Part Of The Problem - The Crucible w/ Andrew Wilson

Episode Date: June 25, 2024

Dave Smith and Andrew Wilson discuss the latest in culture! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by the host of The Crucible Podcast, Andrew Wilson. Dave and Andrew discuss some of the problems society faces due to blurred gender roles, Andrew's experiences on the "Manosphere" podcasts, and so much more!You can find more of Andrew Wilson Here!https://thecrucible.video/Follow Andrew On Xhttps://x.com/paleochristconSupport Our SponsorsSheath - https://sheathunderwear.com use promo code PROBLEM20Yo Kratom - https://yokratom.comSmall Batch Cigar - https://www.smallbatchcigar.com/ use promo code problem at checkoutArmslist - https://www.armslist.com/ use promocode PROBLEM you will receive the first month of premium membership for just ninety nine centsNevenEyewear - https://neveneyewear.com/discount/Problem 50% off any one regular pair with code: ProblemFind Run Your Mouth here:Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@robbiethefire2577/streamsItunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmPart Of The Problem is available for early pre release on GaS Digital Network every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Sign-up with code POTP to get access to the archives, bonus content and more! https://gasdigital.comFollow the show on social media:Twitter: https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmithhttps://twitter.com/RobbieTheFirehttps://www.instagram.com/bmackayisrightInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/theproblemdavesmith/https://www.instagram.com/robbiethefire/https://www.instagram.com/bmackayisrightSubscribe On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/DSmithcomicSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You're listening to the Gas Digital Network. Look at who we're funding right now. Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big. What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I'm very happy to have joined me on this episode, Andrew Wilson. Andrew is the host of The Crucible, and he is also a regular on the Whatever podcast, which is enormously popular. I think I did not realize until I looked it up earlier today how huge a following that show has. I've seen the clips, as I'm sure many of you have all over the internet, but I wanted to talk a bit about that over the Internet. But I wanted to ask, I wanted to talk a bit about that. Me and Andrew did a debate on the crucible just recently. And on the show,

we talked about continuing it in more of a conversational format. So that's what we're going to do tonight. Thanks so much for joining, Andrew. How are you? Good, man. Thanks for having me. So when when I do when I do a debate, I take I take debate seriously because from my perspective, I'm sure for you, too. From my perspective, my job is to represent a worldview and to represent that worldview to the best of my ability. And so even guys who I genuinely like or might have a good relationship with when I'm debating my my job then is to represent that worldview. So, yeah. So, I mean, I know I never have any hard feelings after debates, just a lot of times other people do. But you know how that goes, I'm sure. I have experienced that myself, too. Yes. But I also I typically don't have hard feelings.

Maybe there's been a few examples where I did. I'm actually trying to think about that. You know, when I debated Chris Cuomo, I actually didn't have any hard feelings. I'm sure he did. Well, he you know, I'll tell you the thing about that debate. That was probably the only debate I've ever been in where I really felt a serious animosity toward the guy while we were debating. But also that's because he was in such a position of power. Does he give off the weasel vibe? OK, you know how some people you'll meet them and they give off the weasel vibe? You know

what I mean? Like just their presence. You're like, ah, there's something about this guy that just the word cringe was invented for people like you. Well, OK, to be completely honest, I mentioned this. I did like a post debate episode about it. I saw the guy for like two minutes before the debate and maybe like five minutes afterward. So I am not in much more of a position than anyone who watched the debate to say what vibe they gave off. Cuomo was the thing about him is that he's kind of like a gym bro. So it's not exactly the Weasley vibe that you're used to. He's he's the vibe is more like he's a gym bro who was in a very powerful family. And I think always kind of felt guilty about just being a gym bro, even though like that's probably cooler than anything else your family has done. But you know what I mean?

But like he feels this is why Fredo upset him so much as an insult, because it was like, oh, they called you the dumb brother who didn't inherit the families. You know, that wasn't the true air. So there was a whole weird other vibe to him. But but maybe it's because that debate was so one sided. I didn't like harbor animosity after. But while I was in the debate and they were playing the clips of him, like mocking people for not getting the covid jab, I was getting. But legitimately more angry than I've ever been in the middle of a debate. Well, there was 100. I mean, I've done, I think, over 350 live debates now. So maybe I've just done a lot more.

And with a lot of progressives, and as you can imagine, progressives more, but, um, and with a lot of progressives and as you can imagine, progressives really, really, really don't like me. And so, um, so yeah, there's, it just depends, right? A lot of times there's no animosity afterwards just depends on the person, but sometimes, yeah, there's, uh, people, people lose their minds about it pretty bad. I've had a few, I had one, um, when I debated Dennis Prager. I thought I was like, this guy's not even going to shake my hand afterward. Like he's going to be. But he was actually really cool. It was actually totally fine after the debate. So that one threw me. That one was surprised. I haven't done 350, though. I'm sure if I did that many, I would probably have had a lot more who don't who don't like me. All right. Let me I want to I want to get into some

of the stuff about libertarianism and some of the stuff we were talking about in the debate. But I do want to ask you about this for nothing else, because I'm just very interested in a topic that I don't understand that much. But so I'll say, OK, I about a year ago, maybe a little over a year ago, I was on Tim pool show and I, I, uh, very just nothing I had planned or anything like that, but I ended up mocking. I was not talking about the whatever podcast I was, what I had in my mind was the, uh, the other one. Um, yes, the fresh and fit podcast. I think those are the two big ones in that space i've been on both okay okay okay fair i wasn't aware but but again i wasn't it wasn't like coming from like a venomous animal you know like i there was no animosity there i was just kind of joking around like the topic came up and i was like uh i was like oh what's with these shows where it's like these grown men debating

like club hoes like what is that like come, come on. And, and then I said something like where I was like, isn't all of their arguments to me just seem to be the most obvious thing that like everyone I knew in high school understood. Like, yeah, don't, don't marry a whore. No kidding. Like, of course, you know? And so I just said something like that kind of off the cuff and I got. So I heard back from some of the fans who were upset about that. But then I like I have a decent amount of young men who listen to my show. And I heard back from a lot of like my fan base and they were like, no, Dave, you don't understand.

This is actually what it's like out there right now. Like if you're if you're in your 20s trying to date, this is the type of stuff that we're dealing with. And as I heard that back several times over, I did kind of dawn on me that it's like I've been married with kids for a while now and I'm 41. And perhaps I was in that I was in the same boat. I was in the same exact boat. Well, that seems to kind of be the the perspective that you represent on these shows. And so it did kind of dawn on me that it's like, oh, maybe I really am not fully appreciating how toxic the kind of fourth wave feminist influence has been on young women and what young men have to deal with. So, like, what's your perspective on this? Having been on young women and what young men have to deal with. So like, what's your perspective on this having been on these shows many times? Well, it all started with first wave

feminism, really, but I'm not a fan of first wave either. I'm not a fan of any, any feminism. But so I was in the same boat at first, too. I've been married for a long time, over a decade. And, you know, I've been out of the dating pool for a long, long time and I'm just like, kind of like, what's all the hubbub about? Um, and you know, I've been invited on many different types of shows, different panel shows, things like this. Um, and IRL, I didn't do too much IRL work, but, um, but I had been on some IRL podcasts, so they invited me out to whatever. And I was like blown away by the absolute narcissism that came from these women. And the thing is, is I kind of the more you draw out, the more you realize that what is referred to as female narcissism is alive and well.

And the reason that it is is because of social media. media. So social media has created a kind of filtered image of what a woman is and has kind of replaced the ontology of what we would consider you guys like you and I would consider a woman like the grounding being of what one is. It's completely set it into 180 degree motion. And they're no longer what you think a woman would represent, but rather kind of the worst representation that you can imagine, kind of like the most Orwellian kind of representation of if you were going to mock everything that was feminine and invert it, that would be what you would be getting from these women. And what was interesting to me is I thought perhaps it was a setup as well, right? Maybe they're just kind of finding the worst of the worst of the worst, but that's not. So as it turns out, it doesn't matter which pool you draw from and which age bracket, uh, they seem to all have this same type of conclusion.

And what's happened is, um, they, they can compete now in a way that they never could for this kind of top bracket of men, which are available, let's say 20%. They're competing desperately. So men compete within hierarchies against each other. Women don't have hierarchies against each other. The only thing they compete for is men. That's it. That's the only competition women will ever really have. And so they, they're all competing in their twenties, thirties, and this referred to as hypergamy. And because they're all competing, they really only settle down now when they're, you know, in their early thirties or sometimes now in their forties. That's why we have such a, such a birth rate crisis. That's one of the big prime reasons. Well,

what ends up happening because of this is that because these kinds of higher status men, 15%, 20% will basically hump all of these women who want them to hump them, right? They don't care if men are like, whatever you're a four, I'll are like, whatever, you're a four. I'll tag it. Oh, you're a 10. I'll tag that too. Yeah, great. Hell, we'll do it one day after the next. It's fine with me, right?

They don't care. But for the women, that actually causes them to be socially devalued. So the more men they sleep with, the more socially devalued they are by other men. And so they become kind of what is referred to as leftovers, right? And they're kind of picking up men who are leftovers, who are the bottom tier and they don't really treat them very well. And it's not really a great life for them. So social media has enabled all of these women to begin to compete for that higher echelon of men. And that's never happened before in history. And we have no idea how to deal with this at all. There's like, there's just no, nobody has any clue. It is. As you said, I think you're probably right that social media is one of the huge culprits in this. I also, you know, there's others, there's just how far, and look, I agree with you. I have plenty of criticisms of first wave feminism and second wave feminism, but something has clearly changed, you know, like in the last

30 years. And this is why I don't even know how popular the term fourth wave feminism is. But third wave feminism was like the 90s. And there's something else going on, whatever you would classify this as. It's not. I really I really think it's it does boil down to social media. And I'll give you the reasoning behind it. Sure. So you can imagine in America, even going up to the eighties that you were a product of your friend group, right? Girls would spend hours and hours and hours on the phone. They had kind of their own social media that way.

Tell it. I mean, every eighties movie forever is making fun of it. Right. And every nineties movie, the girl on the telephone, dad comes in, get off the phone.

You know what I mean? Oh, you've been on it for hours. I need the line untied. It's every movie ever. But the social circles that you had were localized. Then you can't move out of localized circles. Right. This is all of human history. Your social circles are localized and now they're not they're not localized anymore. And so, you know, now you can you can put an ad out essentially in 15 minutes on 15 different dating websites and you can expand your range as far as you want or enclose it as far as you want. So you can expand your range to 500 miles to see if men will respond and give you what you want or 20 miles. You can never do that before. Yes. Okay. So I completely agree with you,

right? I've talked about this with my wife before, like just being like, like, okay, if you were, let's say if you were a hot chick in the nineties, you could kind of like, like, I mean, a young girl, you know, a hot chick in high school or 20 or something like that. You could kind of have your pick. Oh yeah. Right. Well in the, in your town and maybe in the towns that touched your town. But today, if you're a hot chick, you could put your picture on Instagram and just have people from everywhere, you know, millionaires willing to fly you out to wherever. So I 100 percent. That's a huge part of it. has been a cultural component where I, maybe this is just my own personal experience, but I felt like when I was in high school, let's say, even kind of like the slutty girls felt a little bit of shame about it.

You know, like even like, and I do think there was like a cultural component to almost trying to remove any sense of like feeling a shit. I mean, look again, when I was a kid, even the slutty girls, the idea that they would just have like, um, you know, naked pictures of themselves for all the guys in their high school to say would have been like, no one could have fathomed that even those girls would have been mortified if they had known. And now it seems like that's like,

I mean, I'm not saying every girl's doing that, but it certainly is much more normalized than ever. You're absolutely right. So what's happened is this, this is the strangest experiment that nobody ever knew was going to happen with the, the,

the advent of the internet. We got the drudge report. Yeah, this is the weirdest social experiment in history. And it'll be looked back on as just that as this kind of bizarre social experiment. So here's the experiment. We are going to assume for a second that men and women are equally virtuous. We equally have the capacity for virtue. So what you're talking about with like, I don't want to be a slut. I don't want to be a skank. I don't want to be that, you know,

I don't want to be looked down on in society that way. I don't want to be a teenage mom. You know what I mean? All those things, bad virtues, they don't want anything to do with it. Well, what happens in this social experiment then if we just assume for a second that all of these women, we can give them all this magic superpower. And the magic superpower is that the opposite sex between the ages of you being about, oh, I don't know, 16 and 29 are going to do anything they can do to have sex with you. Whatever it is, they're going to attempt to do that thing in order to have sex. Now, this is your great superpower, okay? And you can take this superpower now and take it global, right?

Before, everyone in your little domain, you all had your superpowers. Right. But you had to stay inside your little Petri dish. Right. Now we're going to make it airborne. Right. Now the virus is airborne and it goes all over the world. Let's say you flip the experiment, and this happened with men. You give all the men the same superpower, 16 to 29. All women of the world would basically do anything they could to sleep with basically any man who was alive, right? We wouldn't really be much better, right? We would be all kinds of fucked up. We'd be all kinds of messed up. We'd be all kinds of screwed up.

If we could take that global and just whatever chick we wanted, if we just paid a little bit of attention to them and they would give us whatever the hell we wanted, we really wouldn't be any better. So on the virtue scale, what's happened is because it has become a global phenomenon, the virtue has gone right out the fucking window. It's gone right out the window. Well, in a sense,

as I mean, as you're saying it, I've never really thought about that before, but as you're saying it, I think it would probably be worse. Worse. Because, well, if men had that, I just think nothing would ever get done. I think society would collapse. I mean, like if men did, if men just had access to sex, like on that level, on the level that like a 20 year old chick has, nothing would ever get built. Yeah, the whole thing would collapse. Exactly. The even but even in the reverse it's collapsing right it's still collapsing no because it was

only supposed to be applied at the local level right no i get your point i'm just saying so yeah there's a slow burn collapse right this way but i think the the point that I'm trying to get at is almost that one of the things that's so tragic about it is that and I have a whole bit about this in my in my stand up set. But the there are there are roles for men and women. And it's almost like what's so tragic is that the role for women is to not be that. That's the whole point. for women is to not be that. That's the whole point. The whole point of like a society is that obviously men are going to be dogs to some degree and men have to be civilized out of that. And you need kind of a good woman to kind of let you know, like, okay, I shouldn't just be chasing tail. I should be like kind of getting my life together a little bit. But we, in some sense, we count on

women to be the ones who aren't men. Right. Well, that's the tails. Women are acting like men. Right. Well, that's the tails end. Right. So you're talking about the masculine, like kind of the masculine flip. So you're talking about the feminine to masculine flip. But think about it the other direction, too. So this is where it gets really interesting. So if you think about it at a local level, this is kind of brilliant, right? God's plan here. Brilliant plan. So here's how it works.

It localized. You're going to have X amount of men, not very many who are these really high status guys. They kick the shit out of everybody. They make a lot of money. Everybody loves them. They think that they're great. They don't even particularly have to be handsome to be high status, right?

They get the hot cheerleader. They make the good looking babies. Right. They get the blow job for breakfast. That's what happens for those guys. Okay. They get the pick of the litter. Now, the thing is, is because they only get one, they only get one.

All the other little ugly fucks in the town. Right. There's still a chick for them. There's still somebody for them. Right. In fact, there's an overage because usually it's 51% to 50 or 49 when it comes to men and women. Right. There's still a chick for them. There's still somebody for them. Right. In fact, there's an overage because usually it's 51 percent to 50 or 49 when it comes to men and women. Right. And then men go off and die in wars and die on the job and shit like that. So there's usually a little bit of an overage. So you're going to get a chick. OK.

But what happens when you broaden that globally and you take that same cheerleader and now it's not just that one guy, that one Omega Chad. Now it's one million Omega Chad's and they can compete for all of them. So the thing is, is that localized is a brilliant plan. This works great. I mean, you couldn't ask for a better plan than this until you make it airborne, until you make it viral. Yeah. Well, I don't know God's plan. I guess maybe God didn't, uh, didn't think about social media or he's got something else in store. Well, the thing is, is the pendulum, the pendulum swings though. That's what, that's the interesting thing is that right now we're in the middle of trying to deal with the idea of transhumanism

and part of transhumanism is not the cyborg implants, but the fact that you and I can have this talk right now, this conversation, wherever it is that you are and wherever it is that I am with tens of thousands of people watching, right. And anybody can do this phenomenon at any time. That's part of transhumanism. That's part of this idea of kind of elitely leaving your body and leaping into the next kind of age of man. But right now we're trying to become socially adept at taking these technologies, which are so advanced and so new to us, and kind of figuring out a way to coexist with them. And we're not doing a good job because they're outpacing our ability to get used to them. You know, if you look at leaps in technology before you take a look at like trains and

things like that, they were around for a long time. People got used to them because they were around for a long time. Now it's like, I don't even know what fucking cell phone we're on. I don't even know what cell phone we're on. I don't know what iPad we're on. I couldn't tell you the latest computer chipset. I couldn't tell you any of that shit. Yeah, well, it has been the

exponential growth has been pretty incredible. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is arms list dot com. It is America's firearms marketplace, unwavering in their belief of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Arms list dot com has been in the fight for our Second Amendment rights with multiple court victories, protecting your right to bear arms. ArmsList.com is not only at the forefront of the fight for your rights, it's your go-to platform to buy, sell, and trade firearms, ammo, optics, and more locally. Or tap into their nationwide network of firearms dealers. Arms List has over 90,000 active listings with a ton of unique items

to shop for and deals to be found. For a limited time, Arms List is extending an exclusive discount to part of the problem listeners. Head to armslist.com and use the coupon code problem to get your first month of premium membership for just 99 cents. Join the fight and come and get what they want to take right now at armslist.com. And once more, if you use the promo code problem, you'll receive the first month of premium membership for just ninety nine cents. That's arms list dot com promo code problem for the first month of premier membership for just ninety nine cents. All right. Let's get back into the show. Look, I hate the term the pendulum swinging because it's always it's often used in a lazy manner.

Cause it's always, it's often used in a lazy manner. And I think that, you know, it can often be like a coping mechanism for people who are losing to go, ah, the pendulum's going to swing. And you're like, yeah, I'm sure there were some people in like the thirties in, in the Soviet union who were like, ah, you know, things have gotten pretty crazy. That pendulum is going to swing back. And it's like, yeah, not till the nineties. So you got some time, but that being said, it does feel like on many different levels, there has been, you know, the full blown woke ism has only really existed

for less than 15 years. And it does seem like something different is happening over these last couple of years. And I think COVID had a lot to do with this. I think there were a lot of things that were just like a large percentage of the population was kind of like, this is enough. We're pushing back against this now. The trans kids thing has a lot to do with that. Like that was kind of a line in the sand, I think, for a lot of people. But look, the overwhelming thing from what I've seen of of the whatever

podcast and fresh and fit and stuff like that, my over it makes me deeply sad. Well, the thing is, that's good, though, right? The visceral response is good to kind of shock you out of apathy. So so what's happening, what's happening here on a global scale is unprecedented and is not yet even talked about. People don't actually even know why they're moving towards this content or why they're fascinated by the interd this idea of hypergamy and the idea of competing. Now you can compete for the most high status men on planet earth. Even if you're, you know, mid four, right, you can still throw your hat in the arena. And this has just never been done before. The social experiment has never, the potential for it was never even there. There just wasn't any, if you were one of those lucky girls who flew around the world and met all the, you know, kind of rich, hot guys and the basketball players and the football players, you were really one of the few. You know, that was not available to most women.

Now it's available to all of them. Now there's kind of just normal women sleeping with celebrities. There's normal women sleeping with football players. There's just really kind of normies. They're not even in the groupies in the bands anymore. You don't even have to be a groupie. You don't even have to follow the band around. You can just kind of show up at a gig, right? And away you go. And this is, again, because the social experiment is so new, we have no answer for it. Nobody's figured out any sort of solutions for this. And so it's fascinating to people, right. And baffling at the same time.

And I'm not, I'm, I'm still, I've been, I've been working on this kind of project for about two years trying to get this figured out. And I'm no closer to, uh, to really having answers today than I was when I started, to be honest with you. Well, it seems, I mean, it seems like there are a few basic answers that jump out, um, that, you know, are not that I'm coming up with anything you haven't figured out already. But a few basic ones are that, number one, we got to convince young men that they don't want to that buying into this game is a bad idea and that they should not. You shouldn't be just trying to bang whatever for you can. and that they should not you shouldn't be just trying to bang whatever for you can and you should and listen i'm saying this is somebody who like i am not trying to be holier than thou before i got married and settled down i lived a very degenerate lifestyle and i was a thing right we all did yeah

yeah but we all did but i'll tell you so how do you have the expectation that you know the the up-and-coming 21 year old who's getting a blowjob behind the club like you were? It's like 10 years ago, you want to high five the guy, right? You want to walk down and be like, hey, nice job, buddy. Tell me I'm lying. So, no, I won't. No, I can't. But I will say that.

OK, so I remember I had a I had this talk with like a young man who's a family friend. So this is years ago. He's a little older now, but this is what he was like 20 or something like that. And he was at college. And he told me this story about a friend of his. And he knew the guy involved and he knew the girl involved very well. And essentially, it was probably what is a very typical college campus story where this girl was very interested in this guy they finally uh they had a drunken hookup one night and

he basically was telling me that he knew the story was that she wanted more out of him uh he was not interested in like committing to her or anything like that. And then she went around and started telling people that he basically date raped her. And I was talking to this guy who is somebody who I, you know, is a close family friend who I love. And I was telling him, I was like, look, here's the reality you in, because this is like at the height of the me too movement. This is just a few years ago. Right. And I said to him, I was like, look, here's my advice for you. Okay. You cannot have drunk in one night stands. It's just not okay anymore. In my day, you could just do that. That was just kind of part of life. We all just kind of, we all accepted that we were

adults and had adult responsibility. And if you were out at the bar at last call, you could meet someone, go home with them for the night. And that was that you I go, that's not the world we live in anymore. And I'll tell you, you can't do that anymore. Now, it might sound like I'm saying, hey, it was OK for me to do this thing, but it's not OK for you. But I was like, look, just to be honest, looking back on it now, my life is no worse if I never had a single one of those encounters.

None of that actually matters. It doesn't bring you anything of value. It's over in a second. And what's your materialism? That's right. And look, it's one of the things, you know, as you're talking about, I do. I completely agree with you that I think one of the one of the groups of big losers is like just regular guys who in the past it would have been much easier for them to find a loyal wife. And now they've got to compete with the upper echelon of men. But I also just feel like every one of those girls, at least of the clips I've seen, every one of those girls who you're talking to, I feel like you are losing so much in this.

Like the whole system was set up for you, the whole system. I know they want to define everything, but that's the social. That's a great part of the social experiment. Well, well, right. But they define everything pre feminism as being patriarchy or something like that. When when in actuality, the way the system was set up was like, OK, we have these natural impulses. Guys want to get laid. And so the old system was like, hey, you want to get laid? Well, before you can do that, you have to commit to this woman for life.

Well, well, actually, it was interesting. The system pre-feminism was actually much more rigorous on this woman for life. Well, well, it's actually it was interesting. The system pre feminism was actually much more rigorous on the woman's side. They had a sisterhood, an actual sisterhood. Right. And so how this sisterhood worked was like this. If there was a woman who was being a skank or, you know, this type of thing or going after the various men, they would take care of that problem. And the reason that they would is because they were like, look, you're going to fuck this up for everybody.

You're going to fuck this up for all of us. Okay. If these dudes realize that they can get this from us, right. And they don't have to pay, they don't have to, you know, pay, take care of us, nothing. They're, they're, they're not going to, okay. They're just going to do this and they're not going to do that other part that we like, which is to basically sit on our asses at home for most of our lives.

Right. Where they take care of almost everything. And it was it was a glorious exchange from the man and woman's perspective. It was a pretty glorious exchange. Right. The men didn't give a shit. They were happy with that. Hey, you had my kids. You cook the meals. If you have a bit of luxury, modernity, perfect. I don't care. You know, the 1920s, 1910s, not a bad time to be a woman, I got to tell you. And they lived pretty comfy lives. And they had that sisterhood made sense then. Now the sisterhood is different.

Now they actually, because they make these choices early in life to devalue themselves through degeneracy, the sisterhood actually pushes women who want to stay chaste towards that lifestyle. And what it is, is pulling up the ladder behind them, right? They're going, okay, what we're going to do is this. We can't have you, Mrs. Virgin, pretty Midwest girl, go after these high value men who don't want me anymore because I fucked 30 dudes behind an Arby's one night. Instead, instead, what we're going to do is we're going

to push you into that same lifestyle and tell you, no, you don't want that. These men are all bad. They're just taking advantage of you. Why even save yourself? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? That's what they're doing. So now the sisterhood's totally counterintuitive. It's doing the opposite of what it used to do, which is insane. That's the result of feminism. Well, yeah, I, well, I agree. I agree. And I think it is the result of feminism. I think that I think women are, um, uh, generally speaking more, they're more easily led. Oh yeah. Then men are right. So women kind of like to, and this is something that I think almost everybody who knows women know, I think most women, if they're being honest, would admit this. Uh, women are very likely to take on the characteristics of the guy

they're with. Uh, they're much more likely to like a woman will tell you, this is what I want. And this is what I want. And then some guy will come around and be like, no, you don't want that. You want this. And they'll go, yep, you're right. That's actually what I want. And so I just think that when all of it were to eat, right? Yes. Yes. You have to read their mind. That's how that works. You know this. You're a married man. But it is what what most women really want is somebody to lead them. And this is, again, I think this is built into how we were created. This is the inherent dynamics in us. And the problem is that when all of the cultural forces and all of the kind of quote leaders are pushing women in this direction, they tend to fall into it. And, you know, I'll say the thing that is, and I'm sure you feel this way too,

because I know you're married and you got, you got kids that there's something really sad on all, for all parties involved. Even when you see like a girl, even if she's like a gorgeous girl and she's 25 and she's on only fans or whatever, you know, a lot of the girls you talk to in there, they're making a ton of money. You're like, yeah, but you've, oh my God, talk about a thousand bargain. Like you, you've sold your soul. You sold out and forget even whether you're, you're religious or not. You could be a complete atheist. What I'm saying is that imagine selling out the second half of your life for a little bit of gain in the first half you know it's worse it's worse um i used to feel bad i used to feel uh uh you know bad for a lot of these

women uh kind of had the same take you did where you're just like this is sad right this is just sad what's going until i started to engage with them for just hours and hours and hours and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different women. I realized something important. I started asking this this question and the hypothetical goes something like this. There's many different variations I ask it in, but I'll just kind of give you the crux of it. If we're coming to the very last generation of humanity, OK, and it's going to be the most comfortable that you've ever lived, that every woman has ever lived. But that's going to be the last generation. Or we introduce just a modicum of discomfort, a little bit of discomfort.

And through that discomfort, the human species continues on. Right. Which would you prefer? And every single woman without flaw says, well, that's the end of the human race. That's the end of the human species. Because what has what has happened is this what what you the way I phrase is like the superpower. Right. That then creates the simp culture. It creates narcissists out of these women and they they literally can't turn it off even when it's gone.

So even after the beauty is gone and they're gross and men aren't opening the doors and they're not carrying the groceries and they're not sniffing all around to get some right. They still can't shut it off. It's now embedded in them. And so at that point, they become a problem. They actually some of them become mentally ill or they end up living alone for the rest of their life. And, and again, pulling the ladder up for other women, telling, making them, you know, doing the homemaking thing where it's like, no, go out and sleep with as many dudes as you can. I did. And my life is great. Meanwhile, they're fucking miserable in their cat houses. Right. Um, so no,

so I used to kind of feel a lot worse for them until i realized that uh a lot of them are just fucking horrible dave they're just really fucking horrible people and when given the opportunity of having that spider-man-esque choice of with great power comes great responsibility right they went fuck that through the responsibility over their shoulder and just took the power. OK, so I certainly I understand what you're saying. And I've this is something I've mentioned before on the show as a critique of like our generation in general, not just women or not just people who don't get married. But there is something about, you know, feeling a responsibility toward the next generation and feeling, and you could have this even if you don't have kids.

They're not even having a next generation. Makes it a lot easier if you do have kids, by the way. But yeah, no, but I just mean that it's kind of like, look, as you were mentioning earlier, right? Me and you can have this conversation right now. In a previous time, we never would have been able to meet each other, let alone, you know, like have this conversation in front of it'll be a couple hundred thousand people by the time this is all out there. And but previously, if we ever I mean, when I say previously, I mean, like when we were kids, if anyone wanted to have you would have had to be gotten a job from some corporation. We never could have spoke freely in the way that me and you are speaking right now. But even beyond that, I mean, the fact that like we have life saving medications and we have air conditioning and we have all these things that just, you know, pain, extreme comfort, extreme comfort compared to every previous

generation. And the reason not only that we, the reason we exist is because previous generations have had kids. And the reason we have this extreme comfort is because previous generations have worked their fingers to the bone. And then to take all of that and say, I feel no obligation to the next generation. Just it's so profoundly horrible, like and selfish that it's just but so now you're getting it profoundly horrible and selfish. Exactly. Yes, exactly. And this is this is female narcissism and modernity and all those guys who are DMing you. Right. It's really hard. Right. I feel terrible for him. And that's why I always say when I debate, I'm a representation of a worldview. Right. If I can articulate what I

know you mean and I can just do it better than you can, then then great. Right. I'm going to do that. And that's what they're trying to say. Right. When they're DMing you, they're like, look, dude, this is so fucked up out here and they can can't even tell you why they're just like this one time, this horrible chick did this, this one time, this other one did this. What they're all alluding to is this female, this version of female narcissism and modernity. That's what they're really pointing at. They just can't verbalize it. Well, so I agree with that. And I feel the same way often in debates that like, yeah, okay, I can kind of express this a little bit better than a lot of people who want to express this thing. So let me

make sure I do a good job on that. But I also, I just returned back to my, and look, I also just this weekend, I happened to my oldest kid finished preschool. And which is like, I don't know if you got little kids, it's kind of an emotional moment when your kid finishes preschool. which is like, I don't know if you got little kids, it's kind of an emotional moment when your kid finishes preschool. Cause they're, you know, it's like, I don't know, they were just a baby and now they're like becoming a kid. And then the next day she had her first dance recital ever. And I just had a weekend just like with a lot of like extended family and my little kids and just, and it was just like the best. And I think for most people, and I'm somebody who has like, I don't know, within the spectrum of like careers that you could have and how

rewarding they are and how much you love them. I'm pretty high up on that spectrum. Like most, most people aren't me and you, they don't do what we kind of love to do for a living. And, and, you. They don't do what we kind of love to do for a living. And all of that means nothing. It means nothing compared to like this weekend that I just spent with my little kids and my wife and my extended family. Came from dirt, man. It came from dirt. I was a ground pounder. I mean, what I'm doing is working 60 hours a week inside of the coldest and hottest environments you could ever imagine in some of the mostest and and hottest environments you could ever imagine in some of the most horrible conditions you can imagine inside food factories fixing robots it's a ghoulish job right it paid well but it's a ghoulish job and it's like um i i get i i

understand completely um kind of the uh the observation from the the higher up view right that man i'm really lucky that I'm in this situation. That's what Dave Smith's saying, right? I'm really lucky I'm in this situation. I have it better than way more people, and it still doesn't matter because materialism ultimately, who gives a shit? If you have a family, you completely reject it, right?

Yeah, well, you just understand what really matters. You have a hierarchy of values. And so I guess that's just my point that I know those, a lot of those chicks end up lying and saying that they're really happy, but I don't know, both me and you can just see through that. You're like, no, this is really, would you ever give a man that benefit of the doubt? Yeah, sure. I mean, or would you, or would you hold up to a higher account? Um, well, no, I mean, I would still think it was very sad. I'm not saying there's like nothing

reprehensible about these women i'm just saying that it's still tragic and yeah i would feel that way about it what i've noticed is that with with men men are often held to account like if i said the kind of horrible fucking shit that these women say dude uh if i if I were to say some of the I mean, just horrific, you can't even imagine. OK, I'd be tarred and feathered. OK, I mean, people would people would throw things at me in the street. They would. And I would deserve it. I would be held to account for it. This kind of given a pass. And the reason that they're given a pass on this is essentially because men who also live inside of a gynocentric feminized society, they have been taught that women don't do wrong things. Men are abusers. Men are the beaters. Men are the ones who are doing all the domestic violence. Men are the ones walking out on their

kids. Men are the ones who are the violent, evil element of society. Not women. Women are great. They're fantastic. They teach are great. They're fantastic. They teach your children. They're kind. They don't even fart, Dave, right? They're perfect. And so the thing is, is because it's so ingrained in you. Remember, all your elementary school teachers, they were women.

Your high school school teachers, right? You had a couple who were men. Most of them were women. Most of the education field is women, and they pump you full of estrogenic belief structures that have no business being in a man's mind to begin with. None. No business. 100%.

So, okay. So I agree with you on that. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Nevin Eyewear. I got to tell you guys, this is my favorite sunglass company, Nevin Eyewear. The sunglasses are a steal. Crisp lenses and a ton of styles at fantastic prices. Check out Nevin Eyewear. If you're like me, you've bought really expensive sunglasses and lost or broken them, or you just grab pairs from the gas station or

convenience store, and then you don't look good and you don't like the lenses, and it's just, it's, you kind of regret buying them. Nevin Eyewear has polarized lenses and you're going to love the clarity of the shaded lenses. So fans of this show, if you want to try a pair of regular sunglasses, we have the hookup with 50% off on any one regular pair with the code problem. Or if you want to stock up, you can get their buy one, get two free deal. You should know these discounts aren't available on prescriptions, but check them out. NevinEyewear.com for quality shades at a great price. NevinEyewear.com slash discount slash problem. That's the website you want to go to to get the best possible deal. Nevaniware.com slash discount slash problem. All right, let's

get back into the show where I might disagree with you slightly, although I don't know if I disagree with you that much, but I think that, um, I think in many ways, um, being like, if you're talking about the propaganda machine, being taught that you're the perpetual victim can often be more damaging than being taught that you are the perpetual victimizer. I don't think that, you know, like, for example, if I had, you know, I don't have kids this age, but, and my kids won't be going to like crazy liberal art schools, but like, if you had a, yeah, no, that won't happen. Uh, but if you had like, um, a 20 year old, uh, white male son who was in a, you know, some liberal arts college being taught that they are the colonizers and they're the evil ones and all of this. I certainly would object to that. If I had a 20 year old black son who was being taught in that same liberal arts school that he is a perpetual victim and that society is out to get him and that everything bad that ever happened

to him happened because of systemic racism. I if I had to pick, I actually think the latter is more damaging. And again, I'm not saying all of it is horrible. You know what I mean? But there is something about like what the culture has pushed on young girls, particularly when I do also think that I can encapsulate this idea. Sure. Right. Sure. What you're referring to is what's referred to as schrodinger's feminist okay here's how schrodinger's feminist works

i'm a badass boss bitch ceo and i am fucking epic and awesome in every way the patriarchy abuses me the patriarchy has made it so that i can't work the patriarchy has made it so that i don't make the same amount of money as men the patriarchy has made it so that I can't work. The patriarchy has made it so that I don't make the same amount of money as men. The patriarchy has made it so that I'm just looked at as a woman society. That's what they look at it. Right. What you're what you're trying to encapsulate here is this idea when you're talking about this kind of like cultural push in on a woman's heart. Right. And a girl's heart versus a man's heart. It's, it's really the idea of Schrodinger's feminist. You're a victim while at the same time, you're not victimized, right? You're, you're oppressed while at the same time, you can be in the highest echelons oppressing

others, right? It's, it's a complete and total duality of expression and culture towards women. And of course it's going to breed a narcissistic style personality, right? How could it not? You have no responsibilities while at the same time, you could be at the highest echelon. It's like that's an insane message, right? Yeah, no, it sure is. But it's Schrodinger's. It's called Schrodinger's Feminist. And that's really what I think you're trying to encapsulate there. Yeah, well, I guess all I'm saying is that I do. Yeah, well, I guess all I'm saying is that I do I do feel bad for women in that situation. And then also and this is my own, you know, whatever sexism, for lack of a better term, is that I also think that like I think women and girls are are more susceptible to this type of thing. And actually it's like a complete inverse of the feminist narrative, which is the feminist narrative is something like men had their boots on our

throats until we finally fought our way out. Or men allowed us. With our words. We use really strong language and they just complied. Which makes no sense whatsoever. But my version of this is more like men always understood that women were the gentler sex and needed to be so captured by these institutions and this propaganda that the most natural thing in what, listen, man, dude, and I remember this even from my day. And I'm talking about growing up as like a nineties kid. I did not grow up as a 1930s kid. I'm not saying like in some far away time that you can't even, I'm saying even then, even with no like presence of God and chivalry and all of these traditions were already gone by the nineties. I got it. I got it. I got it. Well, let me just say, yeah, I'm sorry. But women, when they got into their twenties, started having baby fever and they all wanted to settle down and get married because it's just, it's so in them.

And we, as men in our society have so like lost the plot that we stopped protecting women and allowing them to be what they were supposed to be. Got to be careful. There's a, well, it's a, it's actually a very feminist take. So, so here, let me explain. Yeah. Let me explain why I thought I was being a real chauvinist about it. I know, I know not. Well, I mean, you would be considered a chauvinist by a feminist standpoint, right? But the feminists have even lost the plot of the original feminists who are even in some ways worse, right? The original protectors here were not men. They were women. The original protectors of women's messaging were women.

So the original suffrage which happened, right? The suffragettes were completely outgunned and outmanned. Women didn't want the vote. They didn't want nothing to do with that shit. They don't want any of those responsibilities. They don't want any of it. They had great propaganda. And what they had more than anything was they had the moral high ground. They said, if we're not part of the political apparatus, we can go after women's issues and we can't be used. We can't be used because they can't buy us. They can't buy our votes. Right. So we always have the certitude of the moral high ground, whereas we're going to give that up if we become political

pawns. These were the anti-suffragette arguments. Right. And they were good arguments and they hit home. And what they said was and I can send you a whole ton uh in fact my wife's book occult feminism you should check it out it has a lot of this in there um but originally what they were saying to him is if you allow this to happen women are going to become total narcissists they're going to become completely narcissistic and they basically called modernity before modernity happened now they had it didn't quite map on because it couldn't foresee technology. But I mean, it's close enough. And what they said is, look, you're going to fuck it up for everybody.

Stop. And it was actually men. It was men, these rich industrialists who are behind this like, well, you probably know some of the names, but some rich industrialists who were behind this really pushing it in because they wanted these women in their factories. They wanted them in there to work for cheap. They wanted to expand the labor pool so that they could expand GDP. It was all it was all I mean, industrialism did a lot of this. And so then they were really pushing for it. They were funding it the whole nine yards.

So women actually were gatekeeping their virtue far better than men ever did. And but now if a woman comes and tries to gatekeep virtue again, what ends up happening is the women tear her down. You're a pick me. You're a you know what I mean? You're a pick me, girl. You're you're a you're just trying to, you know, suck up to the men. You're just any type of of female pushback towards. Well, wait a second. Maybe just don't fuck every guy that you see who has a nice wallet or a good head of hair. They get ripped to shreds. And so I think that now I don't think really that men were the falter in women's virtue. I think that women always kind of governed their virtue by necessity and they just don't, they just don't do it anymore. But you know who does men,

we very much govern each other's virtue. If you're a piece of shit, you get beat up, right? You get beat up. If you scam somebody, you get beat up. If you, if you fuck around, you know, the fuck around, find out that's a real thing, right? That's a real thing. Men still do it. I mean, if you take a show too far, you might get punched in the mouth. A guy might walk on the stage and be like, bam. And the viewers who are watching it might go, yeah, the fucking guy deserved that, right? He took it too far. He deserved it. Fuck him. He got smacked. And you know what? You, the guy who got smacked, might not even be that upset. You might be like, yeah, I had it coming, right? That's all people or men holding men to account, men governing each other's virtue. It's all gone

with women. It's all torn down. There's none of that. But that but that. OK, yeah. But that level of like accountability being held to accountability by peers. I don't know if that ever existed for women. That is that is something that separates men from women as that. And it's not even the fact that say, like if I'm doing a show, if I cross the line, someone could punch me in the mouth and everyone in the room would go, yeah,

he had it coming. He had it coming. It's that we've grown up with that our entire lives. That is so internalized within us that you always through every interaction in life know that you could be violently assaulted and everyone will still look at you like you had it coming and this is the yeah you're right anything like that well you're totally right but i mean they they do but let me you're i mean you're right but let me kind of explain one distinction quickly um so we're talking about the ontology of the being the thing the core that makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman.

You can't really go with traits because there's women who are brave. There's men who are brave. There's men who are, you know, they talk a little bit softer and there's men who talk or women who talk a little bit deeper. Right. You can't really equate it trait to trait. Right. We all have some kind of similarity in traits. Men, yes, I would say we're higher in what you would consider masculine traits, but if there's overlap to women, you don't not consider them women anymore, right? You just don't because there's something more key there. There's an essence, right? So in the Orthodox belief, the Orthodox Christian belief, when we're talking about essence, the thing itself,

So in the Orthodox belief, the Orthodox Christian belief, when we're talking about essence, the thing itself, you absorb what to be a man is in the very air you breathe and the company you keep and everything that's going on around you. You absorb it. It can't be explained. It can't really be articulated. It can't be defined. And it doesn't need to be because we've captured the essence. When I say the word man, we've captured everything that that's supposed to be because we've lived it, breathe it, are it right. We don't, we can't even describe it. We don't need to the same, but with women, it's the same thing. They get everything, which is woman, which is feminine, uh, you know, kind of beamed into their head the

same exact way through every type of environmental interaction they have with all of the people who are around them, all of the women who are around them, they become finally to be what their ontology is meant to be. That's all fucked, right? That's all fucked. But for men, it won't be because we don't have the superpower, right? That superpower, that's the inverter, right? The fact that so many men will do anything to sniff around some low tier poon creates this magnification of power dynamics, which never was so. And that's really kind of the core of what it is that you're trying to attack or what you're trying to get at. But the answer is pretty elusive. Like, how do you actually attack that problem? I don't know. Well, I mean, you know, anecdotally, at least in my life, I do still think that the, you know, probably the best answer still is to, for men at least,

is to like get married and have kids and stay together. Stay with your wife. Because I will say that the women who have two parents or the girls who grow up to be women who have two parents in the household and have a good relationship with their father still is in these even in these crazy days. That's the best lifeline you could have. How do you push? But here's the thing. You're right. You're absolutely right.

The backbone of the entirety of Western society is the idea of the cross-generational nuclear family. Right. Cross-generational family. We love that. We love the nuclear family. We love that. Both dynamics are perfect. They're great. And they exist. They've coexisted inside of the West forever and ever and ever. And they and still that's going to be a thing that we're always missing. We're always yearning for, right? We want to see more of it, but do you know why that it's a status symbol? People forget that it's a status symbol for men having a family, right? Having children, uh, and having an intact of your family with a wife that loves you and children who adore you. That's a high, high status symbol. It's a high status symbol. In fact, it's such a high status symbol. Your employers are more likely to trust you. Your friends are more likely to trust you. Almost everybody is more likely to do for you just because of the status of you having a family than they are for somebody who's single. There's a good reason for that, for that status symbol. Again, all totally fucked up,

right? All totally fucked up. And that status symbol has now been inverted. And now the status symbol is the opposite direction. If you have a nuclear family, you're one of these fucking patriarchal lunatics who wants to destroy the very fabric of progress itself, Dave. Well, okay. Yeah, no, I get your point. But also there is still an element there

where there's like, there's real life life and then there's like liberal cities and online where like I just because as you say, I do literally and I don't know if I've even like thought about it exactly like this before. But there is like when I'm out with my wife and kids, there is a certain feeling of pride that I have. And a certain feeling of status. Yeah. A feeling of pride that I have. And a certain feeling of status. Yeah, a feeling of status. When someone knocks on your door, they call your wife Mrs. Smith, right? Yep. And if Mrs. Smith is stranded on the side of the road and somebody pulls over and she has her wedding ring on, and they're like, oh, man, you know, let us get you back on the road.

I'm sure your husband's worried sick, right? And I'm sure you've done that yourself, right? So the thing is, is that, yeah, there's a status which comes with this, and it's a much higher status. And that's another reason that it has been totally forgotten about, by the way, that that is the kind of ultimate anti-materialist fuck you status symbol, which is available. But why do you think that's always under assault? It's always under assault everywhere. I mean, if you look at everything in the liberal progressive media, that dynamic totally under assault. Women are in charge of the household, not men. It's my two dads, my two moms, my, you know, or my polygamous marriage or any number of different family

dynamics which are pushed except that one. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is sheathunderwear.com, the underwear of legends, the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will ever own. The only underwear I ever put on my body at this point. And here's something crazy. Sheath has been advertising on our podcast for over three years now. And I literally, I still have the first pairs they sent me when they signed on as a brand new sponsor. I was like, who is this underwear company? They sent me three pairs of sheath underwear.

I put them on and I was like, these are really good boxer briefs. Like, I think these are the best boxer briefs I've ever put on my body. And I'll tell you, I still have those three pairs today, more than three years later. And they still feel as good as the first time I put them on. And of course, I've bought a lot more since then and thrown out all my other underwear. All I ever wear is sheath underwear. Anytime you ever see me, I am in a pair of sheath underwear. Anytime you ever hear me, I'm in a pair of sheath underwear.

Anytime you ever think of me, think of me in sheath underwear. A longtime sponsor of this show, a company run by great guys. Please support our longtime sponsor by going to sheathunderwear.com. And while you're at it, get the best, most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will ever own. And if you use the promo code PROBLEM20, you're going to get 20% off your next order. Sheathunderwear.com, promo code PROBLEM20 get 20% off your next order. Sheathunderwear.com promo code problem 20 for 20% off your next order. All right, let's get back into the show. Okay. So I could,

that's actually a good, that's a good question to ask where we could transition a little bit into kind of the, the stuff we were debating about the other day. But I do think that a huge part of that, a reason why that's under assault is because I do think, look, in in the environment that we're in today, where we live under, you know, not just a modern centralized nation state, but the biggest, most powerful one in the history of the world. I do think that big government always sees family and religion and community as their rivals. And I don't think it's a coincidence that as power in Washington, D.C. has ballooned to the highest point that it's ever existed, the highest point any government power has ever existed, that there's been a systemic attack on the family. And yeah, I think there's a real connection there. Do you not? Well, I do. But I let me give let me give a slight amount of pushback here.

Sure. So let me let us back up a little bit. Let me ask you this question. me give a slight amount of pushback here. So let me let us back up a little bit. Let me ask you this question. If 75 percent of divorces are initiated by women, I don't think it's quite that high, but let's just assume it is. OK, it's the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Why do you think that is? OK, so I would say that there's well, there's again, with any question like that, there's many reasons. Sure. But a huge portion of a huge percentage of that is that all of the laws are stacked in women's advantages and that that, you know, look, there's this kind of like natural order where typically speaking, women, you know, like when when those chicks you'll be arguing with will talk about the wage gap and then you or one of the other guys on the show will explain to them that it's like, have you ever even looked into the wage gap?

Do you know what that is? It's like, okay, well, here's why. One of the big reasons why there's a wage gap is because you guys have the babies. And typically speaking, after you have the babies, you have to nurse the babies and you have to take care of the babies. And someone's got to stay with the babies, you have to nurse the babies and you have to take care of the babies. And someone's got to stay with the babies. And it tends to make more sense for the men to be the breadwinners and to be the ones working, especially since we don't even know what to do with the freaking babies when they're newborns. And you guys have it all genetically encoded into

you. And so the natural order or the natural market order, if you want to look at it that way, would be that the man has this really big bargaining chip that is like, hey, if you were to leave me, your life is going to be way, way harder than if you stayed with me. But then the government comes in. Well, so that's that's a sticking point. That's so that's why I wanted to kind of get your your out. Well, just just to be clear, because my argument is that the law comes in and says that actually, no, you're entitled to half of what he has, if not more, that we're going to give you all the services in the world, that we're going to have the you know, the the entire system is. But it's done via contract favor of the woman. But it's done via a contract. It's done with a non-coercive contract you you so for instance

right now you can have all of the same perks that you get from being married without being married right you can go in you in fact you can go in your backyard tomorrow and you can say i declare myself married put on a ring your girl puts on the ring and i mean who the fuck is anybody to say that they're not right who who is anybody to say that they're not right? Who is anybody to say that they're not in libertarian land? You really couldn't. Right. You couldn't really say who's who's married, who's not. They just kind of declare it. They're willingly signing these things, willingly signing these contracts. So explain this to me. And this is this is a sticking point, right?

Big government or small government, anything in between. this is a sticking point, right? Big government or small government, anything in between. If women can adopt contracts and understand that they can adopt contracts that fucking men will sign, they will sign those contracts in order to get access to what the women have. How's that going to solve that problem? Well, even without the large government or small government, that's what I don't get. Sure. So I think that, well, first of all, it's not completely true what you're saying. I mean, there are in many states, not every state, but in many states, there are like these common law marriage rules where even if you just live with a chick and have kids with her, even if you didn't sign any contract, you're basically still on the hook for as if you married her, that does vary state to state. Not only does it vary, but common law in no way, shape or form is the same type of reflection that you would get only in, like, I think, three states as as though you went

and got an actual contractual marriage. There is some things that can happen around common law in some of the states that can be kind of brutal. But there's many states where it's not even a thing. It's not even a big problem. So let's assume you're in one of the states that can be kind of brutal. But there's many states where it's not even a thing. It's not even a big problem. So let's assume you're in one of those states and it still has the same, the same divorce rate is still high. Right.

But it's not, it's not genuinely a contractual agreement. I mean, what happened is that there is this cultural institution called marriage, which men have been, and women have been engaging in for, you know, from the beginning of civilization. Totally agree. And all of the sudden the rules have switched now. And it's not it's not as if like men, when they get married, sign a contract that says, hey,

if this doesn't work out, you get 50 percent of what I own and all of the rules will be rigged against me and all of that. All you do is sign a marriage certificate. You may know or you may not know that the rules are rigged against you, but this is not in any meaningful sense like a contract that you entered into. Sure it is. I mean, you're entering into this contract, which is easier to break than a cell phone contract, right? It's easier to break than a cell phone contract.

The difference also is that with a cell phone contract. What is the incentive with a cell phone? You sign a contract that has marriage. You're signing a contract to you're signing off on the marriage license and the contractual obligations that come with that. Okay. In some abstract sense, what I mean is that the standard for say, like signing a cell phone contract is that all of the like blue, all of the fine print has to be written out on a piece of paper. Now, to your point, no one actually reads that stuff. Fair enough. But I'm just saying none of that's even on a piece of paper for marriage. This is something that politicians just changed. And everyone's kind of embarking on this same old system of what has always been

considered marriage. And now all of the chips are so much information now about what happens to men during divorces. There's so much overwhelming information. You can't get away from it if you wanted to. They're still signing the contracts because they want access to these chicks. So I'm asking what I'm asking, I guess, in a non abstract way, chicks. So I'm asking what I'm asking, I guess, in a non abstract way, if we were to have libertarian land, right in it, by the way, it the this wasn't me, to be completely honest, one of the chatters that I have, though, said it was nine, only nine states have common law practice. I knew it was small, but I didn't know how small. So anyway, inside of libertarian land, where you're free to make contractual agreements of any kind absent coercion.

Right. What the fuck would actually stop women from drafting this similar style or vulturous lawyers from drafting up one of these vulture like contracts and men who are puppy eyed and want that poon sign them. I mean, it seems like they do it now. Right. So I get your point. But I think the the the counter to this, is that this is often the critique of libertarianism that you get, right, is that you go like, well, in libertarian land, what would stop you from doing this? But, of course, the question is always compare to what? So, yes, perhaps in libertarian land, there could be some women who drew up really awful contracts.

libertarian land, there could be some women who drew up really awful contracts. But at least in that situation, the man would get to read the contract, go, yo, this woman just wrote up this crazy contract for you. This would stand out as a little bit less than normal. Whereas compared to what we have today, it just happens by decree from politicians. So they need all we're left with? Everybody, including, now, by the way, I think me and you both have probably, my guess is, not knowing you that well personally, but my assumption is me and you both

have stronger marriages than that, and that wouldn't be the case. But Andrew, just think about it like this. Me and you have both signed those contracts. How do you know? Essentially, we have. have yes we are both married right yeah both legally married yeah so we've essentially agreed to what the rules of this jurisdiction are by your definition we've both signed these contracts yeah but i mean you gotta

you gotta right where is in libertarian land hang on you got a prenup right no what kind of libertarian doesn't get a prenup because you're not really married if you get a prenup, right? No. What kind of libertarian doesn't get a prenup? Because you're not really married if you get a prenup, dude. That's not like that. That's that's not. No, listen, man, me and my wife are never breaking up. So it's nothing I have to worry about. But what is what the hell is marriage then? Why? Why would why would marriage? Why would you need any sort of contract for a marriage? Why would you even need to go to the state to get married? Well, well, I'm not saying you need to go to the state to get married. I'm saying that marriage to me, the definition of marriage is being all in. Yeah. There is, there is no, what if we break

up? So there's no state agency plan. Sure. No state involved. Well, well, sure. No, I mean, to the extent that the state might be involved, it might be because, say, there are certain laws that are written in where you can't get on the same health insurance. You can't be the whatever the rules are. You can do all that shit. Well, it's OK. But regardless, that's recognized by the state, we've both signed on to the contract that you're talking about. Whereas in libertarian land, I don't think if we were handed those contracts, we'd have been like, no, but this is, this is

actually, I don't think our wives would have ever handed us those contracts, but this is a super weird position though. Right. So you, well, so let me explain. Sure. Okay. I believe that covenant marriage is legitimate marriage and basically all other forms of marriage. I don't even recognize them as being legitimate. I think that they're just basically playing house, right?

I don't even recognize them as being like a Christian marriage or a covenant marriage. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Those are really the only ones that I marriage. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Those are really the only ones that I'm even willing to recognize. Okay. Now there's good arguments, I guess you could say for there's, there's people who are trying to live a reflective life like this, who aren't Christians and we should still recognize those marriages. I still had struggle with recognizing

them though. If they're not covenant marriages, meaning they weren't, you weren't married in the eyes of God. Because for me, it seems like there's no purpose to even getting married unless it's just just a point of clarification. Is that just like for Christianity or like Jewish marriages, Muslim marriages or something like that? I even have a hard time, depending on the context, recognizing those because marriage to me has really specific criteria. specific criteria. So the criteria for marriage to me is that the man is the head of the marriage because that is the reflection of Jesus Christ in the church, being the head of the church. And the woman is reflective of the body of the church, which means that she submits to the man. And that is what that dynamic for marriage is. That's what marriage means in a Christian context. So if you're not following that dynamic, it doesn't seem like it's real marriage to me.

It seems like it's kind of phony baloney marriage. Right. And so there's some marriages in some cultures that, yeah, I think I would struggle to recognize. Not saying I wouldn't. I'm just saying it would be a struggle to do so for me. Now, moving into this, but moving into this, if you were a secularist if you were a person who didn't believe in god or even if you were a person who did believe in god why the fuck would you ever go and get a state marriage anyway why would you ever need to do that why wouldn't you just go get a covenant marriage call yourself married be done with it right why why would you libertarian dave ever go to the fucking state and allow the state to marry you?

That makes no sense to me. That's like the most anti-libertarian thing I could ever think of. Because you just said your criteria for marriage is we're all in. Hell yeah, you're all in. What the hell are you involving the state for? It sounds like that's giving her a way out. Right? That's giving her a way out that she wouldn't ordinarily have.

Maybe she's not all the way in. She's all the way in, I assure you. But why? But I'm just giving you the logic. No, no, no. But what's the logic? Why would she have a way out because we're legally married by the state, but not have a way out if we just said we were married? Glad you brought that up because your kind of criteria here was well look andrew when the government interfered and fucked the whole thing up which did i'm not i'm not disputing that okay definitely fucked the whole thing up uh it was going to be fucked up either way but they helped fuck it up way faster your kind of criteria here is but all those laws and all of that favors the women all those laws favor the women they favor them right oh Right. Oh, OK, great. So they don't favor men. Right. So so when you say, well, we're all in. Right. We're all in because that's a real marriage. And if that's what the criteria of the state is for what a marriage is, then we need to do that. Well, actually, you're giving her the out by your own logic because all the laws conform to her and none of them are good for you. That's my point. Okay. Okay. But the, the counter that

that's not me giving her a way out. Um, certainly you're right that I'm giving her a more advantageous situation if she were to want to go out, but I don't care. Cause I know she's not going anywhere. Right? No, I understand. I'm not, I'm not beating up. Just to be clear here. I would sign a piece of paper tomorrow that goes, if my wife ever wants to leave me, she gets 1000% of everything I own and she gets every because she's not going anywhere because we're together forever. It doesn't matter. I'm just saying that as in my particular marriage, that doesn't matter. in general if you put the incentives like that in front of society then yes you're going to get more women abusing that than you otherwise would especially if they have narcissism right huh especially if they're suffering from narcissism where they're told by all the women in society hey if you're if your guy's getting a little fat and a little bit lazy time to trade up girl time to go girl power time to trade up

girl clear to be clear i would i would sign that agreement with my wife because i know her and we're all in together yeah i get it i don't think enforcing that by law across a nation would be a healthy recipe for success yeah but i want yeah but i think, so I'm sorry, I got to say this, but I think that that's a very gynocentric take from my position. So what makes it, I'll explain. What makes it a gynocentric take is I'm all in and she's all in, but I'm the one signing the piece of paper

that says she gets a thousand percent of everything. What is she saying? She'd sign the same thing. And this is in the again, this is in the abstract. I'm sure she would. Right. The only reason I'm using you is because I'm trying to kind of articulate how I see things. And you're the example because you're right in front of me. Sure. So so anyway, what I what I would say here is the risk, though, the entirety of the risk is yours to take here, whereas you don't actually have to involve the state.

And I think he was a libertarian would say, do not involve the state in your marriage because that's not what marriage is about. It has nothing to do with the material conditions that the state offers you as a bribe to sign a fucking contract so that you can take half your shit and your kids. Right. So to be clear, she could take the kids either way. Legally speaking, that that's not going to change. And that also is fucked up. But I'm just saying that speaking that that's not going to change and that also is fucked up but i'm just saying that's not that's not changing whether you're less likely it's less likely if you have a marriage where she goes to the judge and says well i was a homemaker for 13 years and i was never properly compensated and now it's time for me to get the kids and he

has to go to work more likely that she could get your your wealth i don't know if it's any more less likely to get the kids. I think you're you're. No, no, it is. I'll explain how I'll explain how it's more likely. So what happens is they say I was Betty Crocker. OK, he went and worked every day. I sacrificed everything.

I sacrificed my hopes, your honor, and my dreams and everything I could have been for this man. That's what I did. And, and he doesn't even want me to have shared. He won't give me full custody of the kids. And all he has to do is do the same thing he's been doing. But I'm the one who has to make the adjustment in life. I now have to go get a job.

This is horrible on me. And they get awarded this so much. David will blow your fucking mind. No, no, no, no. I'm not. Listen, it doesn't blow my mind. I know. I know a lot of people who have been through this situation and there's no question, like especially in divorce court where like everyone's a woman, like you go into everyone involved, including the judge is a woman. I'm just saying that even if you were never legally married by the state, you're still going to have a very tough time if you're if you're in a custody battle. But the point of the prenup, well, you get some prenups, even with prenuptial, you know, that 80.

So James Sexton, he's an attorney. He's a divorce attorney out of New York. A good friend of mine. I talk to him all the time. Great guy. He's written books on this very topic, on how to stay married and then kind of the legal in and outs, right? I think he said it's like 80% of prenuptial agreements are enforced to the letter. Almost all, so almost all of the overwhelming majority.

80 is not that great for a contractual agreement, but better than it's better than a business agreement. Better than business agreements. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. And as far as partnership agreements go, when you have like all sorts of contractual conditions, I think that he said that those fail around 40. It's like a 40 percent failure.

Right. So it's even higher. It's like a 40% failure, right? So it's even higher. So it's like, it seems like the best advantage that you would have then to offset this would be for both you and the wife to just sign a prenup and then have a backyard wedding, call yourself married and be done with the whole thing. Well, look, to be clear here, I don't like if somebody just did that and had a backyard wedding and declared themselves married, I wouldn't feel like I'm any more married than they are because I have a state like, you know, certificate or whatever.

I just my my thing is that I if there was anyone. So, by the way, I should also probably just full disclosure. I should mention this. I didn't really have any money when I got married. I should mention this. I didn't really have any money when I got married. I literally I just started making money when I first started dating my wife, like a little bit of money. And she was totally in love with I know who are like single now who have money, if they were like, hey, I'm marrying a chick, but I feel like I got to get her to sign a prenup. I'd already my instinct on that is already to be kind of like, dude, if you're even a little bit concerned that she might try to leave you and take your money, just don't marry this chick. That's such a weird position to say at the one on the one hand that the state is super coercive and biased towards men when it comes to this institution of marriage. But at the same time, don't combat the state by doing a private contract.

That seems totally counterintuitive. Well, to be clear, no, I don't think it is. I'm not saying that there's something evil about a prenup. And I'm not saying that like that. What I'm saying is that on an individual basis, if you are marrying someone and you feel like there's a decent chance that they may take advantage of the state's fucked up rules, that's probably not someone you should be marrying. Does that? Yeah, no, I don't. Not really. So, I mean, because here's the thing, because all you're doing then, I think you're feeding into the gynocentrism of the man takes all the risk. You don't take any fucking risk, right? The state is going to side on behalf

of. So here's the thing. You can agree with me that you can be with the perfect woman. You could be madly in love with her. You know, in your heart of hearts, she's in love with you. And in six years, she leaves your ass. It can happen, right? There's not. And the thing is, is you've known guys this has happened to. I've known guys that this has happened to.

It happens to it happens to good people all the time. Sometimes it's just a switch is flip. But why would you ever give them the advice? So why would you ever give the advice then knowing that the laws of the state are going to fall to the woman to tell men not to get a prenup? That's crazy. To be clear, my advice wasn't that you should marry this chick anyway without it. I go, if there's a concern about that, my advice was don't marry this chick. marry this chick but to say um i don't i actually don't agree that there's like these relationships that were perfect and you were totally right and then a flip switched and she became this cold

hearted bitch who would ruin your entire life i think there were probably many red flags that you were ignoring all throughout that uh i i look i agree you know love love is blind as they say and the truth of the matter is is i've seen a lot of dudes go into some relationships with some chicks where i'm like what are you fucking retarded but well yes but the thing is the thing is is yeah they they are being stupid because love is okay so then my advice would be don't be stupid. But the thing is, it's like to kind of the kind of point like, no, no, no. But I'm kind of a threshold above. I have so much trust. And my wife has so much trust that we don't even care.

I never even have to worry about it. It's like, okay, maybe, I guess. But I think for the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of men, that is not going to be the case. And the numbers seem to bear out that that's not going to be the case. So advising men in modernity, especially, look, man, if you're going to get married, one, you probably shouldn't involve the state and you should have a covenant marriage. And two, you probably should have a prenup. And the thing is, is a lot of times churches will advise against prenups. And I say I would still get a prenup because they're not with the times.

They don't really understand how bad it is out there. But I would still get one. Is the prenup for men who are coming in with like huge sums of money? No, with no money. The thing is, is men often will make their money while they're married. OK, and then women will take that. What the prenup is there for is just to equalize the rules. Right. So here you are. You're saying, man, the state, the big, massive government apparatus came in, fucked the whole thing up, made it gynocentric, made sure all the laws defer to women.

And all that's true. It is. So if you have this offset that we can give some kind of offset to men to kind of equal the playing field or make it even since the woman's ass is already covered by default. Why wouldn't we cover theirs? All right. Listen, you are making a very strong libertarian argument for prenuptial agreements. But I would just say that my advice, look, in the same sense that you can there's you can have pattern recognition and recognize things in broad swaths, you know, but then you can also like judge things on an individual basis. I would say that I think that you, the person you're marrying, if you're actually doing your job as a man and you're being a man and being the leader of your household, I actually don't think that's something you really have to worry about. I think if you do your job, I think most of the time when these women like leave and take everything, it is in part at least because the man was not being the man of that household. So I maybe that's what's skewing me a little bit. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Small Batch Cigar. Free shipping on every order. Almost every order arrives within two to three days in the continental United States of America. 69% humidity packs. This makes sure your cigars show up fresh and enjoyable. The most thorough packaging in the industry and an amazing selection of rare, limited, and hard-to-find cigars.

Plus, you earn 5% reward parts instantly. If you are a cigar enthusiast, you got to go check out Small Batch Cigar at smallb cigar dot com. Most people click new first to shop their newest arrivals and make sure to use the discount code problem. That'll get you 10 percent off. Plus you get those five percent reward points. Small batch cigar dot com promo code problem for 10 percent off plus five percent reward points. All right. Let's get back into the show look if there was in theory if you're saying that a prenup was going to cancel out the fucked up um like the the fucked up like uh putting their thumb on the scale that the state does i get your point perhaps that is benefit perhaps on a large scale that would be uh more beneficial

more beneficial than not you know perhaps perhaps you're right so i so so that's as i look at these dynamics right and in modernity especially okay um to me the the language of a prenuptial agreement you know when i was growing up i thought that that was for like, you know, rich fucking football players and shit. You know what I mean? And it was just kind of known that they're marrying a hot 19 year old when they're moving into their 35 year old retirement or whatever. And that that chick is basically just there for money. And we know that she's just there for money. But now it's become a survival mechanism. Now it's become a mechanism for actually combating this kind of gynocentrism, which has seeped into the law. And the truth is we can have good, astute marriage

laws and good enforcement of marriage laws, which are fair and unbiased, but we don't. And the reason that we don't is because I believe that the attack on marriage specifically is a feminist response to patriarchy. Marriage is always the man is the head. This has always been the religious connotation from it doesn't matter what religion, at least in the Abrahamic ones. Maybe it's some of the other ones. No, but the Abrahamic ones still, if you're if you're Jewish or you're Muslim or you're Christian, the Orthodox Jews even believe the man is the head of the relationship, the head of the household. Right. And so the the reason feminists hate Christianity especially so much is because of the view that Christianity is a patriarchal religion because it is. And therefore, the marriages are going to be patriarchal and they are and they're supposed to be.

That's this kind of natural order that you're moving towards. And and they hate it. And so this massive attack on the institution of family is the removal of that patriarchal head. That's why every dynamic is shown except that one. Yeah. Well, do you think there's something to and this is say, like the feminists who are like hate marriage so much and the fact that, say, they're largely backed by the political class? I mean, certainly forget even getting into like, you know, the feminist movement being created and funded by the CIA or stuff like that, which is an interesting topic. If you want to talk about that, I know your wife wrote a book on that. Can't get into it on YouTube, right?

But yeah, I do like it. There is a lot to that. That don't you think that there is something It actually came from Bolsheviks, just so you know, more than anything. Well, okay. And the Bolsheviks were the biggest statists in the history of the world, right?

I don't disagree. But what they did was they took out the legitimate monarchy, which was a stabilizer for Russia, the legitimate monarchy. Sure, sure, sure. I mean, I'm not saying they replaced anarchism. I'm just saying that they were certainly represented an increase in the power of the central government. And so don't you think there's something to the fact that almost all of do something to safeguard against industrialists

who were trying to move women into the workforce. And politicians were actually trying to do something about this. In fact, I can give you several congressmen who were talking about. So from this scale, we're talking from the late 1800s into almost before World War II. the late 1800s into almost before World War II. So there's a large time period here where industrialization was causing a different type of centralized power. They were even becoming more powerful than the governments themselves. OK, and this this was a big problem. Now they would work hand in hand with government organizations. Don't get me wrong. You're totally right about all that. But what's happened now is this interesting reversal. Like Elon Musk, this technocrat, he should really not have the position of kind of

limiting women's suffrage or this kind of position of kind of limiting state power, right? You would think a technocrat wouldn't be thinking along those lines or that we would turn to Donald Trump, who is definitely a rich industrialist in order to kind of safeguard these institutions from the government. Right. And it used to be that the government would was trying to kind of safeguard those institutions from the industrialist. And now the roles have completely swapped. And so it's it's a bizarre dynamic. And so it's it's a bizarre dynamic. Right. It's a bizarre dynamic. And so, no, I'm not sure that I agree that it's just the idea of this kind of overarching, powerful government. That is, I think that any institution which becomes powerful enough through centralization can become a serious problem.

But it's not always the government. Oftentimes it's it's industrial centers or it's NGOs or it's any number of different things. Sometimes I've actually seen the government press back against that, at least in the early 1900s. I mean, we had a very famous president killed the bank. He killed the bank. He killed it. And it's like he was the president and did that. So, I mean, it wasn't always the politicians versus the people, you know? Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I'm not saying. And of course, you're referring to Andrew Jackson, who's the same first name as you. So maybe, yeah, maybe you can get out there and do it. Well, no, I'm certainly not saying that there's never been anyone within the political class who's fought to roll back power against other members of the political class. Of course, Andrew Jackson was successful.

Ultimately, he paid off the nation's debt, by the way. Yes, yes, that's right. Very first thing, very first thing that he did. Absolutely hated the banker class because they tried to assassinate him multiple times. Yes, that's right. Very interesting guy, by the way, if you read up on the history of Andrew. Yeah, he was. He was he was he was very much a pro-government guy very much and he was very much an indian killer and he was very much this shit is ours

because i have the gun and we're going to take this shit by force but he did not want industrialists and rich bankers who were controlling industrialists to come in and take over his fucking nation that we had conquered from the savages and the government, which was in power, which was there to represent the people. That's what they were there to do. And he knew it. I mean, look, I agree with like a lot of your assessment there is correct. But at the same time, the you know, I don't know exactly that I agree that the government was ever really there to represent the people. And also, as the government power expanded more and more, that Jacksonian mission failed.

And like the central bank reemerged and those capitalists took over the government. Because of rich industrialists. Rich industrialists did this. Sure, I don't even disagree with that. But rich industrialists did this by expanding the power of the government and buying it off yeah but i right that's my criticism yeah that's like my criticism though is that yeah sure

the rich rich industrialists bought the government and made their own government because they had consolidated power i just think that like a libertarian in in in in our kind of hypothetical libertarian land. When I read Anne Rand, for instance, so Anne Rand sees this problem, right? She sees the problem. She goes, OK, wait a second. Inside the John Galt world, John Galt's a rich industrialist, and he gets all the other rich industrialists to go make a brand new fuck you land right fuck you you vultures can all eat yourselves okay we're going to take all of the doers and all of you takers are left here to just be vultures amongst yourselves i'm taking everything and i'm getting out of here with all the rich industrialists and they go start a new nation essentially right with all of the rich industrialists. The kind of interesting parallel

here, though, is that she saw the problem of what happens if the rich industrialists instead just co-ops the fucking government. They just become the government. And under her, the only way she could get it to work under her kind of libertarian ideology was if the rich industrialists became the good guys. They became the good guys and said, fuck you to the government and made fuck you land. That was the only way she could square that. And I always thought that was a serious problem in this kind of like Anne Randian philosophy. Yeah, no, I completely agree. I'm not a Randian. And I think that's a major problem in her philosophy. I do think that you'd probably struggle to find too many examples of these rich industrialists doing this absent leveraging government uh you know like institutions in order to help them with it

so that's not by the way i actually very much agree with you about your critique of ayn rand uh i'm not at all a rand. And I do think that she had this vision that like the industrialists were going to be the ones who stood up. Yeah, they were the ones who were going to stop the government. They're going to make fuck the land. But you got to think, well, in reality, they were the ones driving it.

And from the very beginning. And so I actually don't disagree with you. I think there's a real connection there, right? But I don't understand how to square that. Right. That's my problem. Like, let me just ask you that directly. I'm just wondering how like I understand why she squared it that way, because she's like, look, if you have all the centralized power, it's going to become a government no matter what. So the only thing we can do is make the industrialists who are the center of of power with all the money and all the fucking, you know, they have all of the access to land. They have all the access to the money. We got to make them

the good guys and they go against the government now. OK, great. That's fantastic. It's a cool narrative. But I could see why she had to square it that way, because she couldn't figure out how else to square what happens in our kind of libertarian utopia and i hate using the word utopia i'm just using a tongue-in-cheek here when all of the industrialists uh through the doers have consolidated all this wealth they just kind of become the fucking government again well okay so i i i'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to square so i don't think iron rand's vision was correct And I think that the idea that these industrialists have, let's say, consolidated all of this power. Well, yes, certainly a lot

compared to what might be the question compared to, say, like the cronies who are connected to the government today compared to the cronies connected to the Saudi Arabian government compared to like, I mean, I think actually industrialists connected to the government consolidate much more of the wealth and power. And that's ultimately why the industrialists in America, when there was a very limited government, figured out that the better way to take this whole game over was to like just buy off politicians and by doing what though they did it by expanding democracy that was the whole point yes so 100 yes 100 what these guys wanted was they wanted to expand the democratic process and they get lobbyists in there they can say look that's speech that's speech we can get lobbyists

represent you right we can get lobbyists in to represent you. Andrew, I think there's less. There's the more we talk about this. I think we're going to realize that there's less distance. But I'm a certified democracy hater. Like, I don't know if you didn't know that. Right. I'm a certified democracy hater. I hate democracy so much more than you hate democracy. No, I hate it more than that. Me and you all have a democracy hate off. Well, listen, uh, no, right. So I think that's exactly

right, but actually like, look, okay. So, um, I get your point. There's, there's this kind of thing where you go like, okay, as society starts industrializing and as there are more, so let's say broadly speaking, right right there was somewhat of a free market you guys just become best friends there we go ahead i'm sorry do you like do you like guacamole yeah do you want to do kung fu in my garage okay so um so there were uh as the we the the post-industrial revolution, there were the robber barons, as they call them. There were certainly people who were liberal talking points. But yeah, sure. But whatever. You know, the people that you'd be thinking of, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, people like this.

And what happened was that those guys tried over and over again to monopolize different industries and they continually failed. Now, they didn't fail in terms of being successful businessmen, but they did fail in terms of their dreams that they wrote about monopolizing things. Because what would typically happen in a more market order and just for people listening to keep in mind, nothing has ever been a pure laissez-faire free market. Nothing has ever been a pure totalitarian state. It's always some degree. I feel like mercantilism came close. Mercantilism came very, very close to having what you would consider something akin to laissez-faire.

I don't think laissez-faire ever even came close, by the way. But I think mercantilism came closest. I would disagree with that. But just back to the point I'm making. In the United States of America, let's say between the end of the Civil War, so between 1865 and, 1910, for that stretch of time, you had no central bank, no federal income tax. Federal spending was very low. Federal regulations were almost nonexistent. You know, compared to what we have today, say, a radical laissez-faire system. If this was implemented tomorrow, you'd go, Dave, you just got your wet dream. This is like beyond the realm of what you could possibly do. But I'm going to have a little bit of pushback there for context.

I think that the reason you had so little regulation, it wasn't that you did. It was in the eastern states states you have tons of federal regulation you had tons of state regulation more people were continuously migrating west well that's and there wasn't any there wasn't any authority and they were just kind of rampaging across the west they killed everything in their path and took their shit right that's what people do so he went west right we we went well we did we we went west some, but a lot of it was just homesteaded. Probably much more was just homesteaded than was just like Tonga. Yeah, sure, but there was very little regulation due to the fact that we were constantly expanding westward.

And so what would end up happening is we'd have kind of that more frontier mentality. There wouldn't be as much regulation in those areas, and there wasn't for a long time. It took a long time for the eastern vultures to catch up with the West. Even, by the way, in the 20th century, this was the case. If you go to Nevada, for instance, even to this day, walk down the street with a samurai sword and an Uzi and they can't do shit about it. You can go to Montana to boot Montana and you can walk around drunk as a skunk. OK, with an open container in your hand, stumbling in the streets and they can walk around drunk as a skunk. Okay. With a open container in your hand, uh,

stumbling in the streets and they can't do shit about it. And it's because the kind of Eastern vultures were not able to kind of auto correct, right. As fast as they would have liked to this kind of expansion, but all the other Western nations had monarchies. Well, there is.

Okay. So there is something to be said for, to that point. Um, but even within, even within the within the eastern part of the country, the amount of like the federal government control was far lower than anything we could like imagine today. I mean, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, you're talking about they would micromanage everything to minority sectors. I mean, they they would micromanage whether or not you could marry a black person. They would micromanage whether or not you could marry a black person. They would micromanage whether or not you could marry a Jewish person.

They would micromanage every small little detail. OK, so to that point, all of that stuff that you're talking about was done on local levels. And in terms of micromanaging, whether who you could marry, that was done almost like by church, by community, by, so I get it. They had laws. They had miscegenation laws big time. Yes,

yes, yes. But again, these weren't federal laws. These were all almost all local laws. So again, I'm not like even like dispute. I'm not saying it was a perfect libertarian,

like not even close. Yeah. I wasn't saying you're arguing that, but, but the point is that when, in terms of like, because what i was trying to get at here is like you were talking about how these robber barons took over so i'm not talking about what any local law was or any like but about you know how perfectly libertarian it was i'm

saying in the in the macro what we were looking at was that all of these guys, particularly like John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, they had. And Carnegie. Don't forget Carnegie. Carnegie. Sure. They had their dreams of, you know, monopolizing industries. And even they had monopolies. I mean, J.D. Rockefeller was the first one who started to refine oil. I mean, it was the he sold the process. It was that refining process that John D. Rockefeller had a monopoly in a sense when he first basically came up with refining oil. And no, I mean, he had a monopoly. I mean, they kind of still do.

But he had the monopoly period on refining. OK, let me just say that was like brand new. Let me just let me just make my point. So Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller's company, essentially did have a monopoly on refining oil because they were the first ones who did it. Yeah. And how a free market monopoly works. You come up with something new and you're the only one doing it. When the Sherman Antitrust Act first went in, I think it was passed in 1896. Double check me on that. I might be wrong about that. They brought their case against Standard Oil. At the time when the act was created, they had like 90 something percent of the market. By the time it went to

trial, they were already down to 70 something percent of the market. They were losing before the government even intervened. What would always happen is they would be losing and losing and losing because the natural order in the market was that you'd take over. You'd have some new thing. And so they weren't they weren't losing. Rockefeller wasn't losing to who? Listen, again, you just brought up this example well yeah i'm just saying i'm saying that the way i see it is a giant rich industrialist who had a monopoly for refining bought the

government that's what i see yes you're not wrong about that but let me let me just finish the point because yeah we're not completely disagreeing here and by the way thomas di lorenzo uh who's a great historian he went through all of this and like mapped out like the price points, all of these, all of these industries, whether you're talking about the American tobacco company, Standard Oil, any of them, all of them, when they had their monopolies, they were always lowering prices. And this is how they would keep their monopolies. And then the dream that all of them had, which became the progressive myth, was that once they take over the whole sector, they're going to raise prices up. And now because they're a monopoly, no one's going to have any choice. But this failed over

and over again in the free market. And so what they ultimately ended up doing was buying off the government. Well, I think you're correct in that. I think what they did. I see when you say. So here's I think our kind of our central disconnect. OK, I think our central disconnect is you see it as buying the government. I see them as creating a new government. What I see is that these rich industrialists, they they didn't they didn't uh go in and buy politicians so much as what they did

was they took the constitution of the united states and created a brand new type of government because they had centralized power i mean for god's sakes rockefeller standard oil sold an additive to the germans uh through a company a proxy company called ig farben if i remember correctly bush was on the bush bush senior was on the council for ig farben if i remember correctly bush was on the bush bush senior was on the council for ig farben and they were they were in violation of the trading with enemies act during the this was during the world war ii industrialization which we were warned about right um while this was happening they created brand new governments they created whole shadow governments because they had the resources to do it. I believe that. And by the way, I can tell you that Franco believed this as well. The the you know, the fascists who came out of communists, they were trying to stop the large trade organizations from swallowing all the small ones. Right. They saw industry itself as needing to be a part of the body of the state. Not saying that that's correct. I'm just saying they understood the power of industry in buying off the state and creating

a brand new state. So as you see, they're buying politicians. I see that they're just creating brand new governments because they have the power to do it. But what do you mean? What's the distinction there? So, well, I'm not sure I completely don't think it's as much perverting the system as it is. I have so much power and control. I can just create brand new systems. Okay, but the method by which they did that was by funding politicians' campaigns. In some places. In some places, they just went and killed the czar, right?

In some places, rich industrialists just funded and killed the monarchy and then started their own shit. Right. The method always differs. But the same thing. It's always the same thing. It's always taken. The Colombians come in. They the rich industrialists, they create a new government there or the rich industrialists create a new government here.

The methods might be different, but it sure seems like they're making a brand new thing, not necessarily perverting what's there. I don't really just make a new thing. OK, I don't completely disagree to some degree. It seems like a distinction without a difference. But, yes, I would agree that they at least in the United States of America, the path was to buy off politicians and then create, as you would say, a new thing to supersede the Constitution, to create a new government. So then I don't know. How do you check that? How do you check that?

Look, this is a great question. And there's a great question, by the way, which, OK, I'll say this as people who do what me and you do. And maybe this is part of the reason why I wanted to have more of a conversation with you than like a forum. This has been fun as shit, by the way. I'm loving it. I love these conversations. But I think that the truth is that me and you are both in the world we're in. We're incentivized to project certainty. And the truth is that I just think there's a thing when you do a show, when you're talking to anyone, you're incentivized to be like, I know what I'm saying. And I'm telling you, this is the answer. The truth is

that what you just raised is a really excellent question for all of us, because what is the answer here? And I'll tell you, if you're going to say the answer is that, well, there shouldn't be these titans of industry because they create so much power amongst themselves. Or if your answer is going to be, well, they should always be kept away from government because if they get control of government, then they could do even more damage than they do. What I think is that I fall down on the side that goes,

listen, if you're going to say there can't be industry, then you're going to condemn us all to live a life of extreme poverty. If we can't have prices and we can't be industry, then you're going to condemn us all to live a life of extreme poverty. If we can't have prices and we can't have markets and we can't have technological advancement, then we're basically all going to be living in a life that we all choose we would rather not be living in. And so the only, to me, the only plausible answer that I can think of is that you have to allow markets, allow prices, and try. And by the way, there's been no answer to this yet. But try in some way to limit their ability to gain control of the government.

But that kind of sounds like the opposite of libertarianism, right? I don't think so. I mean, if you're going to limit markets, you're going to need to have control. No, no, no. You need to have some limit markets. I'm not saying limit markets. I'm saying limit their ability to control governments. That would be limiting the market. No, I think the way to do that is to limit governments. Yeah. But how do you limit government without having a force apparatus? That's the problem here. No, absolutely. Oh, OK. Well, I'm not. But that's going to be some kind of centralized force. I think we're just back to government again. So I just think it's like this kind of big circle, you know? No. OK, so what I disagree with that in is that I don't think that that force necessarily has to come from the centralized

government. And I think, in fact, the best mechanism so far yet established to limit that force is a strong decentralization, that you want to have as much force on a more decentralized level that can check the more centralized force. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is YoKratom.com, longtime sponsor of this show, the entire network, and Skankfest. Everything I do, YoKratom sponsors, and I'm so grateful for them. Look, if you're over the age of 21 and you like Kratom, go check them out. If you're not, then just ignore this ad. But if you are, you got to go check out Yo Kratom.

It is home of the $60 kilo. They are the if you like Kratom, this is the place to go for your Kratom. OK, it's lab tested. It's shipped directly to your door and it's the best price you're going to find anywhere. $60 for a kilo. So if you're a fan of what we do here or what any of us do at the Gas Digital Network, go get your Kratom from YoKratom.com, home of the $60 kilo. All right, let's get back on the show.

It's interesting because I think we agree on so many particulars, but then we come to wildly different conclusions. That's what I think is the most interesting part of this conversation. I wasn't expecting that part. Right. But I but I have been having fun with the convo. But when we come to these particulars. Right. And the answer to me, it seems it seems like it's a donut effect. Right. It's like, OK, we can't have the market just overtake everything because rich industrialists will make their own government. But if we have no government, we have nothing really to check this with. And so hopefully, I mean, there'll be a limiting system.

We don't know exactly what it will be. And that's fair. How could you? You can only postulate different systems. You don't know for sure. Libertarianism in mass has never really been tried. I agree that that's true. But the radically different conclusion that I come to is when I look at the governments of the world in world history, there's monarchies which have been great. There's limited democracies which have been fantastic. There's even kind of tribal societies which have been good. It seems that the moral bedrock of the people themselves matter more than the institutions of the government.

matter more than the institutions of the government. And the reason I think that is because I think that moral people tend to have a government representing them that they deserve. That's what I that's kind of the conclusion that I come to. And so when I see like the libertarian presidential candidate, for instance, going out, going out and throwing skittles to the crowd, right? As many skittles as he can possibly grasp in his palm. I recognize that even if you were to have kind of the libertarian utopia, we were able to snap our fingers and it was there. And a guy like that was in charge. You would end up with so much social degeneracy and decay that people would be begging at the altar to have some sanity brought back in from a government. And so it's like, I think that absent this moral foundation,

it ultimately doesn't even matter. So, okay. So I, I will 50% agree with you on that. I think that the moral foundation of your society is the most important thing that's going to determine where your society is going. I agree with that. And I think that, you know, if you have a very immoral society, it doesn't matter if you like, there's nobody in the world who could just plug in X's and O's in terms of what the legal policy is that would like solve that problem. I don't agree that there's that there could be a highly centralized totalitarian government that would then instill morality into their people. You don't think that there was good monarchies?

No, no, no. I do think there were good monarchies. I mean, how can you be more totalitarian than a monarchy? I don't know. Communism, Nazism. I'm not sure that they're more totalitarian than the buck stops with one guy, right? Yeah, but that's not, look, it's not a matter of just the fact that there's one guy. In fact, the fact that there's one guy oftentimes made the central government weaker than the, you know, one of the, by by the way that sounds like you're advocating for more centralization then no if we have centralized power with one person well no hold on that means that there's less that there's less ability to

corrupt that's like the ultimate argument for centralization no it's it's it's actually not but if you've never you should read uh democracy the God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe. You have. OK, so if you OK, great. So if you understand, then the argument, at least you could reject the argument or accept it. But the argument, at least, is that actually having a king, having a monarch in many ways made for a less powerful central government. Yeah, but what Hoppe is saying. But look, just to be clear, we don't live in a monarchy in the United States of America. It's a democracy. Yeah, I know. It's terrible. It's a more powerful centralized government than any monarchy that's ever. Well, what's interesting is that, well, I disagree with this. I think even Hoppe would. So I think that democracy makes kings

out of everybody. And so the thing is, is that that's the most decentralized power I could ever think of. And it led to the most decentralized power I could ever think of. And it led to the most centralized power structure I can think of. But that's what's interesting about this. That's not his argument. No, no, no, it's not. But I'm saying that I think that let me streamline into Hoppe's argument. Sure, sure. What Hoppe is saying is that amongst kind of the natural class of people, there's going to be people who generally rise to the top and people are going to want to follow that man no matter what.

He could be called a village elder. He could be called any number of things. Yes, yes, that is more. Yeah, this is yes. This is kind of this is kind of like the natural ebb and flow of things. OK, but the thing is, you can hold that guy to account for the decisions that he makes. And so because he has a kind of this cross generational need to make sure his legacy is good and he can be held to account, his kids will be held to account. He's invested then in what happens with his country and what happens with his people and this type of thing. I think great conundrum here or or kind of the greatest argument against Dave Smith right now is that is the ultimate in centralizing power.

And yet it leads to ultimately the best results for decentralization of people being able to come in and fuck everything up. And that is the paradox I think you have to contend with is Hoppe's argument. Now, dude, you got to read Hoppe again, man. See, there's no paradox there. See, this is what's really with is Hoppe's argument. No, dude, you got to read Hoppe again, man. See, there's no paradox there. See, this is what's really interesting about Hoppe's point. And I think he's he's he's right about this is that he goes, look, what happens is if you have a monarchy, you essentially are simulating private ownership over the government. OK, perfect centralized authority. No, no, no no but that's not exactly the same thing that's not how is it not the same thing well let me explain all right because look there's it's not the the government of the united states of america has more centralized authority

than than any monarch could even if it was just one man who had like like again if if one man has let's say for the sake of argument had 10 percent control of what the u.s centralized government has right now that would be more power in one person's hand than any one person in the u.s government has right now like no one person has 10%, let's say. Yeah, but you're giving him 100%. Hold on, hold on, hold on. No, I'm not. All right. Let me just make the point.

Let's say for the sake of argument, right? Okay. That the most powerful person in the federal government today, whoever you think that is, whether it's the head of the Fed or it's the president of the United States or it's the head of the CIA,

we could debate about who's the most powerful position. or it's the president of the United States or it's the head of the CIA. We could debate about who's the most powerful position. But let's just say, for example, that the most powerful person had nine percent of the entire federal government in their one in their control. Yeah. And let's say as a king, you had 10% of what is the current more centralized in one person. Listen, I actually I actually don't. I still see the paradox. So the paradox is. So let me just say, do you get the point I'm making? I think I do. Let me try to let me let me kind of repeat it back to make sure that I got it. Sure, sure. You're saying that on the micro, if you were to give one person that kind of authority, it would be an overwhelming amount of authority. No, no, no. Let me make this clear. So I'm saying that if you have this huge centralized government today, the United States of America's federal government.

OK, and all of the power that that encompasses, what 100 percent of that is the power. Let's say hypothetically that the most powerful person in that government, again, at whatever point was going to be nine percent of the total government. Yeah, just hypothetically, maybe it's more than that but just saying hypothetically and let's say one person is the entire irs no like just for the sake of argument they had all the authority if the irs represented 10 and that was given to one person that one guy is the irs he's a representative of the irs he's the only one the irs whoever it is that's not exactly what i'm saying what i'm saying is that if there, whoever that you think the most powerful person in the United States of America's federal government is whatever percentage of the total federal government that he

has power over, let's say for example, hypothetically it was 9%. And let's say you had a Monarch who had 10%. That one guy would have more power than any one guy in the United States of America's federal government had. Yeah, but that's my point. Yeah, I agree. Right, right, right. But you're not just hearing. I'm listening. I'm listening.

Yeah, yeah. OK, but he's still got 10% of what is the entire federal government, which is 100%. So it could be at at least hypothetically, it could be more centralized. There could be one person who has more power than any one person has. I see. They have less total power. So let me repeat this back. Now I get it. Now I get it. Now I get it. So you're saying by in lieu of this guy having 10% of total authority, the 90% which is left over, which is still centralized, he can create an offset for that. He can create an offset just in lieu of him having that kind of like check

against that balance of power, right? The only point I'm making is that even if all the power was in one person's hands, it still could theoretically be a 10th of the power that the entire federal apparatus has right now. Okay, got it. That's kind of the point I'm making. And what Hoppe's argument was, that would still be centralization. Yes, yes, it would be. That would still be mass centralization. Like that would be core authority centralization of power. You're saying it's the least corrupt system to do that. No, no, no. I'm not saying any of that. What I'm saying, I mean, Hoppe was. No, no, no. What Hoppe was saying, what his argument is, is that monarchy is less centralized power than democracy and that democracy is way more because the evil of democracy is that this is Hoppe's argument, which I largely agree with, but just laying out Hoppe's argument is that what happens is that when you have a monarchy, you have this one guy who owns the government and therefore is incentivized in the same way that private owners are in general. Like my house, I'm not just going to let my house fall apart because I own it.

I want to pass it on to my kids. I want to at least kind of do right by it. But if I don't own my house and I'm just elected to oversee it for four years and everyone kind of feels like we all own the house or we could be next to own the house, then I might as well just loot the goddamn house because I'm going to be out of power in four years. But how is this different than checks and balances? How is I'm sorry, how is that different than checks and balances? Because the difference between, say, like checks and balances, as are typically understood by Americans, is that there'll be these different, you know, like power sources that all get a little bit of authority over the other one. What Hoppe is saying is that the actual check is more of a market check. It's more of something like, hey, I have ownership of this. I don't want to just squander it.

I want to see it off to the next generation. Right. So then his ultimate check and balance is a centralization of the most amount of authority viewed in one man. Again, not the most amount of authority viewed in one man. Not the again, not the most amount of authority. What Hoppe is saying. And if you read Hoppe's work, he's very clear. Well, I mean, but it would have to be like, let's think about it logically. So if if all of these other institutions in this representation, the other 90 percent, right, have I don't know, let's just say 10 guys right just 10 guys sure okay then that would

necessarily limit the power of each one of those institutions by 10 right by the 10 who are share it versus the one who has the full 10 so it would still be an ultimate centralization in one man to check all of these other little little like micro shared authorities it sounds like it just sounds a lot to me like checks and balances with an authoritarian leader. I mean, that's what it sounds like to me. Well, look again, you're assuming that it's the same total percentage, but have you ever heard of engaging with your, with your, okay. Have you ever heard of a Monarch who ruled over a government who spent $6 trillion a year?

Well, not that much. No, not even close huh no so but i mean i mean that's but that's scalable i can give you uh for instance king richard yeah king richard the lionheart for instance uh basically bankrupted his entire nation for the crusades right there's a hoppa would be the first one to admit that there's been tyrannical monarchs who have done a very bad job. So Hoppe's point is essentially, and again, this is a very interesting theory. I'm not sure if he's right or not.

I kind of tend to think he is. But Hoppe's argument was that essentially a libertarian order is preferable to a monarch, which is preferable to democracy. And that his argument was that as somebody who opposes statism, democracy is the worst form of government you could have. So I agree. I've always agreed with Hoppe's argument. I've always agreed with Hoppe. I think that there I think that you encapsulated a little bit differently than I do. So the thing is, you can you can take a book, read it and have kind of radically different views on what it was that the author. Now, I've listened to some Hoppe's lectures as well.

Dorky guy glasses, right? Real smart. But but the thing is, is the accent drove me nuts but i still listened anyway oh i love it really okay so yeah they drove me nuts it did yeah but anyway so i listened to him uh quite a bit on this and it seemed to me remember how earlier in the conversation going way back i brought up ann rand and how it seemed like it was just kind of a cope to me that she had to flip the industrialist to be the good guys in order to make her paradigm work. Kind of seemed to like a bit of a cope from Papa as well to try to say, like, look, naturally, people want centralized authority and they're going to centralize authority into one person.

And the thing is, is that as long as there's free markets around, OK, and free markets check that one person, they have an investment an investment in the future still the majority of power needs to rely with one person i think that the kind of the rest of the tangentials around that were just like ran something of a coping mechanism because the guy was really saying there's going to be a natural hierarchy there's going to be a motherfucker at the top of that hierarchy and you want that shit that's what i think okay so i don't okay so what i think you're got you and, and you listen, I can't blame you if the accent is the reason for you not accepting it, but there's, that's not exactly what Hoppe is saying. It is partially what he's saying, what he is saying. And what I would say to what libertarians in general believe is that yes, there is like, yes, there is going to be a hierarchy. And yes, that is what

people want. And yes, that will be there will be a guy at the top. And most people do want that. So that part is true. The distinction that libertarians make is whether from my perspective, whether that's a hierarchy of competence or whether it's a hierarchy of just force. And what we would prefer is a voluntary hierarchy of competence. I am, by the way, Andrew, I do. I got I was just about to say I got to wrap up. I got it. I got it.

I got to head over to a different podcast. But I really, really fucking enjoyed this conversation. It was a it was a ton of fun. And, you know, all men, as Hoppe would say, need adversaries, right? We need adversaries, but in the spirit of camaraderie as well. So I did think it became somewhat of an adversarial conversation, but I really enjoyed it, man. Dude, Andrew, I really enjoyed this.

I'd like to do this again. Of course. As I said to you last time, we'll definitely do it again. Go have fun. What do you got? What's your got to go over to whatever got to go over to whatever, whatever. All right. Good luck going, going against the top tier libertarian debater of our time to argue with skanks on the Internet. But, you know, we all got to do what we got to do. Well, listen, Andrew, let me leave you with a message that I think you're the Christian here. So let me tell you this. Try to remember, man, Andrew, let me leave you with a message that I think you're the Christian here.

So let me tell you this. Try to remember, man, that these these girls are fallen, man. And it's kind of sad situations. Most of them probably had sad childhoods. We're trying to help. Take it easy on these hoes, Andrew. Hey, I'm trying to help. But hang on.

Hang on, Dave. I'll leave you with this. I am trying to help. But you, bro, you can't be a simp. You got to promise me you're not going to be a simp. No simping, Dave, ever. leave you with this. I am trying to help, but you, bro, you can't be a simp. You got to promise me you're not going to be a simp. No simping, Dave, ever. Me? No women.

Yeah, you can simp for your wife. That's okay. But other than that. I'm going to go upstairs and hit her now. Just right in the mouth. And then as soon as I hit her, I go, sorry, babe, this Andrew guy called me a simp. It got me all fucked up. I apologize.

Right. You know, sometimes jarring people with the truth and cognitive dissonance, it's ugly and it looks ugly and people react viscerally to it. And I understand that that's one of the worst parts of my job, but I also understand that I'm a person who can do that often with other people. And I get tons of DMS for many of these women when it's done and go,

man, I really had to reevaluate this. And so that is my goal ultimately. Right. That is my goal. These chicks are trying to fuck you, Andrew. Yeah. They like, yeah, fucking right. Well, they are. I'm sure they do. There's one ugly man on this podcast and it ain't you. So the thing is, is like, that's just the case. My wife, God bless her soul. She found it, too. She married him up. Good for her.

OK, but anyway, Dave Smith, thank you so much. By the way, everybody, you can find me over on the one and only Crucible. It's a fast growing debate channel on the Internet. This was a fantastic conversation. Everybody's going to get a lot of bang for their buck. For those of you listening tomorrow as this releases, you're not going to be able to find it on the Crucible. Dave's going to have exclusives of this and release it there. Make sure that you send in those wild donos because he facilitated the entire thing.

He was very kind of him. Well, thank you, Andrew, and thank you so much for coming on, and I look forward to talking with you again, brother. Have a good night. Of course. You too, man. Take care. All right. Thanks for listening, guys. Catch you next time.