And that's what they've been doing to us. And they've been doing it very consciously.

They know that they're doing this and they want to do it because frankly, they think that communism is where we should all be, even though there's never been a good example of communism and never will be. But it's kind of like the unfinished puzzle of the enlightenment, you know, the smart people look at it and think, I can solve this, this will fix all of our problems, but it's nonsense. But yeah, so Ethan is essentially the victim of that process. I was going to say, because I'm always skeptical about the people that are whatever at the cold face of this.

I'm so non-conspiratorial with the way that I think. But the fact that Ethan Klein could be co-opted into some grand attempt to try and take down the West just doesn't seem realistic. But it seems like what you're saying is that he's sort of a willing, ignorant participant, like a useful idiot. The problem is it's not a conspiracy.

It's all out in the open. And I can just tell you the names of the people who are doing it in the books. In fact, do I have one on my desk? Yeah, there we go.

So, I mean, it begins with people like the Frankfurt School, which Theodore Donohor, Hawkheimer, Marcuse, and a bunch of others. This is dialects of enlightenment, where they're literally trying to figure out what's gone wrong, why haven't we achieved communism, wise capitalism one. And then this is what's called critical theory. This moves into what we now know as critical race theory.

And then that's people that begins with people like Derek Bell. Let me get out of my notes actually, because I've got Derek Bell, you've got Alan Friedman, you've got Richard Delgado, Mary Matsuda, obviously, Kimberly Crenshaw, Harlan Dalton, Anthony Cook. You can look all of these people up. I don't have the book with me.

It's at work, you know, it's in the office. Otherwise, I'll be able to bring up that huge book. It's just called critical race theory and key writings. It was edited and curated by Kimberly Crenshaw.

And she's got a bunch of essays in here. But a bunch of the essays that she's written in Harvard Law School was back in 1987 and 1989. I think it was that she expressly says this. But I mean, and in various other writings of critical race theory, you can find this.

For example, she's got an essay called Race Reform and Retrenchment, Transformation and Antondiscrimination Law. And this is where she says, and I quote, she wants Gramsci to literally, she wants to use the Gramsci in tactics to begin withering away our society. And therefore, she says she wants to adopt a legal, the problem is that a legal strategy will not include redistribution of wealth, right? That's what she thinks.

And so you can see exactly it is a, she's a communist, she is interested in achieving communism, and she is in the legal arena, the illegal academia. And she can't get the redistribution of wealth that you're looking for through American law, because American law is of course based on classical liberalism, which is fundamentally based on the right to own property. Communism, of course, is that nobody owns property. So this is never going to happen.

There's no justification for it. And so what she does is realize, well, if we can essentially expand the definition of the words, because one of the things she points out is that, look, if I just come in and say, right, we need a revolution, then all of the all of the systems that are just carrying along happily, she tries to put that down, this is going to bash her out of the way. It's like, we're not going to have a revolution, get out of here. We've got a constitution, for example.

But then she realized what we need to do. And she says, literally, it needs, she says this quote, demands for change that do not reflect the institutional logic will probably be ineffective, which is true. And this is the demand for revolution, not going to work. And so what she does essentially slides into the institutional logic and expands the definition of the words that they're using in order to encompass their Antonin.

Now, for example, she in this particular essay uses the example of racism, racism, she gives two definitions, the expansive and restrictive views of racism. What? Who consents to this? Who agrees that there are two definitions of racism?

I don't agree with that. Racism, in my opinion, is the conscious act of discriminating against someone because of their race, because you do not like their race. But that's not her definition. Her definition is an outcome that has a that can be categorized based on races that show some kind of difference.

I don't agree with racism. But if she redefines it to be that, and then proliferates this view of what racism is, which is now a systemic structural, everything around us is complicit in the average white family having more wealth than the average black family, then suddenly, our entire society becomes racist. And now you can see how the critical race there is to saying, well, we live in a giant race of society. It's okay, but you can never point to an act of racial discrimination, but they don't care because they're not using it.

They don't need to because their concept creeped it and expanded it out. Yes. Is it the case with Jordan? Is he tainting the purity of Ethan when you look at his back catalog?

Yes, without a doubt. And that is how this came unprovoked from Ethan Klein as well. Right. So just a quickly, basically, he's in this river, that's been redirected to the critical race theory view of things, the woke view of things.

Sorry, I've got a massive spot there because they're reading something. I had a spot and it kept scratching in the next course. And I'm trying not to scratch it now. Ethan is just in the river of wokeness.

Wokeness is critical race theory. That's what it all comes from. And again, it came to the Crenshaw's basically the chief strategist of this, because in her essays, she was writing, well, look, it's not just, we can do this for black people and black women. And she coined the term in sexuality because she was writing an essay about the intersection of how the way that American civil rights work at the time, this is back in the 90s or the 80s, is that they would recognize oppression because you're a black or because you're a woman, but they didn't insect into black women.

And you think about it, this was inevitable that this would come about. If you envisage in this world that blacks are oppressed or women are oppressed, then why couldn't you have black women being oppressed, doubly oppressed? There's no reason that this logic wasn't going to come about. At some point, you can't make Ranchers the first one to identify, go on the term in sexuality.

And from this, she even says, we can do this with the gay community, with the trans community. And this is back in the 80s and 90s, you're saying this. So you can see how long these ideas have been on the pot floor on the boil, right? And it's just, it's not just her, of course, it's dozens and dozens of different grids left wing academics, communist academics, because they're looking to destroy what they call the patriarchy, the inherited structures of classical liberal society in the West.

Because these are the things, as Gramsci says, are preventing the communist revolution. And they're not wrong. They're not wrong that the fact that we've got families and business owners and properties and governments and rules and laws. Yeah, these are all preventing a communist revolution.

That's true. That's why we have them. We don't want the communist revolution. We want the prosperous society where we can feel safe and secure and we know what's going to happen tomorrow.

And we're going to wake up in my car is going to be in the driveway and things like this. Because I only, that's much more preferable than no one owning anything and the state having total domination over everything we have, which is not even the end of what they're aiming for in communism. But the point is, this is the entire basis of work philosophy. And Ethan is the victim of the memes that the memetic warfare they've been engaging in.

So what they're doing is saying, well, trans rights, Ethan, he's like, well, I mean, they're human beings. Of course they have rights. You know, everyone has rights. But what's a trans right?

Why would you bring that up? Why wouldn't you just say human rights? It's exactly, it should be exactly the same thing. Should it not accept a trans right is something new now, you know, it's something different.

There are apparently rights that trans people have that I don't have, for example, which is implicit in the construction of the phrase, trans rights, anything, you know, being a bumbling idiot. He's just like, well, of course, I don't know. And of course, I believe in this. But once you start going, he's put like a foot in the river, you know, and then, oh, you know, affirmations and people retweeting and the general sort of radicalizing effect of Twitter, getting in bed with other leftists who then take him down the sort of memetic paths that they bring you on.

And now he's like, and it's comes out in nowhere. No one was saying, you know, Ethan, you have to disavow John Peterson, no one was saying this is an old interview, but he just came out and was like, I'm going to take down that John Peterson, it's like, okay, no one's making you do that. But you've chosen to do it because you've accepted a series of premises that have led you to the conclusion that actually used to be a terrible person. And it's like, that's weird, because it looks to me and all the world.

Like you're the terrible person now. Like, Ethan used to do decent things. He used to actually help people. He used to use a bit of investigative journalism occasionally.

And he used to entertain people and just, you know, be an entertainer. He wasn't the active piece of shit that he has become. Like, you can see this in his like betrayal and deception of Stephen Crowder. There's just a scummy thing to do, absolutely scummy.

And the way he's going after Joe Rogan, the way he's going after him, and people that I would consider to be people high moral character, you know, people I've both met, I've had conversations with them. They did not seem in any way deceptive. They seem to exhibit virtue in their daily lives. They have millions of adoring fans because of their virtues.

And you've got this fact communist idiot going there bad people. Shut up Ethan. You're the useful idiot of a bunch of people who are trying to overthrow the West, frankly. Have you heard of the purity spiral?

You know what that is? Yeah, so I learned about that this week. So the situation, yeah, it makes sense. Like I understand the circular firing squads sort of analogy.

But yeah, the fact that over time ideological groups require the binding of an in-group to be over the mutual hatred of an outgroup and the easiest way to do that is to continually shave off little elements that allow one person to go out. Well, look, we are now moral because we're standing on the shoulders of the people that are no longer moral. And that really fucking, that increasing sort of zealousness about ideologies explains so much. I love when things piece together like that.

And there's a concept. So one thing I've been thinking about is the concept of ideology. I mean, could you define an ideology? What ideology is?

Me, right? Exactly. And that's not the criticism either. Most people can't.

I couldn't. And I was just not that one day thinking about this. Why can't I define what ideology actually means to me? You know, the dictionary and get like a very basic definition.

It's more than a belief structure, right? It's more than norms. It's more than. Yeah, so the critical race there is, there's a chap called, I think it's Alan Freeman's, one of his essays.

Let me just go through my notes, because there's literally like 40 essays in this giant tome over all of their ideas. Right. But they've got like their own theories on what the world is and how things mean, you know, what things are. And one of them has a theory of ideology.

And this is not the only person who has a theory of ideology. But this theory is that ideology is a series of contested ideas that is a battleground for power games, you know, and you're trying to assert one set of ideas over another, win a series of arguments and essentially conquer the field. And this was similar to a theory of ideology from a conservative philosopher called Michael Oakeshot, who said that it's a an interlaced and interlocking system or lattice of ideas that justify the seizure of power. And also, these are kind of a crib of a set of traditions.

And there's a bit of overlap. So it's all right. This is it is interesting how the very notion that I have a series of thoughts and that justifies hurting people is just totally pervasive in society. Everyone thinks it like all of the left at the moment, they will do what they can to depart from to humiliate.

And this is something that I can't stand watching. Beta left wing men trying to humiliate right wing women is so feminist, you know, but because they think wrong, it's okay. And of course, you know, deplatform anti-fire attacking people like Andy know, whoever it is. But it's this constant war that they're engaged in.

You know, this is the ideology war, they're eroding the power and the status and the position in society of anyone who opposes them. And the circular firing is something that happens when they're in their own echo chambers. Now it's about status, you know, how do you get status? Well, being the person who professes the most correct interpretation of the ideology, this, this lattice of contestable ideas.

You get that to inject that you get that ever increasing requirement to adhere to the tribal norms in conservative circles as well, though, right? In not in quite the same way, there are because the problem is that often what we call conservative circles are actually not conservative. They're actually wig circles or classical liberal. They are a set of ideologies themselves.

Take, for example, the Republicans in America, they're not conservative. They have an ideological agenda. They're the product of a revolution. You know, a conservative is someone who is the inheritor of tradition, which is innately anti-revolutionary, because of course you're continuing a long tradition that has been passed on to you with the expectation that you will maintain it, look after it and pass it on to future generations.

And so you don't have an ideological agenda. You're just looking at the real world and the way things are done. And you act accordingly. You don't really have like an agenda for the entire world.

You've got a particular thing in a particular place, a particular time, and you are just preserving it for the next generation and making sure you're sort of polishing it, you know, you're buffing it up. But you don't have a series of ideas that can be contested and attacked based on someone else's rational thoughts. Like the British monarchy is a great example of this. Why do we have all this pomp and ceremony?

But you can't rationally justify it because it's the product of millions of people's inputs over thousands and thousands years. And you can't explain it. You know, it's the inherited wisdom of generations upon generations of people. It's way more than one man could just sit down and be like, right, and so I'm going to explain why we do this.

But we do it because, hey, we know it works. It's lasted. It must have some value. And it's an irrational thing.

It's a prejudice that we have. But it also has emotional resonance with us. It matters. You know, this, it makes us feel at home in our world when we see, you know, the pomp and ceremony, the monarchy, the world is properly ordered.

Everything is as it should be. We're going to watch the ceremony. Everyone will do that part because this is a little part because, you know, 300 years ago, someone fell over and it became a habit that now has fallen into the ceremony and stuff like that. But it creates a kind of emergent order, right?

That no one person is in control of it. No one person is designed. The American republicans aren't like that. You know, republicans aren't like that.

Progressives aren't like that. They have got a series of basically, you know, holy books that people have gone right. So we're going to do this, this, this, this, and this. That and that and that and then boom, we'll have the perfect system.

It's like, okay, that's one guy with one opinion. Maybe he's right, but he's probably not. Let's be honest. And, you know, the closest we've come to a decent version of that is the American republic.

Every other example of this, like, you know, the French republics, which now they're on the fifth one, you know, the Soviet Union, China, wherever. They've turned into terrible, terrible places that have made terrible, terrible mistakes that have got millions of people killed. And so I'm very skeptical of ideologies at this point. You know, when a guy comes along and goes, I've got the ideas.

It's like, so, so I don't care. You know, I don't have to listen to them. I don't have to be bound by them. And you don't have any right to hurt me because you've got an idea.

You don't get to take things away from me. You don't get to persecute me. You don't get to gain control of the entire country or the entire world. In many cases is what they're aiming for.

Just because you have a set of ideas, you know, this is just, this does not give you license over me. So just go away. You know, that's basically what anyone can turn around and say to any of these people. And so this is the difference.

Like, because I know what you mean in like American Republican circles. I know exactly what you mean. But listen to the language that they're invoking when they do it. It's all this kind of ideological rhetoric of the Constitution, the founding fathers, the ideological revolution that is in United States.

And I'm not even saying that I support the ideological revolution in the United States, but it's not conservative. You know, it's it's classically liberal. It's wig, which is fine. I'm a wig.

But but it's not it's not the same thing. And it's this this kind of murky confusion in our thinking that I think has allowed the progressives to be, you know, sit back very, very cunningly and be right. I can see how I can get you. And that's how they've come along, I think.

I want to talk about this. Paulina Poryskova lady, the 56 year old supermodel that dared to look at rage. Do you see this? I did a video on it.

Yeah. Oh, right. Yeah. So Poryskova was once the world's highest paid model.

But as she hit her fifties, she says she was suddenly invisible. Now 56, she's leaving a new wave of all the women taking their place in the spotlight and on the catwalk and flaunting it on Instagram in her bikini. What do you think of Paulina Poryskova? Carl.

I think that nature is a very cruel mistress. To women very much so. Yes. To women.

She's not overly kind to many, but to be honest. But the better end of the deal out of the two. When we get older, we do. Yeah.

When we get older, when we're young, we don't, you know, it's quite rough actually. Yeah. Well, we're thrown into a world where we're competing with a bunch of men who have a bunch of advantages over us. And there's no way of getting these advances until except here in time as part.

So there's literally nothing you can do. Other than get your head down and get to work. That's all you can do as a man. But women have got a completely reverse dynamic.

And it's kind of unfortunate, actually, in our society, they emerge into a society that doesn't warn them that this doesn't last forever. They're both, you know, as they become a woman, 18 years old. And you see all this sort of the okay, cupid data and things like women are most attractive to men, all men at about 21 years old. Like every man will say 21 year old is the most attractive woman.

I've seen the same graphic. I've seen the same graphic you're talking about yet. It's hilarious. Whereas women will say, you know, the man's most attractive men will be roughly their own age as they get older and peek at about 40, 45.

And so men have that advantage over women. So women are given a huge amount of social and sexual power in their youth that is just drained away as they age. And this is not fair, but it is a fact. And so this is what women should be, they should be using their time in their youth to find the best man for them, the man they really want, and get him into a long-term relationship, preferably a marriage.

So when they're in their fifties, they have the companion and they've earned the status of being the wife of this man. You know, they're not going to be finding themselves on their own because at 56, men are not looking for a 56-year-old woman, men who are eligible and who are looking for a partner do not consider 56-year-olds unless they're a significant man older than 56. Well, the thing that I saw from reading that article, this Paulina lady is upset because previously she would walk into a party and everybody would turn and look at her and she would be the showstopper and now that's not happening anymore and younger girls are doing that. The reverse is true.

The guy at 18 that walked into a room don't give a shit about, but at 48 when he's the CEO of a company and he's flown in on a private jet or he's got other markets and it's a prestige or a claim or whatever, then maybe people will. So over time, the notoriety and value and prestige the society holds you in is going to change. Yes, that is true. The issue, the main issue that I saw with this is that the model was presuming that the thing which gave her value when she was younger should still be the thing which gives her value when she's older.

And that felt really tragic to me because I can see how a girl who enters the world of modeling who continues to be in that world who is told that her looks are her primary contribution to the world. And this is a woman who I think had two or three children and had a husband up until a couple of years ago and then got separated. So this is someone who's had the opportunity to cultivate other parts of her life, other things that she feels she contributes to the world in a way which genuinely makes her something that appreciates with time that doesn't depreciate with time. And the problem is that and this is true for guys as well.

I think anybody that gets to their 30s and is still primarily taking their main source of value to the world from the way that they look is they have invested their resources into a depreciating asset because over time that is going to wane and what you need to try and do is come up with grace, poise, interest, humor, yeah, all of those things, right? These things are going to appreciate with time. These are the things that you can have on your 70s and still crush a room with. You know, you can have comedians, you know, your grandad, you don't think about, you're not bothered about your grandad walking into a room because he's like the best looking guy in the room.

But he might be the one that's got the most virtue or wisdom or insight or humor or balance or whatever it might be. And there's a lie that's sold from the media and from consumer society that the primary value that women have isn't even their beauty. It's their hotness. If you look at the sort of women that we see on TV, on Love Island, I'm a weather, I'm shilling for this as well.

But the girls that go on there, not that they're not always part of your wisdom. They're not always they're not ever beautiful, but they're often hotter than they are beautiful. There's being signalled off a very, very immediate hotness as opposed to timeless beauty, which I think you could be beautiful in a very conservative dress, you know, but you can't be hot in a very conservative dress, you know, that's what you're saying, right? Yeah, but I think you're making a great point.

It's very rare for men to be able to leverage their attractiveness to any significant degree. That's a very, very small percentage of men who become famous actors or something in their 20s and then get any woman in the world. That's the only caprioles of the world. Yeah, it's probably not going to be you.

You're probably about a five out of 10, like me. And most women are going to be about five out of 10, but women are more attractive as a young and are less attractive as a young and less attractive as a young and more attractive as a young. And this is just the way that nature plays the game exactly as you were describing it. And exactly, as you say, like, society is not preparing women to learn that.

I mean, I can't even imagine what it must have been like to be 21 years old and literally have the world at your feet. And I think most men have no idea what that experience is going to be like, because I was nobody of any importance and nobody cared about me in any particular way, part of my friends and family, of course, you know, I was not in any way impressive or important when I was 21 years old, unlike this model who's getting, you know, millions of dollars per contract and who's commanding the room and who's at the very top of society. And so to just have that, you know, just slowly fade away until no one cares about me, it's something, yeah, but you essentially were given a gift when you were young and you didn't, as you say, cultivate anything else. You thought, well, I've got this one thing, I don't need to do anything else.

Whereas I've had to have this slow, laborious and often depressing ascent to a position where people actually give it to you, I have to say, you know, people actually care whether I'm, you know, I say this or that anything. And it's a very privileged place to be. But I've worked really hard for it, you know, and it's not something can just be taken away by, you know, my growing older, and that's like a totally seen up, of course, but then I think I've got other problems at that point. You know, it's something that I can, it's this thing I can continue to cultivate that will continue to get better, whereas she's out of options now, you know, she can't do that.

And we don't prepare women for this inevitability. It is inevitable that you will get old, you will become saggy, you will get wrinkly, and you'll become infertile. And then men will not be interested in you. So if you base your success off the interest of the opposite sex, that's eventually going to stop.

And you need to be prepared for that. And most, most throw of human history, every civilization knew this and accepted this as part of the sort of teleology of being a woman, this is what's gonna happen. So we, and we had social roles for women to fall into, you know, to grow into, after the beauty had faded somewhat, you know, you'd be married, you'd be a pillar of the community, you'd be involved in some sort of social club, or you know, a charity, you'd be doing something, and then you'd go to a mother and then to a grandmother. And so now you're, you know, as an older woman, you still have plenty of value to your children and your grandchildren.

There are still people who care about you. And then we're on this other woman who has children, and we'll doubtless have grandchildren. So she at least still has that life path open. But a lot of women in these days are not having children.

But even the conversation that she brings up there, she doesn't say, she doesn't mention the buching precisely. No, it's weird, isn't it? Because you think she takes solace in the fact that she at least has a family who love her, but she's trying to gain the attention of men like she did when she was in her 20s. It's like that period of your life is over.

You need to come to terms with that, because it's kind of embarrassing, granny, that you're posting bikini shots on Instagram. Like, what are you doing? I want my grandmothers to be doing that. I want to have a bit of dignity and self respect and to grow into the role that nature has expected of you, because you can't avoid it.

As she's found out to hurt your grin. And you're going to be defeated by someone who is 30 years younger than you now. Which she complains about in the article. There's no getting around it.

But she was more than happy to take the success of that when she was beating the 56 year olds when she was 21. Yeah, I'm very, very, sort of, not cautious, but it is sort of cautious of trying to be sympathetic to the situation that women have got themselves to that place, perhaps. And they didn't know if she'd known when she was 21 that if I'd continue down this road when I'm 56, I'm going to be miserable, she probably would have done things differently. So partly you think, well, you're culpable to some extent, but also nobody warns you.

And I think it is important to try and have these warnings out there for women. I'm actually a bit more sympathetic than that, because I do think that you are a product of your environment to a great degree. And if you're in an environment that venerates youth and doesn't have any time or consideration for wisdom and age, then you end up in a position where you just don't have anyone putting that in your mind. That's just not a thought that you ever have.

And there's no reason for you to have had it. And so it's kind of cruel, frankly, what I think our society does to women as they grow older. And you're getting out loads of millennial wine aunts who are getting into their forties. And I do these segments on the podcast all the time, because whenever you know in whatever vogue or bustle or whatever the women's magazine is, whereas I'm 40 years old, I have three degrees, I earn 100,000 pounds a year.

I've got two cats, and I can't find a man. What's going on? Who told you that you would be able to find a man with those credentials? Why would you think in your forties, you'd start settling down and finding a husband and kids?

It's not good for either. No, not for men. It's not good for men, because there is a group of career women who are chasing education, employment, and status throughout their 20s and 30s, which means that they're unavailable. And then by the time that they do get there, most women don't want to be in a relationship with a man that earns less than them and is less educated, which means that they've competed themselves out of their own dominance hierarchy, because there's no one above and across the men that they're looking for around their age, but the men that are around their age are looking for women that are 10 years younger than them.

Yeah, and also the dating pool is very narrow at that point, very, very narrow. And it's more than that as well, though, because think about what they're doing in the process of coming up to that point where they're like, I can't find a man, and why isn't society paying attention? And I hear the word invisible being used a lot by these women. This is a constant, and multiple times, she used it in the article and I've seen other places, and it's like, I'm invisible.

And it's like, yeah, you're like me, I'm invisible. I just walk around and get on with my life. I don't have women looking at me, but I don't have women looking at me as I go past. This is what life is like.

But the sort of like, not necessarily the model, obviously, because she's not competing in an arena where men would also be competing, but the the 40-year-old why not, who's the deputy CEO of a company or something, her working in the corporate world is her occupying a position that a man could have been occupying. And so she's knocking men down on that social scale. And so when you've got millions of women in the workplace, all being girl bosses, well, you're generally innovating the status of men in society. You think, OK, well, men deserve it.

I don't care. I'm a feminist. It's like, sure, sure. Yeah.

But that's my point. You're innovating the level of men in society for your own personal game, getting to the pinnacle and then being like, I'm lonely. Where are the good men at? Yeah, I'm lonely.

Where are the good men? I can't find a man. It's like, yeah, well, you were selfish. You didn't consider what men need to be attractive to you, let alone for their own self-esteem and for their own vitality and prosperity.

You were just like, me, me, me, and then you're still me, me, me. And all these guys have just checked out society, they're just playing their Xboxes, living in shared accommodation with each other until they're well into their late 30s, drinking beer every night and working crappy jobs. And they're fine, because they actually don't need much to get along. But I think if you asked any of them, they would say, yeah, I would like a wife, you know, I would like a family.

I would like a successful career. I would like to have the prestige of being the breadwinner in the household. You know, it's not that I'm saying women can't work or anything like that. But like, be considerate.

Where's the goodwill from either side? You know, and it seems to be the lack of goodwill on the part of the career woman has just ruined the way our civilization works. And it's not good for the men. It's not good for the women.

And the results of this are smacking us in the faces right now. There's nothing we can do about it now. Honestly, man, like the more that I think about this, the more I feel like we might be totally fucked. Like it just feels like you know that meme of the dog in the house and the house is on fire and he's just smiling through the beginning of the end.

This is fine. Like if men don't kill themselves, they're exiting education and society and family life at the highest rates ever. Women are frantically pursuing careers only to discover that they're unable to find a partner that they're attracted to and then jump on meds at 40 years old, the highest percentage, the highest group that use meds are between white women between 40 and 45 years old. And then the people who want kids can't find a partner that does as well, birth rates declining, faith in the leaders and the news organizations and non-existent.

And everyone's just about sufficiently sedated, not to notice or care that it's going on. That's a precise and accurate summary of how the West has declined and will collapse, yes. Fuck. I know.

It's, and you know what's worse, right? Is that the few that are in the generations that are coming up now are totally fucked by leftist ideology. The way that women, young women, view men is evil. It is purely as a transaction as in they are essentially prostitutes, every single one, and they don't even realize it.

And the young men, what do you mean? You women as trophies, you know, women are now just, again, they're not people. They don't view each other as people. The thing, a human being is a three-dimensional thing.

It's got a material component and it's got an emotional component and a spiritual component. Like the metaphysics, we scribe to what is a person and the thing that we consider. You're not just Chris. You're not just the body of Chris.

You are a personality. I'm considerate of you when I'm talking to you. Things like this. When you mess with me, hey, man, how's it going?

I don't just send you a link to my only fans, right? And ask you to subscribe. But that's how a generation of women have been trained by feminists to view men in order not to be oppressed by the patriarchy. And so these women, I think, have been essentially made unable to love men as people.

They don't really see those people. They view them as a kind of competition, like competitors on a playing field. And the young men don't know what to do. And so now they're just following their base instincts of, I should try and have sex.

I should try and see women naked. And therefore that's flattening the woman down to merely her biological components. Now it's not even romance. It's not about falling in love.

It's about send news. It's objectification for men to women and commodification of men from women. Yeah. It's equally used.

It said in the same way that porn has skewed men's expectations of women, only fans have skewed women's expectations of men. I cited it by you, even if it wasn't. It may work. But I totally agree with that statement.

I may have said that. Because it's awful how only fans has to, it's commodified being a girlfriend. That's the thing. Everyone thinks, you know, you're just getting new.

It's just like porn. It's not just like the emotion. Emotion and intimacy. I've been watching a bunch of YouTube videos by women who do only fans who explain what they're doing on only fans.

I've never used them. I've never used them. Why do I keep killing? But so basically it seems like an online artificial girlfriend service and the sort of romantic nude that you'd send to one another and sexy post and stuff, they send to like, you know, 5000 men or however many years.

Like, right, that's not good. That's pretending to have an intimate relationship with thousands of different men. And it's not surprising that there have been recently a bunch of only fan models who have been murdered by subscribers. No way.

Yeah. No, we recently did a video that in fact it should be on podcast and low-sees already. But it's not out there. Yeah, but yeah, we've got three examples in the last week where subscribers have murdered these people.

And there was one guy who had gone Florida, stalked an only fans model, murdered her, and then written on like the walls. I shouldn't have come. It's her fault for making me love her or something like that and stuff like this. And it's just like, look, this is warped what it is to be an in a romantic and sexual relationship, like pretending that we can just commodify these things.

And that's all the human being needs is not true. And both people on both sides can detach their emotions from the situation that the guy isn't going to feel anything more than, well, he knows that this is just messages. He knows that this is just work. And the same is precisely, they can't switch that off.

They can't switch that emotional situation off. But for the sort of gen-z woman, men are merely a mode of transaction because they've been indoctrinated by feminists in their schools and just in the culture at large to view men as being part of oppressive structure. And they have to be on their guard against men. Men are here to take something from you.

Men are dangerous to women. You know, you've got to view them as a thing to get money from. If that's the enemy, then defeating the enemy makes sense. But the other side of this is I don't know, I wonder what it teaches women, not only the women that do only fans, but even the women that know that other women do only fans.

What does it teach them about what they're worth? We've literally just said, if you enter the world and your primary source of value is your looks or your sex appeal, this is a depreciating asset, and you need to be very careful. This is the richest, I wouldn't like to guess, there is a huge swath of some of the richest people in the UK and in America that are women that are probably getting their money directly from taking their clothes off and sending photos to people that pay them for it. And that's what other women are thinking as well.

So by osmosis, almost, there's these role models of women that are in a society that says girls, you can be a girl boss too, clap back, don't settle for less, be a boss bitch, all of this stuff be a career woman, and also some of the most successful career women that you know are the ones who are using the lowest form of female value to the world as their way to climb this dominance hierarchy. I don't think it's good for women, I don't think it's good for men either. It's terrible for society in general. It's teaching women that men aren't important and unique things.

Because the roots of every relationship, every relationship is unique, no one else can have that relationship with you. My relationship to you, my relationship to my wife, my relationship, my sons, they'll never have that relationship ever again. You'll always have a different relationship with someone else. Relationships are like a chain, you know, like a rope.

If you don't keep it in good check, if you don't do the things that the other person appreciates and if they don't reciprocate and do the things you appreciate, then the relationship fades and frays and ends up breaking. There can be other ways of breaking it. But it's something you have to nurture, something you have to take care of. And something that is what I think is the genuine content of the human experience.

And I think that this is why, if you go back 100 years, people were so much poorer, but they were not on antidepressants. They weren't all depressed. They weren't all sad because they had their families. They had their friends.

They had their social lives. They had a reason for live. I've got to go over to Mavis' house and pick up a groceries for her. And stuff like this, you feel good about doing something good for some else.

Maybe it's all probably make you a couple of team when you get there and you have nice little chat and things like this. Like these relationships are the genuine, what makes life worth living. Ostracization used to be a punishment. And now people are literally ostracized on their phones.

They've got to hook Twitter, give me some likes today from who? You don't know any of these people. Some men also were choosing to ostracize themselves consciously. That's what makes our ways.

What are those guys in the apartment blocks in China or Japan? There's a particular name. Herbal man. Yeah, then Plantman or whatever it is.

You know, these are guys that are consciously choosing to just exit society in the way that we would typically see it. What do you think? Do you think that celebrating family values and life is under attack? Or is it just eroded as a byproduct of modern society?

Or is it a blend with both or something different? If we go back to what we were saying about the Communists looking at the sturdy structures of our society, we can see that it has been a conscious attack by certain people, by critical theorists, by communists. And it has been going on for quite some time. But this requires complicity on our parts.

Happiness with pleasure. And you consider anything that's non-material to be non-valuable, then you end up at the place we are at now where it's just about satisfying the dopamine rush in your own brain, constant consumption. You have to consume on your phone. You have to consume food, eat the sugar, take the drugs, drink the alcohol, whatever it is, have lots of sex with random people.

Who cares? What difference does it make? If that's happiness, which I don't agree that it is, I agree, I think that's pleasure. Then that's a purely materialistic outlook.

Whereas happiness, I think, in previous eras, happiness is defined as something that is not material. It's not physical. I can't give you something that will make you happy, but you'll know you're happy when you feel it. You'll feel it because it's a state of affairs.

It's not one particular instance, or I'll take this pill and then I'll be happy, I'll drink the drink and I'll be happy. It's something that is essentially what we call that, a satisfaction. You just think, no, I don't want to change my life. I'm doing the things I habitually do.

And I look around myself, I've got my particular case, my wife, my kids, my business, my job, my studies, my Warhammer. I'm very happy. I'm very happy. I love everything I get to do in my life.

And at no point do I begrudge any of it. Even when some of it's hard and it's difficult, you know, when I have to change my one-year-olds nappy or something, I don't have a begrudge. It's never chore, you know. But it's not all pleasurable, you know, but it does, it is making me satisfied and it is making me happy.

And this is a general state of affairs over time, a continuum that could be broken. I mean, don't get me wrong, if my family got to be diagnosed with a car crash or something, then that would be broken. But it's not something that can just be given to me by a product, right? It's not something that can be given to me by a service or a product or anything like that.

It can't just be taken away by a lack of those things, you know. And we've completely misunderstood what it is to be a whole and complete and happy human being. And it's going to be very uncool to try and reclaim that. But on the plus side, I don't take any depression pills.

I don't get therapy. You know, I don't have to worry about this. I'm never sat around going, God, I wish something would happen. So my life wasn't shit.

You know, I never think anything about that. I'm always, I've got to have nothing happen. So ruins what I've got, you know, I'm, you know, and then suddenly you realize why I'm a now-conceptive. You know, I've got everything I want.

You know, this is why families are in making a concept. You know, I don't want to ruin the state of affairs. Young people have been programmed though, not just to avoid that state of affairs by the materialistic culture in which we found ourselves. And again, I think you can directly link things like critical theory to this process, but they are now unenviable in a position where, and this is something I get from a lot of young men, because like a couple of years ago, I was like, look, this is what you need to do, like, you know, get yourself a wife, get yourself a house, get yourself a job, get on with it.

And a lot of them are like, yeah, okay, that's easy if you say, because you're already married, you know, your wife isn't a Gen Z Zuma and isn't on only fans, you know, like, this is easy for you to say, because you had the pick of women who were not essentially spoiled by materialistic culture of the modern era. But now these guys, I mean, I wouldn't date women who had any fans, I wouldn't date women who took loads of nude photos of myself and they were all just a little over the internal time. But not all women, it's a very small percentage of women that do do that. I don't know, I don't know if it is.

And it's not just that, though, it's the attitude as well. It's the way they view men is not as potential life partners, because they're been trained by feminists to say, yeah, you can have it all be the girl boss, you know, sleep around as much as you want. I mean, let's say that they're not all an advanced job, but I mean, what are their body counts, you know, like by the time a woman is 25, it's probably not insignificant at that point. And there are lots of young men who tell me I get messages about this all the time from different areas of the world.

But they're just like, it's just they're just no women that I would think of as suitable partners for marriage and to become a wife. And I'm sorry, I came well, that's terrible. That's just really tough. I don't have a solution.

I don't have an answer. And it's going to be really uncool. So well, look, young women basically have to use their time at their peak attractiveness to find the man of their dreams and get married and settle down with him, you know, see him as a human being falling in love with him. You know, that's not what's being pushed now in culture.

It's about, you know, I think by 2030, by 2030, you're going to have two women for every one man at a four-year US college. And again, as we said earlier on, if you've got that hypergamous nature, where women are going to date up and across, that means that you have double the number of women competing for that number of men. Are you familiar with the sex ratio hypothesis? You know this?

Yeah, it's quite logical when you think about it. So in a local area where you have an abundance of women or an abundance of men relative to the other sex, you see changes in mating patterns. So if you have an abundance of men, you see an increase in long term mating, you see a increase in sexual violence, you see women being more selective, more cheesy, and waiting longer to have sex. When the reverse happens and you have a surplus of women and a scarcity of men, you see that women are having sex sooner.

There are more casual relationships. There are fewer sexual aggressive encounters. But what that shows, first off, it's fucking fascinating. And this just happens, right?

No one's thinking this through consciously, or very few people are. But this means that human sexuality responds to its local ecology. Yeah. How fucking fascinating is that?

The fact that your sexual proclivities will alter just based on what you're sensing. Maybe a tiny little part of it might be conscious, right? And you'll think, oh, actually, there's a lot of girls here. And that means if I don't maybe sleep with this guy on the third date, and he's maybe going to forget about me because I know that there's other girls around here or whatever.

But obviously the implication of this is that in colleges, where you are having an ever-increasing number of women and ever-decreasing number of men, you have women that are no longer able to get the sort of relationship that they want. And not only that as well, when they leave, they will, and I can't think of a more delicate way of putting this, they will effectively debase their own purity as well. And this is something that women have to understand that men really care about. Men do not want a woman who has run through by the time she leaves university, that is not what they're looking for, that is not someone they're going to make their wife.

They want, they want preciousness, exclusivity, and specialness. They want to think that they are essentially conquering an undiscovered country with their wife. They want it to be all of theirs and none of anyone else's. They want this, and this creates a kind of magical state of affairs in the mind of the man.

And you have to, if you're a smart woman and you want to get the guy out of your dreams, you will essentially maintain your purity as best you can. And again, it's the sort of thing we're hanging on saying this saying very much like what my conservative Christian grandfather was saying. And he had that tradition for a reason. That was true then, it's true now.

And you're unmarried approaching 40 and on depression medication as you go and see your fucking therapist. Your grandmother didn't have this problem. She wasn't a hoe when she was young. She got married to your grandfather when you're like 22, and they're still married now.

But again, with this, to try and sing the song of sympathy for women, it's not like, it's not, I don't think up until really now anyone's been warning women about this. Sexual Revolution wasn't too long ago birth control. Yeah, but I mean, who's stepping in and saying, darling, are you bringing another boy home? No one's stepping in like that.

Maybe on patrol, you know, this is not good. But you are right. And I agree with you know, it's there has been a total total dropping of the ball when it comes to understanding the nature of reality of the relationships between the sexes. Even the pope is telling people that they need to have more kids.

Do you see that? Yeah, he's right. That is selfish. Why?

Because your pet will not look after you or someone else. And this is nothing. I'm thinking about a lot, right? So obviously, I think we actually do have a moral obligation to have children, because we are expecting there to be people around to do the things that we want done, as in, you're like, yeah, well, I'm going to get my retirement money.

Okay, but someone's going to have to pay for that. You know, so you're going to have to have a body working to pay for the retirement money you've got. Okay, well, I don't need kids. I'm just going to go through a retirement home.

Okay. And who's going to run that home? You're the people who get someone exactly other people's kids. You're expecting someone else to have done the work to engage in the labor to raise the person to you to then sort of like, in parasitically, so like, yeah, I've got money.

Here's this money coming to it. So, but I mean, is that going to be enough for them to be like, yeah, but I'd rather look after my mum, even if I don't get your money, you know, because I mean, I would like think that, you know, when I'm old and infirm, my kids would rather look after me because I love them to care of them and raise them well, rather than going off something. Because they fucking owe you, Carl, that's why, because you owe me. But because we there's a there's a there's a thick relationship there.

This is this concept that's not just the materialistic about the thing about money. There's love there, you know, there's a desire to make sure that the person can look after them and they were young, they're looking after when they're older and I'll do that for my parents. You know, God forbid they ever need that. You know, my parents are actually still quite healthy and active, but like, you know, when the time comes, I'll do the right thing and my hopefully my kids will do the right thing.

I'm expecting my kids to be able to pay them to work for them. Well, let's hope that they're willing or else you are just going to be there in your own unchanged shit, you know, where you can't move in. No one has any obligations to you. That's the thing.

It's about bonds of obligation and they are selfishly expecting other people to have obligations to them. It's like, sorry, no one does. No one needs to look after you. And you're again, just the pope is right.

You're being very selfish. Like, well, it's a lot of work to raise kids. Yeah, it's a lot of work, but it's also really, really rewarding. And it rounds you out as a human being, like you learn things from being a parent that you can't learn from being a pet owner, you know, and you're essentially absconding your position in the great chain of civilization.

You know, every individual is the result of a lineage that goes back like a billion years, you know, to the very, very first organisms to you. And you're like, yeah, so I don't need to carry on that chain. I can just be, oh, I'm just going to live off other people's effort and energy. It's like, you sell for shit.

What makes you think you have the right to just be like, yeah, I don't need to do anything about holding this civilization by producing future generations for it. I'm the sort of person who's going to get myself sterilized. And I'm going to sit there and drink my wine and live off the fruits of this, like some sort of conqueror. It's like, no, and this is a totally unsustainable attitude.

It's not going to last. You're going to be miserable and you're a really selfish piece of shit. I don't know if it's a moral obligation, but I definitely think that it's an optimal way for society to move forward. Okay, let me stop you there, right?

I don't give a fuck about what's optimal. It is a moral obligation because all their life, they relied on the other people had done. And if they think that they can just inherit all of this and say, I'm just going to take, take, take, take, take, then that makes them selfish, which is a moral judgment. It is a moral obligation.

Interesting. I mean, there's a lot I can tell. Yeah, I can tell. Is this what keeps your way?