Andrew vs Coach Greg: Outsmart Relationship Challenges: Expert Advice | DSH #1623

If you get married, you may get a divorce.

If this happens, then this may happen. We already looked at the statistics of it likely happening.

Yeah, so you want to go, in order for your marriage to work, they have to be white, Christian, make money, and then also we live in a certain region.

The black community, you have more divorces than in the white community. There's going to be contributing factors for why that is.

I don't think that like black people are just ontologically different than white people. For the black community, there's a bunch.
One, you have a distinction in economic certitude.

The second one is you had a a massive abortion rate. Another one is you use matriarchal structures in the family home instead of patriarchal.

So you have multiple factors here which need to be addressed. I agree with that.
Nobody ever disagreed with that though.

Okay, guys, finally getting started. Thanks for being patient.
I know there were some delays. We got Andrew here versus Coach Greg Adams, a.k.a.
the free agent lifestyle.

We're going to talk about today, is marriage worth it for men in the West? So let's get into some opening statements. Who wants to start off?

Yeah, man, marriage is a great institution. It was an institution that built the community of America.
Most of the better communities that have safety,

good children, good schools are typically centered around marriage. However, marriage has not progressed to the point where men could be safe legally.
And a lot of men have experienced

tremendous damage, collateral damage, as a result. And it has led to broken families, a lot of broken hearts, simply because the laws are not

positioned to benefit both people in a divorce. Therefore, you have no-fault divorce.
You have opportunities for women to use the courts against men.

And as a result, men have seen one, two, and three generations of men getting harmed, their grandfathers, their fathers, their uncles, their brothers getting harmed by this.

So Generation Z men are not positioning themselves for a positive marriage.

So at this particular point, if someone asked me, would I recommend marriage for them and they were in a certain position in life, they weren't established, I would say no.

There's no benefit for a person to get married today. Got it.
Your response, Andrew?

Yeah, I didn't hear any

anti-marriage arguments. I heard anti-divorce arguments.
So

I'm with you on divorce. 100%.

Stream over. And we're, I guess, by agree.
But it's a good thing that the topic isn't on divorce. It's on marriage.
And it seems like you agree with my proposition then.

And the proposition is that marriage, quote, is a great institution.

And that right now your concern is that men can't be safe in marriage. But that's not actually what you're saying.
You're not saying men can't be safe in marriage. They can.

You're saying that they may not be safe in divorce. So I have a counterproposition for you.
My counterproposition is, what if it's the case that

you can use religious marriage institutions without the state. And then we add the ecclesiastical structure of the marriage.

That's what always kept them together anyway, before the state was ever involved.

So what if instead we use the ecclesiastical church, the structure of the old churches, that would be Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where you see the lowest divorce rates, because the community puts pressure on the women to act right.

That's what they do. Right now, the state applies no pressure on women to act right, right? You can just go and file whatever you want, get a divorce, and go be banging the neighbor by the next night.

We totally agree on that. But to say that we should abandon marriage is silly.
It seems like you're completely pro-marriage. You're just anti-divorce.

So why wouldn't you just throw your weight behind institutions where the divorce rate is the least and you have an ecclesiastical structure which can be appealed to to assist with that?

That's what makes no sense to me.

My response to that is, if if we're fifths, we'd be all drunk. All right.
So that's a scenario that just isn't present. Can you explain the analogy for me well if we use if

it's not a matter of if it's a matter of when if we say if we have a situation where this is present then this would work well that makes sense if we had that we do have work right now well it doesn't necessarily work because and i'm going to tell you why because a woman can go to a divorce attorney and they can simply just say hey listen it was a off the cuff off the state divorce but you got married within a certain state or she filed in a a certain state.

So, therefore, the divorce goes on. Absolutely.
Yes, listen.

I've been to with the divorce attorneys, and what they'll tell you is, hey, listen, you can get married in the ritual, you can get married in the orthodoxy, you can get married off-record.

But if she files, and that woman is hell-bent on saying, we got married, I don't care if it was a ceremony where we walked on coals with our feet bare, that's considered a marriage.

You also have common law. You have a lot of other ways for that woman to establish marriage.
How does your way eliminate common law? I don't have any way to eliminate common law.

So what I have is a way for men to avoid

the argument is not silly. So here's what you have.
You have an if proposition, which doesn't exist for most men. Most men aren't religious.

Most men aren't looking for to be under a religious orthodoxy. So it doesn't apply.
So you're taking a moral standard or a religious standard to apply to people who aren't under that veil.

So let's start with a couple of things you said, which are fundamentally untrue. Most men are religious, in fact, including in this country.
Most of them. Not some of them.
But they're not religious.

Hang on. Hang on.
I didn't interrupt. Hold on, I didn't interrupt.
I understand. But maybe to take that point, most aren't under your religion.
Okay. You can agree with that.

So here's the thing, though, but Catholicism and Orthodoxy is growing rapidly. And if it's the case that the ecclesiastical structure is already there, which it is, right?

If you're going to cohabitate with a woman, the thing that you're offering right now is common law marriage anyway, if there's cohabitation at all. You're not protecting anybody from that.

At least under my model, it gives an ecclesiastical structure that's designed to prevent divorce by applying community pressure. That was the way it was always done.

Apply the application of community pressure within the confines of the woman's social circle. Right now, do you agree with me, for instance, that many divorces happen because women like to yap?

So you get a freshly divorced woman and she's free. You go, girl.
Girl power.

And she starts talking to her little friends and she starts telling them how liberating it is and how great it is and this and that.

And this is why when women have divorced friends, their likelihood of divorce actually rapidly increases. It's for this reason.
Divorce is contagious.

So if it's the case that this social contagion is eliminated because now we have an ecclesiastical structure, an ecclesiastical authority, which won't grant it because you get ostracized from that social group through excommunication, for instance, or not being able to participate anymore with that community, that's an application of a serious and significant social pressure, which can do the very thing you want.

Bring back that great institution, absent the state, and it avoids this whole problem of common law marriage.

Because if it's the case that you can be common law married anyway, inside of a state, and they can

get grounds for divorce on that anyway, then we actually need to have some social pressures to prevent them from doing that. So it sounds like

we agree marriage is awesome. for men.
Divorce is terrible for them. So it seems like we should be attacking the divorce structure here.

And it doesn't seem like you actually have anything to do that other than just avoid the thing that's great for you

because this other bad side effect could happen. Sure.
That's why we need cigarettes. So why don't we attack the bad side effect when we have the mechanism to do it? It's not if we can do it now.

Okay, so like smoking cigarettes is the same analogy you're saying. Okay, here, cigarettes in this situation, we obviously know it has negative side effects.
So you would avoid it.

Now, here's the issue that I have with it. It sounds great on paper, but we can't travel to the land of make-believe.
It sounds great. The majority of people probably wouldn't do it.

And if you ask a guy, which this is an important part, they're not even prepared to even talk about that. They don't even know what divorce laws are.

So you're asking them to travel to the land of make-believe under a marriage system that small percentage of people use. No one uses it today.

You might have said they used it to the past. Today, that doesn't exist.
So we can't travel to the land of make-believe to make marriage work for you.

It might work in your marriage, but it doesn't work for the greatest.

Your argument here contradicts itself because, on the one hand, you say men don't know enough about marriage, but my assumption is that your mission is to let men know about marriage. Absolutely.

Okay, well, then I don't understand how it's the land of make-believe if you can let them know about this, but I can't. Sure.
Right. So you can't offer that.

So if I am, it sounds like I'm offering a real alternative to what you're offering. And here's what you're offering.
Men, marriage is great. It's a great institution.
It's the best best for children.

These are your words. In marriage, right? Men seem to thrive.
Their health seems to thrive. Everything seems to thrive.

You're saying, well, the problem is, is that divorce rates are high and they are. However, there's a few things there that you haven't covered.
One, it depends on demographic, too.

For instance, if you're black, that's way, it's going to be way worse than if you're white. Correct.
Okay. Way worse.

And also, socioeconomics matters, right?

demographics in general matter so you can do a lot actually including pre-nuptial agreements you can have a pre-nuptial agreement with the ecclesiastical authority without the state even involved and it seems like that would mitigate your risk to damn near nothing

you said if about 50 times so did you now here's what i'm telling you i'm telling you when all right we're already in this system

you're going outside of the system to create a scenario for me to argue what system are you going outside of we're Words. Shout out to today's sponsor, Quince.

As the weather cools, I'm swapping in the pieces that actually gets the job done that are warm, durable, and built to last.

Quince delivers every time with wardrobe staples that'll carry you through the season. They have false staples that you'll actually want to wear, like the 100% Mongolian cashmere for just $60.

They also got classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up.

By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quince cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands.

They've really become a go-to across the board. You guys know how I love linen and how I've talked about it on previous episodes.
I picked up some linen pants and they feel incredible.

The quality is definitely noticeable compared to other brands. Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look.

Go to quince.com/slash dsh for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. They're also available in Canada too.

Talking about marriage is typically done with the state. Almost everyone does it this way.
So now you're here's hold on for a second. Hold on for a second.

You've moved the goal post to a scenario of if,

and you're arguing from the if.

Hold on for a second. You're arguing from the if perspective.
Is perspective. No, listen.
It is.

All right. Give me a chance.
Go ahead. You're arguing from a very small percentage point.

Now you're saying demographics, and we can talk about that, but you're still trying to get me to argue in your cloud of if. That's the land of make-believe.

Most people by far are married to the state. Not only that, your land of make-believe still exists, the prenup with the ecclesiastics.
You can write whatever you want in that pre-nup.

It only matters in the divorce. That's the reality.
So I'm still dealing in reality. You're in the clouds.
Hold on for a second. You're in the clouds.
So let's take the demographics. Okay.

In your first scenario, it sounds like, which would be fair, your primary concern is with white people. No, it's with white.
Hold on for a second.

You said with black people, the demographics, the chance is higher. Yeah.

So have you discovered the ecclesiastics approach to black people married within this? Yes. However,

their demographics, economics, which all do affect marriage. has nothing to do in the land of the clouds or the make-believe with ecclesiastics.
It's all going to boil down to in the law.

And there's no church reverend that's going to go into your household to make sure there's social pressure on your wife. Do you know any? Yes.
Okay. Do you know any that can cover all marriages?

That yes or is no. Yes.
By the way, we need to keep. Are we in reality here? I'm trying.

I mean,

we're not arguing anything.

I was just trying to.

This is in the land of make-believe. Well, whenever you're allowed to respond.
Okay, give me a second. Go ahead.
Let me finish this point. Go ahead.
You're imagining, your imagination is great.

John Lynn, it would be great. You know, you would be proud of you at this particular point.
But I'm imagining all the people.

You're imagining all the people under a situation and a structure that you brought in here. All right.
But the state highly governs this, and the state highly governs divorce.

I'm dealing in a reality situation where I'm trying to counsel men to give information to. The best thing you've told me is that you're willing to give men the option to do this.

Are they willing to all do this option? The answer is probably not, just like they're not willing to do what I'm telling them to do. However, we're both attempting, which is a good thing.
It's noble.

However, your situation rarely exists. Can we talk about the reality of what exists? Sure.
Absolutely. So let's take your moral, religious crusade out of it and talk about the reality.

Are you willing to do that? Yeah, well, here's the thing. See, you're not willing to do that because it's all based on your reality.
Guess what? It's a debate, and I will argue my points from my view.

How I see fit, it's not for you to go. What I'm not going to do is explain

arguing from the land of make-believe. Yeah, but

you know, all right, so anybody have my turn?

Anybody have the sound effect for the

television show where the train comes through, Mr. Rogers? Let me know what I mean.
Because

I want to be on earth. Yeah, let me know.
All right, let's let Andrew respond.

Yeah, so the thing is, it's funny that you bring up Imagine all the people with John Lennon, which is an anti-religious song, and hilariously enough, was designed to assist with female empowerment.

Isn't that hilarious? But the thing here is, you keep on saying that what I'm offering is make-believe, but it's not.

It's been governing the Orthodox and Catholic Church for 2,000 years, including in this country. Now, here, let me give you an example, for instance, the Amish, right?

Do you know what the divorce rate is among them? It's almost non-existent, yet they're still governed by the same laws of the land that you're speaking to.

So it sounds like if I give a counter, if I say, look, I can give you a way, a methodology in which you can utilize the religious ecclesiastical institution, which has existed for 2,000 years and has right now the lowest divorce rates right this second as we speak, not in make-believe land, not hundreds of years in the future, right this second, as opposed to the system you have of common law divorce, which is sky high and you can't do anything about it.

That's what is true. So pointing out what is true, what is true is right now you can have a prenup.
That is true. What is true is prenups are usually held up in court.
That is true.

What is true is that you can have a marriage outside of a state because it's a religious institution anyway. You never have to have a license with the state.
It's never been necessary.

And if you do, the only way that that can be done is if it's sacramental. And if it's sacramental, it's governed now by the church.
That's going to be the community the women are a part of.

And so the thing is, it's like, that sounds like a real viable solution. What's yours? More fucking degeneracy? Go out and play the field? Hump a lot of chicks?

How's that going to help anybody do anything? That's been the progressive mantra for 100 years. Isn't it wonderful?

Your turn. All right, we're returning back to earth.
Now, first things first, when it comes to this, back in reality, there's no God in marriage. So, Mr.

Sky Daddy, God, religion, that's all great, but there's no God in marriage.

At this particular point, when you go through a marriage, if one person decides to not obey the holy Bible or whatever you're thumping, you have no basis to keep that marriage together.

If she decides to leave the church and decides not to listen or excommunicate herself, she's now under the state. I agree.
Now, when you're getting divorced, which I'm assuming you've been divorced.

Well, I mean, that's a hell of an assumption to make. Have you been divorced?

Have you been married? Can you tell me, if you can tell me how that has any merit? Give me a second.

Because if you've been through one, you would know that there's no God in the divorce court, in the family court. There's no God in there.
No one asks. There is the the state in there.

There is the state. So that's what we're arguing.
That's when you get married. So you're telling me if, and I'm telling you, well, this is what's going to happen.

Even if you took Sky Daddy into court with you, they would say, you pray to the judge. The judge is the authority in the court.
So the God argument is a nice, interesting argument.

And I probably am not going to stay on the conversation very long because that's your God. That's your Sky Daddy.
That's your religion. I have a different religion.

So who gives you the, listen, who gives you the authority to change the understanding, the conversation to your religion? That's your religion. I'm not changing the conversation either.
Okay, so

it only works if you believe in your sky daddy.

That's the only way it works, and that's the only way you're going to advise men. We're talking about mitigating risk.
No, no, no.

We're talking about, can men get into a marriage today only under your sky daddy? That's what we're assuming. Okay.
Now, can they do it otherwise? Yeah, you can have secular marriage. Okay.

Go ahead and explain. Okay, yeah.
Make it work. I just did.
Make it work. The argument that you have is that marriage is great.
It's a great institution. We already covered this.

Well, what made it great? We already covered it. What made it great? Can we go into why it would make it work for your secular? That's the question I ask.
You're asking me questions back. Go ahead and

answer the question. So if you're talking about secular marriage, there's never been any point to it.
I'm sorry? There's never been any point to secular marriage ever.

Never.

What would ever be the point of secular marriage? It's always been a religious institution. That's what made it great.

Now, when you say it's a great institution, what made it great for secularists other than the fact that Sky Daddy and God had all these enforcement arms and those things had to be enforced socially?

Like, for instance, men weren't allowed to run away. And women, right, they had to show cause for these divorces and they had to be good causes.
They had to show it for things like infidelity, right?

It was all biblically governed. It was all lawfully governed by this skydaddy guy you like so little.
But that's what made the institution great in the first place.

And what you're talking about here, you're making a point

that divorce is bad. And yet I agree divorce is bad.
So what we're really talking about is how do we mitigate the risk for divorce? And we have two different methods here. Well, the conversation

marriage is good for men. That's the conversation.
But it is. We already said it's good for men.
That's not even a discussion. And now, how do we make it better since they're avoiding it?

Oh, it sounds like men or women are avoiding it. It sounds like the thing that you think makes it bad is divorce, not marriage.
Correct. Then we need to mitigate our divorce.

We're 15 minutes in and we are in the land of reality. You finally called up.
Can you tell me

how we can get to the secular marriage? I mean, I've given you a chance. You're dragging your.
So again, secular, there's never been any point to secular marriage ever.

Now, listen, marriage is for child creation. It would be great for child communities and all of these things.

And now, listen, by the time the religious aspects got into marriage, they were chopping people's heads off and burning Bibles.

So listen, I know we want to take it back to the past and act like the past was better, but there's always a negative part of the past.

If you go back and you look at the English, this has all been there. People were getting their heads chopped off.

The Crusaders were doing their things across countries and they were spreading Christianity through threats and violence. I don't have to do anything.
Now, that's what you're trying to uplift.

That's what you're trying to uphold. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.
You wouldn't know what I'm talking about. I don't.
That's where you're lacking. I have no idea.

You didn't catch up. You're sitting across the river.
What have to do with divorce? That was when your holy marriage was the best marriage that you're trying to go to.

Now, listen, in the 1950s, were we crusading in the 1950s? No, no, no.

What the hell are you talking about? You talked about the institution of marriage for 2,000 years. Yeah.
Sir, do you need me to catch you up on what you're talking about?

You're having trouble keeping up with me.

You're having trouble keeping up with me. You said 1,000 years ago.
Truly. And I told you 2,000 years ago, they were chopping people's heads off.
Which has what to do with anything?

I need you to catch up with me, sir.

If you want to take things back to the past, you have to accept everything as the past. You can't just cherry pick.
Wow. Here's the thing.
You're cherry-picking.

If you want to take things back to tradition, take it all the way back.

Why stop at the 50s take it back to the to the 1890s what you're saying right now is so incoherent i actually don't even understand well that's what listen when you're it's when you're running out of bullets

when you're running out of bullets the last thing you do is the shame all right i'm not even trying to feed you it's just incoherent i need you to catch up with me okay catch me up just say you're lacking if you can't keep it up right now here's the problem it's here's oh here's the problem here's the problem i don't know what to tell you here's the problem you're having 2000 years ago they were chopping heads on who gives a shit what does that mean 2 000 years ago i'm coming up with yours.

Your holy religious 2,000 years ago, it's been a part of life. It does have to do with this.
Exactly. Here's the problem.
You're cherry-picking. Cherry-picking what?

Listen. I'm listening.
I'm going to slow you down. I'm going to slow you down because I see what you're doing here.
I'm going to slow you down. Okay.
Because it's hard for you to keep up. It is.

I understand. I understand.
Because you am in the crowd. This is your toughest debate.
Your audience knows this. Oh, it's rough.
There's no God in marriage. Okay.
In the United States.

Can we agree to that? When you get to divorce, there's no God in marriage. marriage.
I can't agree to that. We need to agree to it because when you go into divorce court, there's no God.

You can't bring in your God and your Bible. And at that particular point, none of your ecclesiastics marriage works.

Period. So the thing is, you just said, can we agree that there's no God in marriage? And then he's...
We don't have to agree. But hang on, calm down.
And then you switched over to... divorce.

There's no God in divorce. But those are two different questions and propositions.
Hang on. Relax.

The second thing is, is that me saying that what made marriage a great institution is this whole skydaddy character, and that the institution has been in place for 2,000 years and has been

calm down. 2,000 years.
And it's been a strong institution.

I'm not actually sure how tying in that at the time they cut people's heads off, what that has to do with the fact that in the 1950s and 40s, you still had 95% of these marriages staying together.

This is not ancient history. This is not even early American history.
That's hang on. That's

in your grandfather's lifetime, basically. And by the way, that was the case for black marriages as well.
Very strong institutions.

But all of those institutions were that way because they followed that whole skydaddy thing.

They were like, oh, that skydaddy's going to smite us if we don't.

And so what you do here is you're giving the classic progressive argument, which is, well, you know, guys, it is true that it's a great institution.

And it is true it's the best place in the world to have children for the continuation of the species and also it's fantastic for men's health it's fantastic for their mental health it's great for them in almost every way but that divorce thing is real bad and i counter you're right that divorce thing is real bad we have it now a center of agreement but now we're going back to the marriage in the west thing which is that whole great institution problem well if we agree that what made it good what you just did is hey that sky daddy guy and then i point out that right now you can still utilize that sky daddy guy for an ecclesiastical marriage outside of the state.

Hang on. And the only thing you could do is say, what about common law? But you can't govern anybody from common law.

And at least in the ecclesiastical institution, you have social pressures on women to stay married. You can't offer a man anything like that.

Give me a single social pressure you can offer that would actually keep these marriages together. One.
What? What? Just one.

Can I answer something you just said? This would be interesting. I can't.
You said that. But can I answer that question? Then before, before.
Oh, 1940s. You got to ask me a question.
Because listen,

I'm listening to you. You asked the question at the end.
If you would have asked it at the beginning, possibly I might have been able to address it. But let me address this point.

You said the 1940s and 1950s with this imaginary skydaddy controlling marriages.

That sounds like enforcement because by the time the 1970s came around, the very first chance, women got to file a no-fault divorce without need for evidence, without need to have a private investigator to prove an affair.

It was no fault. They did.
In the 70s? Yes, it was the 70s started by Ronald Reagan. I'll educate you.
But hang on. It came along.
Hold on for a second. No, no, no, no.
I got the floor here.

I got the floor. So you said the religious institutions governed it and made it great.
The 1970s came along, and soon as they did,

women started to file divorces at record rates, which is back to my conversation. Soon as you remove the authority of Sky Daddy, now you're back with the state.

And now you have difficulty, and now the risk is now greater. Wow.
So

that's the issue that. And it sounds like men should be moving towards Sky Daddy then because it mitigates their risk.
The courts, the nation should be. There's no courts.
But how do you enforce that?

What court? What courts?

You're not getting a marriage from the state. What courts are involved in? Everything you told me is a make-believe scenario.
How?

You can do it right now. How is it make-believe? How do you do that when people, the state of the marriages do state? I know.
You want to go back to Ecclesiastics. This is going to be

right this second. Okay, you can do it.
You can go do it right now. You can do it at this particular point.

However,

here's the problem. Okay.
Can you get men to do it? Yes. Okay.

You might be able to think you can get men to do it, but as soon as they do it, I want you to stick around for the average of eight to 10 years when these men start getting divorce.

See, what you're doing is you're leading people to the menu. We've been watching it longer.
You've been leading, you're going to lead men into a burning building.

And the reason why, and this is a famous quote by Martin Luther King, is because the laws of integration didn't catch up fast enough for what he wanted for people to integrate.

And what happened was it took him 12 to 15 years to realize that he led men or black people into a burning building in which integration was not possible at the time.

You are also proposing the same thing. And I would like for you to stick around to see the results of what you're proposing because eventually you would have to pay the price.

How did Martin Luther King pay the price? You would have to pay the price for the men that you misled. So Martin Luther misled misled men, and that's why he was killed.
I said he misled black people.

You missed that part.

He said, Okay, let me let me repeat it because you're slow. You definitely are slow, Neanderthal.

Let me tell you something. I'm dragging.
Martin Luther King said specifically, related to black people and civil rights, and I'll speak slowly for you,

that he believed at the end, he led them into a burning building. I'm going to speak slower.
The reason why is because the laws of integration

did not catch up with what he would like to present. Black people weren't ready to integrate.
As a result, he said, I may have led my people, my people, that means his people,

into a burning building.

You were, I would like for you, under your scenario, if your movement takes off.

to see the results because it took Martin Luther King 12, 15 years to see the results

of his efforts.

You're proposing something very extreme that majority of people aren't going to do. But let's just say if, because you like to hide in the clouds of make-believe, if they did it, this works.

I would love to see you represent these men in a divorce when they get their head bit off by these so-called women that are forced by Sky Daddy to stay in these marriages.

This is really like, I don't even understand how you don't understand. I know you have a hard time understanding.

I don't actually even understand how to respond to a lot of this because it's so incoherent, but I'm going to try try and. Oh, yeah, see, this is, this is just,

this is his always incoherent when he understands. Perhaps you don't understand.
This is it. That might be what it is.
And it's okay to say you don't understand and I can speak slowly for you.

I don't understand, but I'm going to tell you why. I'm going to be dismissive.
I mean, you know. I'm going to tell you why.
Okay. When you're losing, just say you're losing.
And I can speak.

Let me know when I can talk and he gas out. Go ahead.
Okay.

So here's a typical tactic, but you can work that against these OnlyFans girls.

You can work that tactic against those OnlyFans girls that you debate, debating 23-year-old ignorant women. They're smarter than you.
But now they're sitting across from a person.

I'm always smarter than you. You're sitting across from a person here.
Oh, no. That's looking at a Neanderthal saying you don't understand something very simple.
Let me know when he gasped.

This is the simplest thing that you can understand.

Your girl. Your girl.
Are you sure? Please. You can actually do it this morning? Please.
Put me to sleep. Okay.
So

here's why it's incoherent, and there's a bunch of this to understand. You keep on saying that these men are going to get divorced, and yet I'm proposing non-state marriages.

How are they going to get divorced? Well, you can only say then

via common law, but again, you have no defense yourself against.

These are if scenarios. I don't know.
I mean, I don't

said I was going to debate somebody that's going to come. Why are you celibusting? This is a real scenario.

I'll let you speak the entire time. Give me something to speak about.

You're not asking me to speak, man. You're trying to invite me to your church.
I'm just

going to please give me a real scenario. You have to shut up long enough for me to do it.
Come on, please. I've been here 30 minutes waiting for you to do it.
All right. Give me a rail scenario.

Okay, so what I don't understand here again, and I'm going to ask again, in your incoherent worldview,

you keep on saying that these men who I propose this to are going to get divorced, but I'm not proposing that they get married through the state. The state's the one who does the divorces.

So the only thing you could say is that there's a potential for common law here, but that's something you yourself cannot guard them from by your own admission.

The second problem that we have here is that it's, I don't have to stick around for 10 or 15 years because we can look at the numbers right now in religious marriage for what this looks like.

And here's what this looks like. If you're a Catholic, you're way less likely to get divorced.
And if you're Orthodox, even less likely to get divorced.

And it's because of that ecclesiastical structure. You're not ever going to be able to prevent all risks from divorce.
Not under anything. God, that's not.
That's the most realistic system.

Not under any.

But not under any system.

Is that going to be the case? Maybe our Catholics are getting divorced. How do they get divorced? They get annulments.

They they don't even get divorces and it's a how does that really long christian it's rare have a similar divorce rate than the secular no so they have a very close so how do they get divorced i'm gonna ask

if you i'll answer these questions please tell me so because i know how to get divorced right into the divorce court yeah i know so that because they got a state marriage

right yeah and i'm proposing that they don't do that right okay a land of make believe if how's that a male and make believe you can go fucking do it right now tell me what are you talking about what percentage of people do this particular thing that you're doing that you're proposing why would that matter let's say it's one person why would that matter one person so you're taking a very small chance you're arguing against me that has millions of people on my

you're telling me a small 20 people in the little house on the prairie yeah do that that do these that you govern people without electricity and and you riding horse and carriages yeah you're telling me this small percentage of people are gonna lead a movement of doing something you're proposing here on youtube This is going.

How many people are doing this? Okay. Why would you? How many matter? It would matter because then we can use some data to determine: do these people end up in divorce? Well, we can more than likely.

This is great because we can look at the data. So let's

do you want to look at the Catholic data in Orthodox nationwide. No, no, no.
We're talking about your ecclesiastic proposal. That's what we're talking about.

This is the ecclesiastical proposal. We're exclusing Catholic and Christians.
Their divorce rate tends to be very close.

I'll look at us. It's very close.
Let's not look it up hold on for id christians self-id Christians okay self-identified no no let's just put christians

and copy you have to define you have to actually want a christian he likes to dice up all of these people and listen listen i would love to go to your church one day i would be a wonderful guest and i would love to thump the bible and i would love to say a prayer with you uh-huh however

This conversation is entering because we pull up my screen. Very much a Sky Daddy conversation, which

it's about belief. You brought up Sky Daddy.
You

it up a lot. We got the divorce race pulled up right here.
That's not how you brought that up. What is that? So that is a religious argument.
You're an atheist. You should be able to give people

contending.

A lot of people would not want to do that. You're telling me a small percentage.
Who cares? We're talking about mitigating the rates of divorce.

It doesn't matter how many people are going to be able to do that. We move forward from this one.
We agree to disagree. No, we don't agree to disagree.
I don't know what you're saying.

So you counter argue in your land of make a believer. I want counter argument.
I'm not going to argue in your land of make-believe. Yeah, because you can't.
You have no counter-believe.

It's ridiculous. You don't don't have one counter-argument.

Here's a counter-argument. Okay, what is it? There's no God in marriage.
How many times do I have to say that? That's an assertion. It's not an argument.

If you end up in divorce court, God doesn't matter. None of this matters.
That's real. That's the realest argument that you can possibly hear.

How do you end up in a divorce court without the situation? Hold on for a second. Hold on.

Hold on for a second. I'm going to tell you how.
Okay. In the 1940s, what you so love, I don't know why you don't live there.
You look like you live there. You're dressed like you live there.

Here's the problem.

Hold on for a second hold on for a second here's the problem okay these people under your authoritative godly marriage still got divorced at high rates once no fault divorce showed up it started at 25

then by the time you get here it's close to 40 and 50 it's still prevalent i'm giving you the reality

you're trying to drag me back over here to the little house on the prairie it's not working it's not going to work with me how about this how about a counter argument traditional if traditional marriage i I gave you one.

What? Come on, man. What is the counter-argument? Come on, man.
It's not a counter-argument. What's the counter-argument? There's no God in marriage.
And the

assertion, not an argument. There's no God in divorce court.
God's not an argument.

There's no divorce. Okay, well, there is a God in divorce court.
Argument defeated. Exactly.
Argument defeated. Oh, my goodness.
Boy. All right.
Did you get your sandbox outside?

Did you miss your toes? No, it's just repeated.

Here's the problem. I want an argument.
This is the absolute argument. Okay.
You're trying to drag me to church. I'm taking you outside of church.

You can't combat it because you want to battle inside the church. I'm not not letting you.
So let's get back to the state. I don't care if secularists get married.
Let's get back to the state.

What do you mean? And that divorce rate. Did you find out the numbers? Yeah, I pulled it up earlier, but I'll pull it up again.

It's up on the screen. Can you guys see this?

Catholic, 19 to 25%.

Mainline Protestant, 30 to 35%.

Evangelical, 26 to 33. That's up there.
Now,

that's

40. Orthodox.

33, 34, 30. That's pretty high.
Orthodox divorce rate,

let's see,

17 to 20. I see, average, 33%.

That's U.S. U.S.
average. Evangelical

Protestants, that's with the coalition.

Ever divorced, 17 to 20. U.S.
average, 33%. So they're much lower.

In the U.S., 33%.

But Orthodox ever divorced, that's worldwide. Yeah,

they're much lower rates.

But you're saying that they can't get divorced. That's what you said.
Oh, bro. said, is that what you said? The whole point is

how do we mitigate the risk of divorce? You can't ever completely mitigate it.

It can't ever be completely mitigated, but you can mitigate the risk of divorce. Okay, great.
It is lower.

Much lower. Much lower.
Okay, all right. So a chance of getting hit 30% versus 44%.

This doesn't defeat the argument.

It does force the argument. Those divorces happen in the court of law because no divorce cannot be reported in

the court of law. Actually, what is the divorce that happens outside of the court of law? If it's 33% in the court of law with your orthodox ecclesiastic marriage, what is it outside?

What is it within that? It's even lower. So add that 10%.
Yes. Now we're at 40%.
He wouldn't add that. He wouldn't add 10%.
That's the legal divorce.

Hold on for a second. When you say a divorce, those are reported divorces legally.
That means these people filed in the legal reported system. That's 30 plus percent.
Okay.

You said there would be more that were outside of the door. No, last.
Outside of the state. Last.
No, no, hold on for a second. Last.
There's additional outside of the marriage. Outside of the state.

Oh, there's none?

So you're saying there's zero. Not really.
What are you saying? Okay, so let me explain. Please.
So that you understand. Additional to the 33%.

But you have to, can you at least let me finish this time? Please do it because you're slow. So if it's the case.

If it's the case you're in an ecclesiastical marriage, you're still adding usually the state. These people are all adding the state, okay?

The Catholics themselves, if you were to look at their annulments rate from the ecclesiastical authority, it's actually much lower than even the percentage that you're getting from the state because they add the state in, which means some people will ignore the ecclesiastical authority and get divorced anyway.

That's exactly what I've been telling you.

Nobody ever argued that. Exactly.
But so we're arguing about mitigating the risk.

Mitigating the risk.

No, it would mitigate the risk. So the risk is slightly lower.
Much lower. Okay, that's not that much lower.
It's much lower.

40%, you're talking about 33% to 43%. No, we're not.
We're talking about 20% to 35% to 40%.

Okay, so that's lower. Yes.
Okay, that's all you got. Now, here's what I'm saying.
That's all I need.

That's not all you need because there's still risk. How do you say that? Nobody said there wouldn't be risk.
Exactly. You can't mitigate risk for anything, 100%.
It's not possible. Exactly.

So now why are we telling men to get married? Because you have to, because everything is a cost-benefit analysis. Your issue is not marriage.
Your issue is with mitigating.

At this point, it's not marriage.

Hold on for a second. Can I say this? Oh, my God.

Can you ever stop saying something so I can say something? At this particular point,

you're telling me from this point, we haven't even got to the entire marriage because you're still over in the land of make-believe. We haven't even got to the other issues of marriage.

Hold on for a second. We still haven't got to the other issues of marriage.
I'm loaning you. So you're telling me about the mitigation risk, and we've wasted too much time on it.

Can we talk about the other issues of marriage? Well, okay. Sexless marriage.
Can we at least wrap this up? Yeah, let Andrew finalize this.

The thing is, is like, the problem is, is you said it was a great institution. If you say it's a great institution, even when it was a great institution, people were still getting divorced.

So if that's the case, what you're really after is just mitigating risk. And I'm giving you a perfect way to mitigate risk.
Right.

And the fact of the matter is, is that it is becoming more and more popular to do it this way.

Prenup plus ecclesiastical authority almost mitigates your risk entirely, except for common law, but you can pick the state to live in for that.

And you, by your own logic, can't defer from common law either. You can't protect men from that.
So the thing is, is like, you can't have it both ways.

You can't agree marriage is good and the backbone for the West and you really like it and it's fucking great and it's a great institution, but also don't do it because it's make-believe that you can mitigate risk, even though you can right this second.

That's insane.

Listen, all right, final point. I'm listening.
Final point. Let's get to the other risks that are associated with it.
We got that. We taped that point on this.
That is a make the final point.

And then, Jody, listen. I'm a grown man.
I'm not 22-year-old OnlyFans. I'm going to say what I want to say.
Listen to this. At this particular point, you got me off there.

Listen, we're moving forward. Okay, we're moving forward.
At this point, what are the other risks that we want to guard against? We got the divorce.

You're going to put them on the ecclesiastic paperwork.

Less people are doing that. Not a lot of people know how to do it.
He just got married. He didn't do it.
All right. I can almost guarantee.
Probably not. Exactly.

So now, less people are going to do this. Not a lot of people know that.
Not a lot of men are going to prepare themselves to do that.

Exactly. So that would be a very tough scenario.
And most likely it's not going to happen moving forward. Okay.
There are other issues in marriage. Okay.
Let's see. That typically, if

depending on what authority you go under, are still a risk for men. Yes, it's great for the backbone, but a lot of men are in sexless marriages.
A lot of women are in sexless marriages.

The percentage of affairs in marriages are still a big issue. That can't be addressed.
Those risks are going to be tough.

And now you have an issue because now your, whoever's your authority, has to mitigate that risk.

Now all of a sudden they have to govern or socially pressure the women and that's going to be difficult to do. 20%, 30% of sexist marriages, 20%, 30% of people having affairs.

This is not the intent of people who get married. So yes, we have the divorce.
We set that aside. Now, what about within the marriage? How do you mitigate the risk for that?

I'm assuming you're going to have the ecclesiastic come through the home and force the wives to fuck their husbands. Oh, that's quite the straw man.
But

I'll go ahead and answer.

Actually, the ecclesiastical authority does mitigate against this. And here's my proofs.
Proof one.

If it is the case that you get married to a woman who's a virgin, but she's a virgin because

she's a Christian. Hang on, let me get through the entirety of the arguments before you start freaking out.
If it is the case,

your chances of that marriage ending, very, very, very small, one. And two, they report that they have a happier sex life.

This is actually the case with the decrease in body count, which generally comes with the more religious people.

Meaning, the more that you take your religion seriously, the more that you pray, the more that you engage in that whole ecclesiastical authority thing, the less likely it is you step out of your marriage, significantly less likely.

The less likely it is that you end up in a sexless marriage. You know why?

Because there's a reinforcement in Christianity that men and women are not allowed to deprive each other of that, of sex when it comes to marriage.

And you find the people who follow the traditional faiths generally don't. And so, yes, the ecclesiastical authority preaches that from the pulpit.
Sorry, lady, you got to fuck your husband.

That's part of God's law. Yeah.

What do you got for him? Go out and just fuck everybody? What? What is you? That's an interesting thing. What are you going to do

to mitigate, by the way,

you're at the mercy of the same criticism. You can't mitigate guys' girlfriends from fucking around on them any more than you could a person's wife.

You can't mitigate them stepping out on them. You can't mitigate them treating them like shit.
You can't do anything. At least I have a mitigation.
You have nothing. You have nothing.

Just liberal degeneracy. Give me something, something you could do that would give any sort,

any kind of fail-safe against this. One thing.

I don't know what communities you live in, but your church pastor is going to be very busy walking in all of these bedrooms, preventing divorce, and and enforcing women to sleep with their husbands.

Now, the first leap of faith that you have, hold on for a second. Oh, I heard you.
The first leap of faith is virgin. Okay, if we look at the stats, please pull up the stats of how many women qualify

as a virgin. Virginity.
You said virginity. I'm just letting you know, you brought it up.
In America. In America, what women...

percentage qualify as virgins all right so you're gonna say it's very few so you know this seven percent it's 22 to 34 seven percent yep okay

do you know so we're now we have

do you know what a baseline for an argument is that was the baseline yeah you want to say now do we want to base the body count i mean because you're looking that was the whole point of the baseline of the argument so right now if we can pull up how many women in gen z because this is marital a marital age women would have a body count lower than five no because we're also marriageably aged what do you mean eight millennials younger millennials okay because there's no point in older people getting married they're not procreating all right they're gonna have one or two kids That doesn't help.

Not that much. All right.
They're going to have one or two kids. All right.
Listen, it said in the Bible, in your Bible, it says, be fruitful and multiply, not add. All right.

We're not adding one little autistic kid. We're adding, we're multiplying.
That would be multiplying. It wouldn't be multiplying.
Having one little bread-ass kid. You have three and you have one more.

That's that's

multiplying by one. All right.
That's not an answer. Okay.
Listen. We're multiplying by multiples.
You know what I'm talking about. Now, listen.
Yeah, that is what.

Hold on for a second. Hold on for a second.

You want to convince me that there's going to be women of low body count in this secular world we live in to make your scenario work to enforce women to have sex with their husbands from the pulpit.

Do you see this is very strange? Why have all the data passed?

From a very small percentage, I mean, it works in a Podunk town. I don't know where you're from.

We're talking about the

metropolises. We're talking about major cities.
How is your plan going to mitigate that?

How is your plan going to mitigate that? I don't know if you remember. I asked you.
All right. And I told you.

And you came back with virgins. No.
And you came back with enforcing sex for the whole kid. Half the argument.
That's why you can't respond to my arguments. So let's do it again.

If you want to mitigate, mitigate women to have loaded body pots. You're not, dude.
How's it force?

Go ahead. How's it force?

You're the one enforcing sex. How is it? How? How are we using force? How are you enforcing sex to the husband?

Do social pressure doofus the same way you would with everything.

Gentlemen, your wife is going to have sex with you because a church reverend enforced her to have sex with you. Do you think? Okay.
Please pull up the chat.

His suggestion is to have a church reverend enforce you to enforce the desire to have sex.

Force requires force. Enforce is a derivative of force.
You can't enforce absent force. No one's saying force.
This is how your sex is going to be had in his marriage.

It's through enforcement through the religious pool. No, it's going to be a relationship.
I mean, this is 2025, and we're still here somewhere on Little House in the Prairie.

If it's the idea, I would love to have this reality.

If it's the idea that women have, and men have both, that they're not supposed to deprive each other from this, because that is how they live the life of a Christian.

The case of the matter is, is that they try to keep themselves sexually appealing to the partner. They try to keep themselves moving towards that state where they're found appealing.

That's part of that. Why do you think, and by the way, you keep saying force.

Can you demonstrate anywhere that I said that there would be any force involved with any of this or that it's even necessary in force is force correct that's what so i was so where is the force where tell me you you're the one you're gonna ask the question you're the one that told me the church reverend is gonna come and force marriage no when when you said that earlier no i said that enforcement for authority

social pressure social pressure that's not your i fuck your husband no you're not making them do anything okay to encourage them to fuck yeah okay this Don't you encourage people's wives to fuck them?

I probably, I don't need to be in their bedrooms that much. Yeah, I mean, if it's encouraging you anything.
I can't force a woman to do very well.

If a woman called you and said, I don't sleep with my husband, he seems angry at me. Would you encourage him or her to sleep with him? I wouldn't encourage her to do anything, especially with you.

I don't mess with married women. That's their brilliant.
So your solution is there. There's fucking nothing.
Nothing. My solution is very clear.
What is it?

You're telling me at this particular point that you're going to enforce through social pressure. Social pressure.

that's not hold on for a second social pressure enforces social pressure enforces women to be very promiscuous at this particular point uh-huh now you're talking about seven percent of the population or better maybe 10 that are going to fall under this category and this is going to lead a wave of women sleeping with their husband through social pressures when social pressure quite tells them the opposite let me move let me let me let me have i don't even know what the hell you're talking about this police exactly exactly it's very difficult i know it is very difficult for you.

I know, exactly. And very nice tactic.
But listen,

it's not a tactic. I really are applying my hardest.

You're taking a very small scenario to make it the large scenario when I'm telling you the larger scenario is the reality. And you're telling me

I do this. If I do that, this is a very small percentage.

I'm telling you about

marriage.

You may get a divorce.

If this happens, then this may happen. We already looked at the statistics of it likely happening.
Yeah, no, no. So that is likely to happen.
First of all, even the statistics.

statistics again?

Yeah, pull up the marriage statistics.

For Christians, it's actually not likely, is it? In the United States. Overall, in the United States.

In order for it to work, you have to be white. You need to break down.
Make a certain amount of time. Hold on for a second.

You want to break it down? And so and social media. So

you want to go, in order for your marriage to work, they have to be white, Christian. They don't have to be white.
Make money. No.
And then also... probably live in a certain region.

If it's the case, now what if that's not the case? Because in the United States, I don't know where you live, but in the the case of the community. Then we use the apparatuses.

If you take the rest of the United States, they're highly not that. That is outside of those demographics.
And don't you want to change that? What if they're outside of that?

What if they're not white and Christian? Don't you want to change that? What if they're not Christian to make 100K? What do you suggest then? Yeah. So here's what I would suggest.

If it's the case that in the black community, you have more divorces than in the white community, there's going to be contributing factors for why that is.

I don't think that like black people are just ontologically different than white people. Do you?

Do you just believe like that at their core, they're just ontologically different? Or do you think that they're the same?

Because if that's the case, if we're equal people and equal people groups, then there must be some other social factors which are relating to this that increase the divorce rate in the black community that doesn't exist yet in the white community.

If that's the case, we would specifically target those issues to prevent that from happening, right? We're going to do this. What is we're going to do this across the board? Well, what would they be?

For the black community, there's a bunch. The one, you have a distinction in economic certitude.

The second one is you had a massive abortion rate which is super problematic another one is you use matriarchal structures in the family home instead of patriarchal huge issue that you have by the way when it was christian based

Didn't happen. It was a patriarchal structure inside those black homes.
And boy, they didn't put up with shit. Not the case anymore.
So you have multiple factors here, which need to be addressed.

I agree with that. Nobody ever disagreed with that, though.
What we're trying to do is look at the mitigation of risk. And even for the black community,

if the black community moves in to these conventionally traditional churches, they still will have the same ecclesiastical authority, which will assist them in governing their marriage that white people would have.

And it would still assist with the mitigation of risk. What's the alternative? It's just degeneracy, right? The alternative is just like, well, just hump them and never get married.

Well, what good does that do for blacks? What good does that do? It just leads to more abortion. It just leads to more degeneracy.
It leads to high crime rates.

And the single motherhood's out of control. So like, what are you doing to prevent any of that? Nothing.
Nothing. Tell me what.
What?

Okay. Thank you.
You said things that people have known for the past 45 years, but I appreciate that question. Hold on for a second.

Thank you for contributing to a common conversation that people know, but you offer no other solution. That's great.
Now, here's a problem. Here's a problem with this.

It's an if scenario. That would be great if we can go back to this.

It would be great if we can go back and look at and say that blacks, when they were in the 40s and 50s, they had more stable relationships and marriages than even white folks. Here's the issue.
Okay.

Why stop at the 40s? Let's talk about 1863. Okay.

Your tradition seems to always hit this point of 1940s where you shine this light of traditionalism that you've never lived in, that seems to be in a snapshot of something that you don't even know about.

Then when I fast forward to saying anything, dude. Again, you're not listening.

When I fast forward to 1970, when it falls all apart with no fault divorce based on what i've been arguing what happens all that traditionalism falls apart why don't we take it further why don't we take it back to ride prices i mean how far in tradition you're going to go you're only going to bang your head around 1940 and 50 because you watched a couple of movies and i love lucy episodes that's not tradition okay that was a snapshot in history that you're trying to achieve again so take it back further there's no marriages in the black community let's say i we'll take it let's say we take it all the way back to the the 1700s, let's just say, just for the sake of it, right?

And that I'm totally wrong about all this, just for the sake of argument, let's just say.

What is your prescription to deal with any of those issues when you're telling men in the black community to not get married? How is that going to assist with abortion?

How's that going to assist with strong fathers in the home? How's that going to assist with the only demographic population which can't reproduce itself? How?

Can you give me a single prescription to any of that? Let me tell you something. I agree with you on this.
I just want a prescription, dude. Here's a problem.
I agree with you.

And listen, if you had any ability to provide this prescription better than Louis Farrakhan or Martin Luther King, does that mean no? Give me a second. Listen to me.

These men have tried to pretty much heal this issue, and they have sold Andrew. So Andrew Wilson certainly not to, neither will CGA.
So I don't have a prescription for the black community because

the black community is pretty much doomed at this particular point. They have too much degeneracy.
They have single mother rates at the 70 and 80%.

But I'm going to tell you something. You want to come in here and tell me something about ecclesiastics, and you're telling me about the reality of the black community, how to fix it.

Nobody's been able to fix that community. So there's nothing you can do, and I can't offer any solution for that.

Now, at that particular point, you're saying the risk is higher. It certainly will be higher under those matriarchal conditions.
So you get no argument from me there.

So at that point, where's your statistic lie then? Well,

where's your solution then? I'm going to tell you again. So I'm glad.
He's going to solve the community problems here. I would love to hear this.

Listen, again, I'm not saying the Black Community Problems Solved by Andrew Wilson.

Says the guy who literally just done saying I have zero prescriptions. Because nobody does.
That community is here. But I would love to hear the Black Community Solved by Andrew Wilson.

Yeah, so let me tell you a bunch of things that can be done which will help mitigate these issues. Please do.
Please do. The first is that you can accomplish.

Not some pipe dream. That can be accomplished.

Here we go. That can be accomplished politically and already are beginning to be accomplished politically.
The first is you have to outlaw abortion. You have to.
It has to be outlawed.

And not by state by state, where you can just go to the next state and do another abortion, right?

One of the biggest problems with promiscuity in the black community is that they use abortion as a form of birth control. Same problem that you see in the white community, by the way.

It's just more prevalent, the black community. The next problem that you have there is the lack of religiosity where there used to be a really strong core religious base of base black men.

And they were patriarchal, very patriarchal. And the thing is, is that it's the idea of these feminist brawl-burning lunatics that told black women not to be under the evil patriarchy of their men.

And yet,

at this point, the men are rolling over and allowing the matriarchy to take over in their own community. Is a return to traditional church ethics going to assist that? Of course it will.

Of course it will. How do I know? Because it did then, just a few short years ago.
I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago. I'm talking about 60 years ago.

By the way, there's other things that you can do too. Getting rid of EBT, getting rid of social programs, which are designed to keep people dependent.

These are all things which can be politically accomplished. Just like abortion, the starting of banning that was politically accomplished in our lifetime.

And the thing is, is like, you have no prescriptions. Fuck, at least I'm trying here, man.
Man, Andrew, you are Captain Obvious. This is the obvious.
Then why didn't you prescribe

it? Why didn't you obviously state it as a prescription?

Because people have exhausted the means to be able to do this. Trust me, there have been people way better than you that dress better than you and shave their beard

that can do this, and they haven't been able to accomplish it. You have a Democratic Party that is highly influential.
92% of black women voted for Democrats.

That's also possibly where most of those women go to church. Most of the black churches are overwhelmingly women.
It's a woman's club, and you're telling me about

completely obvious that everybody has pointed out for 25 years, you're not giving me anything new. This is a completely obvious scenario.

And you believe that you've enlightened me over here and you're waiting for me to give you a solution. Let me tell you something.
It's not about changing your mind. You certainly would never do that.

Now, at this particular point here,

the unsettling experience that men experience in divorce, all right, you're saying you're just going to mitigate it or eradicate it.

What about the small percentage of men that experience it and go through issues like high levels of self-deletion, high levels of them not being able to recover financially ever.

They're still going to experience this under your scenario. This doesn't disappear.

What prescription do you have for those men that went to your marriage and they got divorced 33%?

What do you do with these men? 33%. Okay, 20%, 30%.

It still was at a high rate. I think it would be

better than that. You would hope so.
You would hope so. The hope is not a strategy.

Hold on for a second.

What scenario do you have for men that you let into the burning building when they experience separation from their children, parental alienation, high levels of self-deletion.

What prescription do you have, sir, that you sold?

You have all the answers. Please enlighten us.

What are you going to do with these men? Are you going to enforce them to have sex with other virgins that you have on the sideline? I'll answer the question.

Let's make a deal with you that if I answer this last question of yours, that you'll actually answer when I ask you after that.

We're not in a court of law. I don't have to answer anything.
I can state something. Yeah, I know.
But I'm asking you if we can make a deal.

That if I answer this question, you'll answer any question that you ask me out to the point. So we're not going to make a deal on that? I don't have to make a deal.
Listen. You don't have to.

I'm asking you.

Possibly. So go ahead.
Possibly. Okay, well, then I possibly will hold the debate hostage until you possibly make a deal with it.
All right, great. So that gives me the floor.

So we'll just, so we'll just sit here and stare at each other or we just filibuster each other.

At this particular point.

Oh, you don't want to. So I can answer it.
You should answer it. You want to answer it.
But you're not going to answer. But you're not going to answer mine.
I just want that clear.

You're not going to answer mine after. You're just going to filibuster the stone wall again.
I ask you the question, put it on the table. So this is pretty simple, right?

What you're proposing here: every policy prescription which is made anywhere in any nation, with any people group from the tribal all the way to the national level, is going to be a trade-off, no matter what.

There's always going to be some people who are disaffected by it in some small percentage, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. We don't run societies based on outliers.

The second thing is, when it comes to suicide in men, particularly, one of the best ways to mitigate that is to begin the process of eliminating deployment of troops abroad.

Because one of the biggest contributing factors to male suicide, including in marriage with divorce, is their veteran status. And it's because

they really depend on their family to assist them with what's going on mentally from the fact that they've been deployed in these wars.

And one thing you could really do that would help that, that's what the American first policy is, is we want to bring your troops home, no more foreign wars.

That will greatly help and aid with this problem. And by the way, policy-wise, it's already been aiding with this as Trump has wound these wars down.
And by the way,

that's a good one. I like it.

I'll point out a few more things that you can do. Oh, please do.
Yes. So another thing that you can do is at the national level, right, from propaganda works.

I'm sure you agree. Propaganda absolutely works.
Absolutely.

If at a national level, you had propaganda, which instead of showing LGBTQ flags, degeneracy, girl bossing, shit like this, which is what you see everywhere, you had institutional family units instead, right?

And that was what you saw everywhere that you went. And that was where the social status was.
At the top-down level, that would really help change people's psyches around.

The same way they were indoctrinated towards the degeneracy, same way you can indoctrinate them out of degeneracy. That's how we got a whole nation to smoke.

And it's also how we got a whole nation to quit smoking. So the thing is, like, there really are good prescriptions here.
And the only thing I get from you,

hang on, we're talking about

almost done. Almost done.
Yes, yes. That'll help with self-deletion of men.
Yes. And it's one of the biggest contributing factors.
Single motherhood, another huge contributing factor.

These are all things which we need to mitigate. And by the way, these are all great prescriptions.
You said, I don't have none. No, no, no, for a second.
That's what you said. Now, here's the deal.

These are great prescriptions. I happen to live in the time that you're talking about when the FCC didn't allow degeneracy.
And I was able to live through the time where they started to allow it.

So I, unfortunately, was able to see a time where America was great and now we had dysfunction. So I agree with some of those things.
That took place probably 40 or 50 years.

It would take a very, very

unique scenario for that to occur when you have Cardi B and this type of music out here and she's a single mother divorce aid with a man that is having babies. She's not a good argument.
Okay.

So how that's an actual argument.

No, that's something that you agree with. That's okay.
No,

that's an argument. No, it's an agreement.
You disagree. You can be humble enough to say you agree.
That's an actual argument. No, no, listen.

You don't have to be, be, you know, you don't have to belittle or attempt to belittle. Well, I'm here a granite ass.
I may argue to you. Just say you agree.

Hey, listen, listen. Just say you agree.
You want to be that. It's not a matter of agreement.
It's a matter of recognizing that we agree argument. Hey, sir.
That's the only argument.

You're not used to somebody across from you. No, just say you agree.
You can humble yourself in the situation. I don't agree.
It's just an argument. You agree.
Be a big boy.

Be a big boy. I don't agree.
But

here's a here's a second. Here's a second.
Okay.

You're telling me it's going to take 50 to 100 years. I ask you about a man that's considering taking his life today.
You're telling me about propaganda machine. Okay.

There are men here that are being abandoned from their kids. They've been alienated.
I'm talking about today. I'm not talking about in the church.
I'm talking about today.

You're telling me about some scenario where you're going to change liberalism and bring in righteous conservatism. That's not going to work today.

We need solutions for men today, not 50 years from the turning point meeting. Okay.
At this point,

today we have men that are in dire need of help. I agree.
They're going through unsettling situations and divorces. This is who I speak to.

And you keep telling me obvious answers about propaganda and changing this and going to church. This sounds great on paper, but that doesn't happen today.
You don't start that today.

Can you give me a one solution you got that starts today, mister? I got all the solutions.

We can start today. Yeah.
If you fund, if you assist with funding MRA groups today,

MRA groups today, who are trying to legislate and get legislation passed today to create preventative measures for those men today.

Now, if you ask me, can Andrew, can you do anything about a man who might be willing to blow his head off right this second because he's already going through the events of divorce, which I had nothing to do with, wasn't there for, could never do anything about.

Nobody can do it. Can you prevent? Of course, nobody can.
But that's built into into the question. Giving your righteous

ecclesiastic

from the poll. Yes, but it's built into the question.
What you're building into the question is probably the, it's probably the worst framing ever.

Andrew, if somebody right this second is willing to do something bad,

can you stop them? It's like, here it comes.

Look at the scenario.

But your scenario is to change MRA funding when women vote, outvote men 60 to 40% and you have women lobbyist groups and zero men lobby groups. That's what you're telling us.

We're going to change to fund MRA groups.

Congress makes the law on not the voters sir when when MRAs makes the law MRAs are on some terror lists Yes, yeah, that's so you're telling me that they're gonna start just switching funding.

We're just gonna switch funding over here to a terrorist organization

according to some of these websites. Yeah, I would say this is this is just a pie in the sky

not only is it not pie in the sky, but I'll give you an example.

I'll give you an example. The least possible situation that can be done.
I'll give you an example of where it's already happened.

So I would argue that the traditional churches are MRAs, that they are men's rights advocacy groups, and that that's where traditional masculinity is mostly found today, where men are even allowed to be masculine.

Oh, hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me finish my point.
And it is the case that those MRAs, in this case, the traditional churches, already got abortion rolled back, didn't they?

They're already moving these things back. They're already at the forefront of fighting degeneracy.

They are also the ones who are at the charitable forefront of helping those same veterans who are blowing their heads off when the government doesn't even pay any attention to them.

When by the time the government was all done doing any of these reforms when it came to veterans associations, it was those pesky old traditional churches from Sky Daddy that you hate so much.

They were the ones on the forefront who were actually assisting those people and not doing that. While you,

you asked me this question. Andrew, what can you do right this second for a guy who's going to blow his head off? Well, probably nothing.
But neither can you. Of course.

But at least we can do something about that not happening to others. Okay, so that's very easy to accomplish in red states.
And red states overwhelmingly were the states that got those things passed.

They were already going to get it passed without the interaction of these so-called righteous individuals. That was called a state level.
Now, less than a state level.

Yeah, through Donald Trump. Yeah, then a federal level.

California, Nevada, these are all states that you can easily drive to and get it done because they're red. Which is why we're blue.

And at that particular point, are we going to get a federal ban? Yeah, I believe we possibly could. Yeah.
Possible. It looks good.
It looks good. It looks good, but we don't have it today.
All right.

So we don't, you're not, again, we don't have it. So you want to get it.
More than likely, more than likely, I'm going to tell you, you said it's possible.

And I say more than possible, you're not going to get it. All right.
So at that point, that's what they said about Roe v. Wade, and they were wrong.
They're wrong today. They're wrong, possibly.

We possibly might get it, but Californians, they're not doing it. I can drive to California right now.

When there's a woman I can drive it, I could take a woman to Nevada. But it's already increasing the rates.
It's already working. Like, what are you talking about? It's already effective.

All it does is just send women to another place. And it reduces the amount of abortions.
It reduces it. So

we're not, that's all we're talking about reducing it we're talking about now the unsettling experiences so do nothing we're doing something yeah doing something i'm informing people i'm informing people i'm giving people the information to do what and you're telling me what do you want this guy solution that might take tell me what men should do i'm telling you but they're what all right at this particular point this is the question that you've been wanting to ask me all right i've been i put out a book called 52 things that men should do prior to considering marriage okay what it does is take it through a step-by-step approach of what they need to look out for just to detect.

What is that? Hold on for a second. Hold on for a second.
Just to detect this man's considering. I've had plenty of men that said they were considering marriage.

They found the red flags because of my book and they stopped getting married to a woman that eventually they saw would have been bad for them.

That would have cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I'm doing something very positive.
Now, watch this.

You mitigate the red flags. You allow men to understand what the process of marriage is.
Mitigating the risk.

And you're going into possibly telling them what the state is involved in, how your children are affected, parental alienation, the odds of self-deletion,

and so forth and so on. So that's an opportunity.
I want to make sure I got this right. Opportunity for men to learn.
So I want to get this right.

You're telling me that you're the high possibility of changing that. Yeah, so what you wrote.
And women, I'll vote men 60 to 40%. Yeah, so you wrote, it doesn't, dude.

You don't even understand the political process and how it works. Voting itself, when you're talking about

lobby groups. Yeah, each of you.

What men's lobby groups what men lobby groups what what what male lobby groups do they have traditional churches okay we're back to we're back to church again they're the ones who do all the lobbying on behalf of men they're doing it on behalf of the men that they that follow them that's not on it's for all men this abortion ban helps all men it's not some their charities to men who are going to kill themselves helps all men not some it doesn't help all men in that situation it helps the men help because listen yes it does tell you where it doesn't there might be a woman considering getting an abortion and he wants to keep the kid.

He has no mitigating risks.

They're the only ones trying to change that. Is that who is? The traditional church.
Who is the traditional church? Yes. All right.
At that point, that doesn't help him. Yes, it does help him.

So you're saying at that point, it's only the traditional church when you have...

hundreds of female lobbyist groups and you have them out they're the ones combating those female lobbying groups that's it how are they doing only the red they're doing great only the red no at the federal level they're doing great you're wrong you can still go to other states to get it done yes but we've still managed to mitigate it even in those states it's a war it's a political war that's how it works and not only that let me let's point this out your whole solution here i wrote a book to help mitigate future events oh great andrew what are you trying to do help mitigate future events oh right now right this second what can i do to help andrew says right this second if a guy has a 357 his mouth is going to pull the trigger can't do anything you're totally right but neither can you by your own admission correct so there we go there when when we're looking at the future though and i say let's do all of these different prescriptions, which we can actually politically accomplish and move towards.

You say, that's all fucking pie in the sky, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I ask, well, what can you do as far as future prescriptions? You say,

blacks are fucked, and I have absolutely no prescriptions for it. No, I downloaded a book.
52 Things That Men Could Consider To Mitigate Divorce Risk. The same thing I'm trying to do.

They're marrying the right woman. So you're just being divorced.
You're just mad that I have one solution, you have another, and we don't mind. You better.
That's what you believe.

I think yours is pie in the sky. So that's just...
I don't see how how it could be a pie in the sky. It's not working way more than your book.

No, no, my book actually has 15 plus thousand. You have, you have how many? Hold on.
How many?

You have how many ecclesiastic marriages that your church pastors are going to go into the bedroom and enforce marriages? You can't even give me a number. You're producing that.
It's such a liar.

You can't even get such a liar. You said that.

Nobody said that the pastors are going to go in the bedroom and enforce anything. Social pressure.
Stop lying. All your social pressure.

Where's your social pressure? How many people do you have in your ecclesiastic ecclesiastic marriages? How many people got married under that? Millions. Please give me a number.

Millions of people have an ecclesiastical authority. That's

why people have an ecclesiastical marriage. They may have a state certificate under your scenario.
What do you want me to tell you? We don't know. How many? We don't know.

I know exactly. But you're sneezing at my number, but you don't know at all.

Hey, listen, there's a lot of people.

Even if it was the case that you never adopted the state.

You don't have any number. Even if it's the case.
Hang on. What's the number? Hang on.
Even if it's the case that

all they ever did was get a state marriage certificate and never even followed that portion of what I'm saying, right? The number is still lower by their own, by the state's own numbers.

It's still lower in traditional certificates. Give me the number of your marriages that you're proposing that we're all going to follow.
We don't know. We don't have polls.
You don't have a number.

Yeah, we don't know for sure. I would venture to say it's very little, under 100.
Sure.

So now we got

under 100. Certainly under 100.
No, it's not. All right.
I don't. There's nobody talking about it other than you.

Yeah, well, that's because you're not around traditional churches by your own admission. But yeah, there's people who have crowning ceremonies who get married by churches who don't get a state cert.

Traditional churches. In fact, there might be data on that.
You should look. Please look it up.
There might be.

Under your scenario. Yeah, under my scenario.
But the thing is, even if we grant, even if we were to grant it. We got 125 million.
If we were to grant it,

still from the state's own admission, the divorce rate's still significantly lower for a reason. 20 to 30 percent.
Okay, so that's huge.

It is nice. Significantly lower.
It will be nice. You still have men under unsettling divorce conditions.
You still have men under state-funded divorce. You still have men under child support.

You still have men under parental alienation. You still have sexist marriages.
Two out of ten. You haven't accomplished most of these things.
Two out of ten. Two out of ten.
What?

That would be two out of ten. It's 20%, right? It's two out of ten of those marriages, as opposed to your system.
Four out of ten. Yeah, in your system.
Five out of ten.

In your system, it's much higher. It's the system that exists.
No, it's not. But you're telling me 150 marriages.
This is all of these scenarios. And I have to be honest with you.

This wasn't much of a debate. Yeah, I know.

No, no, listen. Much of your scenarios were make-believe, to be honest.

They were pretty make-believe. You would have to have an extremely considerable movement to be able to accomplish them.
Like, millions of dozens of millions of people.

You would have to have millions of people to do. Can you pull up how many Catholic and Arthurs are in the United States? It's my turn to ask.
I can ask and release.

But that's not the number problem.

It is the number we're looking for. We're looking for ecclesiastic marriages under your scenario.
No, listen, listen, even if it were the way it works, even if it were the case.

Do you agree with me that if you take the state out of marriage, that that is going to assist in the reduction of divorce? You can't take the state out of marriage. Why not?

That's what you're telling me. Yeah, why tell me? How many people have done it? Yeah, but why can't you do it? Because no fault divorce.
A woman can go into divorce you even if, because

you're not under her control.

How if you're not married to you?

By the states, you're not married. How can she take you to a divorce court? Can you explain that to me? I asked you this earlier.
Have you been through a divorce? It doesn't matter.

Oh, answer the question. That's a yes.
So you've been through a divorce. Why does that matter? What is pertinent because this is why? Can I finish? You've been telling me I'm cutting you off.

You won't let me finish. Bro, I want an answer to my question.

Go again. Can you answer my question? I mean, I can play the game you're playing.

You just won't answer questions.

All right, listen. I mean, I thought you were a tough guy.
Listen, under this scenario,

a marriage, even if it's ceremonial, religious,

it doesn't matter if she files for the divorce you will still be going in court to fight that i'll i don't care file for divorce if you're not married by the state dude listen can you answer my question you're completely missing this this is what tells me you haven't been through one have you talked to a divorce attorney A woman can file.

You have to respond and provide evidence that you were not married. Now, you and your common law, you living with your kids, is going to be difficult.
I'm trying to give you some information.

Okay. That's That's different.
In some states, there is no common law marriage. So it's just not common law marriage.

Listen,

California doesn't even have common law and that exists. It could be ceremonial.
You could get married in Fiji. It doesn't matter.

Soon as you get back here, if you practice marriage, the whole institution, at that particular point, if she files, you, sir, will have to respond to that suit.

If you do, I would hope and pray that the judge, not God,

grant you your wish.

At that point, your argument fails because you then would have to say, my ecclesiastic reverend on the little house on the prairie granted this marriage, but it doesn't count under the statement.

I do want to make sure she can do this and you have to respond. Can you help me with this? It's because I am actually confused.

So let's say a woman and a man went out to a field and declared themselves. You got a scenario.
Let's say if.

Yeah, let's say if a man went out to a field with a woman and declared that they're married. Correct.
You're saying she can still go to a divorce court and divorce him. She can file for the divorce.

How to respond? Yeah, have what? Respond. Yeah, what does that mean, though? That doesn't mean.

I mean, I'm informing you. What does that mean? This is how a lawsuit works.
Okay. She's a petitioner.
She files. She says, we walked on coals.
We went outside.

This was a

union. I consider it a marriage.
Everybody knows and addresses us as a marriage. This is a non-common law state.

We receive mail at this place. We've been living under the same roof for this many years.

You will have to respond to these allegations.

Now, you're going to have to say on your petition,

this is not true. We have an ecclesiastic marriage and a prenup under God,

and we live together, but we weren't married. Is this a lawsuit? That's a response to the lawsuit.
And then you proceed to trial. Is that a hearing? Is this a lawsuit or a divorce?

Divorce is a lawsuit. Okay, so

I'm divorce is a lawsuit. Can you look this up?

Can you file for divorce without ever getting married? Oh, my goodness. You are slow.
You can file a lawsuit for anything. So then it's not a divorce.
They can sue you for anything.

Okay, so if you go into there and she's just suing you? Yes, it's a lawsuit. That's not a divorce.
Come on.

It's a lawsuit. Can we pull this up? Can you file for a divorce without getting married? Divorce is a legal process that ends in legally recognized marriage.

You never obtained a marriage license and your marriage was never registered. Summarized according to the state law, the courts have no marriage to dissolve.
You're full of shit. Hold on, force.

Yeah, you're full of shit. They can just sue you for whatever.
You said they have no marriage to

dissolve. You still have to sue you.
No, no, no. You still have to come on.
You still have to respond to the law. Yeah, but you don't have to go to the divorce court.
You do. No, you don't.

You still have the response. No.
You still have to do it. It's not a divorce court.
That is the divorce court. No, it's not.
It's a court of court. It's the circuit court or some shit.

Not the divorce court. Listen, this is.
You got caught in 4K. You're full of shit.

That's Chat GBT. In this situation here, we can bring a lawyer in town and say, can she file for a divorce? You're saying what the outcome is.
Hold on for a second. You're saying the outcome.

They can't legally enforce it. That's what you hope the outcome is.
You hope the outcome is true. You still have to respond.
All you're saying is that a woman can sue you for anything. Correct.

Yeah, but that's not the same as filing for divorce through through the divorce courts. That's where they would file it.
No, they can't. No, they're not filing it in the divorce courts.
Oh, my gosh.

All right. That's where they would file it.
In the divorce court. They would file a lawsuit.
No, they would file it in the family court. Trust me.
Now, who's the family court's different?

Hold on a second. That's the divorce court.
Wait a second. Wait a second.
The family court is a divorce court.

Wouldn't you have to do that under specific criteria for family court, like a kid's involved or something? You can just. Correct.
So, and

dude, that's not the same as

the kids. This is ridiculous.

That's ridiculous. Listen, listen.
The family court is what people call the divorce court. There's no building that's a divorce court.
You understand? Yeah, I agree with that.

So you have a woman with children

that you say you're not married to.

If she files,

you still have to go under family court jurisdiction. She could, you still have to respond.
Because there's children, yeah. Because there's children.
At that point, my point is made. She has filed.

They may say the divorce doesn't count. Yeah.
But now, how do we deal with these children? Yeah, but that was those are

that is a part of marriage. Did you not have children with the woman? Come on, dude.
So if you're not

married, so as long as you don't have children, then they can't do that? Correct. That's what you're saying.
But you're saying

I'm actually asking. You're saying they're going to have children, correct? Yes.
You're going to go to family court. Yes, you could go to family court.
Yeah, she files for the divorce.

Not for divorce. They could go filter

support or all sorts of things. Any of these things.
That's not the family.

Yeah.

When we talk about what men deal with when they deal with marriage and the result is a divorce, one of the things they deal deal with is child support, also domestic violence, which falls under the family court.

So you cannot be married.

You have a problem here with this. Listen, so I agree.

I agree.

That if you have children, that that could go through the family court system. Nobody ever disputed that.
Okay. So I'm still dealing with this.
Hang on, but that's the different one.

That's different than filing for divorce. You can't file for a divorce if you're never married.
That's one. You're going to child support.
And hang on.

The second problem here is the reason that men usually lose their custody when it comes to uh divorce and divorce court is because women plot. They plot escape hatches.

So what they do is they go, okay. Of course they do.
Look,

you know, I'm going to take two years, make sure that you're fucking destitute on the way out, and then I'm filing in divorce court. Correct.

You're going to get hit over the head from what happens in divorce court. Absolutely.
A whole different ballgame, though.

If it's the case that you have children with a woman and she goes and she files for custody, you're actually in a much better position to get custody at that point than if it was the case that you were married through the state, dude.

Much better positioned. We don't know that.
No, no, 100%.

You don't know that. You're guessing.
Give me some data on that one. There's a data on that one.
Okay, go ahead and look it up. But we don't know that.
That's just the case. If it's the case, hang on.

If it's the case, if you're not legally married,

men who fight for custody. Correct, right? That's correct.

But they're in a better position to fight for custody if they're not going through the divorce court, if they're only getting motions for child, child support.

Well, you know, actually, actually, I'll tell you something. If you are not married to them, you actually fare a little bit worse if you're not legally married.

That's true. If you're not legally married, let's just take a baby mom, baby dad situation.

If he's not legally married to them, they typically fare a little bit worse in custody cases. I just said that.
Right, correct. So at that

point,

they're still faring worse.

Now they're marrying better,

right? If they're not married. Yes.

No, they would actually fare worse. How?

Well, ask any guy that's been in court. We can look at this.

When they are not legally married to a woman, they go through a custody battle. Yeah.
When they're legally married, they do better getting better custody.

Yes, men get better custody. So that would be a better outcome.
If they're not legally married,

typically they fare worse getting custody. Why? Because they're not married to the woman.
This is typically, typically, it just depends on jurisdiction. It's because of the unplanned nature of it.

Correct.

Exactly.

But if it's planned, we don't know. No, we do know.
The judge doesn't know. Hang on, hang on.
How do they know? We do. So now you're saying you're going in there and use that.

We're not legally married, but we're married. Here's how we can logically.
I think I can actually logically demonstrate this. And I think you'll agree.
Okay.

So the reason that men tend to fare bad in custody disputes and in divorces is because it's unexpected. So usually they're getting hit with it and it's unexpected.

Even if it should be expected, because it's unexpected, they have time to plot. They have time to plan, this kind of thing.
Domestic violence. So they can, yeah, they can hit them with it.
Right.

Right. That's, I mean, and it's that's normally what happens.
Yeah. That's normally.
You can't mitigate that.

Are you suggesting you just? You can.

You can mitigate it. Here's how you can mitigate it.
If you're in a church, you have to. You can give me two things.
Go ahead. Yeah.

If you have the, if you have an ecclesiastic, if you have the ecclesiology, the ecclesiastic community, the community actually supports you when you're going through these problems of

you. No, they actually help you with funding.
They help you with everything. Yes.
They're not going to be in court with you. They're not going to be able to.
They don't need to go

court with you.

Money is what talks, man, and bullshit walks. Exactly.
I agree with that. That I can agree with.
Yeah. They're not going to be able to fund that today.
They do all the time.

Listen, they insist on 125.

These small marriages, I would love to see these out. They should do a documentary on them.
They do. All right.
So we can see that.

Most people aren't under these, so we can say that's clearly the case. But in those situations here, on those situations, you have men that are not under this veil of, I don't know what it is, okay.

that do fare worse when they're not married. Okay, that's typically what's going to happen.
Because it's un because the childbirth itself is unplanned.

But if they're with a woman long-term as a partner, they actually do have it early. And I was thinking about that.
Even if they're not married,

even if they're not married. Typically.
Typically. Typically.
Yes.

So it's no better outcomes. You're just talking about the unplanned nature.
Not necessarily. Not necessarily.
I mean, mostly.

Because there's a lot of factors here. I mean, we can make things black or white.
The guy doesn't have the ability to maintain the custody. He lives in a city.
Because there's other factors.

Because that's unplanned. I knocked her up.
That's not different than I was with her for her. They were in no relationship.
They were in no relationship. All right.

But knocking her up usually happens early. It could.
It typically does. It typically.
Because that's

at that point. Now they were raising the kid for two or three years.
They were together. But this goes together.
It might happen. But it also goes to my point.

In this situation here, right here, we have a lot of things that we like to make black or white and easily settled. It's all nuanced.
I agree. Okay.
Very much nuanced.

At that point, then you're just telling us, oh, just throw this. this aspect of religion on top of it and it'll fix it or it'll middle gate it'll mitigate it it'll middle gate

it doesn't eliminate it it just makes it less you're not can't eliminate it but it even makes it less likely but they're still gonna but even if once they go through it what do you do but when when you said america what or a marriage was a great institution right did that eliminate all divorce It was very low.

Well, right, right. So it's just, you're only talking about mitigation.
You're only talking about mitigation. It was actually lower than the percentages that you're showing me.

Way lower. I agree.
Way lower. But you're still talking about mitigation.
But we're also talking about white people were least likely to get married under these these scenarios, too.

Yeah, but we're talking about

mitigation. Exactly.
And so if you say it's great and it's mitigating and I say, okay, I want to move towards mitigation. We can never eliminate it.
You can't hold that against me.

And you can't hold it against me telling men to avoid the situation, especially since, and I'll add this on, especially since we can know statistically women are getting married at an older age.

That is increasingly high. We can look at

40 years ago, it was 20 years old. We can look at today, it's roughly around 28 and 30.
But there's some new ones there too. There's a lot of of new answers.
Hang on. There's 100%.

Hold on for a second, but I was completing a point.

Okay. At that point, you're seeing a lot of women choosing to not marry.
You're also seeing a lot of men choosing to not marry those women that are older. Yeah.

So how do you get those people to have an ecclesiastic marriage? I'll help you. When you're telling them, these people are saying, I'm not marrying that woman.
She's a stepmom or something.

No, she's a single mom. She's older.
She's past her prime. How are you getting that marriage rate up? This is the ecclesiastic.
So I think that that's a great question. It's one thing.

Other than saying that they got to be be birthed. And it's one that I need, and it's one that I do need to answer to.
So here's the answer to this.

The reason that women are getting married older is because they're deferring their childbearing years for college. That's why.
That's obvious. Okay.
I mean, literally, that's the only reason.

And one of the prime reasons that the birth rate is collapsing is because they're having children older because they defer those childbearing years. Like I said, later on.

Not fool, full and multiplied. I was just adding.
So we can. So we can look at this and we can.
Well, it is still multiplied.

The point is, is

when we're talking about, we go back to this whole propaganda thing, right? You're not going to get a disagreement on this. Hang on.
The idea is,

should we have propaganda that says, women, you go to school, we'll give you student loans, right? We'll back the entire thing for free, and we promise you a lucrative STEM career, right?

When the opposition is actually true? Or do we run campaigns that say, no STEM funding, you got to pay for your own fucking college, okay?

Or you can choose the more traditional path. How likely is this to happen? It's actually pretty likely.
If you look at the idea of STEM fund or funding for college, right?

The idea of student loans and things like this, women are already trying to check out in the worst way because they can't have kids later in life. They're not getting married, though.

They're not getting married. They do.
They do. They just turn it back.
They do college first. And this is, by the way, where the body count comes from.

The big body counts are coming because they spend all this time in college getting fucked. Very obviously.
And so it's obvious.

And then afterwards, right, they get their little lucrative career and then they want to settle down. They find a settlement.

But it seems to me very obvious that if you wanted to do something about this, you would want to create the incentive for women to not go to college and instead use their childbearing years to get married because that's what we always did.

I've actually created this scenario before and it's very

opposed to where society is going. Society really not showing that they're showing trends of this.

You might have the little spatters here and there, but if you have a woman that says, okay, I can't afford to go to college, she becomes a Walmart clerk. Here's why I hear a lot of people.

Hold on for a second. She becomes a Walmart clerk and assistant manager.
I'm looking at those particular demographics. They're not jumping into marriages.
All right.

Maybe in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, they're still out here hoe-hopping. All right.
They're still finding a variety of people. But here's why.

So women are getting, they're getting more college degrees than men because men have a viable option for making income, which is easy. Correct.
I mean, it's actually harder, but it's easy for them.

We can survive. And the idea is if you're a tradesman, you're going to make a lot of money.
Okay. Especially in modernity because there's an incompetency crisis in the United States.
Absolutely.

So if you're good at what you do, you're going to make a lot of money. And that's just it.
But women are less likely to be

bad at it, you'll make a lot of money. But the college thing created a situation we were not aware was going to happen, even though I could easily have predicted it, which is oversaturation.

Women only go for a couple of things, and they're sociological-related mostly.

They're not really for STEM fields, and that's who's hiring the big STEM fields. Everything else is oversaturated.

That's why women end up in government NGOs and government think tanks and psychologists because the overage has to go somewhere, but that's saturated too.

So, you're seeing actually a trend begin to emerge of that trending down because of oversaturation. So if that's the case, these women don't want to go work at Walmart as the assistant manager, right?

And if you had said propaganda plan, and the propaganda plan is simple enough, the idea here is just don't defer your childbearing years for college.

Instead, we'll help you with incentives so that you have children younger and you get married younger. You will almost eliminate this entire problem.
And yes, not only is it viable,

not only is it viable, but we should be moving towards that.

This idea that you should get married rather than just create the conditions for which marriage is great is exactly what we should be doing.

And under those conditions, it would make sense because you're getting women that can multiply, that can but it's only the churches that can

not really.

But in this situation here,

I agree with that scenario. I proposed that many years ago.
However, you're going to be hard pressed for women to actually pick that, although they're not going to college.

They're trending down in college. They're probably not going to complete one of these liberal arts degrees.
What you're probably going to see them do, they're still going to Coachella.

They're still selling Coochie. They're out here being sugar babies.
They're going to OnlyFans. Say that I'm oversaturated.
Exactly. And so it'll get oversaturated.

Now you kick the can down the road to what the next thing is. I don't see the women seeing that college is prohibitive to them jumping into traditional marriages.
I don't see that.

But that was the same argument which made in the 90s to men that they would not see that the trades were going by the wayside and they all needed to get a college degree when in fact the opposite ended up happening.

Now they're all moving towards trades in lieu of the college degree because of oversaturation because of oversaturation.

There's no reason for us to believe that if it's the case that women have the option and the propaganda behind it for them to get married at a younger age, right? Defer that with incentives.

We can give all sorts of incentives for this.

Oh, man.

First of all, you can give tax exemptions, for instance. You could say.
These women don't pay pay taxes, even when they make millions on them. Yeah, but the thing that's true.

They don't catch up to them, but they don't pay the taxes.

That's a taxpayer. Well, they do have to pay property tax on the houses they get from their husbands when they divorce them.

Anyway, Eric, then they do. The thing is, is

what you could do is in Poland did this, and they had a pretty good degree of success, up almost a half a percent, moving in training towards almost 1%, which is huge in such a short amount of time.

They gave tax exemption, and you can pull this up if you want. They gave tax exemption if you had more than X number of children.
I think it was three for life.

Tax for life. Now, the thing is, is that's huge.
Now, from a woman's perspective, why would a woman go for that? Because she's tax exempt for life, too.

And the thing is, it's the same reason they're going to college, which is they want the money, the same reason they're selling their pussy online because I want the money, is also a thing which you can incentivize them to do the other direction.

You could. Because

they want the money. It sounds nice, but and it's worked.
It's worked. It's worked in Poland.
Yeah.

Within the places it's been tried, the incentives work. Is that a comparable nation to the United States who highly depends on women being taxed? Well, so did Poland.
It's not the same size.

Well, I mean, we were very Lawrence Company. We were very Lawrence Cut.
It's all scalable. It could be scalable.
It's all scalable.

It's kind of like when people said Sweden did this and come out a million people versus

30 million people. I understand.
We're going to look at the models where they exist to see how they compare. And it's a better model.
Yes. It's a good model.
It would be a good start. It's a start.

It would be a start. It's a starting.

Kid, you think people would probably try to manipulate manipulate that? You said they have three kids from the same dad or from different kids? You have to be married. You would have to be married.

Okay, so this would be a nice opportunity for us to bring something that Poland has tried

to a place where we don't have that same structure. They're somewhat democratic socialists.
No. Or somewhat.

Not at all. They're very conservative.
They're conservative.

But yeah, they have that, but they're also. No, they're very capitalist.
Okay. Yeah.
So, but typically we're a lot more capitalist than them. I don't know.
I don't know.

There are a lot more capitalists. Eastern Europe has become very, very based.
Eastern Europe has become very capable. All right, but we can probably say 200, 300, 50 million people versus Poland size.

It's much smaller, yes. 12 million.
But that's what scalability is for. I mean, this would be the size, not even half of California at this particular point, but that you're

scaling to. Yeah, scalability works that way.
It could 38 million in Poland. 38 million? Quite more than I thought.
That would be the state of California. plus Oregon maybe or something like that.

And California is bigger than a lot of countries. It is.
That's the case. Fifth largest GDP.
So in this scenario, I'll give you that one. It's a little bit of a reach, but I'll give you that.

Not just that.

If we look at the Chinese model, the Chinese model really fucked this up. They decided that they were going to do the one-child policy.
Remember that? And they screwed that up.

Well, not only do they screw it up, but they have almost given themselves imminent doom because their birth rate has dropped down so low. Now, what are they doing? They're giving incentives for women.

to have children. Exactly.
Now, we do it here too to a legal degree with tax credits, right? But the tax credits, you're not going going to incentivize a woman who can sell her pussy on OnlyFans

to have a child for $3,000 a year. And sometimes they even go on EBT and WIC and they still use the system.
So you're still finding ways where people will manipulate the system.

And I'm seeing people that are master manipulating that, right? We would try to get rid of it. It would be a nice try.
I'll give you that one. That might be a ball.
No, it's possible.

More than possible. And it's better than the idea of just continual degeneracy.
Well, I'm not promoting degeneracy. However, sex outside of marriage?

Well, who is that degenerative to? I I mean, that's your, that's your, that's your Bible. I mean, most, most of your Christians, your traditional, hold on for a second.
Let me

see your traditional Christian women that are getting married to these simps are blindsided, typically by women that were promiscuous.

So that sounds like normal. So it sounds like sex out of marriage is bad.
It sounds like it's really bad, but those are your women you're trying to marry, not the virgins that we're going to have.

Do you think that this is mitigated by you being a secularist versus a Christian? Give me a break. I mean, you're not going to mitigate women throwing their pussy around the internet.

You can hardly mitigate that. I mean, you haven't done anything at this particular point.
They're busting it wide open on OnlyFans. Yeah, we can put out

women. You can outlaw on OnlyFans.

I mean, every one of your scenarios is a big, big, major swing at they're not happening. All right.
It's not happening. Do you know that the people

versus Larry Flint?

The People versus Larry Flint was not long ago when the normalization of the used to be outlawed. Okay.
It used to be outlawed all over the United States. And guess what?

The effects that it had on the psychology of men and the effects it had on marriage were negligible. You could still get it to some degree underground, but it was tough and it was illegal.

Why do you think? And people still went to the... Why do you think that?

I don't know if you remember this, if you're old enough. They still went to that VHS area or the area of the magazine.
That was actually the clint. All right.
But

that was the result. That was kind of what was...

Before they legalized it. Before they legalized it, those sections didn't exist.
Exactly. So now it's wide and open.
It's in the open. Yeah, so we need to eliminate it.
Yes.

We didn't eliminate Playboy and Penthouse. That's still in Larry.

Larry Flint was Penthouse. I understand that, but it's still here.
I mean, he won the case. Correct.
So we are in the

OnlyFans. We're unwinding and have been unwinding.
That's what Roe v. Wade was.
The idea of Roe v. Wade was

trying to be OnlyFans, the damage is done. I'm going to just let you know.
Yeah, you know what? The damage is pretty much done. That would take 30 or 40 years.

Okay, well, after a war, the damage is done. It might take 30 or 40 years.
But you know what? The thing is, is we don't quit because it might take some time. I didn't ask you to to quit.

What I'm asking you is, you're trying to solve the problem today of getting traditional

traditional today, tomorrow. I understand that.
Tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a better day.
But at this point, you're looking at traditional conservative women that have thrown their Punanis out. Sure.

Them are single moms. Well, they're not traditional.

And they're not, but this exists. And unfortunately, the traditional conservative movement or

yeah, these women come in as feminists, liberals, and they cosplay, trick these men into marriages, say that they're going to marry them, not in the secular, and then they follow you, and then they run right back to the corner.

Now,

this does happen quite a bit, even in the Christian church. Not from us.
Well, I don't know how many you are. We still haven't determined.
But

this still happens. So a lot of men get caught off guard because they see they're thumping a Bible.
Oh, she's one of us. And these women have figured out how to copy.

And again, I think this is a good question, right? And notice I've answered all of yours. You haven't answered any of mine.
But the thing is, I answer. Yeah.
Can I ask a couple? Go ahead. Okay, great.

So

the progressive mantra is that sexual liberation, this is what feminism was based around with sexual liberation. That was the big one.
Correct.

That their bodies were being controlled, not just from abortion, but from who they chose to have sex with because they were attracted to them, this and that. Marriage was a complete trap for women.

It was self-destructive to them, this and that.

What is the distinction in your message and that one to men? What's my message?

Well, it seems to me that your message is that marriage is simply too dangerous and that if you want to sleep with women outside of it, it's perfectly fine.

And it's actually liberating for you because you're moving away from the trappings of marriage itself. And it would be safe.
Hang on, hang on.

That seemed like the same exact message that we got in the 70s from feminists. If you frame it that way, it would be.
So you're a feminist? Hold on for a second. It would be two different outcomes.

You're protecting wealth, access to children. You're actually being able to control who has your children.
That's what they wanted. Exactly.

Well, no, they want to be able to kill their children and abort them.

They wanted to be able to determine what what they we're asking we're trying to figure out who where we have the control legally they're having the control over their body these are two different but it's these are two different outcomes so what's the the legal outcome factor men are trying to figure out from a 1970s feminist to your messaging right now what is the difference they're trying to control their bodies so are you i'm trying to control legally financially these are two different things those are your bond outcomes you're controlling your body no no no don't just make it a body it's the same thing it's financial these aren't not my outcomes that's the same arguments they made it's financial you're trying to make it the same I know you're trying to say, no, no, no.

You're trying to cram that in. Oh, finances are your body.
I'm trying to control the legal outcomes. So were they? To that.

Related to finances, not related to me being liberated and sleep with who I want to. The first goal was to control what happens to me financially.

It was never the goal for men to avoid marriage, to sleep around. That's the feminist goal.
Those are two different things. They make the same kind of claim.

They make the same claim. Their claim is.
It was financial.

We're not telling women that they need to go sleep around. Those are two different.
We're not telling women they need to go sleep around. We're just telling them they can if they want to.

Isn't that the same as your message? If they want to, some men don't sleep around. Yeah.
Some men don't sleep around. It's just feminism for men, dude.
That's what you want to call it.

There's no prescriptions. It's just feminism for men.
How's that not a prescription? I get to control who I'm with. I get to control where the law is.
And I am

going to control where my finances are, not the state. Said the feminist.
No, no, no, no. That's not.
No, no, no. That's not.
It's not the way that you're going to be. We don't have a bank account.

We can't decide what to vote. We can't decide what to to do with our children.
We're missed property. That's a secondary.
That's a secondary issue. That is a secondary issue.

You tried to compare it. You try to compare it and then say, finances is body.
I mean, come on. That's what I'm saying.
I mean, you're really trying to fight it. You're really trying to cram this.

They were like, we want to be current narrative. We want to be able to control our bank accounts.
We want to be able to control our secondary, tertiary issue. We're talking about what you franciscate.

It's the primary issue. The primary issue for you is finances.
It's not to sleep around.

That would be two different things. But I'm not maintaining my independence and staying single so I can sleep around.
That's not the primary issue. I understand.
It is for finance.

So those are two different arguments. No, they're not.
I'm going to make it the same for you. Go ahead.
Let me give the explanation. Please.

If every single argument you make, even if you say these ones over here are tangential, but I agree with them, is the same exact argument of the 1970s bra-burning feminists, whether or not you're

not

going to be able to

work for you. Make it on, man.
Make it work for you. Even if it's the case, it's not the primary goal.
It's a secondary goal. They're still the same goal

as the number one. Let me at least make the argument before you respond.
Reach on in there, bro. So, the thing is, dig deep.
Is if you say, hey, man,

this is about financing. It's like, okay, well, you know, the 1970s feminists, we can't have credit cards.
We can't control our bank accounts. We can't control our own financial independence from men.

That's what they're fighting for. You want the same thing.
Independence from women to control your own finances. What are you talking about? Promiscuity.
Almost done with the argument.

Then he can rebut it. Next thing is, when you're talking about promiscuity, sure, sleep with whoever you want, right? It's under your purview because you can do whatever you want with your body.

Same exact argument that they were making. They're not the property of men, right? They should have complete sexual liberation, etc., etc., etc.

All of these are the same degenerate structured systems, which led us to where we are currently right this second, except you're just providing them for men instead of women.

It's like, can't we at least at some level look at this and say, look, just because these crazy women are doing these insane things, we can actually, as men, do something about this prescriptively without adding the degeneracy can't we do that okay let's go back okay it's a such thing as you know medicine you might take a medication to solve one issue and you get side effects you're telling me the side effects equals what the men wanted as to solve the problem to heal that's the reason they took the medication now you're telling me about all these side effects a side effect of feminism being able to control their body is to also have finances blah blah blah same thing with the men the men didn't intentionally go in there to say this is for our bodies

We went in there to say this is for to control our finances. Then, as a result of that, there could be some other things that happen as a result.

But if the results are the same as feminism, it's not the same. What's the same?

It is not the same outcome because at that particular point, at that particular point, the man has controlled his finances. He's outside of the safe system.

That's what the feminists argued for themselves.

That's a completely different reason. You can have

you can have the same outcome and it could be for different reasons. All right.
You're saying the outcome

pretty much says it's a reason. That's not true.
You can have two different reasons and have similar outcomes. So we have the same outcomes for 1970s progressive

for men because you intended it to be different. You wanted to, you wanted to compare.
You just simply wanted to compare it as the same. It is the same.
It's apples and oranges.

It's apples and oranges. It's apples and oranges because you didn't mean it that way.
I didn't mean it that way, even though that's the same result. You framed it that way to me.

That's your narrative. That's your narrative.
It's not my narrative. That's your narrative.
You just agree.

listen that what i said is true i didn't agree with anything you did you just said that's the same it's the same comparable outcome this is the outcome if i choose to do something for different outcomes it's not the same just why just because certain things line up it's just the way you want and you're cherry picking by the way and you're very good at it you're cherry picking the good things

the good the bad things and do you want to reframe traditionalism and call up the traditional church well the traditional church also had the ku klutz klan in the 1950s no that was that what you want to get

okay well it's the church and at that particular point you want to go ahead and cherry pick what's good and what's good. By the way, they were great snapshots.
Those were Democrats. Exactly.

And of course, they were Democrats. And certainly not.
What a Republican. Okay, well, now where are we at? There's going to be Democrats in your church? No Democrats.

Not actually. So there are some divorce.
Of course, there will be. So they're going to be people that have.
Yeah, but what does KKK have to do with anything?

You're snapshotting traditional world that literally you can just pinpoint 10 years.

And if I go back 10 years before, it was non-existent. You're reaching, you're creating a pie in the sky.
And then if I fast forward 15 years later, it don't exist.

Now you're trying to bring it back out of the dam like you're Billy Graham. I know

that doesn't exist. What does it exist? It is not the normal traditional church.

You're screenshotting things.

You're picking out a period of history to say, we need to take it back from here. That period

only a small percentage of trying to give a holistic view, not just of

a religious view, not a holistic view. It's very religious.
Most of history is full of religion. I'm saying that.
And a whole bunch of religious people killing people. But go ahead.

Go ahead. That accounts for you.
Keep it going. That accounts for you.
All right. A lot of people can't do a lot of ordination.
About four to six percent of all wars were religiously based.

How much? Four to six percent. You can look it up.
All right. I don't care what.
That doesn't matter. They kill each other at mass rates.
All right. Listen.

Religion is not the order to six percent. You guys, you're trying to degeneracy and feminism for minutes.
Didn't say it was. You didn't have to live degeneracy if you're non-religious.

That's your world. Again, you always make it fit what you want to do.
Because it does fit. It It is the truth.
That's what you guys advocate for. You're only good if you're religious.

That's ridiculous. All right.
You only make good decisions because you're religious. That's ridiculous.
That's what you hope. Did I?

And that's not the case because a lot of people that are in your church, hold on for a second.

Why do you say, oh, hold on, hold on, a lot of people talk about outcomes being changed. You just admit it.
You just admitted that there are women that are feminists in your church. Of course.
Okay.

So there's your solution there.

You're telling me it's always better. It is always better.

What you're doing is selling men a fantasy of them. And you're selling them feminism.
I'm not, well, we can agree to disagree on that. Just telling them a feminism.
You're just selling them feminism.

And you're selling them a fantasy. All right.
A fantasy that I have data to say. Matter of fact.
Most people will be dead by the time you get even one inch closer to whatever you're proposing.

Well, most men will be dead as a dork. Under your.

You have assured that black men will be dead. You said so yourself.
There's no fixing it. They will be.

That's your prescription. Well, that's the prescription that you heard.
What I told black men is to leave that community. The community community is not to be.
Are they doomed or not, like you said?

The black men leave the community, they thrive. Yeah, I know.

Are black men doomed, like you said earlier? The black men that leave the community, they thrive. Yeah, I know.
They do very well.

Are black men doomed, like you said earlier? Under the matriarchy of the black community, yes.

Under the scenario that I'm proposing for black men, absolutely not. They thrive.
But that's in the future. What about right now? What about right now? No, no.

They're thriving right now under your degeneracy model. All right.
They're thriving right now under the generacy. Oh, yes, they who.
You're looking at one right now.

You're looking at.

wait a second so that's who so let me get you're looking at the notorious one right now that's who you want an example men give me your numbers yeah so men you didn't give me your numbers the whole damn stream but you're telling me i give you tons no give me your numbers of your your ecclesiastic marriage where your pastor on the little house on the prairie is going to prevent that from happening give me them numbers again okay you're asking me for

i have to explain this come on man so again when you're talking about just because they don't have polling data for the united states specifically we can't definitely look at other nations where there's ecclesiastical marriages and the divorce rates.

That's one. You can do it right now.
No, no, no.

The second is this.

Even if I grant the goal polls, even if I grant that just because polling data for that specific thing doesn't exist right this second, the polling data for people who even who are engaged in state marriage is still lower.

That makes my argument much more compelling. Compelling

that's all fine, Nick Dandy. You're comparing 125 people to millions of people.
No, these are millions of people. What number? In the state.
What's the number of what?

Of what? Which thing? I keep asking you this. You never give me.
I've already told you. I've been told 50 times.
There's no polling. Exactly.
You don't have a number. But I do have numbers.

It's a fantasy dude. I've been selling people a fantasy.
Do you realize that? I love it, though.

Listen.

You make my point stronger, not worse. A fantasy?

If it's the case that people are engaged in state marriage right this second and are part of traditional churches and their divorce rate is lower, it has to logically follow that if they were not engaged in state marriage, the divorce rate would be even lower.

You're talking about getting hit over the head 30 times, 30% to 50 okay that's great it's huge that's huge i'm going to give you that that's the difference between 150 000 people yet you're telling me you have a better solution no it's mitigating 150 hold on hold on you're you're giving me a mitigating better than that 30 that's a humble way that's more than 150 000 where's the solution for the better than the 30 i've been asking for it you can't tell me how many people that you got under these notorious contracts that aren't i can logically demonstrate it for you there's no polling data for that so what get that number that would be a great instance when i asked so you can tell the audience hold on for a second i'll tell you you can tell the audience okay how many people that you're going to prevent from busting out this ecclesiastic contract with your little house on

your contract whatever it is that you're doing if you could tell your men how many people you have doing it and you prevented them from getting divorced and losing their kids under custody please tell us yeah so otherwise it's a fantasy oh let's let's respond again do you have the polling data for how many of the black men you've personally helped absolutely okay let's see hundreds of thousands

hundreds polling data hey everybody in the chat where's the polling data we're gonna do it right now live that do scientific

press one that's polling data hey coach greg adams the that's polling data if you follow me for the last you don't have hundreds of thousands press on your chat dude give me a break press one if you can see you look look you see that yeah where's your no no looking data you don't want to look look at this where's the polling data coach gang represent Do you have scientific polling data?

That's more than your ecclesiastic contracts. I guarantee you that.
Okay. Everyone in the Crucible chat, who Andrew Wilson has helped, put one in the chat.
That's scientific polling data.

Says Coach whoever. I know.
You don't want to hear it. I thought you was going to let it happen.
Now all of a sudden, you don't like the numbers. Come on, Andrew, man.
That's not polling data.

I thought we were better. That's not polling data, doofus.
Okay, what are you talking about? You will call me a doofus.

Where are you going to call me a doofus? Yes, that's doofus shit. Yo, man, that's crazy because I asked you for a number and I'm the doofus.
You can't even give me a number. I gave you a hard data.

Wait,

where's your army at? What's the name of your army?

What's the name of your group? The The Crucible Chat. The Crucible Army.
Go ahead and pull them up and

how many of them are under your

Ecclesiastic Contract. Let's make sure we got this straight.
How many people are in his live chat right now? He's got 2,060. And see how many people are in mine.
Let's go. Pull it up.

They should beat me in your Ecclesiastic contract.

They should floor us in the Ecclesiastic contract.

Oh, 4,300? Most not even double. Just one.
We're both doing well. Just one, please.

Just one, please.

And now that means I win. Where are they at? That scientific polling.
There's crickets over there, okay? Just ones. There they go.
All I got to do is win.

There's a couple of twos in there.

I want the ecclesiastic contract marriages. Oh, no, no, no.

You said, who have I helped? Oh, wait a minute. That's different.
No, no, no, no.

No, you ask who, for me, who's followed my prescription. Yeah.

There you go. Yeah.
Okay. That's not polling data, dude.

I asked you for the ecclesiastic contracts, Andrew. This is very simple.
What part of this don't have the polling data, but I can logically demonstrate it. Do you not understand?

You're selling a fancy. We do have the numbers.
You're selling a fancy. Oh my God, dude.
This is so low.

And I think what you need to do is talk into a fucking.

And I hope that all those cancer sticks that you've been smoking will help your ass live long enough to see how far you led men astray. I would love that for you to survive.

And I would bless you by the name of God and the Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints that you survive all them goddamn smokes. You don't follow Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

All them smokes you have so you can come out here and live and see how many Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You follow Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Somebody does.
More people than that.

More people than the Crucible. The LDS will that you've

got more people, more people than you have under your ecclesiastic contract. I can guarantee you that.

All you have to do is agree to one proposition.

Is it the case that you personally think that if there is no state contract, you're not win a state contract, your chances of getting divorced are going to decrease? Is that true or false?

If that's true, even if you don't get married, correct. Your chances of getting divorced goes to zero.

And that's the same thing I said. Don't get married, you don't get divorced.
The number one cause of divorce is marriage.

Not

a state contract. No, the number one cause of divorce is marriage.
Hey, Andrew, let's just say this, man. Listen.
I thought they could divorce you even if you weren't married to them five minutes ago.

No, you went through a ceremony. You went through a religious ceremony.
So at that point, they can. But if I never went through a ceremony, they can't.
They can sue you for anything by your logic.

Whether you went to the city of the city. No, no, no, no.
Don't move the goalposts. I said you went through a ceremony.
I didn't. All right.
Those are two different things, sir.

Which part of, I don't really, again, I don't understand. If it's the case that you say.
He's scrambling and scraping for shit. Yeah, if it's the case that you say.

He's scrambling and scraping for shit right now. He's married by the state.
We got him scrambling.

Yeah, if you're married married by the state if you're married by the state your chances of marriage or divorce you don't get married your chances of divorce is zero yeah okay wait a second i'm sorry your chances of if you don't yeah unless you're cohabitating right divorce unless you're cohabitating depends on where you live yeah so then it's not zero

he just lied it's not zero california so then it's not zero what but about if you don't cohabitate yeah again saying now you're moving the goalpost

if you read my book man i bet you can't read did you write a book i'm pretty sure you didn't um i wrote a book my wife's totally gay. Can I take all her money, though? Good.

That tells me the type of man you are. Holy mackerel.
You're pipping your wife out now? What's next?

What's next that I put? What's next? How many books that she sold? Now, let me get back to this.

Hold on.

Hold on for a second.

My prescription, my prescription for men is no. Hold on for a second.
No, no, no, no.

Yeah. Well, I guess YouTube's going well if you're living off your wife's books.
All right, what's her name? So we can give her some shine to sell some books.

Oh, her name is Rachel Wilson, the author of Occult Feminism. I guarantee it sold more copies than yours, sir.
All right, let's well, we can look it up.

We can look it up.

Now, watch this. Watch this.
All right, go ahead. I want to look it up right now.

Now, at this point, what have you done? You're living off the backs of your wife? Oh, my goodness. Is this traditional marriage? Yes, absolutely.
Boy, oh, boy. Men have fallen.

I'm going to tell you that. Absolutely.
Men have fallen. It's a disgrace.

All right. Damn.
You're living off of what? Is this traditional marriage, by the way? Yes. Your wife is into traditional marriage and you're living off her finances.
God damn. All right, boy.

The crucible is falling apart at this particular point bursting open at the scenes you gentlemen what's your book called free agent lifestyle you got me man yeah i did got you i take all it's true i take all of her money it's true well that's what you said i mean i do you said that i do i mean i'm not saying something you all of it and spend it on guns

every traditional marriage sounds great guys

does that sound bad

Who would be upset by that? I take all of my wife's money and spend it on guns. He says traditional marriage falls traditional.
That's traditional marriage.

marriage that falls under traditional marriage sure oh boy what's untraditional about it that's that's a that's a great traditional marriage it sounds like great traditional marriage to me

yeah i can't find the numbers honestly oh well too bad this all happens shit happens but you know it's a bestseller trust me you should read it so it's hers they just sold but what have you done

but what have you done i take her money zero exactly boy and man you hear this yeah this is the traditional patriarchy masculinity here um in live and in living color but you can follow him You can follow me.

I mean, your book is ranked higher on the charts and it has more ratings. Oops.
Can't find them sales numbers on either. The sales numbers are what matters.

Oh! Let's see the numbers. Oh! Numbers.
Uh-oh. Numbers.
Uh-oh. Numbers.

Oops. Numbers.
I'm higher ranked. More people have.
Let's see the numbers. Come on, man.
I don't know. I don't keep the data.
I don't know what happened. I don't know how many books you've sold.

Millions. So millions of books.
Give me a fucking break with this shit. How many books you sold? Zero.

You sold zero goddamn books.

Listen, I'm higher ranked. I'm higher ranked.
Hey, sold millions of books.

Look at the numbers. The numbers don't lie, Mr.
Numbers Guy.

Where's the numbers? Higher ranked. More people.
I want to know how many

more people have rated the book. Yeah.
Free Agent Lifestyle for Life. And guess what?

You can definitely brigade your own age on shit. You challenge me.
Show me the numbers. You challenge me.
Where's the numbers?

Numbers are.

You saw the numbers. No, I I didn't.
You saw the numbers. I asked you for the sales numbers.
How many of you sold? Numbers.

Free agent lifestyle for life. Everybody go out and buy the free lifestyle.
Yeah. Free agent never, never.
Kate doesn't know how many you sold. I'm higher ranked, Ben.
So what?

I got more people. That doesn't mean shit.
Sean Michael. You see that? I'm higher ranked.
I'd imagine with the ranking algorithm, sales does play a factor.

Come on, man. We already know that.

It is what it is. What are the numbers? I don't know my numbers.
My probably better than hers, but I know it's better than yours. That's true.
I've never written a book. I just take the

authors. You come up with obvious solutions to scenarios that

anybody can. Anybody can come up with.
I don't have a solution. Free agent likes all the solutions.
That's not a solution anymore. It's not.
It's just a general solution that you don't like.

Let's just go for it.

No, no. That's what you think.
All right. It's a solution that you didn't.
How's it going to help? How's it going to help with abortion? How's it going to help with anything?

Well, that's what the evolution is for. Re-evolution.
De-evolution. Go ahead and pull that up.
All right. How does the evolution?

Go ahead and look. How? How about you read the book and then come back? You don't do your research.
How does the evolution help you? I figured you were a a better debater than this.

Can you answer a question? No, be well prepared next time because I don't have time. You can't answer any questions, but I'm going to sell some books.
Just know free agent lifestyle and de-evolution.

The link is in the description box below. All right.
I did my work. I don't have to explain it.
I wrote a book. Your job is to do the work.
All right. And that's what we teach men to do.

It's not about degeneracy. We teach men to do the work and not come up with pie-in-the-sky fantasies that don't work.
All right. The captain obviously.
I don't know how it doesn't work.

Your solutions are very obvious. Control propaganda.
All right. Jesus Christ, man.
Look, anybody could here's your solution to whatever you want. Fuck the free agent lifestyle.
Yeah. Fuck whoever.

Just fuck whoever. It's fine.
We're not feminists, though, guys, even though we have all feminist propositions. I bet you your wife's body count is higher than yours.

Yeah, I bet your wife's body count was higher than yours, dude. No, no, no, I'm not married.

I'm not married. And your wife, you live it off of her.
I bet you her body count is higher than yours. You think so? Oh, I know so.
Oh, I know. Just like you know, your wife's awesome.

She's a traditional conservative.

I know she got ran through more times in the Holland Tunnel. So that's it.
It's just now after that. Now I'm going to bet my wife.
Is that what we want to do? That's where you went.

No, you brought it up. Did I say a word about it? I didn't breathe up your wife.
Did I say a word? I heard about your wife. I don't doubt one.
Yeah, if you did, do you think I would have?

You brought her up.

I brought my wife.

Did I attack her? I didn't attack her. You just said she had a high body count, you lying sack of shit.
Show me the proof. I don't have any proof.
Yeah, you're just making shit up.

Traditional conservative women. You lost a debate, so you went out.
I didn't lose a debate.

You've been losing debate for a long time. Your wife has a whole bunch of crawl.
I bet you she does. That's the number.
What's the right proof?

Traditional concern. We don't have higher body.
I don't trim in. She's not the bad con, dude.
You don't even know what you're talking about. She's not a tradcon, and you married.
I'm not a trad con.

You didn't do your homework. What are you? I'm a Christian ethicist.
A Christian ethicist. Yes.
All right. Very good.
All right. And very good.
You still don't know the numbers.

How many people follow you? Follow what? Follow your prescription, your master solution. No, no numbers.
I literally have to say that. But you're asking me.

Number after number after number of the fact that the traditional churches' divorces are lowered. We got that.
But how many men follow you? We don't know the polling data. We don't need to.

We know that even if they're with the state, it's still lower. Coach gang.
Coach gang, one in the chat.

All right, Coach Gang, one in the chat. You bought the freeze line.

Put one in the chat.

All right. It's been two hours.
You guys want to call it? Yep.

All right, guys. Check them out.
That was a fun debate. We'll let Chat GPT decide who won this thing.
We'll throw in the transcript and then link it in the video. See you guys next time.

I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe.
It helps the show a lot with the algorithm. Thank you.