ANDREW WILSON EXPOSES THE WHOLE DAMN SYSTEM

From the view of the Christian, if somebody's advocating for the ideas of marriage and to live openly in sin and have it recognized, that's always going to be oppositional to our morality. So whether or not it is the case that we compromise politically and allow you to call this thing what it is, there it's still going to always be in the fundamental category of you're trying to promote degeneracy from our view. I understand, um, or or what we would consider evil.

Today I am sitting down with Andrew Wilson. And if you spend any time in the cultural debate space, you already know exactly who he is. So, let me set the table for this one. Andrew and I have a good amount of overlap on our worldview, but also some fundamental ground-level disagreements, specifically when it comes to women's rights and gay marriage. And we get right into it today. This is a man with incredible knowledge to share. And regardless of the fact that he may disagree with me or my lifestyle, I still see the huge value in exploring his perspective and I'm grateful that he showed up for this conversation. So, let's get into it with Andrew Wilson.

>> Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. And I got to be honest with you. I'm sure that you know there are certain elements of the way I see the world and the way you see the world that may not align. But when I, when I watch you, you are such a fearsome debater and I can tell that you have such a passion for, quite honestly, saving this country and you really go after people equally, whether it's the right or the left, in what I perceive to be a search for the truth. So, I, I wanted to start out with just asking, you know, you famously were not a political pundit. I believe you were an engineer. You worked in robotics. Like, let's just start out with, for anybody who doesn't know, how did you end up doing this? Because you're incredibly good at it.

>> Total accident. Um, I really, uh, had no business being here. I was, um, I was a maintenance mechanic and I worked my way up from a maintenance mechanic into, uh, what would be a, uh, an engineering position working on robots and, um, and then robotics basically operated as a robotics mechanic and, um, worked in engineering fabrication for that a bit and, uh, yeah, that's, that's what I did. Now, when COVID, I was working at meatpacking plants. That's, um, you know, Michigan's industry is mostly, you know, giant warehouse industry. And I've been working in large plants for, you know, basically my whole adult life. And, uh, I'm a night owl, so I always worked on the third shift crews. Um, well, when, when COVID came around, the lockdowns came around, they shut down all the meatpacking plants everywhere, uh, due to, uh, various health risks. And so I found myself with a bit of time and a grudge against the entire progressive left. And so I started to engage with them on various platforms like Facebook, places like this. And eventually, a few of them, they started little, little tiny talk shows like little Facebook talk shows. And so I would go in there and go in the chat and kind of rage at them and say, "Why don't you bring me up so that there can be some counter to your insane leftist mantras here?" And, um, a few of them actually did and I just obliterated them and, um, I, I kept doing that and then it started moving over to YouTube. People started kind of clipping it out and then, you know, some other prominent left-wing debaters, maybe they just needed content, wanted to debate with me and I said, "Sure." And so I tangled with them, messed them up real bad too, and then it just continued from there. So, um, I, I had no idea that I would ever be in a prominent position, uh, for right-wing speakership. I had no political contacts whatsoever. I don't come from a family who has any involvement in politics, at least not any more than talking about it. They're all basically blue-collar. So, um, yeah, it's, it's actually kind of incredible, uh, how I ended up here.

Yeah. When I watch you, I can tell very clearly that none of this is about clicks or money. And I feel like you're trying to save the world. And I identify with that. I feel like we're trying to save the world right now. Some of this insanity that you're talking about is so scary and so deeply alarming. Off the top, what do you think the biggest threat is? Is it legacy media? Is it politicians? Is it lunatic podcasters that are spreading insanity for clicks? Like, what is the biggest threat in your opinion facing us right now?

>> The, the problem is here, you're talking about a hierarchy of issues. You're asking, like, Andrew, which one's at the top?

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> It's hard to say, right? Hard to say which one I would put

>> above, uh, all others. But if you're going to, if you wanted me to kind of try, try my hand at that, try to give you kind of the breakdown, I'd say at the top of my list, anyway, uh, is progressive ideology, feminism being a key portion of progressive ideology, uh, but also going towards the infantilization of, of all of humanity. That's, I see that as the biggest problem. The reason that discourse has shut down to the point where people become insanely triggered by me just saying something that's very basic and logical and rational, and if you and I were talking anywhere outside of a political space, you would think nothing of it, is because of the infantilization which has gone on in society. The next generation has been completely infantilized and, by the way, so are millennials. And so, uh, discourse has become

>> extraordinarily difficult. So, if I had to put, uh, on, on the hierarchy of, like, people need to grow up, would probably be okay.

>> Probably be at the very top.

>> That's interesting. I tend to see, I guess we, you know, we were just covering this, like, Code Pink clip of these lunatics going to Cuba because Trump is the great

>> talking about Hassan [ __ ] and those guys.

>> Yes. And I'm, I'm thinking this is all a CCP narrative. Do they know it? Do they not know it? Are they useful idiots? I, and, and that's freaking me out in a major way, and all these bot accounts. And I, I want to get to that, but let's, let's actually stick with what you just said. Why do you think this younger generation leans in so heavily to this victim narrative? Why does everybody want to be a victim? Why?

>> Because they were raised by millennials, and millennials, uh, acted like victims. So millennials blamed most of their problems on boomers, and they blamed most of their problems on other people. And millennials were very ineffective at dealing with political issues. They were a very smart generation, but they were very ineffective in politics and moving the right-wing political messaging forward. And essentially, the next generation was raised by people who have serious emotional stagnation, serious emotional issues. A lot of them had, uh, were raised by single mothers. A lot of them were raised in fatherless homes. A lot of them are not raised, at least not the way that I was. Um, and that's, that's become, uh, a huge problem for basically emotional stunting in, in all of humanity, at least in the West.

>> And so discourse has become what it is. It almost seems laughable at this point, how we actually have discourse with each other.

>> You know, um, I just did one of those Jubilee debates, uh, or

>> Yeah, I saw. And you know what's funny? It was two hours and you, you're trying to communicate a much bigger message, in particular, one, now that you mentioned it, of not externalizing these issues and taking responsibility for your feelings so you don't blame the world for where you're at. Because if you,

>> in that case, wasn't it just a bunch of fat chicks complaining?

>> It ended up being, I got through to one who's very sweet, that I, that I fortunately, I'm able to work with, but pretty much that's it. And it was, "I don't like the O word, and I want to be called fat-bodied," and it was all the same stuff you're talking about. One, one of them ended up reaching out saying, "I'm willing to take your help if you're willing to give it." I got through to one out of 20, which is, I guess, you know, you take each and every victory that you get. But they were so attached to this narrative that they were othered and they were shamed, and I just kept thinking, "There's no way out of this if this is what you're going to hang your hat on constantly." Don't people

>> but isn't that infantile? Don't you think that that's infantile behavior?

>> Of course. Like, the, the very first thing, the very first thing, whether this goes in the video or not, I don't know, but the very first thing you said to me is like, you know, "Andrew, you should probably quit smoking because I feel like, I feel like, you know, maybe your family needs you." In your words, you said, "The world seems like it needs you." Maybe a bit, um, I could have taken, I guess, great offense to that. I could have said, "How dare you? How could you talk about my lifestyle choices like this, you barbarian, you horrific person?" Or I can understand that the criticism doesn't actually come from you, uh, concern trolling or, you know, being a [ __ ]. It came from the idea that, hey, you know, that's, that's really pretty bad for you. You should probably step away from it. Very first thing, right? But this is how adults talk to each other. They talk like this all the time to each other. And it's like, the, the fact that you throw a fit

>> uh, because you're really fat and won't put down the fork, is like, that's part of what I'm talking about with, with, uh, with infantilization of people.

>> And this is the primary problem that I see with the left and the progressives is that, uh, they're perpetually infantilized. They want safe spaces. They want, um, they want things their way and only their way. It can't be any other way, or you're a Nazi. You're a fascist. You're evil. You're a horrible person. Uh, any type of value structure which you have which might go against their value structure, instantly put you in the evil category.

>> Uh, these are emo, very like, emotionally unstable, mentally unwell people. And that's what we're, we're, we're up against. And if you wonder why it is that politics seems so crazy, uh, it's because there's a lot of people now who exist in the world that you and I live in who are actually crazy.

>> Okay, that's fair. That's a fair point. Do you think that there is a way to get them to see through this? So when I look at people like Alex Prey, for example, this guy, I wonder if these millennials or Rene

>> the nutcase who kicked out the rear.

>> Okay.

>> The, the nutcase who decided he was going to kick out the tail light.

>> I understand completely. My question though is, as he's doing this,

>> I think he truly believes that he's fighting the Gestapo and he's some sort of hero in his own movie. And you hear this narrative from the left of, "I was just, oh my god, I was just dismantling this clip of Joy Reed and like,

>> how America treats women as badly as Iran." And I'm like, "Are you actually stupid or are you just the devil? Like, which one is it? Because there's no universe where you could draw these parallels, right? Like, there's no." But then someone like Alex Prey and Renee Gut are like, "Yes, I am fighting the Gestapo and I finally have meaning in my life." Like, I don't even know what we're dealing with. Like, do these people not know? Do they know? What are we dealing with?

>> Well, do you, let me ask you a question. Maybe through the question we can get to the answer here.

>> Um, do you think that people need dogma?

>> No.

>> People need, you don't think so? You don't think people need dogma? They need something to believe in. They need something to move towards.

>> Of course, a belief system. Sure. And I, I understand that religion provides this, right? Principle way to live. I understand that completely. Yes.

>> Yeah. So if that's the case, though, and that goes away, it's got to be replaced with other dogmas, right? And what progressivism is, progressive ideology and left-wing ideology, it's a form of dogma, no different than religious dogma from Christianity or Islam or Judaism or anything else. It is a form of dogma. They, they move towards immaterial concepts like rights and things like this. And they, they present those as though they're factual and given and granted the same way a Christian would with God. I appeal to God for human dignity and for how you treat people and for all of this stuff, right? They appeal to another mystical fairy tale called rights and human, you know, things like this. It's just all fairy tales that are made up. So if that's the case, right, if you're going to remove one dogma from society, it's going to be replaced with another. Now, in Christianity, we call this concept the telos. The idea is that this means like your purpose. Okay?

>> Christians know what their purpose is. My purpose as a man is to have a family. It's to obey God's word. It's to take care of my wife, take care of my children. It, there are certain ways that I'm expected to act within the community. There's charity that, that needs to be given. There's certain forms of tithing. Like, I know what my purpose is. I know exactly what it's supposed to be because it's all grounded through this deity and the dogma. Right.

>> Right.

>> If all that's gone and the entire foundation of everything that people have always believed, which is that is removed, the dogma has to now be replaced. Well, what the progressive left has replaced the dogma with is my freedom and my rights and ma this and ma that. And so anything which they can then perceive as a threat to this is fascist, Nazi. That's their Satan.

>> So they have their God. Yeah.

>> And they have their Satan and they have these two, they have their own forms of dogma around their God and Satan. And the right is their Satan. And so you got to remember, from PR's view, when you put it in the proper context, he was fighting the devil, right? He was fighting demons. Ice are demons. They're not people like you and I. They're demons. And this, they, they would never frame it this way, but that's how they act in reality, is as though this dogma which they've come up with, uh, is good versus evil, um, you know, uh, bad versus, you know, not bad, this kind of thing.

>> Okay.

>> And they have their own dogmas that they move towards and the demons that they're fighting in this case, the fascists would be like the Trump administration and the Nazis would be people like me. Now, because you were on

>> I'm a Nazi told fat women to stop doing, you know, being fat women that now you're a Nazi,

>> too. So, but, but you're part, now you're part of an ethos

>> in which the dogma is showing you to be a demonic entity. You're against some form of whatever their highest calling is. In this case, uh, "I can do what I want, girl. Nobody can tell me what I can do. I'm the boss. How dare you? Only a demon would do that. Why would you body shame me? What sort of horrific person does this?" And so you, that's where you fit inside of the dogma.

>> Okay. And I'm, I'm willing to go down that path. Fair. No problem. They see the world this way. Here's where you're losing me completely.

>> I'll go back to the Code Pink situation. You have a bunch of people on a plane going to save the Cubans from the evil imperialist West. And I'm thinking, you are with an organization that is representing the CCP. If you want to talk about human rights offenses, they harvest the organs of their political prisoners. They're committing genocide against a minority Muslim community called the Uyghurs. You guys love the. There you go. What, how then? Where is the hierarchy of evil? It's right in front of your face. If you're worried about human rights abuses and you're a feminist, which I, I want to talk to you about because I don't really understand what you and Crowder mean about this, and he and I didn't have a chance to talk about it on the one time we did get a chance to talk, but okay, I'm a feminist. I'm a feminist, Andrew. Why then am I not more furious about the Islamic regime in Iran? If I'm, if I'm all about transing children and gay rights and all of this, why do I not appreciate that in the vast majority of Muslim countries, gays get shoved off of a roof? Like, where's the disconnect there in the hierarchy of evil?

>> Well, you're being consistent with so foundationally, however you were raised, you were raised in a nation which at its foundation, its core and its roots comes from a pan-Protestant belief structure, therefore a Christian belief structure. All the things that you believe about human dignity and human rights and how people ought to be treated and, and, you know, how adults have discourse and all of this actually spawns without you even knowing it from these various ideas and also from progressive thinkers like John Locke and others like this, who introduced these other philosophies which mingled with the pan-Protestants and, uh, created the sort of Americana philosophy that you grew up with.

>> Okay.

>> You have to understand that for these people, that doesn't exist. That was all deconstructed for them. They don't have the same views that you do. Their whole worldview is flipped 180 degrees. It's being revived with another sort of dogma. The America is actually the great Satan.

>> The people who are in it, who are white, are designed to be oppressors. There's an oppressor-oppressed class. Now,

>> uh, the Cubans are actually misunderstood. They have been oppressed by an evil system which is designed to stem the glories of communism, which is designed around another form of dogma called equity. And equity is making sure that, uh, each person is given basically the same exact opportunities and same exact resources to have those opportunities, whether they had access to them or not. These are all dogmas which actually are against the sort of belief structures that you grew up with, and that's where that major disconnect is. You say, "But it's right in front of their face." Well, that doesn't matter. Everybody interprets the world through a worldview. You do it, I do it, everybody does it. And we have biases which are associated with those worldviews. So even if things seem apparent, obvious, and logical, and rational to you, to the observer who's interpreting it through an oppositional worldview or a different worldview, they actually don't even perceive the situation the same way you do.

>> I know.

>> And so really, what you're trying to do is get at the pillar of that worldview, kick it out from under them so that you can change their mind. The one girl who probably changed her mind on Jubilee, you probably went after the foundation of her belief. And when you did, it clicked, right? Wait a second. But I, I need you to understand something that's important. You might wonder why it is that they get so scathing and why it is they become irrational and they get so angry. When that happens, if you, if you eliminate a worldview from a person, that actually causes physical agony and pain. It's called cognitive dissonance. And when a person enters into cognitive dissonance, it's a very painful, transformative experience for them. And it, it's like decimating. It's soul-crushing. And so people will actually do a lot to preserve a bad worldview rather than go through the experience of cognitive dissonance.

>> Okay, I've been doing a little spring reset with my closet lately, focusing on quality over quantity. And I'm building a wardrobe of pieces that are well-made, versatile, and easy to reach for every day. And that's why I keep coming back to Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the fits are thoughtful, and the pricing makes sense. Quince makes beautiful everyday pieces using premium materials like 100% European linen, organic cotton, and super soft denim with styles starting around $50. Their spring pieces are lightweight, breathable, and effortless. And the kind of things you can throw on and instantly look put together. And that same focus on materials carries over into their accessories like their leather bags, which are made from 100% handwoven Italian leather, and honestly look way more expensive than they actually are. And this is because Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So you're paying for quality without a brand markup, right? You save a ton on the most amazing clothing and accessories because you're not paying that middleman. So refresh your spring wardrobe with Quince. Just go to quince.com/jillian for free shipping and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. Go to quinc.com/jillian for free shipping and 365-day returns. quint.com/jillian.

I have a hard time understanding that simply because their worldview is causing them so much pain to begin with. And yet, every time I engage in these kinds of conversations, there's always ad hominem attacks, whether it's on peers, you know, "You're a white nationalist." I've been called everything. I, I, every single, you know, bigot, racist, transphobe. That is the number one go-to to the point that it's just so freaking absurd, you don't even register it anymore. But on, on Jubilee, they were all like, "Oh, I bet I hope you don't have a daughter. Oh my god, is this how you raise your kids?" And I stayed super calm and cool, but I thought, "What a disgusting way to tackle an argument."

>> Pretty horrible, huh?

>> Yeah. And here you are trying to take the moral high ground. It, it confounds me. It confounds me, Andrew, and I just, I think what I

>> Well, but you have to remember, through their worldview, they have the moral high ground, and you're assaulting the moral high ground. You're the one who's the attacker. You're the aggressor. You see, they didn't come to you and demand that you tell them to put down the fork. You're coming to them and telling them they need to put down the fork. Therefore, you're the aggressor. You're the evil one. You're the victimizer. You're the oppressor. Right? They didn't do nothing, and they were just minding their own business and eating their third course of McDonald's for the afternoon. And here you come trying to tell them what they can and can't do. And this is, this is what I mean by paradigms and the, the way that we interpret the world and worldviews.

>> And I learned this from years of debating professionally with every prominent leftist essentially on planet Earth and will continue to do so.

>> It's incredible. Their worldview operates, uh, in a completely, and, and trying to break it down and understand it is the key to their defeat, and it's difficult for people to do. Um, and it's difficult for people to change their minds, especially in politics, because of the ideas of cognitive dissonance and, uh, the, the kind of pain that people go through having to actually make those sorts of shifts. Now, they're better people for it, almost always, but it can be a very painful experience.

>> Why can I change my mind? Now, to give you an example, don't hate me, former liberal. Um, your co absolutely pushed me to the center, and then everything after that has made me center-right, a little farther right. Having said that, I would argue that a lot of my positions haven't changed. I was never for open borders. I would never have transed kids. Like, these are the, the party. I'm also a classic, the left left me. Having said that, though, there are definite things I changed my mind on because I was informed in a different way. And even looking at Trump, I thought, "Oh my god, when he was voted in in 2016, I was like, 'Oh, he's the devil. He's you.'" I believed Russia, Russia, Russia. I thought he was a rapist. I, I believed all of that. And then over time, as it started to come out and I was presented with facts, I was able to shift my worldview and say, "Wow, I got that wrong. Holy cow."

>> To, to be fair to that, like, let's explore that a little bit.

>> Okay.

>> Is it the case that that was a painful experience to do, like, you had to shrug off a lot of the things that you really thought you knew, and now you're kind of coming to these realizations that, you know, maybe some of the kind of foundational beliefs you had about the world, they're not true?

>> I thought it was liberating. I felt like, "Oh god, now we don't have this map. Now that I can see that there's not an evil dictator in the White House, that I don't think half the country is insane. This is so nice." I, I actually, this is

>> Well, those beliefs that you held to may not have been nearly as foundational as you thought. It could have been that you, uh, whatever the foundational beliefs you have are designed around, if new information comes in, I'm willing to change my mind about it, rather than being kind of a paradigm, you know, like a, like a, a massive paradigm shift. These were smaller paradigm shifts. But okay, you can imagine, like, maybe a different situation. So let's say that you went for 55 years as a staunch religion, you know, in one, one religion, you were very staunch, your whole community is built around that, everything you know is built around that. And one day you, you realize that there's enough evidence there that that you were forced to concede that it's not true. Well, your whole life is now completely bottomed, right? Every, everything is now turned upside down.

>> And now I have to interpret information a brand new way. I'm not used to, uh, things like this. So, it could be in your experience that that was more, it was easier to do. And don't take offense to this because I don't mean it to be offensive, but please take no offense. Possible you didn't have a, that these were not serious foundational beliefs, but rather just interpretations based on those foundational beliefs. Right?

>> That's entirely possible, 100%. What do you, okay. Talk to me about this concept of feminism because I don't think I understand it. And when I was talking to Crowder, he brought this up and, you know, I had said, you, we were disagreeing about some things that Nick Fuentes had said and I was like, "Well, I think women should be able to vote." And he's like, "Well, I don't think they should if you're not getting drafted." And I didn't even know where he was going with it because he kind of took me so what I'm like, and what he said, I was like, "What are you saying?" You know, I didn't understand what he was even saying. What is this kind of

>> I'm glad we had the the conversation before this kind of about dogmas, okay, and worldview and belief, right?

>> Right.

>> Uh, feminism is a dogma, and it's a, it's a very religious dogma because it relies on the idea of egalitarianism and equity, and those are things we just grant ourselves, like, "People should have that because they should have that." But most people don't really have a grounding for why they think that. It's just kind of beaten to them as part of the new Americana, um, or the, what we would point at as the emergence after the post-war consensus of World War II. But to explain this and express this in like, really kind of simplistic terms for the audience and, uh, and for you, it's really in the definition. How so? I think for a person like you, you'd probably define feminism as just being, you know, women having, uh, equal rights to men.

>> Yeah, kind of. Is that not it though?

>> That's not getting, that's not it.

>> And that's why, that's why this disconnect happens and why I'm always in debates. I'm always really clear on semantics of what words mean because you could be saying that you're a feminist and, and you may not have the context for what actual feminism is, and so you, you, you just think, "Hey, I'm, I'm just, I just want to have like the right to own property and not get, not get, you know, raped by my husband, right?"

>> So, see, and that seems rational and reasonable, doesn't it? So,

>> I understand that, but here's what feminism actually is.

>> Okay.

>> Feminism is a movement towards egalitarianism by deconstructing the patriarchy. That's the key.

>> I know what you're saying. Yeah. So, you're saying

>> by deconstruction of men.

>> The idea.

>> I agree with you completely, though.

>> Well, the idea here is there's an oppressor-oppressed class, that men are the oppressors of women. And since men are the oppressors of women, men need to be moved out of the oppressive roles of women, of, of what they do bad to women.

>> I get it. So it, when it creates the oppressor class, it's pointing to the oppressor class now, men, and saying, "Bad," right? And it's saying the oppressed, "Good. They're the ones who need liberation and things like this."

>> And that's what it actually is, a deconstruction of patriarchal systems. Okay? Because otherwise, you can't have an oppressor.

>> And so you probably, in actuality, aren't a feminist if the, if you, you hold.

>> I don't define myself that way, actually, at all. But I, but, but Crowder was like, "Are you a feminist?" And I didn't even know what, I'm like, "What does that mean?" Because I didn't understand even how we got there because there were certain things that I had taken umbrage with that Fuentes had said, and then he said,

>> "Well, the reason I think he should," because I went and watched that, um, and I, maybe I, maybe I can clarify some things.

>> Yeah. I mean, I like Steven Crowder a lot, actually. I don't, I don't know. I, and I was like, I watch him all the time. I would consider him, I would consider Stephen at this point to be like, um, you know, it is a very lonely industry, as you probably know.

>> I know.

>> Um, and I would, I would consider Stephen to just be like, top, top-notch. I just never trusted a guy more than him in this industry. But

>> he, um,

>> I understood where he was going with this. So what he's trying to show you is,

>> if we have an oppressor-oppressed class, if we're looking at, you know, the patriarchy,

>> right,

>> is oppressing women, right? And women are now the oppressed. The reason he's bringing up things like voting is he's saying he's challenging this dogma.

>> Okay?

>> Is it true that men and women are actually equal? And so from the Christian view, in my view, the answer is no. We're ontologically equal. So what that means is like, um, I think that you have the same value, but I don't think that men and women have the same material value or impact on the world. They have completely different,

>> impacts on the world. For instance, women are the only people who can give birth. Men can't do that.

>> Okay? They can't.

>> You know, they, they can't. And so since they're the only ones who could do that, you would think that you would structure society in such a way that it was the most conducive to women doing that because they're the only ones who can. And you would think you would structure society towards men doing the things which only men can. Now, generally, you're going to find that in like,

>> I don't know, oil rigging and construction and these horrible jobs where the death rates and mortality rates are just over the top. You know, female deaths in the workplace account for almost none of them because they don't do any of those horrendously stressful and over-the-top jobs. They just don't. They're not equipped for that. That's not their thing. So, what Steven's doing is he's drawing a parallel to kind of show you this. He's saying, if it's the case that men can be drafted, right, and sent to war, and every man must sign up for the draft, so they all have the potential to go to war, okay? Then why who can women who can't be drafted vote to send men to war? Isn't that fundamentally unfair from the prism of both the feminist, but isn't that also devaluing men? It's saying that men are cogs which can now be used for women who are elevated above them and elevated away from what their goals are supposed to be in society. And that's, that makes a lot of sense when you start to break it down, doesn't it?

>> Well, here's the, here's my question, though. So, of course, I get that one piece, but what about all the other stuff that goes along with it? Then women have no say in how their society functions or who leads them or so, for example, you know, if I do not want, if I was still living in California, I do not want a governor that replicates the policies of Gavin Newsom, right? I would want to vote on that. That would mean a lot to me because I would be

>> Well, who do you think votes Democrat in California?

>> I know. But all the more reason. But all the more reason why you should want votes that go in the opposite direction. And the point being like, yes, I appreciate the draft component, but aren't women? I thought, by the way, quick sidebar. I thought there was a conversation to draft women because I, I had this conversation with Sebastian Younger like

>> the mil, the military wouldn't want to do it because let's just say they did.

>> Okay.

>> Just kind of grant that they did. They're still not going to send women into combat roles. And so it's the, the fundamental unfairness would still be there. And the reason they can't do that, right, is if you had a real war, not like playing in the sand where you have 2,500 deaths in 10 years, uh, but like a real war, um, the first thing that the enemy would do to demoralize your troops is they would capture your female soldiers. They would rape them and send them home pregnant. Like, that's factually what they would do. I, I know I'm being very blunt here.

>> No, I know.

>> But that is in fact what they would do. And so, uh, they're never going to have in mass women in combat roles. Even in Israel, where they proclaim that that's the case, they've really, they, the distinctions between the soldiers are so over the top that they can't hide it either.

>> We've never had a female Navy SEAL for a reason. They can't, they can't cut the muster. But there's something kind of there that you touched on that I want to touch on. That's a good point, a good counterpoint that you make. You say, you know, "But what about the fact that I want to have say in society? I want to have say in what's going on with the social order. I want to have say in what's going on." I, I think that that's a fair criticism from a feminist position. But I'm going to give you some counter evidence here that might maybe change your mind.

>> Okay.

>> Before women could vote, uh, they passed an amendment. They got an amendment passed, and the amendment was to ban alcohol in the United States. That was the amendment that they got passed before the 19th. So before they were ever even allowed to vote, they had so much influence in society that they were still able to do one of the rarest and most difficult things to do politically, which was pass an amendment, get one passed. That was women and the Women's Temperance Movement that did that. And the reason women had so much more, uh, authority in society and control in society absent the vote, the anti-suffragettes, the ones who were against women voting, which were mostly women, by the way, made this, made this point pretty precisely. They said, "Well, we have the moral high ground, so we're looked to as the moral figures of society. We're the matrons of society. Even bad men love their mamas, right? And when we say that there's something here that's going on that's morally deviant or you need to morally stray away from, or things like this, society really stops and listens because we're not cogs in the political wheel." And they really had that, that sort of authority. So, I would argue that women actually, pre, uh, pre-universal suffrage, had a much larger say over how society looked and how it was shaped and their influence in it, um, than they do now that they're just considered a voting block to be pandered to. So, I, that would be my argument back.

>> Okay. Um, I don't know. I, okay. So, the one thing that I do think is happening, I wasn't prepared to debate this, but since we're allowed to have this, since we're having this conversation, um, I think we, I think we have a lot of influence, arguably almost to our detriment. You know, Dr. Drew and I got in a conversation about this and he was talking about the over-feminization, right? And you're talking about the emasculation. So, I don't, I don't necessarily know that I would agree that we had more influence then. And I would almost argue we have more influence now to our own detriment because we're feminizing kids in school. You know, you've got this very female sort of ideology. Corolla talks about it about how, you know, we don't let boys be boys. We don't let men be men. So, I, I would, I would almost suggest that we, we have too much influence socially. And, and you're even making a case.

>> So, wouldn't we lessen that through lessening voting privileges for women?

>> No, I think we would lessen that. No, I think we would. But, but we're not voting on these things. This is like an ideology. We're not voting on

>> how we're teaching our kids in schools or or what we are.

>> But we do. There's a gender divide in voting. Massive, uh, you know, sex gender divide, not gender the way progressives use it. I'm just using interchangeably with sex here, but there's a divide between how men and women vote. And women overwhelmingly vote left, and men don't. And so the thing is, is it's because we see the prism of the world differently.

>> Okay?

>> When you think about how early America was structured, nobody was allowed to vote except stakeholders inside of the United States. They didn't let anybody vote. They didn't care, man or woman. And men only got the right to vote universally, uh, shortly before women did. It's not like they were always able to. Most men could never vote either. The idea here that the founders had was that inside of this nation, they did not trust the electorate to make great decisions. The states were the ones who sent up the elected officials, not the people. That was never how it was designed to work inside the republic, anyway. So, what's happened with the expansion of voting rights and universal suffrage is you've given complete morons now the ability to have a say over your life. And like, let me give you an example of this. Why should an 18-year-old be able to negate your vote? Why? Like, is an 18-year-old smart enough to actually, uh, make an informed decision that negates your well-informed vote? Don't you think that that's really stupid and counterproductive and counterintuitive? And it's recent. Like, this is something, this is a product of modernity. It's not like this was always this way. It's only been recently this way. Why do we even bother? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Why wouldn't you at least wait until a person was in their 30s to vote or they had some stake in society, male or female, before they were allowed to even cast a vote? Why does this idea that everybody, just because they're alive, needs to have a say in everything? We don't run society that way with anything else. For instance, you're a person who knows a lot about fitness. Uh, I know a lot about eating, but I don't know a lot about fitness. Okay? But what I can tell you is is that, um, if I went into wherever you were giving a class on fitness and I decided to weigh in on whatever that was, why, why would I be taken seriously, right? I'm not informed enough to be going in and trying to tell you what's what in, in that capacity. That's not my place. It's not my domain. And why wouldn't we do voting the same way or political participation? This is one of those things which is so dogmatic in people, and they don't even know why. And it's just because you were raised that way. You were raised to think everybody should have a say because you're alive, you should have a say. But when you really start reducing it, it makes less and less sense that everyone has a say. In fact, most people probably shouldn't have a say.

>> I know. I hear you on this front, but okay. So, if I'm that 18-year-old kid, then I'm looking back at you going, "Well, I'm the one they're drafting, so I get a say."

>> If you're a male.

>> Okay? So, so if you say 18-year-old Bill, but as a woman, if you then say, "Okay, well, you guys might be the ones going into combat, but we're the ones having babies and we're the ones raising children in this world, so we should have a say." Like, if we play this game of tit for tat of, "Well, you do this." Oh, yeah. Well, I only do that, so then I only get a right to say what happens with kids that. Like, I just don't know where that goes. And then the problem is that voting isn't

>> Well, I can tell you where it goes.

>> Okay.

>> Cuz voting isn't specific, though. It's not like just fitness. It's not narrow. It's broad. It's everything.

>> Yeah. That makes it worse. The fact that you let 18-year-olds have more of a say over things that they definitely don't know anything about. Like, for instance, do you think that, don't you think there's something fundamentally unfair about the fact that inside of a locality, people can go and vote and let's say there's more renters in an area than there are owners, that the renters can go and up the property taxes of the owners, thus thus exempting themselves from the tax that then they get to the windfall of? Right? This is not the way that we were supposed to set this nation up. We're not supposed to set the nation up as a small conglomeration of voting blocks who are all in an infinite war with each other over power. That's what universal suffrage did. It was a terrible idea for men and women. By the way, uh, I don't think that either of them should just have some universal right to vote. That's silly. And if you're going to structure society right now in the United States, our birth rates in the toilet. The reason we have a mass migration problem is because we can't reproduce ourselves, right?

>> What we do is we take women in their childbearing years, that's going to be their 20s, and tell them to go to college.

>> Well, what they do is they waste all of their childbearing years, usually up until 27, 28, you know, uh, going through school and then establishing a career. They don't even have their first child until, you know, 29, 30, 31, 32. Well, if you're going to have a good rebound from childbirth, uh, if you do it at 22, as you probably know, it's a lot easier for women than if they do it at 32 or 35. They rebound much quicker. They can have many more children. They can establish themselves much earlier in these family dynamics. What I'm looking at is the overage of what's good for society in general. You can have the kids, we can't, but we can do the wars and you can't. We can do the protection. You can't. Women have an elevation of privilege inside of society that men don't have. When the Titanic goes down, you get the lifeboats, and so do the kids. We go down with the ship. Men are set as the expendable fixture in society and women the privilege. But you can't ask for the privilege and then not, uh, uh, reciprocate that men have the authority. And so the idea is who has the authority. You can have either privilege or authority, but you can't have both.

>> Okay. Okay. Um, so if I'm, if I'm 22, I'm going to be the worst parent on the planet. Uh,

>> What?

>> Well, I mean, I would have been, oh my god, I was just a complete. We're saying 18-year-olds can't vote. We want them four years later to raise a kid. I certainly didn't have the mental capacity.

Well, I mean, that's four years. If, if you raise the voting age to like 24 or 25, that would be a lot better.

I don't know. My mom had me at 25. I think, you know, listen, I'm glad to be alive, but I definitely think I could have benefited from a little more maturity there. I would I would question. I get what you're saying from a biological perspective. From a psychological perspective, I think there's a lot more maturity that comes along with a little bit of age. I wonder, you know, where the sweet spot is. And everybody's ready for kids at a different time.

Yeah, but I mean, do you want people to have to raise kids into their 50s and 60s?

What if you did?

Think about how think about how silly that is. Like, why, why wouldn't you want people? Like, for me, I had my children young, okay? Uh, I'm going to be done, right? Like, I'm going to be done, uh, in my early 40s. I'll go travel, do this, go do that, go do whatever I want. And it's like, look, um, the truth is is that children, for one thing, they're good for parents. They help with that maturation process. They don't take away from it. They assist with it. They assist with, uh, the responsibility process. They help with all of those things. Also, it's actually, in many cases, I would argue, good to have youthful parents. They can chase you around. They can help you with this. They can help you with that. The one downside now is that they don't have as many resources, which is why there's, you know, more age gap relationships going on, which I don't have a big issue with.

But I'm just pointing out that, um, that seems backwards to me. It seems like if you want to structure society, you'd want to structure society around having the most amount of children for your nation. That's going to drastically increase your tax base, which is going to increase patriotism. It's going to increase the wholesome American family unit, which is the backbone of American society. It's going to do all these things that you want to do to help fix these issues. And yet, for some reason, it's generally, um, you know, progressives are very resistant to this. And I think it's because indoctrination towards the youth through the school system is why you see so many women vote left. The institutions are completely indoctrinated with left-wing think tanks. And so why wouldn't they encourage all women to go to college? That's where they're going to be able to get their best voting block.

Okay. So let me, let me try to tackle these things one thought at a time. So,

Sure.

forgive me if I'm looking at like these young girls. They're sitting here thinking, you're telling me I can't get an education? You're telling me I can't vote? You're telling me

No, you can still get an education. What I would do is I would just do this a different way. I would just be like, look, instead of the government, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just want to clarify.

Me off at all. No, no, no. I I want to like I'm I'm so because I I I my thought is this will create an education. What I would do is instead of having the government come in and do predatory student loans towards, uh, 17, 18-year-old girls,

Okay, that they then spend the next 20 years of their lives trying to pay back for degrees and fields that they mostly don't go into.

I know that. How is it? Agree with you?

Yeah. How is it me? So, think about how silly it is that we're telling on the one hand, no 18-year-olds, they're not mature enough to make a decision about having children, but they're mature enough to vote and they're mature enough to take on these predatory student loans. That's silly.

Right. So, they get these student loans and that again, they don't go into the fields and they mostly get them in nonsense, right? Psychology, sociology, things which are basically useless. Might as well be basket weaving because the market's so saturated. What I would do is I would do the the propaganda from the top down the opposite way. I'd say, "Look, why don't you wait? If you wait until you're 28 or 29 and you already have children, then the government will assist with a subsidy for you to go to college and then you can get your education that way. We'll move resources towards you that direction and we'll make the student loans interest-free at that point."

Right. So, it's like

You're not saying women shouldn't get an education at all. Then you you're simply suggesting a restructuring which I understand about how you restructure society around things that make sense instead of structuring society around feminist ideas of insanity.

Women end up hearing Andrew is they're like, "Oh, you don't want me to get educated and you just want to control me and you want me to be dumb and barefoot and this and that and have 50 babies and this and that." And then they just don't like. And I worry that it breaks.

Well, I do want them to have like 50 babies. I think that that's great. Like I think that that's great.

But here's the thing. Not every woman is going to have children.

I don't think that they're less of a woman because they can't have children. That's, I mean, that's silly. But the thing is is can we at least affirm the propaganda towards the thing that makes society good? So if it's the case that like women don't, some women don't want to have kids, okay, no problem. No one's going to force you to have kids. We're not the Taliban. That's insane. But what we would say is that

If I, if we have the government apparatus for incentives and for propaganda, then what I would say is like

one of the most valuable things you can do for your nation

is to get married and have kids and you know, move towards that as a virtue in society rather than the idea of

the virtuous thing is to immediately go at 18 years old to college, get stuffed by a bunch of dudes and get a degree that's basically useless. Uh, and that's actually what's happening in real time. That's that's the more likely scenario is that women are going to college and a lot of times, you know, they're they're uh hooking up with many many men

and throughout the process of their college career and they're getting degrees and things that are worthless with massive student loan debt that are going to take them half their life to pay off. That is stupid and it's backwards and it makes no sense.

I understand what you're saying.

Yeah. And I don't and I don't get it. And so, you know, Crowder is making the kind of the idealist argument to you of like, look at the fundamental unfairness that even from the feminist perspective should be addressed,

right? But more importantly than that, structure society around what men can do and women can do and only they can do and then you're going to end up with a better society.

I get it. I understand. And you're But but that's so different that like if you don't want to have kids, okay, then don't have kids. However, can we restructure the incentives in the propaganda? And that that actually makes perfect sense to me.

It does, doesn't it?

Yeah, that I I can completely understand what you're saying here. Um, your skin care might be more toxic than your food. So, just like choosing healthy food, we got to be more careful about what we put on our body, not just in it. And I've become hyper-aware of every product I use. Reading labels, researching ingredients, realizing just how many toxic chemicals we let into our daily routine. So check the label on your moisturizer, guys. If it reads like a lab report, swap it. Get rid of that toxic moisturizer for CowGuys Tallow Balm. It's a natural hydrating balm with ingredients that you can actually pronounce. It's safe and it's more effective than conventional alcohol or water-based lotions. and your skin is going to glow. Tallow was actually used for generations before big pharma ruined skin care. Use it as a lotion on your hands, your arms, your legs, your face, your lips. Use it for eczema, psoriasis, dry skin, normal skin, just as an everyday moisturizer. Plus, it's an American-made and rancher-owned company in Texas. It's the best tallow balm you can find. So, search up cowguys.com to get your tallow balm and get a mini tallow balm free. There's no special code. You get three to four months of moisturizer for just 34 bucks. So, search cowguys.com to grab your free tallow balm with your order.

Why do you think that the propaganda it lends itself to, I'm sorry, but like the top podcasts for women are like they talk about being sexually promiscuous. There's guys.

Can I do my woman podcast impression for you?

Oh god. I would be like, I would I I hate to do this, but I like as raising a daughter.

Yeah. Yeah. How have you feeling? Yeah. But what about Have you heard of Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's just They're so insufferable. They're They're so insufferable. I can't take I can't take it. It's too much. Like what? They're just so insufferable.

I'm so ashamed to say that. I like I don't

I don't disagree with you. What is that do you think? What is the I just see all of these narratives and the, you know, you're bringing up a few of them, but there are so many others. What is behind

this propaganda do you think? Cuz I'm starting to think it's like

you know, China and Russia and like, you know, I'm like, am I losing my mind? Like, I genuinely starting to think this.

Yeah. Like you're not. The thing is is that with the ideals of universal suffrage came the ideas of voting blocks, competing interests with each other. So it doesn't really feel like much of a united United States, does it?

Oh my god.

No, it doesn't. It feels like we're a bunch of small tribes and we're all warring for for power. And that's actually what we're doing because we all have we we have different blocks of ideas with different interest base of those ideas and we're competing because for the power of the vote. That's what we're competing for. We want the biggest block we can get so that our ideas win.

And so that our worldview is the one that ends up kind of taking taking over or becoming the dominant worldview. That's the the very idea of what it is that universal suffrage did. So with all these different worldviews competing, really is it any wonder that that, uh, things are so divided and they feel so divisive and they feel like, uh, it's very tribal. Well, it feels like that because it is. So you're not crazy. You're not going mad, uh, when you see that people are like, "What the hell are these people over here thinking?" Well, they're thinking within the confines of their personal interest and worldview, and they want power towards that worldview, and they're going to take actions towards that. That's one one of the other problems with everybody can just vote. It's a it's a it's always been silly. Pure democracy didn't work inside of, uh, Greece. It's never worked anywhere it was tried. Democracy expanded is always a terrible idea. We have a republic. Checks and balances. A system in place which is designed specifically to check government power but also check people's power. Right? It's designed to do that. And the universal suffrage has kind of created an imbalance to that. And so I think I think we got to retract a lot of that and move move backwards towards what worked because what's going on right now doesn't work.

What did work? I mean, I I just remember life being easier as a kid, but my, you know, my mom voted, my dad voted. I mean, would you be okay with, let's say, a competency test to vote? So, if you're 18, you have to pass a competency test, a knowledge of the issues, some way to prove you at least understand what you're voting on.

I'm not even sure a test would be the best idea. I think that there's there's a multitude of ways to do this and all of them have kind of their pros and their cons. And I think that that's the debate which should be had rather than the we should just

we should just grant that this is just the way things are because it's not a good way to live.

Okay. Uh, but some of the ways that you could mitigate this, you could do what's called one household voting and that would just be like married couples can vote, right? And you only get one vote for per household. And so the idea there is that a husband's not divided against their wife, right? You have one one house voting. Uh, that's one way that you could do it. There's problems with that.

Then I'm going to be like, "What if I'm not married? Now you're going to force me to get married." It's like

Yeah. Well, that's part of the incentive though, right? Part of the incentive is like, well, if you're married, uh, you're probably going to have kids and you're pro those kids are probably going to be much more well adjusted in society than if you have them unmarried. So, it'd be part of like an incentive program, do it. So, that's one aspect of a way you could do it. Not saying that's the one I advocate for, just kind of giving you different options which have been presented. Another stakeholder, meaning you have to actually have property bought and be paying taxes on it. Though I think that that's the

Tell you they can't and then it's a trap because it's all set up. So then you're going to hear that one.

Yeah. And and also that could be the least effective for other reasons that I don't even think are really relevant to the conversation, but it could it could create other issues. Uh, one really good proposition from various libertarians that I think has a lot of merit is that people who pay more into the system than they get out of the system. I like

should be able to vote. And so this creates incentives for people who want to vote.

Speaking my language.

Yeah. So that gives incentives to people who want to vote to become to become a net gain to society rather than and and what that would do ultimately is it would also cut down social welfare. It would cut down social programs. It would cut down entitlements, which is the largest spending in the United States. So you could look at that option. I get it.

There's a multitude of ways to kind of look at this where it's like we're not going to even you don't even have to disenfranchise women. It's not even that's not even necessary. Women by a natural process will just limit their votes anyway because they'll be less interested in that from the political perspective. And so, by the way, will many men or even most men. The whole idea here though is that you want the people in society to vote who have either the best stake towards the thing

or they have the education on the thing. And there's only so many different ways you can do that. It where you're kind of narrowing the bracket down to the people who really should be doing it. And it also that will cut down tribalism drastically.

So if I can show that I'm contributing, just hypothetically, right? If I can show that I'm contributing and I'm invested in our country, it doesn't matter. Would you say okay at that point, doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman. If you're equally giving back to the system more than you take, would there be some sort of equal playing field there despite having tests?

Yeah, you could. Sure. You could have the the system set up if if egalitarianism is still the mode that you want to operate under, like, you know, I want to be

I don't think you're ever going to get. And I just don't. No woman is going to be like, "Yeah, take my right to vote." No, it's going to make them more

But but I want to let you know evil patriarch. It's going to lean into that though.

Yeah, but once upon a time it was the opposite that that women said women are never going to want the right to vote and it was women who said that.

Was a better time necessarily though? I mean, I

I don't know. I'd have to ask my grandmother who passed.

A better time? Well, I mean, it wasn't better technologically, but it the but that was due to the confines of, you know, it being, uh, pre-industrialization. Uh, but even post-industrialization when you still had some limits on voting, yeah, I would say that at least the the spirit of the US was a far more moral, uh, place and a far less degenerate and horrific place to live in for sure when it came to those those issues. But that aside, I'm just saying yes, you can make it completely fair across the board, men and women, if you wanted to. And the idea here is just, hey, if you're a net gain to the system rather than a parasite on the system, you can you can go ahead and cast your ballot, male or female, I wouldn't have a problem with that system because it limits suffrage.

Yeah. Well, it limits suffrage. And that's my ultimate goal, right? Is to limit suffrage down to prevent the ideas of tribalism and things like this and also to prevent all the money which comes into politics from third party systems and NGOs and think tanks and and things like this, uh, and PACs and super PACs which just pump billions and billions of dollars, uh, into the system in order to influence these various voting blocks. That's where all that money comes in.

I know. Do you think that there is any universe where that can be reformed? Because

Yes.

you do because it without being able to reform this the campaign finance, I just don't know how you ever. It's Can I Can I ask you this? So many people get really upset when I talk about wanting to regulate big food or big farm or big insurance. It's like, I don't want big government. I'm like, well, they certainly want big government working for them. They're paying a heck of a lot of money to get big government to work on their behalf. And you think I'm crazy? Like I want these monster corporations to be regulated. They should not be able to put poison in our food. And it's like I don't want a nanny state. But everything but then by the time we're done, everything is going to have pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, fake fat, fake color, fake flavor. We're seeing I just looking at this from a health perspective, right? I am seeing all of this evil that these guys are allowed to do for profit. But on the other hand, it's like, oh, you just want a nanny state. What do you see here?

Well, the thing when I break down what big government is, uh, big government is mostly set in military and entitlement spending, right? So, that's where it all is. Entitlement spending especially, that's the number one expenditure, uh, that we as a country do is is on entitlements. The second is military. Both of those. Now, I would argue that at least from the military perspective, uh, perhaps having a bloated budget there may not be the worst idea for the security of the United States. When you're the global hegemon, having the most powerful, vicious military on planet Earth, I think is an advantage.

Yeah.

But massive entitlement spending is not a huge advantage and that's the number one expenditure. If it was the case that you were to draw down on some of the bloating like what Trump was trying to do with you said and other programs like this, I wouldn't have any problem with food regulation because the way that we distribute food now is far different than the locally grown organic things that we used to have in in ages past when people did not have these massive stomach issues and all of the, uh, various autoimmune system issues which basically are all coming from the things that they eat. Uh, you know, my wife has talked about this pretty in depth, too. She's she's kind of in the the fitness aspect of things like you are. Um, I I don't know why the hell she's with me, but but she but that's but that's her thing, right? And I don't think that there's an actual problem there with the idea of regulating out actual poisons. In fact, that's one of the few functions government is supposed to have, okay?

Is is to take care of the health and welfare of the people of the United States. That's in the Constitution itself.

Okay. Thank you for that. Cuz sometimes, you know, you you speak on more conservative or when I go on more conservative news channels, it's like, okay, but you know, we don't want a nanny state. You know, we really don't want big government getting involved. I'm thinking this is ex this is exactly

That's small government in comparison to the things that are actually big government.

I understand. So, if I was going to if I was going to point out like big government, I would be I'd be looking at

what many many other things, uh, before I would look at whether or not, uh, testing and meat factories for listeria was going to be, you know, cut from the budget.

Does that mean that there wouldn't be waste, fraud, and abuse in that system? Of course, there would be. Uh, but there's a lot more waste, fraud, and abuse likely to come up in systems where Somalians are pretending that they have daycares and taking in hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to take care of the elderly that they're not even taking care of. And that's happening in multitudes of states now that it's being pointed out. Um, and the thing is is like a little bit of of oversight there actually would have saved the state, you know, maybe billions of dollars, right? So there when you're talking about the bloating of government and big government, we're talking about Reagan's ideas, um, you know, of cutting cutting government down, but you're supposed to cut out departments which are useless and worthless and are not doing any they're not really assisting with the health and the welfare of the people. One thing about food intake and now in the world of vaccines and medicine where, you know, people are getting prescriptions for all sorts of things that industry of course you want to have oversight on for the purposes of regulating the health and welfare of people, like that's part and partial of how things ought to operate inside of a nation, right? That's the that's the point you're going to have some oversight there.

Uh, but I do think that you can cut down the size of government in other arenas and you would save way way more money than trying to cut it out of food safety.

Okay, next question. You know, you talk about all the fraud that's been exposed and, you know, we're just looking at like now you've got James O'Keefe exposing voter fraud, people, you know, being registered to vote in California that are homeless and NGO workers are like, "Oh, just so you live on Pinocchio Lane." And I'm thinking, you can't make this up. And you've got COVID, you've got Epstein, you got aliens living on the bottom of the ocean. And now you've got voter fraud that we were all told. I I my brain can't handle it. And what I think ends up happening is we just become nihilist.

That's why women shouldn't vote.

Come on. Come on now. And Andrew, come on. But look, I'm doing my part to educate myself and like not me to vote for the right things. But now I feel and you cover like the conspiracy theory shows a lot and you talk about how they crash out.

But I mean, are they? They're they're rating bigger than ever. And I I don't. What do we do about this? Because none of us are.

So did Coast to Coast? I mean, Coast to Coast. Do you remember that show with Art Bell? Do you ever remember Coast to Coast? No.

An old old radio show called Coast to Coast AM with a guy, very talented jockey who just ran it out of his house named Art Bell. And, um, he was, I think he was in the middle of like the Nevada desert or something and he did a huge conspiracy podcast over the radio waves every night and it was widely tuned into. Thing is is that people really love that stuff cuz it's a lot of fun.

Conspiracies are a lot of fun. Aliens, it's a lot of fun. Bigfoot, it's a lot of fun. Those things are a lot of fun. They really are. And there are legitimate conspiracies that need to be looked at. For instance, uh, I think that there's still residual questions about what happened to John F. Kennedy. I think that's that's totally fair. I think that the government has tens of thousands of laws about conspiracy when it comes to you or I. Conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit theft, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc., etc., etc. They see conspiracies everywhere. That's wild. I saw that. They see them everywhere. There's conspiracies prosecuted every single day by the government all over the place. They they have thousands upon thousands of laws around conspiracies. Good people enter into them all the time. The problem is this. The problem is is that, um, there's in inside of like, uh, let's say this isn't even ethics, uh, but maybe philosophy, uh, there's things called theoretical virtues, right? There's a thing I've been studying recently. Theoretical virtues are just a way for you to, uh, take different systems, right? And compare those systems for which one you want to move towards, which system makes the most sense to make an analysis of what's going on, right? And the problem with a lot of what the modern conspiracies are, the old ones used to be way better in my opinion, uh, is that the when I have a system of analysis that I'm utilizing, it's going to fit this criteria. So, for instance, it's going to explain the most things. It's going to have the the most amount of descriptive power. It's going to have the most amount of fact-finding power. Like little things like that. Let's say there's other words that we would use for it, but that's that's good enough to kind of explain the concept. And when I compare the system that I would use to the system a conspiracy theorist is using, mine's consistent across all the things I'm looking at. And theirs is only consistent with the one thing they're looking at. And when you apply it to something else,

it totally falls apart. And that's why I get, uh, kind of upset when I'm talking to various people and they, uh, have pronouncements of crazy ass [ __ ] that I just know makes no sense and I'm able to break it down logically. Right. But remember that a key

This is why honestly I am so thankful for you. But

but a key portion of conspiracies, it's like, let's let's not forget they're fun. They're fun and I like listening to them, right? Like I like listening to them too. I like to listen to them, but then I think at some point you have to safeguard your mind. It starts to become brain rot and it can become dangerous and you can become gullible and nihilistic and that worries me. And the other thing I'm seeing, and I I wonder what you think about this, this a horseshoe theory where, you know, you've got the Code Pink people and they're starting to sound like the super far-right people of like this kind of anti-American narrative. Do you are you seeing that or am I just like

Well, there's a the what is that?

I understand. Well, so inside of party politics in the US,

the parties were never that far apart, honestly.

Really?

Um,

Really?

they really weren't. Yeah, they really weren't. They were kind of, I mean, a little bit, but they all operated under a similar ideal. The ideal was like the Constitution, Americana, uh, post-war consensus, you know, they kind of they kind of operated under this idea, at least in my lifetime, your lifetime, your parents' lifetime, probably your grandparents' lifetime, they they kind of moved more towards this. So, there was some sort of universalism which held it together. And now it's not. It's kind of a race for power from different ideologies.

When you see horseshoe theory, you think you went so far right, you went left, right? You went so far left, you went right. But that's not actually what's happening.

When you think about the things Well, yeah. When you think about things that are considered far-right-wing ideology,

what is happening?

They consider like Nazi Germany to be a far-right ideology, right? Or they would consider

Wasn't he a socialist? The Democrat.

But that's my point. There you go. You hit the point though, right? So I see if that's a far-right ideology, then right-wing in their mind, in their worldview, in their prism, is they're thinking in terms of authoritarianism, lack of democracy, lack of republicanism, uh, you know, this type of thing. I see

not socialism though, right? So so there are could be right-wingers who have a like from their perspective an overwhelming authoritarian land or slant, right? Okay. But, uh, but also want massive social programs for people. And so that wouldn't actually contradict with, uh, what what the left might consider right-wing ideology to be or what the right might consider left-wing ideology to be. So for instance, I wouldn't say that a person who's a progressive stops being a progressive, uh, because they want, you know, smaller government or less taxes, right? But they they might I might be more inclined to think that they're moving away from progressivism if they say something like, "Okay, I I don't really want gay marriage." Uh, that sounds like it's it's moving more towards at least the social right. Right. So there's going to be like step-by-step qualifiers for this. I don't think that horseshoe theory really is an overlap. I think that, um, that within the confines of these ideas, there's kind of room for, you know, for different modes, if that makes sense.

I just find it so strange. Like you bring up gay marriage. Okay. If I was to take someone like Jenk

Uger,

I'm positive he'd be for it. If I was to take someone like Tucker Carlson, I'm positive he'd be against it.

Yeah.

And yet they find common ground and are now like thick as thieves and we went from literally

No, no, no. That's Hang on. Hang on. You don't think it's funny. Once Tucker to be president, I'm like, you hated this guy.

We I can Well, so we can agree that both of them are against Israel. So that's the connection.

Yeah. But but what about the reasons though? That's where that's where it gets interesting. So just because you're against a thing, okay?

Right. Ideologically it still needs to make sense within the purview of your actual ideology. Sanker is a leftwinger,

big time.

He sees Yeah. He see Well, he the way he sees Israel is he sees Israel as an ethnostate,

which is an oppressor class to the towards the Palestinians and the Arabs who are around. Got it. Okay. And

so therefore, this ethnationalist state which is unduly influencing our great democracy and republic and persecuting from the oppressor position the poor Palestinian people. Got it.

They need to be dealt with. From the Carlson position though, you have to remember he he get he arrives to the, you know, opposition to Israel completely different way. He doesn't give a [ __ ] that Israel is an ethno-nationalist state. He doesn't care. Bothers him not at all. He doesn't give a [ __ ] about the oppressor oppressed class either. What he does care about is undue influence in politics and the fact that he's against Christian Zionism. So he has other factors that he's looking at for why it is

um, you know, maybe they have some agreement on foreign policy,

you know, dealing with Israel, but they arrive at the reasons they oppose it totally differently. Okay, everybody knows that I am an animal person. A dog person in particular. And that's because our dogs are our best friends. But when it comes to their food, we're always forced to compromise between fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve. Well, not anymore. Because with Sundays for dogs, you get both. And your dog gets the best. It's founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and a mom who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food, which is full of fillers and synthetics. and she designed Sundays with air-dried real food made in human-grade kitchens using the same ingredients they would use to cook for your family. Everybody's clean. It's packed with real meat, real fruits, real veggies, no weird ingredients, no fillers compared to kibble or other brands. Sundays invests 50 times more in its ingredients for true premium quality, no cost cutting, and you just scoop and serve. There's no freezer. There's no thawing. There's no prep. There's no mess. Just nutrient-rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. So, make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to sundaysfordogs.com/jillian50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can just use the code jillian50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com/jillian50. Sundaysfordogs.com/jillian50 or use the code jillian50 at checkout.

What's the result of that though? So like, okay, for example, one of the things I said to Crowder is I was like, well, listen, I I get where you're coming from, but if someone like Charlie Kirk is a coalition builder, would you be willing to form a coalition with the people who are more moderate to get your agenda largely largely pushed through? I don't know really where he landed on that. However, I tend to find that like the more moderate people are and have aligned with the people who are more conservative like yourself or like Steven, but then I find that the people who are more so all the way out there, I guess what you're saying is kind of meet on these issues even though they're coming from different worldviews,

right? And so it and it's when you get the intersection of the worldview that it gets really interesting.

Okay. For instance, Carlson, if even if Carlson and Jenk agree on, you know, some foreign policy prescription towards Israel, uh, because they they view it as some kind of threat for completely different reasons. The dangerous aspect to that is if they even if they unite on that particular front against that particular issue is that whatever coalition they build with each other to do so is going to instantly begin destroying it each other the second this issue is out of the way. It's not a real coalition because there's no value overlap. None. And so Crowder's position is very similar to mine. He understands that there needs to be value overlap in a coalition. And if there isn't, then all that's going to happen is you're going to build something that's going to implode, destroy itself, maybe cause more damage than if you hadn't built it in the first place. So, a guy like Crowder is not going to get in bed with, uh, anybody who he thinks is going to have any kind of immoral overlap inside of a coalition he's trying to build. And I don't blame the guy.

I understand what you're saying.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. I guess it I guess it makes me sad because I know that when I look at when and I I know, you know, feelings don't matter. I I appreciate that. But but

Well, feelings matter in politics.

Well, when I look at someone like yourself and I look at someone like Crowder, I largely agree with you. And then we come to an impass obviously because I'm gay and I I know how you guys feel about all of this. And would that mean like we could never be allies on certain issues? Like what does that mean? Is it's like, okay, Jillian, like I'll speak to you civilly and we can debate these things as human beings because we live in the same country or could it be like, listen,

we'll ally on the things we agree with on the things we don't agree with, if the day comes where we go to battle over these things, obviously it would be civil and respectful and may the best man woman American win on the issue, but like where does that leave us because I got to tell you Andrew, like I like you a ton and I feel like there's this elephant in the room where I know that what I stand for as a person goes against what you believe in and I can't change that. I wouldn't change it. I love my wife. I love my family. Where does that leave someone? Like, and it's okay. You can tell me the truth. If it's like, yeah, Jill, I just never would, you know, whatever. That's okay. And that's life. But where does that leave us?

Well, I'll I'll explain the best way that I can.

Okay, I'll take it. Hit me with it.

I've I've thought about this issue quite a bit. So, the best way for me to draw the the parallel is in the religious element. So, I'm an Orthodox Christian and, uh, I'm not a Roman Catholic, though from the the onlooker, Protestant onlooker, they they seem very similar.

Okay.

But most of the nation's not Catholic or Orthodox is Protestant. And I need their help. I need their help to, uh, abolish abortion. I need their help on the religious front to do all sorts of other abolishments that I need, which are moral abolishments, right? That I consider moral, like moral imperatives. And so there's universals there even though there's distinctions in the theology which are paramount distinctions, by the way, that people have killed each other over in the past.

Okay.

Uh, that I understand that I can unite with them in this limited way, uh, in order to not pray with them or or commune with them, but unite with them politically towards a universal moral issue. Right? Because the overlap is on the universals. We still believe in the Ten Commandments together. We still believe in these things together. So because of that, there's enough moral overlap there where I don't feel any I feel no issues at all, uh, uniting with them against these massive political issues of our time.

Okay. But when it comes to

But the the caveat is like

I understand.

When it comes to forming a political issue with, let's say, homosexuals or things like this, then we end up in the non-overlap morality where where do we come in and find the You could vote on an issue with me, right? Sure. And I'm not going to stop you. Would be like, sure, go vote. Vote the same way I'm voting. That's great. But I also understand intuitively that if there's an organization which is built around ideologies and my ideology is presenting that look, as an Orthodox Christian, I'm going to always definitely oppose and have opposition to gay marriage. Now, does that mean that I'm going to say that there can't be civil unions or things that you guys can call marriage as long as I just don't have to recognize them? That may be some sort of political compromise.

Could you could you get around the rights piece? It's the rights piece because like I don't need to get married in someone's church. It's the fact that like I want to leave my money to my family if I'm

Need to be married to do any of that?

Because marriage comes with like a thousand plus rights. You can't just you get Okay, I'll give you an example.

But wouldn't that just mean change the laws so that you don't need marriage to accommodate the things you're trying to accommodate?

It would be honestly that really is for me personally, it's the ability to leave my wife the money that we have built without her losing half of it because we lost that right

because of an inheritance tax. Yes. Or for example,

but didn't civil but civil unions cover?

No, they had to be federally recognized. Or for example,

but the feds can recognize a civil union.

Okay. But then if we could form such an alliance where I was like, I appreciate your religion is sacred. I appreciate you know that you like I could get if we needed to come to terms on this, I could say to you like I can't protect my family without the following rights. For example, what if I was a total scumbag? Matt Walsh and I talked about this and I decided I wasn't going to pay to support my kids. Like I I'm obligated now under under the law. I am obligated to pay child support, but if it wasn't recognized, I could just be a weasel and a scumbag. Like is there

Oh, you would still have to pay child support.

No, they can make you can literally walk away from your obligations because you have no I adopted the kids.

How can How can you walk away? Like if I have a kid out of wedlock, I can't just walk away. Not

biologically mine.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I understand.

They're not biologically mine. So, I could be a weasel and a scumbag. Whereas now, it's like you have an obligation. So I just if I don't know I think this is

But doesn't that convolute the system more than it helps it? Like for instance, I'm trying to I'm thinking this through kind of logically and I understand that this is very this is personalized and so because it's personalized it there's there's going to it's going to be

I know it's personal for you too, which is why I like I understand where you're coming from.

But I want to make sure but I just want to make sure to be clear. I'm just going to kind of do a logical deduction from from my view, from the view of the Christian right, the the in fundamentally The coalition that, uh, that we on the right have built is around the ideas of Christianity as a foundation. If somebody's advocating for the ideas of marriage and to live openly in sin and have it recognized, that's always going to be oppositional to our morality.

So whether or not it is the case that we compromise politically and allow you to call this thing what it is, that it's still going to always be in the fundamental category of you're trying to promote degeneracy from our view. I understand. Um, or or what we would consider evil, right? Which would be the the form of

degeneracy. Someone's hurt though, if it's two consensual adults.

Well, I I'll I'll show you I'll show you why that's not actually rational. Um, if if somebody is dead from a secular view, why can't you have sex with a dead body?

I don't need your brother and sister, you know, would you? But okay, but see this is where I

But I mean, why do you need consent is the question. You don't, right? But you would still oppose it.

But see, I don't think for me, this is where I kind of become more of that liberal kind of person where it's like, listen, if you're not hurting anyone, this kind of comes down to that Dave Smith conversation you had where you're like, do you own yourself, Dave? And I was trying to wrap my head around

what you were saying because I just thought, well, yeah, don't I own don't I have aren't I making decisions for myself? Like if I am responsible for me, I'm responsible for my feelings, I'm responsible for my behaviors. Where it crosses over is when what I think is better for me hurts someone else. But I would say why is my life or the life with my family, how is that evil if it hurts no one and it's just

Well, the the issue here is quantification. So when people when people say this, it sounds good to the ear. Uh, why can't I just do what I want as long as it's not hurting anybody else? The pro, like how do you quantify that though? Every action that you take in the world has an effect. It has an effect on the environment around you. It has an effect on the people that you come into contact with. It has an effect on and it's impossible to quantify completely its effect. So, the reason that we're not like, well, you can you can if you're like a [ __ ] person, uh, you know, we're going to have an interpersonal relationship with you is because we intuitively understand the quantification.

problem, which is like I don't know how how many like immoral steps a [ __ ] person has taken, only that the effects of everything that they've done have been bad for basically everybody around them.

Now, I'm not making this comparison to say that homosexuals are uh doing immoral actions all the time. That's not my point. My point is just that it's impossible to create the quantification for you to to even have the uh kind of like necessary grounding to say, "Hey, I'm not hurting anybody else."

Well, I mean, how do you know that? For instance, the emotional state of Christians, there's there's just like millions upon millions of them. You're talking about most of the United States. If their emotional state is driven to demoralization because their institution uh is now being you know made to be a laughingstock and and this kind of thing uh or they feel like there's an attack on it on their actual value structure because they believe that they are the ones who uh are in charge of marriage because it's a religious institution. How do you quantify the effect of their pain? How do you quantify the effect of what it is that they actually feel? Like how do you know you're not actually hurting these people?

It's just the the the idea always comes down to like, "But I'm not doing anything wrong." It's like, well, but you're not really quantifying it the right way because there's no there's no way for you to do that. There's no metric to do that. And so the the idea of self ownership is is this way, right? It's like, you own yourself. Why? Because you say so. What if I say I own you? What makes that incorrect? How do you point to me and say, "No, that's not true"? It's like, well, I got the leash, right? I got the whip. I've got the this. I've got the that. What makes it true that you own you and not me other than force at that point, right? That that's basically what what I reduced it to with Dave was that ownership is just I have thing plus force.

If we're talking about this this particular instance, we're talking about morality itself. Every step that you take from my perspective that leads more people towards the ideas, the horrible ideas of what I would consider a degenerate lifestyle or an immoral lifestyle, I'm going to have an opposition to it because those things are quantified externally. Whether you're in directly doing something to me or not, it's still a problem within the societal view. And that's why building those coalitions is not a a particularly good idea. Maybe limited voting with a person could be.

>> Okay, what if somebody said to a person who's Christian, "Well, your worldview hurts me. I'm a Jew. I'm a Muslim. I'm a Buddhist. You know, how dare you think that your worldview is superior? And what makes you think that you have the right to tell me how to live? And how do I know that your God is the one true God?" Like, because I just feel like we could constantly flip the script.

You have made the best point in the world for why the ideas of the progressive left are so insane. You're right. There's a massive division between people groups and cultures and distinctions and ideologies and they don't all mix. And so throwing them all together and mixing them all together as though that's not going to create massive conflict is absolutely insane. You're right. From your view, just perhaps even me just saying this is an immoral lifestyle is immoral. That could be true from your view. Like, that could be an immoral.

>> You see, that's the thing is like, I don't see it the way you see it.

>> I know.

>> And but I understand how you see it and I respect that this is your belief system, this is how you were raised, and I wouldn't try to change your opinion about it. I just also know that for me, that wouldn't be the case. And then I know that the next step someone would take is, "Well, what makes you right? What about these guys? What about the Buddhists? What about the..." And I just, I don't know. That that's the kind of shame of it is I do understand what you're saying, but then it's like you have this fundamental impass. So and I still respect, I respect your opinion. I just, you know, I would obviously lived my life hoping.

>> Well, maybe I can just kind of give a rational, the best rational argument that I can. Now that we understand like the impass, years why would I ever bother tailoring ing uh things in society towards the need of such a small percentile of society? Like, I'm going to tailor all the laws and I'm going to tailor all the normative uh authority. I'm going to tailor all the normative uh moral actions in society towards the majority. And the majority of people are always going to be uh hetronormative. Right? And because that's the case, I'm not going to associate government resources towards some, you know, like small fringe minority. That's a progressive mindset. My mindset's the opposite. I'm like, well, who cares? I mean, if you if you want to live that way, no one's going to kick in your door. The Gestapo is not going to drag you to jail. Nobody's talking about doing anything like that. At the same time, there's not going to be any glorification. There's not going to be any funding. There's not going to be any teaching of it. Not going to be any. Why does there need to be? Why wouldn't I move society towards what I would consider the greater virtue?

>> I don't even want that teaching of that.

>> Um, but that's my point, right? It's like, I if if truly if we could go back to how uh kind of the gays in the '80s and the '70s used to think on this, they used to be like, "Look, we just want to be able to do what we want without going to jail, right? We just don't want to be going to jail because of the of of who it is that we care." People had a bigger, much more sympathetic ear to that. That was something that made a lot more sense to people. They're like, "Yeah, we're not, you can't throw people in jail for this. It's crazy. It's like throwing people in jail for masturbating. Like, you're not going to do that, right?" But the thing is is it becomes a lot less uh appealing to people over time when it's like, "Well, now we're going to, they have glorification. Now we're going to have parades. Now we're going to have flags. Now we're going to have ideologies built around this." And then it's like, well, then that means if we give you an inch, you take a mile, right?

>> Okay, I I hear you on the teachings and the ideology and all of that. The fight that I would make is for the rights. And it's the rights to protect my family. It's the rights to have power of attorney. It's the right to be in the room when someone's dying. It's the right to leave them your money without losing half of it. It's it's all of that. But I I do understand the way you see it. And I obviously, you know, I'm going to disagree with you.

>> But but let me ask you this. Why don't I have a right to take all that away?

>> Why do I have the right to take all your all religion? But I but then don't we have to kind of as civilized human beings, I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but like.

>> We have to create dominant blocks of power to enforce our ideologies as human beings. That's what we do. And so if it's the case that you're you assign yourself an arbitrary made-up right that you have a right to to marry a woman. Why can't I assign myself an arbitrary made-up right that I can take that right away? Like that's the whole that's the whole problem with the foundation of like, we have rights. It's like, no, you just have [ __ ] you make up and assign it to yourself. Where do these rights come from? Are they over there? Are they over here? Are they up there? Like, they don't exist in material reality. We make this [ __ ] up.

>> Right?

>> But are you saying we make it up across the board?

>> Mhm.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah. What? Well, what when think about it, what is a right? A right is uh uh some sort of entitlement that we assign ourselves that we then utilize force in order to uh to maintain. So for instance, uh, black people have a right to go to school with white people. We agree on that, right? Uh, but once upon a time that was not the case. And when the law changed for that, they had to send in the National Guard in order to enforce that right with force. So when you make an appeal to a right, when you say have a right to do this, you're making an appeal to force. What you're saying is that the government can utilize force in order to institute that this is going to be the case on my behalf. And so if that's the case, what we're really arguing about is who gets to have the force. And I think that the Christians should have the force. And you think that, well, no, I think that homosexuals ought to be able to have some force here.

>> And you know what? I don't think.

>> At least in this instance.

>> Well, this is where I become the liberal where I'm like, I don't see why we have to have force over each other if we're living in ways that make us happy that don't hurt each other. Now, I understand you're saying, well, your lifestyle hurts me. Well, I'm just saying that rights themselves don't exist without force. Otherwise, what are they? Like, if you had a right to remain silent, but police could just come in like make you talk, right? Then then the right's useless, right? It's the the rights only as useful as it's enforced. It's the same thing with uh I mean any right you point to, if it's not enforced with the power of government arms, um then it's useless. It's worthless. So when you say that you think I have a right to a thing, what you're saying is I I believe that force should be used on behalf of me to make sure I can do this thing. That's what we're really talking about when it comes to rights. And that's why really what we're always talking about in these these parallels with the progressive mindset is who gets to have the force. And so since I know that that's what we're talking about, I'm like, well, us. I want us. I want my side to have the force.

>> Understand. And you're like, well, but I want I I want my rights also enforced. And it's like, okay, I get it, but.

>> They can't coexist.

>> Um, well, they they could coexist because I just don't coexist, but like, why would marriage isn't necessity for coexistence? That's one. And then the second problem there is like, if you made a compromise where it wasn't marriage or something like this, you're not going to be able to coexist within the idea of um of saying, "Hey, this is completely fine. This is an okay lifestyle. That's just, you know, hunky dory. Don't consider it immoral." That's not going to be able to coexist with another person's ideology of, "This is an immoral lifestyle." This type of thing. Those two things can't square there. It's P and not P. It's a performative contradiction. I can't I can't pretend this is moral and not moral at the same time. And neither can you. You can't pretend what you're doing is uh is, you know, immoral and what I'm doing is moral or vice versa because we're in diametric disagreement on on what the thing is that the moral claim that we're making. We're we're just in diametric opposition. So if that's the case, no, they they they can't coexist. Um, they at least not that way, not morally. They can coexist in the same way if like nobody's going to come in and like kick your door open and send you to jail or imprison you or you know, or anything, nothing bad's going to happen to you over that. But um, yeah, they might they might use government force to make sure that uh, yeah, you're not getting married. But again, you're just basically assigning yourself an arbitrary right anyway. So I don't I don't see why it's improper for the Christian side to be like, no.

>> I would actually, if I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I would love to to look at this a little bit deeper if that's if that's okay with you. I understand how you feel.

>> I just, I I think there's there's maybe more for us to litigate if you would be okay with it. Okay. So, I'm going to air part one of this.

>> Okay.

>> And I look forward to part two.

>> Me, too.

>> And whether you like it or not, I really like you. And while we don't agree on everything.

>> I appreciate you coming to talk with me and I appreciate, you know, the way you see the world and I appreciate the respectful conversation as well.

>> Anytime. Thank you so much for having me. Well, I hope you guys enjoyed part one and I'm looking forward to part two. Do me a favor and drop in the comments exactly what you'd like to see us talk about in our second conversation. And as always, please like, share, comment, subscribe because it helps a ton with the algorithm.