Andrew & Rachel Are Representing A Distorted Version Of Orthodox Christianity | Debate

[Music] Generally, generally, uh, here's what actually happened. I'm really mad that he doesn't make right. Stop. The deregulation of the industry is obviously going to cause more of that industry and to lubricate the trust connection between people until they have enough. Yet, we could still look at biological reality and determining who's a female, even if there are. But why don't you deny, denounce feminism the same way you're denouncing capitalism? If you don't for something to be objective, it needs to be verifiable, and you can't verify. If I make a claim as a political pundit, it is true that I definitely could be wrong. You're promoting right ideologies that make them politics, right? This is my ideology. This is so 2015. Anyone go back and watch the footage? The first GOP debate. Heat up here. And good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to everyone out there. I am Sarah, the Raging Tomato, here bringing to you live not one, not two, but three debates today for the Andrew Wilson The Crucible 200,000 subscriber marathon. I am pleased to host the debates for the day, plus a bonus super panel. We're going to kick off bright and early with uh, Miss Natty and Andrew. The debate topic today is Andrew and Rachel are representing a distorted version of Orthodox Christianity. Uh, Nattie, you are most welcome to begin with your opening statement, please.

Thank you, Sara. Okay, so um, the Wilsons are representing a distorted version of Orthodox Christianity, like you said. So, if the problem is women, Andrew, then the solution is the Theos. Last week, Andrew wrote a quote tweet which I think reveals the foundation of what is causing his and his wife's representation of orthodoxy to be distorted. In his tweet, he reacts to Stefan Molyneu who says, "The problem is not women. The problem is not men. The problem is political power. Men blaming women and women blaming men misses the entire point." He responded by saying, "Nah, the problem is definitely women." And beneath this tweet was grandpa to me. Credit Britney Venty, thank you. Uh, saying, "I hate the expectation of some of this ying yang balance [ __ ]. Sometimes the world actually is lopsided and imbalanced. Where's my do-agg?" All three men are like a trifecta of totems, a trinity almost of the three persons of the culture war on the right. First, we have Wilson, who you could say is trying to live out what his image of the father or hierarchy or maybe the patriarchy, which I think is self-explanatory. Then we have Tamasi, the Holy Spirit or the fluidity because, well, the godfather of the red pill is based on estrogen pills and a Gnosticlike transhumanist lens of gender inversion. Because if you didn't realize it by now, the manosphere was started by a gender-hating transhumanists. And last but not least, we have Molly Meme. I like to call him Molly. The original Gen X Lbert, libertarian, if you don't know what Lolbert means. Uh, the man in the flesh, the individual, the son who is here to give us order. As a former men's rights activist, sorry everyone. Um, I have listened and studied the veterans of this pseudo trifecta. Not Andrew, of course. Well, anyway, they came for him. And it does not surprise me that despite their divisions, they all share the same essence belief that the West is gyocentric. The view that our culture is woman-centered at the expense of men. They very much live on gyocentrism theory island together. A theory that if you accept it is based on the Protestant West and more recently Peter Wright's deep resentment towards the mother of our God, the ever virgin Mary. Peter Wright is the author of the theory by the way. Going back to the tweet quickly, Tamasi is correct that the world is lopsided and imbalanced. And in our fallen state, we experience the dualistic two of ying versus yang or ying/yang. Not the three which would be the holy trinity. So truly lesser evilism doesn't exist. There are two sides in our minds, but they're both tainted by evil. Our world is evil because we have an absence of good and God is good. And when we are in union with God's will through Christ, we see good, we multiply good, and eventually we become all good. The Orthodox Church describes it as a disease that the church is the hospital for. I am sure that Andrew will say he agrees with my Christian worldview. But as long as he continues to frame his prescriptions about what the problem is, he will forever be tainted. His message will forever be tainted. He will continue to be part of the trifecta of the right-wing culture war. Totems like Molly meme and some mercy forever in battle on Gyno Centers and Theory Island with Rachel catching fish for them from her boat. Whilst he's over there on that island, maybe he'll yell at us telling me and others that his definition of gyocentrism theory is different to Peter Wright's. He believes in a biological or gender essentialist view. So let us get back to where the term first was used. In 1897, Europeans observed social setup in America using this term to reflect on how women were idealized as moral guardians in American society. And what do you expect when you have a Protestant nation rooted in the rejection of the wiser patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church? What the later development of gyneism theory does with this however is blame women for having the role of moral arbiter placed on them. Blame women for expecting them to be the Madonna on a pedestal uh and an efficient replacement an insufficient replacement for Mary. And this compartmentalizing of women did not center them at the expense of men. It placed the burden of morality solely on women's shoulders, which is at odds with teaching because Adam fruit willfully and his will is what needs healing first in man. Thank you so much and Andrew, I turn it over to you.

So today I get to show you an archetype that I particularly enjoy debating and they're called the never learn this their [ __ ] lesson archetype. With Natty, I can actually outline my entire debate strategy up front because it won't help her a bit and she'll still fall prey to it. Uh, because she debates the same way. Uh, she debates the same way that the never learns their [ __ ] lesson archetype always debates. She's going to make a ton of accusations, and you saw she did. Uh, but never give us any proof of any of them, which as you saw, she didn't. I'll simply keep requesting the proof, and she will simply never give you any because she doesn't have any to give you. She just has accusations to give you. Uh, she says, "Andrew and Rachel have a distorted view of orthodoxy, but never gave us the proof of what this distorted view is. Where's the condemnation from any of the Orthodox church fathers? Where are they? Where's the condemnation from Orthodox priests on the Wilsons? Where, where does Natty get the authority to even say this to me?" Nowhere, right? But where's the proof, Natty? Where's the proof? She starts by referencing a tweet. A literal joke, a memeing joke with Stefan Mullyu. And the what led, let me tell you what led up to that tweet was a sequence of DMs going back and forth with me and Stefan where we agreed on some of these things. We agreed on some of these things where it came to cultural issues which intersect and the responsibility of men and some of these cultural issues and women. I was taking the contrary view because it was [ __ ] hilarious. It was hilarious. Okay, that's why it was literally funny. And my proof that it was really funny was underneath it, tons and tons and tons of people put laughy emojis, including feminists, because obviously they knew it was a joke. They obviously knew it was a joke. But here's Natty. There's a Holy Spirit trifecta with Daddy Roly Tomasi with his [ __ ] beady hat or some [ __ ] along with Rachel's catching fish on some. I don't even know what the [ __ ] she just said, and neither does anybody else. Now, what did she bring up her criticisms of? This is very important. Her criticisms actually had, see how she can't help but interrupt. Did I interrupt even once? Of course not. Right? Didn't interrupt once. Now, you see what she did bring proof of was some guy named Peter Wright, whose name is not Andrew Wilson. I just want I just want to point this out. Andrew Wilson is a different name than Peter Wright. She goes on to talk about the beliefs of guy named Peter Wright, not the beliefs of guy named Andrew Wilson. Rather, she gives me tons of criticisms about some other guy that I don't give a flying [ __ ] about and don't know anything about and never have. In fact, the most hilarious part of this, I will continuously ask Natty to present proof of any connection between myself, my wife, and this guy Peter Wright. And guess what? She's never going to give you any. Because there isn't any to give. There's none to give. In fact, I I don't even think I ever would have heard of this guy if it wasn't for Natty. I don't even think I would have ever heard of him. If it wasn't for Natty. In fact, I would say that Natty's continual spurring on X probably gets this guy's message out there far more than he ever could get his message out there because people like me have never even [ __ ] heard of him. People like me with massive platforms, with huge audiences, we don't even know who the [ __ ] guy is, right? Or at least I don't. You know what I mean? And I don't care. So, what you can't do is you can't say, "Ah, the Wilsons are this and here's all my criticisms of people who aren't them." Well, that's nice. Can you just stick with what your criticisms are of me? Is it that I make jokes on X, a [ __ ] posting site which is designed literally for [ __ ] posting? Literally designed for it. It has a character limit for [ __ ] posting for a reason because you're supposed to go there and [ __ ] post and it's really funny. It's called engagement baiting. It's hilarious. I don't know what the [ __ ] is wrong with you. You've always been one of these mentally ill whack jobs. Also, Natty has been kicked out of most of these Orthodox communities for a reason. The reason is is everywhere she goes, she causes maximum amounts of trouble, usually with the conspiracy theories of trying to tie every [ __ ] buddy who exists in with this guy Peter Wright. So, here's all I'm going to say is this to close it off, right? Ethmology of word doesn't matter. Word meaning changes over time. Even if you use word with with separate ethmology like Natty does with I don't know how many words that I could list, that doesn't mean that you're referencing the same word because meanings change over time. That's one. And the second thing is I'd actually like to hear the criticisms of Andrew Wilson, not of Peter Wright. That would be great. And I'd like to see actual evidence to back it up instead of speculation. Thank you so much.

I appreciate the both of you. A kind reminder to the audience, we are actually not going to go into open panel for this debate. We've got a lot ahead of us. So, we're not going to open up the floodgates of hell. However, we will take time this this afternoon to read and respond to your super chats after we close uh the closing statements. All right, I'm going to kick off. We're going to do a two-minute timed sessions uh to kick off with and uh we'll go from there. Nattie, your time starts now.

Thank you. So, notice how Andrew did not address a single point that I made um in my opening statement, and that's typical of what he does when he goes in these arguments. And notice also that he claims that everything he says is a joke um and then goes right back around and confirms his belief system that I was criticizing in the first place, which we probably will reveal later on. But I think I will go into for the next uh minute or so into gyocentrism theory itself and why it's important to this discussion and why Andrew actually does believe that the West is gyocentric and pretty much everything he says about women, even when he says he's joking um is actually rooted in this theory because it's like a presupposition if you're going to take the position that it's women who are the problem. Okay. Um, so let's talk about what gynec theory really is. Peter Wright, who is pretty much the thinker to Paul Elam the speaker. If anybody knows about the men's rights movement which uh Andrew does because he's followed it as well all this time. Um, he is the one who comes out and he's like, tough luck ladies, you need to pull your geek girl panties up and atone for your sins. Uh, and but it's actually Peter that was the one who wrote the theory that he uses in his thinking. And what he claims is that since the medieval period in Europe um we have been dyentric. He says that during chivalry, which was a code of conduct of behavior for the knight class, that suddenly this was a conspiracy caused by a group of women who were the ladies of the time who decided to try and make it all about valuing women at the expense of men. Now Andrew says he doesn't have that definition. I'd like to hear what Andrew's definition is. Thank you.

Andrew. Yeah. So uh, notice no criticisms about Andrew, more criticisms about a guy named Peter Wright whose name is not Andrew and how gyocentric theory is or orchestrated and archetyped by Peter Wright and what Peter Wright wants and Peter Wright, Peter Wright, Peter Wright. What she doesn't say is Andrew. Instead, she asks me a question. You don't get to come to a debate and ask me what I think. Your job is to come in and show the proof and evidence. Show the evidence that whatever you think I believe gyocentrism is, that's what it is. Show any evidence of this. Your job is to build a case for your stupid [ __ ] crazy worldview. Not for me to answer your dumbass questions to try to build your worldview for you. I didn't address any of your points because you didn't [ __ ] make any points. Here's what you need to do, and this is how you debate. This is why you're part of the never learns your [ __ ] lesson archetype. I'm not here to come in and give you your points for you so that you can then use a bunch of Q&A to try to get to the root of the thing that you think is problematic with me. You can do the Socratic method later in the debate, I suppose. But right now, your job is to actually expound on a case that you make, which ties my view in with this guy by showing actual evidence. And right now, I'm going to show you what's happened. You haven't shown any evidence for any of these claims. Show us the [ __ ] evidence. Never learns Natty. Show us the evidence. Never learns her lesson, Natty. Where's the evidence of any of this? It's nice that you just went on a diatribe about what you think the ethmology of the word gyocentrism is. What the [ __ ] it got to do with Andrew Wilson? We still don't know. What's it got to do with him? Andrew needs to tell us what his version of gyocentrism is. No, the [ __ ] I don't. You came in with the claim. The claim that Andrew believes X. It's on you. You, the claimer, to show us that what you're saying is true using evidence. Natty, can you show us any evidence? Natty too.

Okay, Andrew. Rachel Wilson, your wife, she includes the theory in her book. And when we have previous encounters, we have numerous witnesses who admit that Rachel has been uh in guidance with Peter Wright, who was a a paying member of her Patreon. And we there's actually receipts of her going back and forth in conversation with him. She also um also uses distinctly the uh theory that I just mentioned and the information regarding the claim that chivalry became about centering women at the expense of men in her book as part of the her conversation and justification for the view that gyocentrism uh exists in the west. Now I am going to claim Andrew that your talking points that you use all the time in regards to how you frame and speak to women are rooted in acceptance of this worldview, and you keep going on about how you don't know anything about Peter Wright, but your wife does, and she's admitted that on a space and people have witnessed and heard it. Um, you can keep running away from this all you want, or you could actually answer the question and tell us whether you believe the West is gyocentric and how, what your definition of that term means to you and where you got it from. Okay. So, I'm going to read a little bit more about how gyocentrism is not uh compatible with orthodox belief. Okay. It's based on an anthropological view that's not rooted in how orthodoxy sees a human. I'm not sure if Andrew has ever thought about that because it seems like he just likes to be a contrarian who stands there smoking cigarettes all day until he gets lung cancer or something. I don't know. I don't want that to happen to him though. I would like him to actually, you know, try and live up to the ideals he says that he is uh trying to live by, the aesthetic life and all that. Andrew, 10 seconds.

All right, I'm done now. You can keep going. I question Andrew.

Okay. So, I would like to note that instead of her demonstrating any proof once again of her claims, she wants me to answer her questions so that she can try to prove her claims that she made this accusation. Here's the accusation that she made. Andrew and Rachel X. If Andrew Rachel X, I would suppose that you would have some proof. She says that she can prove that Peter Wright was a member of Rachel's Patreon. Okay, show us the proof. She says that she can prove that Peter Wright was in contact with Rachel over the idea of gyocentrism and that must be true because this was included in her book. Okay, show us the proof. All I'm asking for very simply is for Natty, the accuser, and the person who made the claim to show us the evidence of the claim. Instead, Natty continuously just says that I need to answer questions about some [ __ ] perceived worldview she thinks I have. That's great. I'm glad that she really wants me to answer her questions. But if you have a debate prompt which says this, X Wilson X, right, Rachel this, Andrew this, you should be able to demonstrate these things using proof. What's the proof, Natty? I would really like to know. Now, so again, I can just say this over and over and over. And when we get to the Socratic uh part of the debate, you can ask me what you think that my definition of gyocentrism is. I think it's basically a meme. But the thing is is like ultimately uh can you show us the proof now? Like I'll actually wait. I'm going to hold right now. I won't say a word, and neither will Sarah, will stop the whole stream while you can pull up the proof and show it to us so we can see it. That's why I wanted to do this on video so that there was no way for anybody to be confused about Natty's proof. She could pull it up via video and show it to us. So go ahead, Natty. All ears.

Yeah. So anyway, um Orthodox anthropology says that um we are that Adam was first. Okay. And that we are made up of spirit and body and soul. The West, however, tends to view the human person and human being as mind and body and uh and soul. Okay. And when you hear Andrew's talking points, when he says things like he doesn't want women to have the right to vote and then tries to claim that it's a joke, but then actually in his debates he does fall on that claim quite routinely um that is one of the indicators that he believes the West is gyocentric because the only reason that viewpoint is out there is if you believe that the West is gyocentric or you have what I call a Protestant fundamentalist framing um of how you view gender roles. All right. So how Andrew views gender roles from what I have gathered from Andrew's talking points is he believes in the complementarian Protestant narrative which focuses on the body over the mind, and he focuses his whole time criticizing the egalitarian position, which I would say focuses on the mind over the body. And the the viewpoint that that women shouldn't vote is really rooted in the complementarian position. In fact, if Andrew didn't have any adherence to that position, then he wouldn't be saying it. And if he didn't believe the West was gyocentric, he also wouldn't be saying that, too. He would be formulating his arguments in a different manner. But he doesn't do that. He just goes out there and says these really like arrogant things to women and because he thinks he can intimidate them and then play do rhetorical devices against them, he avoids actually being held accountable, which is ironic because he's supposedly representing the patriarchy. You're not the patriarchy, Andrew. You're a young man or an adolescent male even, Andrew. Okay. So, anyway, um I just I would just like to point out that after all this incessant prattling, here's the thing that we didn't get. Isn't it amazing that I told you that I would outline this entire debate strategy, she and never learns Natty still would fall prey to it? I asked her for this thing called proof. And the thing that we didn't actually get from Natty was any proof. So Natty starts by making this claim. Andrew says women shouldn't vote. Where's proof? Proof. Want the proof, Natty? Where is the proof, Natty? Well, Natty's proof is she made it the [ __ ] up. My actual vote on suffrage is that we should move back uh to the terms where almost nobody could vote. It has nothing to do specifically with women at all. Nothing. Zero. Nothing to do with it. And in fact, if you enforce my system, women would probably be able to vote because it would be stakeholder democracy. Natty makes [ __ ] up in her [ __ ] brain, right? Can't ever demonstrate it because she made it the [ __ ] up. Just like she made all this up with Peter Wright. Now, luckily for you, Natty, while I note that you could not show any proof of your claims of this connection, I did bring the receipts. So now I can show them to you publicly and prove that you're a conspiracy [ __ ] theorist wacko. Now, if you'll humor me, I will happily pull all of these receipts up if you'll yield your next two minutes to me. I'll pull the receipts up and we can go over them, Natty, right now live, and we can finally put to rest your [ __ ] insane allegations. Can we do that or not, Natty? Are you actually here for the truth, or are you just here to show zero proof of any claims, or do you actually want to go through the evidence? Cuz if you do, I came loaded with receipts today. I give you an option, Natty, if you want to yield over. You don't have to.

I think Andrew needs to answer my question and and smoke his [ __ ] a bit stronger. Just put it in your mouth, mate. Come on. You know it's in your hand. It's going to burn out if you keep doing that. You need a little bit more nicotine, bro. Yeah. So, this is what I think Andrew really should be talking about. This is a really good teaching by Orthodox theologian called Dr. Petis. He's on X as city is liturgy if anyone wants to follow him. Um, and this is taken from his book, The Ethics of Beauty. He talks about how the sexes are have a mutualism between them, and it actually reflects how Orthodoxy views the trinity. When uh Andrew and some of the other guys in his circle start going start having a little jerk off about um the monarchal position of the father, there sometimes that gets a little bit misrepresented because in Orthodoxy, all three persons of the trinity are co-equal in status, okay? So they can't exist without each other, clearly, because they're at the beginning and they'll be there at the end. But at the same time, they have a different role, a different order. Yeah. So, um, the way that Dr. does this. He he talks about how we have to be Christlike as men and women. We need to be the prophet, the priest, and the king, like how Christ was in the New Testament. And he says that women have the primary office of the prophet, and men have the primary office of the king, and they are to achieve that in a priestly manner. When Andrew starts talking about gender roles and how men and women should be, he uses a fundamentalist Protestant framework that some of his like clergy buddies that are unfortunately engaging in the Protestantism of Orthodoxy online, like Father Trenum and Father Moses McFersonson, Andrew actually repeats the talking points in the same framework as they do. Um, uh, Father Moses McFersonson says a rather heretical line where he says that Eve ate the apple because she wanted to dominate her husband in the in the video where he talks about why modern marriage failed and he attributes that to St. Isaac the Syrian. Now, I'm wondering if Andrew Wilson agrees with that because that's backwards theologically. Okay? I mean, uh, if you'd like, I can bring Father McFersonson on this panel right this second, and you can say that to his face. Would you like to have the clergy on here so that you can discuss this with him? Go ahead. Bring it on. Okay, I'll I'll reach out to him right this second. Uh, Sarah, over in your DMs, I sent you a couple of messages. Can you start with I get to bring someone else on as well? Can you start? Why? I don't understand. You're making the accusation against these people. You're making the accusations. Why? You want me to be against two people? Then we need to make Well, it's you're not against two people. I wouldn't even say a word. But anyway, for a second, I need to If you can bring up the evidences, that would be great. Smoke your cigarette, Andrew. I'm going to bear with me. And I'm going to completely eviscerate you right this second using the thing that you refuse to bring to this debate. Proof and evidence of any of your claims. But I'm about to give you proof and evidence of mine. Incontrovertible proof. Standby for just a second. Uh, you caught me a little off guard. I have to be able to pull this up without showing all of my other [ __ ]. So, just bear with me a moment. I have to be able to drop. Hold on. If you two could just What is he talking about? Proof of what? Let's see. Hold on because it's not going to let me just show one thing. So bear with me. Why doesn't it just save? Sorry, you caught me very off guard and it's not playing well with whatever I have. Okay, I might be able to pull these up on my end potentially. Yeah, one second. If you're having a difficulty there, Sarah. Yes, I am. If you if you have it and you're able to pull it up, it would be it's just not letting me uh separate it from Twitter without Yeah, no problem. Hang on. Okay. My apologies. I wasn't prepared for that. Yeah. Yeah. Just give me one second here and I'll get them pulled up. Okay. Still waiting for an answer to my questions. Standby. I'm going to I'm holding the time for right now, and then he'll go back to two minutes uh to show his proof and then Oh, someone just said this is like the Epstein files incident. Maybe not. All right, one second. I don't I don't know why you would be upset about actual evidence which demonstrates your position to be a falsehood. Natty, all of your talking points when you speak to women, they are evidence that you believe in the gyneism worldview, and your wife believes it because it's in her book. Do you disagree with your wife? Um, well, I mean, you haven't actually told us what in the book, but that aside, real quick. Hang on. Just calm down. Calm down. We'll pull this up. Andrew, have another Have another We can stop. We can stop the debate. Hold on. Hold on. I'm just I'm just filling in the time, you know. Yeah. In order to to pull up proofs, we can do that. We can sit in silence. It's not going to hurt anyone. All right. Andrew has a gender essentialist view of gyocentrism. And Peter Wright has an egalitarian view. Andrew is going to prove that. We'll see though. Yeah. Okay. Whatever. Um, there it is. Didn't say yes or no there, did he? Now, I'll see if I can. I'm sorry. We have to bear with the technology of Streamyard. Can I call my friend? Father, are you still at the gym? Have you listen Have you been uh Have you been or you've been told off by Bishop Irani again? Oh, can you pull that out? Please put down the steroids, bro. Yes. Bear with me. We're going masculinity is orthodox and orthodox is Are you able to zoom in on your end, Andrew? Uh, yeah. There we go. Thank you. Now, can you read Can you read who that's from, Natty? Who's that from? Piece of rights. Can you read this for me? No, I think you should read it. And I think you should do it in uh a natty voice. Go on. Try and be like me. Oh, okay. Well, here, let me um actually, this isn't even the beginning of the series. Let me uh let me pull up the correct beginning one here. Oh, there we go. Okay. [Music] Do you believe that Eve ate the apple because she wanted to Hold on. Let's we I am I am totally okay with enjoying the silence. We don't have to. Okay, there we go. You can pull that up now. Sorry. All right. Are you able to zoom in again? Now, sorry I had to do this all [ __ ] up, but I just wanted to make sure that um that everybody could see. Uh, just these are just three DMs and we we'll try to go through them as quickly as we possibly can here, guys. So, uh, that is from Peter Wright and he says, "I just heard some ridiculous spaces where Andrew's detractors were talking [ __ ] and he was answering." Hi, Peter. That natty chick came in. Natty, that natty chick came in and claimed you and I had a Patreon conversation and that it was proof we were in cahoots. We both know that's [ __ ] But more to the point, I can't remember ever talking with you on a Patreon. I never visit Patreon. Do you have any recollection of that?" So he wants So this guy actually wants to make sure like, am I crazy? Am I crazy or did this just like never happen? And he says, quote, "Unless my memory is failing, it's completely fabricated. Really can't stand that bitch." Now, uh, he continues from there. So we'll stop that one and I'll I'll move on to uh evidence here. One second. [Music] Hey, Dean. Dean, it's Natty. How you doing? Who is Dean? Let's get him back again, shall we? I I have no idea who any of these people are. Well, he wants he wants more. He wants more another another claim from another person with proof. Let's see if we can get one. Okay, let's let's enjoy the silence while he's pulling up the next uh DM, please. Yeah. Yeah. So, here's the actually this is the the last one that's necessary here. Okay, there it is. And it simply says this. Let me minimize here and I'll move back to the screen. Simply says, "It's funny you should say that." This is Rachel's response because I don't remember having any exchange on your Patreon either. I also went to the space where she claims Dean provided proof of that, and I didn't see it anywhere anywhere. She just lies. She's so obsessive. Also, my book was published in 2021, and I don't think you and I interacted whatsoever until at least a couple of years after that, Natty. So, it's hard for me to understand how you could have mentioned me and told me what to write, lol. So, Natty, this is really [ __ ] weird. Natty, so what I just gave you was I just gave you Why are you on the phone during a live debate? Natty, why are you on the phone? I'm listening. You want me to give some more? Can you respond? Can you respond to the evidences that I You haven't finished, have you? So, can can you respond? Aunt Nattie, can you respond now to the two evidences that I just What is this chick doing? Uh, Nattie, I'm going to ask you very politely to take this a little more seriously. I understand that maybe sometimes when we get pinned in a corner, we don't like what we're hearing. We get a little antsy and we start doing uh awkward things. I get Yeah. But any anyway, can you actually respond? Person doing awkward things here. Is that Can you respond to those th those? So, that was proof from Peter Wright uh that not only are your claims completely uh fictitious on the Patreon, which you've shown no proof for, but that the time sequence for Rachel's book wouldn't have even added up between that and their interactions. Now, I'm willing right now to give you the floor. You can take all the same time I just did to pull up the proof. Can you please show us your evidences to the contrary? Dean, can you speak? Um, well, I don't I I don't quite understand. Uh, okay. Hold on just a second. Stop. Stop. Stop. Can you I'm gonna ask you very kindly. I don't know who that is on your end of the line, but they I don't care, Sarah. Let it go. What was given to anybody? No worries, Dean. I'm sorry to do this to you last minute, but um I'm being told by Peter Wright, who was talking to Andrew. I'm doing a live debate with Andrew right now. I'm being told by he has a a DM a screenshot of a DM with Peter Wright who claims that he's never had a conversation with Rachel Wilson, even though Rachel Wilson actually No, that's not what what did the what did the DM actually say? Natty Andrew have another drag of your cigarette, bro. Um so, um I said he asked me to produce a little bit more of a receipt. So, all I'm doing to say what you told us in the interview on X and then I'll and then you can get back to doing whatever you're doing. Thank you very much. Do do remember that Peter Reich is is a is a master gaslighter and of picking out screenshots out of We're just looking for the receipts, dude. Narratives for himself. He's one of the most dishonest slime balls I ever met in the men's movement. Now, I saw him posted on one of her forums. That's what I actually said. It says I'm wrong. That's fine. He's one of the most dishonest, hateful, and slanderous indu beings who ever existed. Quote me as that as Dean Esme from the Red Pill movie, who by the way he slandered multiple times. Um I I'm not even a Christian anymore, but I was always a liberal one and he Peter Wright is I don't care about Peter Wright. Can you just give me the proof? Is one of his allies is badgering the witness and has not given proper proper uh proper preparation. I just want the receipts, dude. That's all I'm asking for. Slander artist and the the professional gas lighter that is Peter Wright. I I would walk away, sir. I'm out now. Call me sometime if you want. I don't care about Peter Wright. Just show me the receipts of any of these this. That's all I'm asking for. So Dean Esme, by the way, is somebody who was a well-known men's rights activist who edited Peter Wright's work. And then he said to Peter Wright because he was a Roman Catholic at the time and he said, listen, Peter, your writings about the theotocos where you tried to claim that women had the archetype of the Virgin Mary, theotocos, and men had the archetype of Christ is incorrect, and I, as much as I want to support your work in the men's rights movement, I cannot put my name to this. Then he got slandered by a voice for men and honeybadger radio and other individuals, and they all called him a crazy Christian fundamentalist, even though he was a Vatican 2 supporting Catholic. He was the one who came to me and said that Rachel was having conversations with Peter Wright on her Patreon, and he also came and did an interview with me on X, and Rachel has admitted this herself. She has spoken about gyocentrism theory in her book. Even some tweets I can put in the chat now. Everything is so gyocentric now that simply being direct or strong language is now considered narcissistic and abusive. People are deeply programmed to never make women uh feel uncomfortable, or else they risk total personal destruction. That's one tweet. Let's read another one. Um, hang on a minute. Let's get the other one. Uh, where's it gone? Oh, according to our gyocentric inverted society, women serving their husband is abuse, but also husband not serving a wife is abuse. Make it make sense. Uh, let me do another one. This clip has made so many women angry. It's satire, but it proves the red pill folks right when they say that even in Christian circles, everything is so gyocentric that men are not allowed to have preferences. Only women are what an un-Christian about preferring company of men. Uh, let's read another one. And I can put all the links in the chat. No problem. Just give me a second. Um, I keep saying that I don't hate women, but I will say this. I have a disdain for the kind of women in our feminist gyocentric society tends to produce now. Utterly incapable of self-reflection, allergic to criticism, black holes who need endless validation. Yes, I find those women reprehensible, and they should be admonished. We should socially shame these traits straight out of women. Oh, that sounds Christian. Anyway, luckily, I'm delighted to know many women who are not this way. But the women who are this way are always going to hate me, and I'm not going to have any concern for them. Cry. Anyway, uh, would you like me to go on, or do you disagree with your wife about those views? Because as far as I'm concerned, the talking points you bring up in your debates when you talk about gender roles pretty much are in line with hers. So, okay. So, tell us what your definition theory is. Yes. Is it my turn to respond? Still waiting.

Okay, I'm going to start back with the timer again now that we've got the proof out of the way. You're welcome. Yeah. So, I I let Natty go through whatever little spurfest there was, but I want you to note something here that's very important. What I just brought up was was actual evidence, receipts. I brought up receipts which disproved this narrative from Natty that uh there was some type of um I don't know collusion between Rachel when she wrote her book. Remember Nattie made this claim just mere moments ago that Rachel's book, because and by the way, there's no gyocentrism chapter I'm aware of in the book, but she says apparently that the book mentions this somewhere and is talking and discussing this, and that these ideas came from this guy Peter Wright, but we just established a timeline where that can't be possible, and it was from Peter Wright's own mouth and Rachel's where they both claimed that this never happened. The only one who claims that it happened is [ __ ] daddy. And the only one who can't show proof is Natty. The only one who can't show proof of any of this collusion is Natty. Same thing when it comes to this uh crazy ass idea that she says that there was some type of Patreon link. Okay, I'm willing to grant that there could have been. Show us the proof. Show us the evidence. Just show us the [ __ ] proof. If not, all you have to do is this. And this is why Never Learns Natty. You'll never get it right. Never learns Natty right now could completely stomp all over me. All she would have to do is show the proof that that Rachel and Peter Wright are lying by showing some sort of messaging between uh her and Peter Wright, showing that they colluded both on her book, or that they ever even had contact on the Patreon, or that they knew each other or associated ever. That's all she'd have to show. Why is that so difficult for her to show? And why is it so difficult for her to back down the claim? Why can't she just say, "You know what, Andrew? I was wrong." Seconds. I was totally wrong and I made all of that up because I wanted there to be a link that there wasn't. All she has to do is that. Why won't she do it? Natty, are you calling Dean Esme a liar? Dean Esme, one of the guy who was on the phone who you've completely ignored where you said I didn't show any Yes. Would you like to say that somebody's Yes. He's a [ __ ] liar. Show me the proof. And how do you know he's on? Because he has no proof. I do. You don't have proof because I just showed it. Where's yours? I'm waiting. You haven't shown proof at all, dude. Uh, what were the messages that I just showed? You read out four tweets by Rachel that all talk about her use of gynosenis. So, what doesn't mean it means the same thing. Yeah, you do actually agree with her. She quote tweets. So, what it doesn't mean that that's what Peter Wright means by the same. All you're doing is deflecting. No, you're deflecting. Show us the proof. No, you're deflecting. Show us your proof that Rachel's version of Gynos would like to step in and say whether or not my proof is good enough. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Okay. Here's the proof I'm looking for. You seem to be making yourself the arbit. Here's the proof I'm looking for. One of one of the interesting things about debate is that we don't have to use proof if we can demonstrate somebody for a moment. Pardon me. I apologize. If you could stop talking for just a moment, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'm going to say Andrew stepped in on her time on that one. I understand she was kind of prompting questions. She was asking me questions. Yeah, I I recognize that. So, I just wanted to clarify. Look, you can reset the timer, and then I'll I'll I'll do the response. Complaining about it. I'm fine. No problem. However, the timer, comma, if we ask questions and we want answers, let's ensure that we stop and wait for the answers instead of talking over because all anybody hears is just and nobody can hear you. Okay, I will reset the timer. We can try this again. Go ahead, Natty.

Yeah, no problem. So I would like to talk a little bit about the view uh from Bishop Irenei from who's a roore bishop. All right. So let's have a look at what he has to say. He says that we should be trying to follow Christ and not trying to make uh the church into this into this little social club where we get to have our beliefs about gender roles, masculinity, femininity, and try to adhere what the church teaches about that. That's what he says. He literally wrote a a a sermon in response to Father Moses McFersonson's article in the in the BBC where he was talking about how Orthodoxy is so masculine, right? And he literally calls you guys out uh distinctly so, right? He does that. What I find really interesting about Andrew and some of the other people like Rachel Well, who's you guys though? Is that include me? I'm sorry. I'm I'm talking. It is her timer. Hold your thought until she's done, Andrew, and then I'll give it to you. Yeah. What I find very interesting is that um uh none of you seem to be doing any videos talking about how you have humbled yourself because a bishop has spoken to you directly to you um and some of the other people that share the views with you and how you're actually displaying a level of humbleness and leading by redemption, which is what we are called to do, especially as a man if you have the primary office of the king, according to Dr. to batis, an orthodox theologian, not my teaching, his teaching, then you are supposed to be leading in your redemption and demonstrating that, and that is where any type of authority that you may have comes from. It doesn't come from you going on the internet and calling a bunch of Oly fans girls and then turning around and saying, oh, it's just tough love.

I'm just doing this to shock you into good behavior. No, what you're doing is shaming them and making them feel feel any lower than they already are. All right, back to you, Andrew.

Yeah. So, anyway, um, notice that Natty makes a series of claims we still don't have any evidence for. She says that we were called out by what, what, some clergy somewhere. Show us, show us this call out. Also, you say, uh, bishops have come to me and corrected me. Show me like, show me any of the evidence of that. What are you talking about?

Also, uh, when it comes to this, her very first claim was that Rachel's book was in somehow, uh, they she conspired with this guy Peter Wright to write all about gyocentrism from the itemological worldview of Peter Wright and what he means by gyocentrism. I have been willing over and over again to in the most good faith way allow you to show your evidence for that claim. Not a correlate where you say, "Oh, she says things in the book that I think sounds similar or whatever." Show the actual evidence that they did. Show it because I just demonstrated proof that they could not have it. Would not have even been possible based on the timeline. Literally, it would have been impossible.

The next claim that you made was very simple. You said that they had a Patreon connection. Yes, you did. And you said it multiple times that they had a Patreon connection. And that via this Patreon connection, uh, they were also colluding with the same view of gyocentrism that this guy holds. I'm also willing to grant the possibility of this and in a good faith way, hold out an olive branch so that you can show the [ __ ] proof, Natty. And here's what's going to happen again. Natty's going to say, "I'd like to pull up uh what some guy said about some other [ __ ] that doesn't address this core issue cuz I refuse to admit that I'm wrong about anything cuz I'm never learned Natty." Nattie has been caught on this, I don't know how many times. I'll always be able to do this to her because she refuses to back down on the view but refuses to show any evidence. And I just showed evidence. I showed real proof that this couldn't have been possible. And she's still going to watch. She's going to double down. No proof. Natty to you.

Fascinating how when we have debates, uh, there isn't necessarily some expectation that we need to have some kind of documented screenshot of a case that someone else said, even though we're we are actually arguing from a place of logic and examining what the other person's viewpoints are. Fascinating how Andrew cannot do that. He cannot actually have a back and forth with me where he talks about what his view of gyocentrism is. I've already made a bunch of claims from my observation of his talking points, uh, which I believe are rooted in the in a Protestant fundamentalist presupposition. He has claimed on a space when I spoke to him before that he's received uh advice from Father Trenum. Well, Father Trenum has a series called The Good Wife. Um, and he actually says, um, on there's a transcript and I can put a link to the transcript online of what he says in that. He says that if a wife is being abused by her husband, she still needs to be quiet and put up with it, pray about it. Um, because if she loses her temper in response, she is worse than him. This is not something that you would ever hear an Orthodox saint, the church fathers, or a member of clergy or any authority in the church ever say. Yep. Father Trenum is saying that online, unfortunately, and many members of clergy um are quietly basically not very happy with the the fact that he still to be puts his Calvinism through his orthodoxy. Now, if Andrew Wilson is taking spiritual advice from this man who says this type of thing. Um, again, I'm not sure. I think I'm not sure even if he doesn't believe in gyocentrism theory, which I think I've proven that he does, he actually is now still putting his orthodoxy through a Calvinistic Protestant fundamentalist presupposition. And he thinks that abuse in a marriage is okay as long as you put up and shut up. To you, Andrew.

Great. Let's respond to this. So, uh, first and foremost, never met Father Trenum. Never taken any advice from him. Do you have any evidence for that? Do you including this space that you're referencing? Because you've brought this up multiple times that I listened to uh Father Trenum or something like this. Never met the guy ever. Not once. Never had a conversation with him. Natty, not once. So what does Natty do? She says, "This is an an attribute that I'm going to give to this guy who's not Andrew Wilson." And then try to create a link between these two. Therefore, his view becomes inserted on Andrew Wilson's view. However, I would love to see any evidence whatsoever I've ever even had a conversation with Father Trenum. Like, one. I don't recall ever having one conversation with this guy, Natty. Not a single time do I recall ever talking to Father Trenum. Not once. But I am willing again to in the spirit of good faith allow you to present the evidence that I take spiritual advice from this guy, which is a claim you just made, instead of my own spiritual father. Right? Because I don't take spiritual advice from anybody except my spiritual father. Nobody. Right? I don't even run in those circles. I don't run in the uh orthob circles with the various uh various I don't even run in those circles. So I don't know what you mean when you say that I'm taking spiritual advice from these other people. What I would like is your evidence now that for this new claim that you made that I'm somehow associated with Father Trenum or that I'm taking spiritual advice from him and that I agree with what he says about A, B, C, or D. The reason that these burdens of proof fall on you, Natty, is because you're the one making the claims, Natty. So, if you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the claim. That's all I'm asking you to do. You keep wanting me to give you your answers. Just demonstrate that this is the case. Go ahead.

Might be to you. Okay, Andrew. If you keep running and running and running from the claims and hiding behind this burden, this this pro this idea of the burden of proof and it only has to be a certain way that you say and the fact that you think you're the authority on this is absolutely hilarious. Let's read out a tweet that you said. Uh, let's read this one out. Let's go to this tweet here. "Propagation is a necessary is necessary. Sorry. Especially with women in a gyocentric semi simpocalypse. If people are saying what's true, I want to see it cuz it's in capital letters." Sorry, I had to shout. Uh, so that's one tweet where Andrew has used the term gyocentrism by name. Is he going to tell us that when he responds, "Oh yes, Andrew, where's your cigarette? Put it in your mouth. You need another nicotine fix, bro. Anyway, uh, I have already stated that I believe from what I've discussed with Andrew before in the space and also examining his the way that what he says on different uh debates and also his endless stream of jokes on his ex Twitter account. uh, that he tends to have a complimentarian gender essentialist, if I'm going to use that term, uh, view that the West is gyocentric. What he'll probably end up doing this conversation is saying, "I don't agree with Peter even though he's DM'd Peter and spoken to him." Um, and even though his wife uses Peter's theory in her book, explicitly does, right? She literally says talks about how chivalry became uh about centering women instead of men, which is exactly what Peter Wright says in his theory, which has shaped the entire manosphere at this point and the right-wing culture war. So I've already given you a tweet. I can put it in the chats if you would like to see it. Um, and if you're going to say that I'm lying. I don't think so. Andrew.

Yeah. Okay. So who cares if I say the word gyno? It's such a common word. Uh, who gives a [ __ ] What you What your burden of proof is doesn't mean anything. Yeah. What your What your burden of proof is is very simple. You just made a bunch of claims again. You just claimed that I've been in DMs with Peter Wright. Okay. Would you like for me to read all of them? I will literally read every DM I've ever had with Peter Wright for you right now live and I'll give you the date stamps. Answer. You haven't responded. Yeah, I know. I know. Natty. Natty. We're going to take We're This is going to shut up. This is your claim. I've just asked you yes or no. Would you like for me to read all of my DMs with Peter? Wright. You've just claimed that words don't mean anything. I didn't claim anything like that. I just can just Yes or no. Yes or no? Use the word mean. I'm getting quite uh annoyed at the constant childish behavior. Nattie, it is a yes or no. Do you want him to read them? Yes or no? I would like him to answer the question. That's not it. Is his timer afterwards? No. Okay, I'm going to do this one more time to respond to that as well. Stop. Stop. He asked you. He's using his timer to ask you if you would like him to read the DMs. Go ahead, Andrea. Or no. Thank you. Go ahead.

Okay. How do you spell this guy's last name? Is it W R I G HD? Yes. What I saw on the thing. Okay. Hang on a second. X is searching for him. I get a lot of messages. It takes a second to pull him up. So, while that's pulling up, and I I promise I'll read every single every single DM I've ever had with this guy right now live in front of everybody. Have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, maybe I can I might be able to do this an easier way. What's his X handle? at gyocentrism. Okay. At gyno. I might have to pull them up on the PC here. Hang on. Just give me a second. I'll make sure we're not in any hurry. Take your time. Okay, great. And while he's pulling that up, I'm going to send a kind reminder. No matter where you're watching this show from, please be sure to hit the like or subscribe or send this video to your mother. She will have a very vast appreciation for the mothering skills and what that feels like. Yeah. So, hang on. Give me You're gonna have to give me like four minutes for my phone to charge enough to jump into the X. But we'll we'll continue to go. I will read all every message I've ever had with this guy. I'm happy to do right now live. But note that she just still made the same exact claim. She still said that Rachel's book is correlated with this guy. She consistently makes this word concept fallacy where she pretends that if you don't mean everything with the ethmology of a word, like let's just take the word cool for instance. The word cool means various things to various people. The ethmology of the word obviously doesn't mean what the word means today. Uh, and so what she does is she banks on this idea. She literally just banks on this [ __ ] idea that for for some reason when I say I uh uh gyocentrism or my wife says gyocentrism, she that means what Peter Wright means by gyocentrism. The most important aspect here though is that Nattie has still failed over and over and over again to show us the one thing that I want her to show proof and evidence of her claims that Rachel worked in collusion with this guy in order to write her book. I demonstrated a timeline where that is false. That I that I have in any way ever worked with Josiah Trenum or had any spiritual advice from him. That in any way, shape, or form I've ever colluded with this guy in any way for any of my worldviews. If she can demonstrate any of those things, she might have a good case to make. But she consistently wants to shift the burden to me as though I have to prove her prompt and her case for why I'm bad. It's like I don't. You have to do that. You got to prove that, not me.

Okay, Maddie. Let's just point out that Andrew has said that when he used the word gyocentrism, it was just a word, bro. Didn't mean anything and refuses to confirm in the context that how he's using it. The easiest way to prove and demonstrate that I am wrong would be to tell us what your definition of gyocentrism is and then we can have a look at what I've said and compare and contrast the two. But Andrew is refusing to do that because this whole debate he's been running around, giving me the runaround. And I've enjoyed uh the idea of mocking him. But to be honest, I would like to be more serious in how we talk about gender roles in orphos Christianity because Andrew and all of the author bro circle and in fact entire the entire kind of reactionary right at this point are doing quite a a big amount of damage in how we view men and women. And I've got personal experience with this um which I'm not going to go into necessarily but I want to go back to Dr. Petus's teaching where he talks about how we fulfill the uh three types of Christ prophet priest and king. And that are we are actually supposed to fulfill all three. We're not supposed to be in a kind of um authoritarian the father's telling us to do this. Uh we're supposed to be looking to the father both men and women in a kind of martyrdom of marriage. Now, Andrew, I have never heard Andrew talk when he talks to women and when he talks about gender roles or anything like that, reference any of the teachings and also talk about how much he loves the Theotocus, the Virgin Mary, the mother of our God. All he does is play these rhetorical trick games and then then turns around and says he's joking and then says that actually this is okay because, you know, this is what the culture is like. He thinks the top culture is lopsided in favor of women when he agreed with Rolo Tamasi in the tweet that I mentioned in the beginning. That is demonstration on its own that he believes the West is gyocentric.

Okay, Andrew, are you ready to pull anything up or you want to keep moving on? Uh, well, I'd like to respond to this and then I'll see if I can't get these all pulled up um as as soon as I get a little charge on the phone. So, sure, no worries. Um anyway, so so back to this uh I brought again clear evidence and receipts. The reason I'm not willing to move past this into any other conversation is because I want to make sure I'm dealing with a good faith interlocator. What is the per point and purpose of me dealing with a person who lies and slanders me all the time uh and believe anything that she says when she can't show the basics of the evidences which are the baseline requirements the pillars if you will for her to try to have an opposition to my worldview her opposition to my worldview is established in the idea that gyocentrism by one Mr. for Peter Wright is uh exactly what I always mean when I when I use the word which I don't even think I use it much but even if I do uh she would have to establish that that's what I mean by that and that this link exists between us which she constantly claims now if she can establish this link between us uh that's fine I'm willing to allow her to do that but if she can't why in the world should I humor her on any of her [ __ ] nonsense when she basically won't admit that she's just slandering me. Where's Where's the proof, Natty? Where's the evidence and proof of the link between us and Peter Wright? I showed the evidences. Natty, I've been asking you and asking you and begging you and olive branching everything I possibly can. Can you just please for all that is good either do one of two things? Either say, "Andrew, I actually don't have the evidence, and I'm willing to correct that you you don't have any link with this guy and never had any link with this guy until basically you brought him up." Or, uh, you can make the the the contrary concession and say, "No, I truly believe that this is true." And have absolutely zero evidence to show for it. Those are your only two options. So, you're either going to have to show us the evidence or not show us the evidence. You have one choice or the other here.

To you, Maddie. Okay, Andrew is going to keep running around in the circle, running, running, running running, running running running running running running running running running running running running and not actually addressing the points that I bring up. And um so because he's doing that, I'm just going to keep bringing up talking points and maybe eventually he'll decide to actually behave like a good patriarch is supposed to. Um okay. It doesn't overconern me that when the media represents the misrepresents the Orthodox faith. In fact, I cannot re even really blame them most of the time because of course it's not their job and we don't expect an understanding of spiritual things from a non-spiritual environment. When they try honestly and openly and make mistakes, we simply ignore it. It's different of course if there is a malicious intent or a deliberate desire to mispres represent the teachings of the church. And this sometimes happens though it doesn't seem to be the case really in this particular instance. I'm not overly concerned about what the media thinks of us, but I am concerned what you think of us. And that is to say, what each Orthodox person understands about the church. We live in a culture where too many people, including people in our own church, turn to the media, whether it be traditional or social media or other things, and think that they will find there some accurate echo of the church's teaching. This almost never happens. Almost always what is presented in the media especially in social even in traditional media is a distortion a mischaracterization intentional or otherwise and not a safe place to gain an understanding of the church's teaching. So here so there have been a few reports of late one currently making the rounds about a number of young people converting to orthodoxy particularly young men. They think they're going to preach that they're going to hear preaches about masculinity and real manhood. And I want to say that if you're here because you think that's what we're here to do, then you're a fool. This is stupidity. Masculinity, as far as I'm aware, is not an orthodox term. It's not a term that has any traditional place in Christianity. Is a term embraced by the secular world because this world has rejected normal concepts of humanity in which of course there is male, there is female, there is child, there is adult, and there is simply human beings. But being the world has lost sight of the basics of what it means to be human is forced to respond to the lack of clarity. Thank you, Natty. That's from Bishop Irenei from Roore in Europe. and I will continue to read the rest of the sermon since Andrew does not want to engage in this debate properly.

That's all my messages with Peter Wright, you [ __ ] idiot. Go ahead and read them. There's none to read, you [ __ ] dot. That's all of them, you [ __ ] idiot. That's actually funny. Where's this cigarette? Do you need another cigarette, bro? There's not a So there I just read every message I've ever had with Peter Wright for you live Matt Natty and showed them all to you. Did you see him? I don't care. You don't care. My whole worldview of gyocentrism comes with a guy I've never [ __ ] talked to. Natty, the entire right wing believes in gyocentric theory. Entire rightwing. I want you now now that we've established that you're the biggest [ __ ] liar on the internet. Now it's time for us to go ahead and move. We'll move right in to your critique. Okay. Now, here's how this works. All you got to do now is demonstrate that Andrew Wilson believes anything Peter Wright believes. And I'm willing to answer any of your questions in order to do that to give you yet another olive branch. And I'll destroy you on this now a second time. Go ahead, Natty. Whatever you got.

Um, if you guys want, we can continue if you want to. I don't mind. And I apologize. Uh, if you promise to play nicely. If not, I'm going into full [ __ ] mode, but I can put the timer to the side and you can dive right in if you both play nicely. Everyone agree? All right. I swear to God, I could scream at the top of my lungs at both of you. All right. I'll remove the timer for now. Don't make me bring it back. Okay. Go ahead, Naddie.

Okay. Um, if you think you're here because this is a place where you can reinforce some cultural masculinity. If you think you're here because it's a place to rebel against what you are seeing politically around you or socially around you, please keep on going. Go somewhere else. We are not here for this reason. We preach one thing and one thing only, the gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord. We preach it without fear and we preach it without agenda. Our only goal is that every single human being might become a living image of Christ himself. That men might become Christlike men. And that women might become Christlike women. That children might be true children of God. And at the aged might find the real respect due to those who long live and struggle for Christ in this world and learn what it means to be redeemed. All of these are characterizations of Christian life and characterizations of church life. Things they all have in common is that they never seem to religious at all. Their only interest is social and political questions. What are your views on masculinity or sexuality or politics or government on war? Do not come here. If those are the questions that drive your life, come here for one reason because you are aware somewhere deep inside of you that something is wrong. Is there a question somewhere here? Something is wrong with you, with me, with the world in which we live. And this something is called sin. And this is the place where it can be healed. I don't know about you, Andrew, but I joined the Orthodox Church because I knew something was wrong with me. I was a men's rights activist. I knew that was wrong. That's I don't think you've made the same realization to be honest. I have to say no, I don't think it's wrong to be a men's rights activist. No. Right. Exactly. Men's rights activism is based on gyocentrism worldview. Prove it. Well, I can prove it because uh Dean Esme and Peter Wright and Paul Elam have been the most influential men's rights. Uh, yeah, that's just Yeah. Yeah. and every all of the talking points that we have Sarah make it 30 seconds for back and forth that we have come directly from them and it also comes from the Missandry bubble of 2010 which pretty much everyone in the manosphere adopted the talking points from and that was written by a transhumanist Yeah by the way so so you can have people who advocate for men's rights activism like Paul Elum for instance who I've debated with on believes in gentris and worldview is his I've debated with him natty debated hated against his worldview. They stop Natty. I I will have to keep doing the timer. All right. If we keep interrupting. All right. Go ahead, Andrew. Can you reset? Yeah.

So, anyway, so look, I've debated with Paul Elum on his worldview live on a in a panel with Rolo Tamasi against what their version of MRA is. But just so you know, just because people So, you could say this about anything. You could say uh political party is evil because there's evil interlocators in it or people have bad worldviews inside of it. But for you to just blanketly state that men men's rights activism is evil or in some way bad, you need to demonstrate that not by showing me bad faith interlocators, but what's wrong with advocating for men's rights? Go ahead, Maddie.

Okay. So, what's wrong with advocating for men's rights? uh the reason why men's rights activism is distorted and it's based on a particular side of the spectrum that I was talking about earlier in in the my opening statement where I was talking about how if we view things as left and right and we have a dualistic understanding because our minds are not with God and our soul and our body's not with God. Okay, so my turn. So yeah, so you notice that you're just prattling. You're not giving me an answer. What's actually wrong? And you prattled so much you actually ran your own timer out without answering the question. Here's the question again. What's actually wrong with advocating for men's rights? What's actually wrong with it? Absent bad faith interlocators who could be involved in that movement like they would be in any political movement, any NGO, any political establishment which exists. What's actually wrong with advocating for the rights of men? What? Natty, it sounds like you Sorry, he's finished. It sounds like you um are calling Paul Elam a bad faith adv advocate for men's rights because um he is one of the the main main promoters most popular guy who got this the the world the talking points about men's rights out there. Are you calling him bad faith? I just want to hear that on record. No, I'm asking you a question. What's wrong? You don't a answer a question with a question, dude. Unless you do sometimes. Okay. Well, I'll let your timer run out and then it'll be my turn again. Go ahead.

So, one more time, I'm going to ask the question to Natty, who refuses to [ __ ] answer it for the 400th time. Natty, what is actually wrong with being a men's rights act activist if you're advocating for things like, for instance, I don't know, the abolishment of the draft would be a really good one. That could be a men's rights advocacy, which I would consider to be a moral claim that an Orthodox Christian could have a good claim to. Perhaps that men should be put to death by the state. That could be another great claim that an Orthodox Christian could make. and why they would advocate against it. There's a big split there. Circumcision is another claim that can be made for by men's rights activists, which you see in the Orthodox Church, there's some split there. Natty, one more time. What's wrong with advocating for men's rights? Natty, answer the [ __ ] question. Andrew, take another bit of your cigarette, bro. God, this chick's never going to answer. Just answer the question. I'm going to answer the question. Here's what I'm going to do before you I'll reset your timer or two. Um, we're gonna run this for 10 more minutes it and then we're gonna go to super chat. So, if you would like to have a conclusion of the conversation and be productive, I suggest we go with Q&A and we continue doing that in good faith. Thank you.

No, no problem. the what's wrong with men's rights uh activism is that it's based on the gyocentrism worldview and beneath that it's also based on an ontological egotarian view of viewing the human so if you're an orthodox Christian you cannot subscribe to a lot of the talking points that men's rights movement has made in fact most of them are cherrypicked in in regards to things like the draft uh there's some in orthodox Christianity I wouldn't say that they would have a particular strong view Yeah, exactly. So, my turn. So, anyway, so yeah, back to this real quick. All of these could be construed as men's rights act uh uh advocacy. You're talking about the idea of circumcision, the idea of the draft. Abortion would be part of men's rights activism. So would custodial uh custody of for parenting. All of these things would fall and so would DV laws, domestic abuse laws. Those would fall under men's rights as well. All of these things which from the orthodox view is fine to advocate for change for natty. What's actually wrong with being a men's rights advocate? What other than Natty says it's all gyocentrism? Prove it. Prove any of those things are gyocentric. Go ahead, Natty.

Okay. Domestic violence laws. Um, the uh men's rights movement has claimed that there that the there's a lot of prejudice against men in terms of domestic violence. Well, actually strictly that's not true. Um, what we actually find is that the men uh domestic violence tends to be more reciprocal or 6040 in the UK in terms of men being the perpetrator versus women and actually in the UK coercive control has been passed which actually helps men and that had nothing to do with the men's rights. Okay. So anyway, so this was based on this is all based on categorization. So when you when you go into DV laws especially, you already had laws on the books for assault inside of the United States. Special categories were pushed by feminists for domestic violence specific laws, right? Those were designed to favor women. That is in fact true. Yeah, I can actually give you the subset of laws and I can give you the links to those laws and who they were pushed by. So the question becomes like what's actually wrong with advocating for equality under the law. Go ahead, N.

Equality under the war is based on an eglletarian ontology which basically argues that the mind needs to overcome the body and that you look at men and women as apples to apples rather than apples to pears then somebody is going to lose out and in fact you spend most of your time arguing with liberals who have an eglitarian ontology and you you call out things to do with them quite successfully I would say sometimes all the time why are you backing claims that are based on that ontology I Yeah. So, first of all, these aren't ontological claims, right? You're right. I do believe that there's ontological distinctions between men and women. Ontology being being, it's an entire philosophical branch, in case you're not aware, Natty, I'm talking about under the law. You see, we have prescriptions under the law which are designed to be equally prescribed to men and women. The second, you give non-equal treatment to one over the other while one side claims that they deserve that special treatment, you are in contradiction. That's why MRA advocates exist to try to do something about unequality under the law. Go ahead, Matt.

And MRA advocates uh exist because they have a liberal worldview that's based on an eglletarian ontology. I know as a men's rights activist, the people that dominated it, if you tried to talk about how we should be viewing a human as unity of body and soul, you were told that you were not equal or you were not promoting promoting something that was equal. So as somebody with direct experience with this, I can tell you that they don't agree with your worldview. So I No, they actually do. The po the whole point here is to point out a contradiction. The contradiction that if you the feminists that claim we're supposed to have an egalitarian society, which is built under the idea of equity, then if you do one favorable set of laws which are for women that don't apply to men, like you see with abortion, things like this, that that would be a contradiction in the worldview. MRA people, whether you agree with their prescriptions or not, are [ __ ] fantastic at pointing that out. That's a criticism of the view. Actually serves orthodoxy well to criticize that view. Uh again, you don't seem to be appealing to what I've actually presented to you and you've moved it away to something else. That is just not what we're talking about here. All of the claims from the men's rights movement only exist because of Peter Wright's gyocentrism view. If you didn't have the gyocentrism worldview, those claims wouldn't exist in the way where they would say that men don't have as many rights as women and that feminists when they introduce some of their their lobbying.

Okay, so anyway, back to me. You see how she can't be concise with her points. Uh, so again, she brings up a criticism of Peter Wright, who's not Andrew Wilson. She should be trying to attack Andrew Wilson's views. is what Andrew Wilson just gave her was an overview, a listing of MRA things I would advocate against, which are well within the confines of the orthodox view. She even agrees these things are fundamentally unfair. From the uh criticism of categorization of ontology, we're doing an internal critique on feminism and proving their worldview has massive faults in it. That's the whole point. Men's rights movement and feminists have the same ontology. You don't seem to be recognizing that, Andrew. Waiting for the proof. I'm saying to you, do you agree? No. That they don't you don't agree. You think they have a different ontology? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I they're men and women. So, yeah, they have a different ontology. Rights movement then, dude. Yeah. So, first of all, you're not using the word ontology, right? Ontology is a study of being. It's a philosophical branch which is designed to study being. So, how can you take two political ideologies and talk about ontology? Dunce natty. They're political ideologies that come from the same route. Actually when you go right back to the gyocentrism worldview you understand that actually it was a Marxist that that promoted it before Peter Wright got his hands on it. So that's quite interesting. They come from the same way of viewing a human which means he is trying to use and you have adopted it because you think you can infuse that with the orthodox position right because you're more on the uh on the uh the complimentarian side. Yeah. So anyway so these are what you're making right now are called epistemic claims. You're making epistemic claims. Claims that have to do that claims that have to do with knowledge. I don't know why you're bringing up ontology when you ask me a simple question. Is the ontology between feminism and uh like the manosphere the same? It can't be because we're dividing men and women. There'd be ontological distinctions. That's the whole point. Ontology of woman different than ontology of man necessarily has to be. Yes, it does. I don't know what you're taught. Like I would love for you to explain to me how men and women have the exact same ontology. Go ahead, Matty.

To you. So under the egletarian worldview, would you not say that they viewed uh the human rights and equality of man as a man in an androgynous form which basically from the feminist view? Yes. From the feminist view and the men's rights activist worldview is rooted in the same thing. No, it would be rooted in the opposite thing. It is. No, it's not rooted in it. You've made that mistake of that assumption. Okay, I'll prove it to you. I would say you're you think that they believe what Protestant fundamentalists believe and they don't. Okay, my turn. So, I'll prove it to you. If you have ontological claims, you would first have to make the case that the ontology of men and women from the MRA view is the same. It is not. That is the view of the feminist. The feminist makes a claim that there's ontological the onlogical categorization distinction between men and women doesn't exist. They're interchangeable widgets. MAS make the opposite claim. They claim that based on the distinction ontology, there are certain societal roles and structures which need to be followed. It's literally the opposite. Natty, go ahead, Natty.

Okay. Anyway, let's keep reading from what Bishop Ire keep reading our answer to the argument. We are committed and we'll be strong. More minutes left. We are not here to be politicians or social commentators. We are here not to foster any worldly agenda. We are here and pray from the bottom of their heart that each one of you is here for the only reason to listen to the gospel of Jesus Christ and do it. And let me conclude by saying this. If you are here for any of the wrong reasons, God bless you. Okay, fantastic. Thank you for your quick sermon, but my turn now in the church. Real quick. So, real quick, you just made a claim. You said that at the core on ontologically feminist and MRA advocates are exactly the same. But they're not. I demonstrated to you how they're not. One has an egalitarian worldview. The other one uses the criticism of the e egalitarian real world worldview in order to push men's advocacy. One believes the ontology is different. One believes that the ontology is exactly the same. Demonstrate how I'm wrong.

Okay, this looks I can tell that you have never read Peter Wright's writings even though you are ascribing a worldview that he promoted on the internet and pretty much everyone on the right wing seems to have accepted at this point. Um, I've said to you that they believe that the mind overcomes the body. Okay, that's pretty much what if you can simplify it for the audience, which I've tried to do. It's this idea that we can achieve some level of of equality and Peter Wright, Paul Eli, and all of the people. Yeah, I'm sorry, your 30 seconds are up. Next time, be a little bit more concise with your points. That would be great. So, here again, I'm just going to I'm just going to point this out very quickly. Ontology, state of being. Men and women have a different ontology. For you, for the feminist, right, on the feminist side of things, they're going to believe in the interchangeable widget ability of men and women. They're exactly the same. They have the same ontology. There's no distinction. Anything a man can do, a woman can do. Blah blah blah blah blah. The MA say exactly the opposite. They flip it. They say, "No, there's a distinction in on in ontology." Total distinction. Men aren't the same as women. Waiting for the demonstration of the opposition. Go ahead, Natie.

If you want to know what we believe, don't look at the internet. Don't read media reports. Listen to your own voice. when you open your mouth during a liturgy and we sing the creed. That is what we believe. And if you want to see what humanity looks like, look in the humanity in the church. A humanity grounded in forgiveness and love and mutual support and following Christ God. May this be our only mission and our only goal. And if we have failed and proclaim this to the world, the world has caused us to think otherwise. Let us do better. And where others are misrepresenting us. Yeah. Okay. So anyway, so we're all done with that. So now, uh, wife, bring me down a cup of coffee. I would appreciate it. Uh, it was this has been great. I would still love to know how you're going to explain to us how one side says that there's an opposition ontology. The other side says it's an interchangeable ontology. How you can demonstrate that that's not the case when that is I can literally demonstrate it to you from feminist own writings versus MRA people's writings. I can demonstrate it to you across the board. One believes in a non-interchangeable set of ontological structures and the other does not. And before I let this one go, uh, this is the last 30 seconds to Natty and then we're doing closing statements. I'm over it, Natty.

All right, no problem. Um, so if Andrew was serious about representing what the Orthodox Church says, then he would talk about how we supposed to follow Christ and he will talk about how we need to humble ourselves and follow the Theotocos' example. And he has never done that to my knowledge. At least if he's done it, he's done it after he's bullied and intimidated a bunch of Only Fans girls. That is not Christlike as far as I know. And again, no proof for any of these allegations whatsoever. Just uh arguments from incredility. I've never seen Andrew do thing. Therefore, he's never done thing. By the way, Andrew doesn't have a ministry. Andrew says often that he's not here to represent the Orthodox Church. I've always been extraordinarily clear about that. And guess what? That's not any of Natty's [ __ ] business. That would be the business of myself, my church congregation, my spiritual father. Not of Natty. Her Natty needs to mind her own [ __ ] business. If she has an issue, she can go through the proper channels of orthodoxy to have me condemned or in some way uh you know uh uh pushed back against by the hierarchs who are there who are definitely not [ __ ] natty. On top of all that, remember Natty provided no evidence for any of her claims. I provided evidence for my claims. When we got to the back and forth Q&A, she couldn't even answer basic questions about an ontology and the distinction between that and epistemology. You have failed on every level here, Natty.

Andrew, I was going to move you because you say something. I mean, it's true. Andrew, Andrew, I was going to move you into your closing statement. Yeah, I'd like to move in my closing statement. You kind of beat me to the bud. Go ahead with your final closing statement, please.

So, Natty's entire argument against the Wilsons has always been thus. It's always been the same thing that she has an issue with some guy named Peter Wright. And because she has an issue with this guy, uh, anybody who who she perceives as being in in any way associated with this dude's circle is him. Not 90% of her arguments are tailored towards him, not towards me. She doesn't. She doesn't even categorize the things I say correctly because she doesn't even understand my position. She could have taken all this time to research out my actual position. She didn't. All she did instead was come with the same [ __ ] which is why I call her never learns natty. She never learns. All she has to do if you want to criticize me, right, use my positions. Use Andrew Wilson's positions to make criticisms of Andrew Wilson. When you say absurd claims like Rachel got her book ideas from a guy, when I show proof that couldn't be possible, you have no reputation, but double down. You look stupid. When you say I get my ideas from Peter Wright, never had a conversation with the guy, the you look stupid when you can't demonstrate like you said that there's some Patreon link there, but you can't show it. You look stupid when you make claims about ontology. You don't know how to how to separate those from epistemological claims. You look stupid. When you make these claims, Natty, when you say Andrew Wilson is X, you don't come to me and then try to get me to give you the answers to my worldview. You come equipped and ready to criticize that worldview from my view and build your case, not beg me for answers to your questions. You should already come equipped with that. Just like I came, all I had to do here was what exactly what I said. that I outlined at the very beginning of the debate that you would fall prey to this tactic and I and I you always do. All I ever have to do with you, Natty, is ask you to show evidence and then I watch your entire case fall apart. You're a joke, right? People laugh at you because of this. And the thing is like I don't think you're stupid. I don't think you're stupid. That's the funniest part is like you could easily reverse your entire image in these spheres if you would just actually get away from the [ __ ] tinfoil hat and engage with people where they're at. That's it. Engage with them where they're at. You want to engage with Andrew Wilson about his views? Good. Actually engage with Andrew Wilson on his views then. Not Peter Wright on his views and how they somehow map on to Andrew Wilson with your crazy coralates and lack of evidence. And even in the face when you're shown evidence to the contrary, serious significant evidence to the contrary, you double down anyway. Don't come to me and talk to me about [ __ ] humility. How [ __ ] humble could you possibly be when I show you all the evidence of your slander and you double down on it. You should actually be ashamed of yourself. You have been on this dogmatic crusade for what going on almost two years now with no evidence to show for it whatsoever. And I've told you, my wife's told you that this isn't true. We've shown you the evidence for for it multiple times. Now, you just got exposed in front of so many thousands of people. There's going to be hundreds of thousands of people who watch this, Natty, and they're never going to let you forget that you did this for what? What did you even gain? You didn't even gain

Anything. It was just stupid. Next time, all you know what's really funny about all this? I'm one of the most easily accessible, uh, guys out there who have a platform my size in the world. You could have just DM'd me. You could have just been like, "Hey, you know what, Andrew? Uh, you know, is there actually a link between you and this guy? And if there is, what is it?" Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I would have just told you. I literally would have just told you.

Instead, you played "phone a friend," and he comes in and says, "Peter's one of the most manipulative blah blah blah blah blah." I don't give a [ __ ] about Peter Wright. First of all, right, when I looked into this guy, my platform's way [ __ ] bigger than his. Like, gigantic in comparison, not even in the same [ __ ] universe. This guy's not even on my radar. I don't give a [ __ ] about him. But you guys, all you can do is make these correlates in your conspiracy, tinfoil hat [ __ ] wearing [ __ ] about how there's a correlate between everybody and the Skynentric view and Peter Wright. Tailor the view to the person. Next time, Natty, you won't look so stupid. That's all I got to say. Thank you, Andrew and Natty. To you. Now he's finished catching and having a little tantrum. Let's be serious for a minute.

Um, so I said earlier that Andrew Wilson has a more gender essentialist, uh, kind of like, uh, bio-gyocentrism from a biological position. And that's what the main difference between, uh, say, someone like a trad-con, you could probably say the trad-con that Andrew Wilson fits into that category, sort of, um, and, uh, the difference between him and Peter Wright. I guess I'm, what I'm trying to demonstrate here is that they actually come from the same roots because they both come from a Protestant presupposition, which goes back to the Enlightenment. And Orthodoxy has quite a lot to say about how that is why I brought up ontology. So if we're talking about mind, body, and soul, we're talking about a kind of dualism between the mind and the body. So Andrew Wilson's side of the fence is pretty much saying the body is more important than the mind. And the egalitarian side is pretty much saying the mind is more important than the body. And Peter Wright's quite, quite a sophisticated operator because he likes to play around between those two positions. As somebody that knows, knew him personally, um, I remember when he did an article about mod wives where he was talking about how, well, we shouldn't be promoting, uh, trades, but we can talk about mod wives, which was pretty much the same thing, but just more rooted in a more modern framing.

Um, so, um, Andrew doesn't seem to be able to actually address any of these things I've said, and he thinks that he can play up to the audience's bias because unfortunately, on the kind of right-wing culture war side of the fence, everybody has accepted these presuppositions. They think they can take the rhetoric about being a trad, uh, God, Christ, man, woman from Corinthians. And that that is thought of in the same way in the framing as Orthodoxy does. And Orthodoxy doesn't think about gender in that way. Um, and, and, and thank the Lord for that because he's basically saying, "Let's go back to something that we've tried before and this is compatible with Orthodoxy." And I don't think Andrew is being, um, uh, in good faith in really representing what he truly believes about that because he, he plays up on it and, and says that it's a joke, but at the same time, when he makes his argumentation, he really does reiterate it again. And he's also around this, the author Broph sphere, who, and which does include some, uh, clergy influence. And I will just bring this up one more time. Uh, Father Moses McFersonson's claim where he said that Eve ate the apple because she wanted to dominate her husband. Well, anybody that has studied Genesis or any basic theology will tell you that power dynamics between men and women, or anyone, is a consequence of the fall, and it's not something that caused the fall. So, he's literally being backwards, uh, in the way that he's saying that. And he also said that St. Isaac the Syrian said that, which is completely not true.

Um, and I'm, I'm pretty much willing to be on record in calling him out on that. Now, he also does a very similar thing to Andrew when he claims that he's joking and when he talks about being mashkin and orthodox that he's also joking, which is just fascinating because he's supposed to be representing a member of the wise patriarchy. Basically, if you're going to talk about patriarchy, um, why are you going out there and playing into the kind of dude bro culture and all of these joking when actually really like trying to be like Christ is a serious matter? I, I really don't know why he thinks he can get away with that. Um, so if for anyone that's watching this and actually can see that Andrew doesn't really want to deal with this in the serious way that it should be, then I thoroughly recommend looking at Dr. Batis' work, um, and any other source about gender, uh, roles and stuff. That's not Father Trenum, that's not Father Moses McFersonson, that's not Andrew, any of the author Bro Cruz, I'm not going to name, right? Actually, go directly to the source and speak to your priests that are not those guys because they are being called out as the Protestantizing of Orthodoxy right now. And I wouldn't be surprised if they all didn't join some cult under Father Moses McFersonson's mansion because I don't know, that's quite disturbing.

Um, the last thing I'm going to say before I don't know how much time I have left, about 30 seconds, is that we as lay lay people, we are allowed to call each other out. There isn't this idea that we're not allowed to speak about anything at all, but we are also supposed to be open to correction. Um, and I don't really know what it's going to take for Andrew and everyone in, in that circle to be corrected. I'm contributing what I know here because the Theotokos is my patron saint. And I, I have to tell you, when I realized that I was promoting a worldview that absolutely has the most distinct, horrible resentment towards her based on evolutionary psychology and Carl Jung's archetypes, which, by the way, he is saying that he agrees with, um, you know, he agrees with the framing of that the men's rights worldview comes from, uses all of that stuff. Right. Right. Okay. Because he's saying all of that, uh, he doesn't seem to be go capable of being honest and admitting he's trying to infuse that with the, uh, very serious message of Orthodoxy, and which also says that Adam's will is, uh, Adam ate the fruit willfully and his will is what needs healing first in man, and I don't think Andrew is doing a very good job of displaying that personally. Thank, thank you for listening.

Absolutely. I'm happy to, uh, I have no idea who the [ __ ] Peter Wright is, but I want to know why he was not here today. Uh, I'm completely Oh, you should get him on. Try why this debate went in this direction and why Peter Wright's name is being called. He's a bit like Karl Marx, basically. Yeah. In terms of he's the guy who wrote the theory and everybody talks about Marx. Well, you want to know where the guy in the ism theory comes from? It comes from that guy. But he's not here today. So, let's get to the super. Get him on. Really try. Do your best. I will try and just so I can understand why the [ __ ] he was being called out all day.

Um, all right. So, let's get to the super chats. I'm going to read 10 and up only. Um, and we'll, we'll blast through those and then we're going to, after we blast through the super chats, I'm going to shut you down. I'm going to raid you guys back over to Crucible. I believe the party is still continuing over there for the marathon. So, I'm going to raid you back over. Just promise you'll come back, uh, when the start, the start of the next show. Please. Uh, Hall says, "Uh, can Nattie remove the marbles and try again? I, I don't, I can't understand her pratt." Uh, you, and let me preface this by saying, you are welcome to respond if it's concise, quick, and to the point. That way, we're not wasting everybody's time on long, drawn-out crazy banters of craziness. Uh, so you're welcome to respond. If not, I don't know who's, I don't know who's been saying any banters of craziness that hasn't. Saying in terms of responding to the super chats, we're going to try and keep them. I'm just going to my point instead. Fair enough. Uh, Noah with the big 20. Who the hell is this Natty girl? Never heard of her. Thanks, Noah. Nice to see you back again. Uh, oh says, uh, she literally said, "W marbles in the cup now, please." You did say "w." It's an internet meme supposed to make you laugh. Oh, well, fair enough. All right. Chad says, "Nattie is giving blue crystals, uh, energy." If you're a member, we've got the crystals emoji down there. Feel free to use it. Hall says, "I can, I am more pious than you, so you are wrong. Decrying someone's faith requires apost, aposto apostolic." Thank you. No worries. Proves not talking crap about their wife.

Oh, okay. So, um, I read out the majority of a sermon by a bishop. Um, I also quoted a theologian, um, who I got most of my talking points from, and I also have spiritual advice in regards to what I've said. Um, so I'm, I'm here as a sinner, just like Andrew is. And to be honest, one of the things I would probably, um, support Andrew on is the claim that we both need some kind of bishop's permission to be here. We kind of don't. We, we're laymen. We can correct each other, um, as long as we are using what the church says as an authority and we don't try to claim to be an authority. I don't claim to be an authority, and neither does Andrew. So I'll give him that. Which is why I don't see your authority. I literally just don't see your authority to even make any of these, uh, these claims. You must have an authority, dude. Yeah, I know. So you should move it up the chain to the next authority before you start making all my talking points come from this, and I would like, I would like for you to actually move this up the chain of command so I can send them this video and they can see for themselves what you are. Absolutely. Please do that.

Isn't it, um, like, because because women can't be like priests and things, right? Like that? So inevitably, wouldn't it be the, I don't know what it is in the Orthodox, um, I mean, I would say priests of some, generally speaking, in this, this is what, uh, what happens in the Orthodox church when she's talking about call-outs, especially, we actually don't usually do things this way. We actually usually, if we're going to do corrections and things like this, we go behind the scenes. We don't make it public, and we get clergy involved if we really think that the other person is doing something wrong so that correction can come outside of the public eye. The reason that we do that is because it's not worth it to besmirch one of our fellow Orthodox brothers or sisters. I've always done this whenever I have a dispute with somebody who's Orthodox, approach them. No, you, no. When, when have you ever approached me privately? When, dude, you had me blocked for like two years ago. So that wasn't possible. You could have approached me through other channels. Did you ever make an attempt? I've asked Marte about the emails that's been sent to his church. Never. Never once. Why don't you put a link to your church in the comments, and then we can do that again? Oh, yeah. So, so you can do, so you can dox me. Children enough. Why would I do you, bro? Why wouldn't Natty, why wouldn't we go through another, like, protocol, right? Is it, do you find it? No clout, Sarah. There's no clout in that. Do you find it to be, Yeah, it is about clout. Do you find it to be your duty, Natty, to be the, like, the caller-outer of the Orthodox Christian group? Like, are, is that your job, your duty? Is that, or do you have a role in the church that gives you that position? No. So, I mean, my, my only, No, hang on, hang on. My, my role here is to talk about how gyocentrism worldview is a distinct attack on the Theotokos, which misrepresents how Christianity was in the West. Even though I'm not a Roman Catholic, I don't agree with what Peter Wright says about Roman Catholicism, and that women had the archetype of the Virgin Mary. And that's not the claim that you're, you're making a different claim here that we, that we. No, here. Read the debate prompt. Read the debate prompt. What's the debate prompt? Anyway, so what's the debate prompt, Sarah? Can you tell me? The debate prompt is, uh, in, and this, I took this prompt directly from, you know, no shots at you, Natty. This came directly from your message to me. I want Andrew and the, and I said, "What, what is the, the prompt or topic, whatever?" And this is exactly what she said. And Andrew and Rachel are representing a distorted version of, uh, Orthodox Christianity. So, this is a church, this is a church matter. What she's saying is that publicly I am doing something which is bad against the Orthodox Church. Now, usually, just so you know, Sarah, and the audience knows, the way that this would normally be handled, especially with somebody who has such a public, uh, persona as I do, and somebody who's as high-profile as me, in order to avoid any potential public embarrassments towards our church through bickering and fighting and stuff like that, you would go through the protocols of using back channels, right? And if you couldn't get anywhere that way, then you would take it up to the next step, and you would bring in clergy so that they could assist you in whatever this correction was. Natty didn't do any of that. Instead, what Natty has done is fought tooth and nail to have public spaces where I'm not even invited, talking tons of [ __ ] about me, which I've never done about her, by the way. I've never done it once. I've never. Hang on. Hang on. Let me finish. Natty, and then you can respond. I've never one time started a public space devoted to Natty to besmirch her, talk smack about her, nothing. Never. Not one time have I ever done that. In fact, I've only ever responded by going into her spaces so that I could defend myself and my good name. I don't operate this way under the, the Orthodox Church guidelines. I don't disrespect clergy I disagree with either. I would never in a million years come on here ever and start bad-mouthing clergy like Father McFersonson, Father Josiah Trenum. I would never, any more than I would Father Spiriton Bailey, who's my favorite. Okay. I would never in a million years begin besmirching their name ever. That's not our role. And this could have been handled completely differently, and you ought to be [ __ ] ashamed of yourself.

Anyway, so, uh, I can tell you how Andrew is lying. I used to be in the JD server like three years ago or whenever it was, and then I was in the Foundry server, and I actually had interaction with Andrew and Rachel in there. And then when I realized that they were aligning with Pearl Davies, of all people, that's when I realized that they were going down the route of infusing Red Pill with their worldview. Who the [ __ ] is that? And, and I'm, I'm talking, um, and I'm going to interrupt for just a moment and I'll give it back to you. I, seriously, you've done streams about her and with her. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You're trying to tell me you don't know who. Both of you for just a second. I have to pee. I have to pee really bad. I'm stepping away. Good luck. I'll be right back. No, really. Who is it? You don't know who Pearl Davies is? Oh, Pearl Davis. Oh my god. Okay. Well, I didn't understand what the [ __ ] you were saying. Anyway, I spoke to Rachel. I contacted her and said, "Listen, uh, I don't know why you're embracing Pearl Davis." Um, and she responded back calling me an ankle-biter and then blocked me. So, yeah. So you said to me though, I did not try and speak to you guys directly. I did. Um, also, I know, right, that people have complained to your church about you. That has happened already. Oh, well, then I guess if people complain to my church about me, that it would be up to my church to offer up that correction along with my spiritual father. Yeah. I guess I'll worry about that, and you worry about you. Well, you tried to claim that that hasn't been done, and I'm saying that. So, what you're saying is that not only did you not, not only did you not actually try to contact me privately so we could hash these things out, you know, you didn't. But then you and your sewing circle friends got together to launch a series of complaints about me behind my back. Sewing circle. Yeah. You decided to launch a series of complaints. You decided to launch a bunch of complaints behind my back to my church. What's wrong with a sewing circle? Isn't that what you? Yeah, I usually make that reference because what happens is you women will get together and you'll start to demonize a man, and you'll do things like go behind their back to contact their church and contact their parish so that you can somehow impugn or hurt them. Me. You just told everybody that the way to handle calling out another layman who's who's misrepresenting the church is to go directly to their clergy, and then you've just gone and said that because I'm a woman and I'm somehow in a, a sewing circle, I'm not allowed to do that. No, what I said is that the practice of doing. No, the opposite. What I said is the practice of doing this, the practice of doing this would be that you could have, you could have contacted all sorts of people who would have linked you up so that we could have had these conversations about whatever your [ __ ] concerns were, and you didn't. No, where, show us the proof. Oh, wait. Show us the proof. Show us the proof. And that actually brings. Now we're going to go into the proof again. Yeah, the proof. I know. The thing you never have. Okay. So everybody, if you would like to speak to somebody who's been a victim of Rachel's harassment and has complained to Andrew and Rachel's church, look up Summer Kennard. She'll tell you all about it. Yeah, bring her on and show me the harassment. Bring her on. I want to see the proof of the harassment. Do it. Rachel said if it's the last thing she ever does, she wants to get that woman out of the church because apparently she's a subversive, trying to get liberal feminist subversive trying to subvert the church. She's probably right.

All right, Zachary with the big 10 says, "Can you show the proof? If you accuse someone, you should have for seats." I am in agreement with that. Uh, Noah says, "This broad seems like the perfect excuse for repealing the 19th." Andrew Wilson, Andrew Wilson promotes that to all his listeners, and they think that, and that's exactly what that kind of thing brings out in people. Yeah. I mean, that's a necessary entailment of limiting suffrage. You would have to repeal the 19th. I'm fine with that. Yeah, there you go. But I mean, can you give me an argument for why that would be bad? Why universal suffrage is good? Are you going to change the complete system that America's based on to do that? It's not based on that. The, the, here's how the American system is based, or a monarchy. No, it's not based on either of those things either. There's not either of those things either. But the way that suffrage used to work at our inception, right, was what? That land, that stakeholders in property, because our founders did not trust the general public for universal suffrage. Basically, you want, you want only landowning men to vote. I think that. Well, it wouldn't just be men, though, would it? Anybody with land. Uh, we all. Oh, you didn't think that one through, did you, Natty? I already know about that because that's how it used to be before. That's not how it. Wait, it didn't used to be that way before, in the past. Get it right. Get it right. But they couldn't vote. But they couldn't vote. It's all about suffrage, the history of suffrage. If you get into it with me, children, I'm about to hit mute buttons, and everybody's going to be unhappy. Repealing. Do another time if you want to go and buy a pack of cigarettes for it. Okay. Repealing the 19th does not always coincide with necessarily taking away women's rights. It means we are recognizing land ownership and people who actually have stock in the, in the United States of America, or voting rights. All right. Uh, Scurb comes in with the big 10. Natty is connecting dots like a skits-o. Charlie Day in It's Always Sunny. It's completely unsupported claims. Go and read Peter Wright's gyocentrism theory. Yeah, I know. Peter Wright. Anyway, I got to go, Sarah. I have another appointment I got to get to. I'll be back here in what, an hour? Uh, uh, 45. Yeah, 45 minutes. All right. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. Hour. Natty got stomped. He deserved it. Have a wonderful day. Thank you, Andrew. We will be raiding back over to Andrew shortly. So, if you're still hanging on, that's fine. Nattie, you're welcome to go with the super chats with me, or you're welcome to leave as well. You're not obligated to go ahead. I know I can, I can go through a few of them with you if you want. Fair enough. Um, a lot of them are pretty attacky. Yeah, they're going to be, they're going to be Andrew Wilson tier low IQ nonsense, but that's okay, you know. All right. Says, uh, still can't speak about dogma, only the tone. All right. And then he follows up to say, "Time stamp 2740. She shoved more in her mouth. I thought I was trolling." Uh, I don't know if you were eating something. Yeah, I'm eating, I'm eating grapes. Oh, that's fair. I eat grapes every once in a while. Yeah, it's just, I, I find that in these kinds of things, you need to keep your energy up. Fair enough. Yeah, I agree. Um, I, I drink coffee. Coffee gets me through these. Uh, uh, if it was later in the evening, I'd be drinking vodka by this point. Hall says, uh, she's going to make a claim against the salvation of the Wilsons in two rounds. She called Tiki Dean. Yeah. Who is Dean? Who is this Dean person? Dean Esme is a former men's rights activist who, uh, helped, uh, Peter Wright with his writings. He was in the Red Pill movie. Anyone that's been around the men's rights movement for a long time will remember him. Fair enough. I never made a claim about Andrew and Rachel's, um, like salvation. I would never do that about another Christian. I very much believe that Andrew and Will and Andrew and Rachel were trying to be a Christian. I, I don't, it's not my place to be saying anything like that. Fair enough. All right. Um, and then Zachary says, "Saying someone is a slanderous person without proof is not proof. And getting someone on the phone to echo that is still not proof. What an idiot." I'm not sure what they mean by proof because, um, Andrew is saying here's screenshots from Peter Wright, which would be Peter Wright's, um, account, and I'm giving an account from Dresme. So I would say those two receipts are equal. Fair enough. Uh, Evan Lord says, "This debate reminds me of the based Oracle debate." Yes, I actually had that in my mind as well. I was thinking the same exact thing. Actually, we can go into two modes here. Um, uh, uh, where I can't even talk, where Bass kept claiming Andrew was a grifter and fraudster while refusing to present proof. Natty is doing the same. This debate with theology. Andrew didn't even try and debate theology with me. So I don't know why he's saying that. Fair enough. Uh, damn. A girl ran a double marathon to avoid proofs and acts like she's on Booker Candy. All right. Shots fired. Uh, Zachary says, "What a bratty." What a, I think that's what a brat. I feel bad for anyone who has to deal with this crazy person. Just gaslight arguments. Uh, Ticky Tac says, "How much to boot Natty and move on to the next debate for so we actually on this channel, we boot when during open panel, we pay to boot people." So they like to throw that in there when there's debates that they're not, uh, enjoying quite as much. So, fair enough to Ticky Tac. Um, and Hall says, "First, my sweet woman, you're calling out a man on his Christian behavior." H, and I will it be agreeable. That is kind of, um, like backwards to at least my understanding of Christianity. It's, it's kind of backwards in that thought process. A man should be calling him out. Yeah, I can, I can read this. I can read to you, uh, what it says. In Orthodox Christianity, a laywoman may correct another layperson, man or woman, provided it's done with humility, love, and discernment. The goal is not to assert authority, but to help another grow in Christ. Um, all Orthodox Christians are called to mutual edification. Galatians 6:1, James 5:19. There is no canonical restriction that says a layperson, man, or woman, cannot express concern or correct another, especially regarding clear moral or doctrinal matters. St. John and others speak of spiritual duty to help others avoid sin. Correction must be grounded in love, not self-righteousness. Matthew 7:3. Orthodox tradition does not prohibit women from speaking truth or correcting error. We have St. Meccarina, St. Mary of Egypt, St. Monica of the West, who are an examples of of female saints who have done that. Um, and we even have, um, St. Meccarina, the sister of St. Gregory of Nissa, who was known for correcting her brothers lovingly and wisely in theological matters. Um, and then there's also a question about authority versus influence. A woman, a or any layperson does not exercise ecclesiastical authority, but can still speak with spiritual wisdom and moral clarity without assuming priestly or pastoral authority. So, like I said earlier, um, I, I don't try and claim that, um, that Andrew is saying that he's an authority. Um, he always says that he isn't, and I, I give him that. And I also don't claim any authority either. Only every, all the points I brought up are from, from, uh, I mentioned a bishop's sermon, a theologian, and these are general points that the church has taught us, and everything else to do with guided tension and theory is my own argumentation. Fair enough. Uh, Lazarus says, "Nat has valid points to make, but needs to work on presentation and can't let Andrew Wilson get under her skin. Both went bad faith and certain at certain points. I think it should have been Nat versus Rachel. Links, quotes would have helped both." I, I'm actually in agreement with that. I feel like because the claim was made more towards Rachel than Andrew, and then I'm still not really understanding Mr. Wright's involvement in all this, and I just, I'm not seeing any like solid proof that this again is Peter Wright is the author of gyneism theory. Right. So if you're, if you are using gyneism theory as a foundational theory in your work, in your worldview, so your claim is that the West is women-centered at the expense of men, that comes from Peter Wright's writings, just like how say if you use Marxist theory, let me ask you this, that comes from Karl Marx. Let me ask you this, did, did Rachel credit Peter Wright's like writings in her book? Yes, it was credited in that. Yes. Okay. I mean, I don't know if I would love to do a debate with Rachel about her book. Um, it's in the, it's in the back of the book like Peter. If you want to get the book up, no problem. Well, what I'm saying is like the citations are, it comes from Peter Wright. Uh, yes. So she talks about the, the claim that chivalry became women-centered at the expense of men. That is, that's Peter Wright. That's from. No, no, no. I'm asking, did she cite his work in the book? Okay, that is one thing, but I don't know about the, like, if she actually writes like Peter Wright's book, this page, this page, like that is a citation. Can I just say something? I, what I find really interesting about this, this point is when people talk about feminism, there are like four different branches of feminism. They all have a very similar materialistic root, but they actually have some slightly different ontologies, like rad fems versus liberal feminism. Um, and they get conflated, they get, um, conflated between the two all the time. And, um, what's, I find very interesting is that I'm not able to talk about a worldview that is pretty much the foundation in terms of our conversation about gender roles and gender relations. Um, but when we talk about feminism, nobody starts going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like, you know, in terms of, uh, uh, like anybody who's leading the feminism, let's just say, uh, like she's a leader of a feminism group or something, and she's quoted with saying specific agendas, like that would actually make sense. But just because there, just because there is an ideology out there and somebody has another ideology that may have a few mimics of that, it doesn't mean it's necessarily that person doesn't exist unless there is only one. That's how you write, that's how you write a. I'm saying to you, when you, if you go and look into this, you will find that there is no other gyneism theory out there at this present time. You, you will find that. Roller to me, grandpa, to. Yeah. See, right when he speaks about gyneism theory in his book, he is literally referencing part of what Peter Wright says, and where Peter Wright got it from, which was, uh, a few anthropologists and the terms from this guy from the 1800s who was a bit of a Marxist called Ernest. Um, they literally use the term and then expand upon it, and the only reason anybody knows what that term is is because of Peter Wright's work promoting it. It, nobody would know would be using it otherwise, and the way that it's used is used from his framing. So, um, I will be developing my, uh, written work, like an essay, uh, that will go into this in more detail and prove it in a more academic way. Um, but at this present time, I've been engaging with just talking to people about how in Peter Wright's book, in his essays, he talks about how the West was based on the, uh, on women not being held accountable in a Christlike manner. Completely theologically incorrect. I mean, you're a Catholic, right? And you know that that would be completely theologically incorrect. That has, that never happened in the West in the way that he claims. All right? I got my priest to read his work. Uh, my spiritual advisor, who's a, a nun, she read, she read the essay about that as well, and they were both like, what is this guy talking about? Why, what, he's literally missed out a whole bunch of historical context, and he just, it's just bunk, basically, it's based on a really shallow analysis. And I find it really interesting that when we, as I said, when we talk about say, feminist theory, at this point in the conversation, nobody's going, "Please show me where the feminist theorist said this and they said that." It's always like, "Oh, feminism claims that we need to be equal." Actually, not all feminism says that, even though I don't agree with you overall. You have to be able to cite the historical or the, like, any speeches that were given or specific agendas that were provided, like

aren't attracted. You have no skills. You blame them. But for a membership fee, replace it with a class status." Fair enough.

Uh, coincidental agreement is not analogous to alignment. Uh, I wonder if she needs to attack the Wilsons because Mr. Wright has a judicial order against her. Peter Wright lives in Australia. Oh, that's fair. Uh, a bear bear on the internet. He doesn't know his real name, though. So, Oh, that's fair. You can find out if you want.

She does not defer to male authority to help test spirits. Instead, uses loose biblical understanding to justify trying to have authority. Natty loses because she is not on the side of her claimed faith. Yeah, we've already gone through that already. Uh, play it back. She specifically named both Rachel first and Andrew as having been admonished for public view of their opinions. Yeah, I know that people have complained about them, so I can't tell you what that resulted in. Yeah, I mean I and I will say any content creator I mean there's [ __ ] out there about me too. I mean any content creator will continue with that. So, uh, that's kind of a par for the course, you know, to have people hate you for what you believe in, what you stand for, what you, you know.

Yeah. I mean, there but the thing is there's there is a um a growing concern about the influence of ortho bro um arguments on new converts. And that is a conversation the church is kind of having right now. So you could say this is just me because I want to do something about uh telling people that gyocentism theory is really about hating Mary and that actually um why as orthodox you would want to embrace that theory. I don't know. Uh and anyone else that's why I'm involved here because I I just feel like I used to promote it. I feel guilty about promoting it. Um, I realize what the faith has taught me and I just want to make sure that people understand what it's truly about and they don't keep making loose associations with the word and so I think I've done that in this debate. Fair enough.

I'm going to read through a few. Uh, I'm just going to read through them really quickly and then you can choose which one you want to respond to and then we'll go ahead and close out. How's that sound? Yeah, no problem. Perfect.

Um, all right. Salmon fish says, "Alternatively, X= 2 * X / 2. Neomodern solution to the death of God. Pure chaos theory. Protestant accounting snazzy space cruiser, not technofudal India. Hugbox regress through compensating control. What in the [ __ ] kind of [ __ ] is that? I don't even know what you're talking about." And then he follows up to say, "Liquid space as true feminine principle, not quantum observer, mass manipulation, assuming hijacked manifest." Are there commas and periods? Photons and electrons were just the same thing. Absorb and emit not reflect nerves. The only thing I could say about that is um there is a sort of feminine association with the Holy Spirit. Although God is above gender, I suppose that's somewhat related to what he said. I don't know. I'll I'll have to ask my dad about that one.

Patrick saying the best I like. Absolutely [ __ ] nothing but just sending money. Thank you, Patrick. Uh salmon fish says again you cannot care all you can care you cannot care all you like but you can't think nothing as cognitive immunity hedonic he oh my god hedonic class so it fills with confirmation bias hallucinations I just defined all chemical power as such so yeah I don't even I don't know salmon fish are you off off your meds today Charles says natty You literally just made the claim that the soul is genderless. Then read your notes. That didn't substantiate your own claim. And no, I I never said that before, Heather.

And final one for the day, then I'm going to raid you all over to Andrew for the next uh about 20 minutes or so, and then you all can come back here. Uh James says, "Renewed my membership. Naomi Naomi emoji restored. Things are right with the world." and all of our members, if you can drop the horse emoji in the chat for Naomi, our loved, very loved and cherished wrench. Thank you. And I will let you have your absolute final thoughts, uh, Nattie, since you've been such a good sport today.

Uh, what do I want? I mean, I've said said everything I wanted to say. Um uh yeah, I just I just encourage people to um just try to find your orthodoxy if you're interested in it. Not from Andrew and Rachel necessarily. They may change. And I I pray for them. I'm not even saying that in a in a kind of like, oh, I'll pray for you. And no, I I genuinely think that, you know, maybe they will eventually start realizing that what they're doing is probably not the best way to represent orthodoxy. Um, but um just like maybe understand that if the world is has an absence of good then both sides of an argument that are rooted in a kind of worldview or an ontology that isn't related to or Christianity or Christianity generally um depending on the type of Christianity then understand that they're both going to have some distortion about the truth. Um, and really we probably need to sort start looking at things and saying, "Hang on a minute. There's a bit of truth in that ideology and there's a bit of truth in that ideology." And then bringing them together in something more integrated. Cuz when in orthodoxy they talk about looking at the center of the cross where Christ's head is. Um, and that tends to be where the sort of healing is. Um, but I'm not a priest and I'm only here because I want to talk about how gynez worldview really hates theotocos and actually in the west an understanding of what she really means and what she did what she did for us to help to bring Jesus and Christ into the world was significant and she's thoroughly absent and that's one of the reasons why we have such an issue to do with misogyny and uh and women being confused about what they should be doing and how they should be being and existing. So, I just want everyone to to love her really. Um, that's it.

Sure. No, absolutely. I It was a pleasure having you, Natty. Um, I'm sure you have I'm sure this was a, you know, conclusive semi for you. uh cuz it sounds like you've been chasing this around for a while and and I'm glad we could host it here and try to get through it at the very least. Uh I'm going to go ahead and send you to the back. I'm going to have a few final moments with uh the chat and uh I'm sure we'll be talking soon. Okay, no problem. God bless. Take care. Goodbye, Natty.

All right, my wonderful amazing [ __ ] Mater Nation. I hope this was as entertaining for you as it definitely was not for me. Um, but that's what we're here for. We're here to bring you all of this kind of stuff and I I I hope it worked out for all of you. I hope you enjoyed. Um, keep up with the super chats. I saw a few more come in. This one actually, thank you Bear Bear Sarah. This one's just for you. Thank you for putting up with the wildness. Went from someone I disregarded to one of the channels I like best. Quick. Thank you, Bear Bear. Um uh and then Glenn apparently gave her an L recently as well. Hello to you Glenn.

All right, here's what we're going to do. Maternation. Mature nation. Hashmaturation. All right. I'm going to send you all over to Andrews. Here's what we got to do though. You got to show up. All right. When I raid you over to Andrew's show, go in throwing tomatoes. You're going to hang out with him up until we start the next show. And then you're all going to come back here. Okay? You're all going to come back here. You're going to continue the marathon and the fun and the grift and all of the things that keep on giving. And I can't wait to see the next debate. I think it'll be very pleasant. It'll be very fun. Um, and that's what we're going to do. All right. So, love you all. The raid has already been set up. And remember, go throw tomatoes and tell them, uh, Materade [ __ ] Mater Nation. All right. Andrew likes to do that, too. They come over here and they're like, "Crucible raid. Crucible raid. Crucible raid." So, we're now we're gonna send it back. All 10,00 of you. All right. Here we go. Have fun. [ __ ] off.

[Music]

[Music]

Captain's log, June 2nd, 2836. After 27 years of war between the Djenk Cummers and the Saintthood Slayers, a new hope arises. As the battlefield lay weaponized, locked and loaded for destruction. Negotiations for a peace treaty are in transition. The moderator has arrived at station 42. Can this war be ended? Will the cummers and slayers find a middle ground? Abort mission. I repeat, abort mission. Negotiation failure. Abort mission.

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

Heat. Heat.

[Music]

Control.

[Music]

Yash. Heavy booby 6 plus low orbit over grid 152. No joy. Yash. Then go to your window and look up their biggest tracking asteroid. Copy. Yash mod. Still blind. Got some kind of systemwide crash in the defense. They're on track right goddamn now cuz we got Moku inbound and they're not carrying FL. Week one. The answer. We don't have one.

[Music]

Heat. Heat.