Transcription
If at a national level you had propaganda which instead of showing LGBTQ flags, degeneracy, girl bossing, [ __ ] like this, which is what you see everywhere, you had institutional family units instead.
Come on. Right. And that was what you saw everywhere that you went and that was where the social status was at the top down level that would really help change people's psyches around. The same way they were indoctrinated towards the degeneracy, same way you can indoctrinate them out of degeneracy. It's how we got a whole nation to smoke. And it's also how we got a whole nation to quit smoking. The thing is like there really are good prescriptions here. And the only thing I get from you, hang on.
We're talking about almost done. Almost done. Yes. Yes. That'll help with selfdeion of men. Yes. And it's one of the biggest contributing factors. Single motherhood. Another huge contributing factor. I have a fantastic conversation for you guys here today. And honestly, I cannot wait to go through it. You guys already know I love breaking down debates and especially when it comes from people with diametrically opposed views and have the audience and the data, the facts and the statistics to back up the claims that they are saying.
In one corner, we have an anti-marriage advocate, right? I believe he's agnostic or atheist. He goes by the name of coach Greg Adams and he's been doing content within the men's centric space now for probably about 10 years or something like that now. I haven't seen his content in a long time and that's no disrespect to him but the last time that I remember reviewing something of his had to be a live debate that he had I think it was like value tamement. This had to be like threeish years ago and he went headtohead with Hafi of the roommates podcast and it was a surprise debate like he walked in didn't know that Hai was going to be there and end up debating him on marriage. Hafi at that time I believe he was like three months married or something like that. So he was like gungho pro- marriage. Coach Greg Adams absolutely put the beats on them in classic fashion just bringing out all of the realities of the family court system. You guys know the drill. Nevertheless, he is currently doing a debate with another debate titan by the name of Andrew Wilson. All right.
Now, Andrew Wilson, we've gone over the channel a bunch of times in the past year. Christian, conservative, super pro-marriage, and these brothers linked up to go head to head. Shout out to the Digital Social Hour podcast who hosted this debate. I took a look and I didn't see the content over there. I found it on Coach Greg Adams's channel. So, I'll leave a link to the full debate. It was like over two hours and it was a lot of points within there. They began about an hour in to talk about the black family, black issues. So I wanted to go directly in that component of it and break it down from the different points, perspectives, and ideologies that they speak from. And they are very different and some of these thoughts may surprise you. So let's get active on this one. Let's have some fun. And let me also say this, to get up and do a debate is a very difficult thing to do, right? So, I want you guys to give much respect to both combatants within this case to be able to put your thoughts, your opinions, your ideologies out on Front Street, and also your platform, which is a component of your business. You know, it's not an easy thing to do. So, much respect to the two for doing this and giving us a conversation to talk about. Let's get active on this one. Without further ado,
in order for your marriage to work, they have to be white, Christian, they don't have to be white, make money, and then also probably live in a certain region. if it's the case. Now, what if that's not the case? Because in the United States, I don't know where you live, but you know, in the case of the apparatuses, if you take the rest of the United States, they're highly not that that is outside of those demographics. What if they're outside of that? What if they're not white and Christian? What if they're not Christian to make 100K? What do you suggest then?
Yeah. So, here's what I would suggest. If it's the case that in the black community, you have more divorces than the white community, there's going to be contributing factors for why that is. I don't think that like black people are just ontologically different than white people. Do you do you just believe like that at their core they're just ontologically different or do you think that they're the same? Because if that's the case, if we're equal people and equal people groups, then there must be some other social factors which are relating to this that increase the divorce rate in the black community that doesn't exist yet in the white community.
When he says ontologically different, just think of like made differently, right? Think of nature versus nurture. What Andrew is proposing here is is that the difference in some of the statistics that we see when it comes to the black unit, black economies, the black family structure is more nurture versus nature. Let's go.
If that's the case, we would specifically target those issues to prevent that from happening, right? We're going to do this across we're going to do this across the board. Well, what would they be?
For the black community, there's a bunch. One, you have a distinction in economic certitude. The second one is you got a massive abortion rate, which is super problematic. Another one is you use matriarchal structures in the family home instead of patriarchal. Huge issue that you have. By the way, when it was Christian-based, didn't happen. It was a patriarchal structure inside those black homes. And boy, they didn't put up with [ __ ] Not the case anymore. So, you have multiple factors here which need to be addressed. I agree with that. Nobody ever disagreed with that, though. What we're trying to do is look at the mitigation of risk. And even for the black community, if the black community moves in to these conventionally traditional churches, they still will have the same ecclesiastical authority which will assist them in governing their marriage that white people would have and it would still assist with the mitigation of risk. What's the alternative? It's just degeneracy, right? The alternative is just like we'll just hump them and never get married. Well, how what good does that do for for blacks? What good does that do? It just leads to more abortion. It just leads to more degeneracy. It leads to high crime rates. And the single motherhood's out of control. So like, what are you doing to prevent any of that? Nothing. Nothing. Tell me.
When he says the single mother rate is out of control, I actually just posted this on my Facebook yesterday. All right. Link to my Facebook down in the description box down below. Almost half of all of the black mothers are single mothers. This is twice as bad as our Hispanic counterparts and more than three times worse than our white counterparts.
What? What? Okay. Thank you. You said things that people have known for the past 45 years. But I appreciate that. Hold on for a second. Thank you for contributing to a common conversation that people know, but you offer no other solution. That's great. Now, here's a problem. Here's a problem with this.
It's a if scenario. That would be great if we can go back to this. It would be great if we can go back and look at and say that blacks when they were in the 40s and 50s, they had more stable relationships and marriages than even white folks. Here's the issue,
Why stop at the 40s? Let's talk about 1863.
your tradition seems to always hit this point of 1940s where you shine this light of traditionalism that you've never lived in that seems to be in a snapshot of something that you don't even know about. Then when I fast forward anything, dude,
again, I you're not listening. When I fast forward to 1970, when it falls all apart with no fault divorce based on what I've been arguing, what happens? All that traditionalism falls apart. Why don't we take it further? Why don't we take it back to bride prices? I mean, how far in tradition you're going to go? You only going to bang your head around 1940 and 50 because you watched a couple of movies and I Love Lucy episodes. Okay,
that's not tradition. That was a snapshot in history that you're trying to achieve. Again, take it back further. There's no marriages in the black community.
I This point confused me a little bit and I will admit generally when people are talking about much more conservative values they are talking about pre- civil rights movement pre- great society agenda from Lynden B. Johnson. But going back to 1863 and speaking about black marriages is odd to me because pre-emancipation black people were considered subhuman and subhuman people couldn't get marriage contracts. So it was illegal to get married. I'm sure that they were getting married in the church, but their marriage was not legally recognized by the government. So, I don't even know how we would have data of black marriages in that time because it wasn't recorded.
Take it, let's say we take it all the way back to the 1700s, let's just say, just for the sake of it, right? And that I'm totally wrong about all this. Just for the sake of argument, let's just say what is your prescription to deal with any of those issues when you're telling men in the black community to not get married? How is that going to assist with abortion? How's that going to assist with strong fathers in the home? How's that going to assist with the only demographic population which can't reproduce itself? How can you give me a single prescription to any of that?
Let me tell you something. I agree with you on this.
I just want a prescription, dude.
Here's the problem. I agree with you. And listen, if you had any ability to provide this prescription better than Louiswis Farrakhan or Martin Luther King, give me a second.
Listen to me.
These men have tried to pretty much heal this issue and they haven't. So Andrew So Andrew Wilson certainly not to. Neither will CGA.
So I don't have a prescription for the black community because
the black community is pretty much doomed at this particular point. They have too much degeneracy. They have single mother rates at the 70 and 80%. But I'm going to tell you something. You want to come in here and tell me something about ecclesiastics and you're telling me about the reality of the black community, how to fix it. Nobody's been able to fix that community. So there's nothing you can do and I can't offer any solution for that. Now at that particular point, you're saying the risk is higher. It certainly will be higher under those matriarchal conditions. So you get no argument from me there. So at that point, where's your statistics lie then?
Where's your where's your solution then?
This is so fascinating because essentially CJ is like, yo, listen. The ship is sunk, baby. It ain't sinking. It's dead in the water. There ain't no salvaging it, right? But but this is so fascinating because Andrew was proposing that one of the major issues with the black community when it comes to family dynamics and just everything that's wrong with the black community. We lost sight of Christian conservatism. And if we abide by the rules like a patriarchal structure for example, then it would begin to solve some of these issues where CGA is just like, well, if MLK and Farrakhan and like all of these different black leaders couldn't have done it and no one listens to them, what makes you think that they going to listen to anybody else? The interesting thing is is that through the advent of the internet, there are some people that have way more reach than those old school names ever had. So, it's almost like Andrew is sort of charging CGA with, "Well, but you are one mic that can reach hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. You can be charged to start." I think it'd be a lot different if CGA predicated his platform off of a uh black struggle, a black plight, and then all of a sudden became successful and just said, "See you." But I don't think that he's ever positioned himself like that. So, the question is off to y'all. Do you guys think that us with platforms and as mics as soon as we become large it is incumbent upon us to try to fix some of the issues or does it that we all have free will and we could do whatever with our platforms that we want.
Yeah. And so I'm glad
he's going to solve the community problems here. I would love to hear this. Say, listen again. I'm not saying
the black community problem solved by Andrew Wilson.
That says the guy who literally just saying I have zero prescriptions
because nobody does. That community is here. But I would love to hear the black community solved by Andrew Wilson.
Yeah. So let me tell you a bunch of things that can be done which will help mitigate these issues. Please do that you can accomplish not not some not some pipe dream
that can be accomplished politically and already are beginning to be accomplished politically. The first is you have to outlaw abortion. You have to it has to be outlawed. It and not by state by state where you can just go to the next state and do another abortion. Right? The one of the biggest problems with promiscuity in the black community is that they use abortion as a form of birth control. Same problem that you see in the white community, by the way. It's just more prevalent in the black community. The next problem that you have there is the lack of religiosity where there used to be a really strong core religious base of based black men and they were patriarchal, very patriarchal. And the thing is is that it's the idea of these feminist burning lunatics that told black women not to be under the evil patriarchy of their men. And yet the at this point the men are rolling over and allowing the matriarchy to take over in their own community. Is the a return to traditional church ethics going to assist that? Of course it will. Of course it will. How do I know? Because it did then. Just a few short years ago. I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago. I'm talking about 60 years ago. By the way, there's other things that you can do too. Getting rid of EBT, getting rid of social programs which are designed to keep people dependent. These are all things which can be politically accomplished. Just like abortion, the starting of banning that was politically accomplished in our lifetime. And the thing is is like you have no prescriptions. [ __ ] At least I'm trying here, man. Man, uh Andrew, you are Captain Obvious. This is the obvious obviously. Then why didn't you obviously state it as a prescription?
Because people have exhausted the means to be able to do this. Trust me, there have been people way better than you that dress better than you and shave their beard better than you that can do this and they haven't been able to accomplish it. You have the Democratic party that is highly influential. 92% of black women voted for Democrats. That's also possibly where most of those women go to church. Most of black churches are overwhelmingly women. It's a woman's club. And you're telling me about something completely obvious that everybody has pointed out for 25 years. You're not giving me anything new. This is a completely obvious scenario. And you believe that you've enlightened me over here and you're waiting for me to give you a solution. Let me tell you something.
It's not about changing your mind.
You certainly would never do that. Now, at this particular point here,
the unsettling experience that men experience in divorce, all right, you're saying you're just going to mitigate it or eradicate it. What about the small percentage of men that experience it and go through issues like high levels of selfdeion?
Hold on. Before they get into that, this is actually one of the issues with these debates is is that they're not doing an abate, excuse me, a debate to really get down to the core issues and solve for the core issues. It's really just platform against platform, right? So these debates, if you're going to put YouTubers and with their platforms and their businesses on the line, it's just going to become a sparring match of who can get the most points through. But like Andrew put in a list of things that I think are things that should be further discussed. Coach Greg Adams just combed some of those issues, but it's like then we just stop there. If we keep going down further, like for example, to call out a religious prescription as a solution, and I I like that he's saying prescription as opposed to anything else, right? Prescription as a solution, to assist. He's being very specific within his words, not to help beat it, but to assist. But then coach Greg Adams follows up and he's just like, "Hey, listen. Most of the church is dominated by women. Have you ever So, but then what's after that?" So if if you're going to say which CGA is 100% accurate on but if you go even further well why is it dominated by women? Well, the preachers want to, you know, drive up revenue, right? They're in a church business as well. So, they find that placating to women is more advantageous to be able to, right? Like, oh, so that that's why they focus the messages on them. They're not going further than that because it's just platform versus platform. And it's almost like when you get highly intelligent people like this together to really talk about these things and keep on whittling its way down to really try to solve the root of the issue. It's necessary to be able to do but you never really get there at this level.
High levels of them not being able to recover financially ever. This they're still going to experience this under your scenario. This doesn't disappear. that they don't.
What prescription do you have for those men that went to your marriage and they got divorced? 33%. What do you do with these men? Okay. 20% 30%. It still was at a high rate. What prescription? You would hope so. You would hope so. The but hope is not a strategy.
What What Hold on for a second. What What scenario do you have for men that you led into the burning building when they experience separation from their children, parental alienation, high levels of selfdeion? What prescription do you have, sir, that you so have all the you have all the answers. Please enlighten us. What are you going to do with these men? Are you going to enforce them to have sex with other virgins that you have on the sideline?
I'll answer the question, but I want to make a deal with you that if I answer this last question of yours that you'll actually answer when I ask you after that,
listen, we're not in a court of law. I don't have to answer anything. I can state something.
I'm asking make a deal that if I answer this question answering the question that you ask me, I'll cons.
So, we're not going to make a deal on that?
I don't have to make a deal. Listen, you don't have to. I'm asking if you will
possibly. So, go ahead.
Possibly. Okay. Well, then I possibly will hold the debate hostage until you possibly make a deal with me.
Great.
So, we'll just So, we'll just sit here and stare at each other or we just filibuster each other
like
at this particular point. You don't want to answer it. You want to answer,
but you're not going to but you're not going to answer mine.
I just want that clear. You're not going to answer mine after. You're just going to filibuster and stone again.
I ask you the question. Put it on the table.
So, this is pretty simple, right? what you're proposing here. Every policy prescription which is made anywhere in any nation with any people group from the tribal all the way to the national level is going to be a trade-off no matter what. There's always going to be some people who are disaffected by it in some small percentage and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. We don't run societies based on outliers. The second thing is when it comes to suicide in men particularly, one of the best ways to mitigate that is to begin the process of eliminating uh deployment of troops abroad because one of the biggest contributing factors to male s including in marriage with divorce is their veteran status
and it's because they they really depend on their family to assist them with what's going on mentally from the fact they've been deployed in these wars. And one thing you could really do that would help that, that's what the American first policy is, is we want to bring troops home. No more foreign wars. That will greatly help and aid uh with this problem. And by the way, policy-wise, it's already been aiding with this as Trump has wound these wars down. And by the way, I'll point out
That's a good That's a good one. I like it.
I'll point out I'll point out a few more things that please do. Yes.
So, another thing that you can do is at the national level, right, from propaganda works. I don't I'm sure you agree propaganda is absolutely worse.
Absolutely.
If at a national level you had propaganda which instead of showing LGBTQ flags, degeneracy, girl bossing, [ __ ] like this, which is what you see everywhere,
you had institutional family units instead. Come on.
Right. And that was what you saw everywhere that you went and that was where the social status was at the top down level. That would really help change people's psyches around. The same way they were indoctrinated towards the degeneracy, same way you can indoctrinate them out of degeneracy. That's how we got a whole nation to smoke and it's also how we got a whole nation to quit smoking. The thing is like there really are good prescriptions here and the only thing I get from you. Hang on.
We're talking about almost done. Yes. Yes. That'll help with selfdeion of men. Yes. And it's one of the biggest contributing factors. Single motherhood another huge contributing factor. These are all things which we need to mitigate. And by the way, these are all great prescriptions. You said I don't have none.
No for a second. That's what you said. Now here's the deal. Okay.
These are great prescriptions. I I happen to live in the time that you're talking about when the FCC didn't allow degeneracy and I was able to live through the time where they started to allow it. So I unfortunately was able to see a time where America was great and now we had dysfunction. So I agree with some of those things that took place probably 40 or 50 years. It would take a very very unique scenario for that to occur when you have Cardi B and this type of music out here and she's a single mother divorce a with a man that is having babies. That would be a good argument.
Okay. So, how
that's an actual argument for No, that's that's something that you agree with. That's okay. No, it's a it's an agree it's you disagree. You can be humble enough to say you agree.
That's an actual argument.
Listen, you don't have to be you don't have to belittle or attempt to belittle. I'm here a grown ass man. argument. Hey, listen. Listen. Just say you agree.
The moderator got to stop. It's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of recognizing. Okay, sir. I know you made to somebody across from you.
No, just say you agree. You can humble yourself in the second.
I don't agree. It's just an argument. You agree. Be a big boy. Be a big boy.
I don't agree, but it's an argument.
Here's a Here's a second. Here's a second.
Okay.
You're telling me it's going to take 50 to 100 years? I ask you about a man that's considering taking his life today. You're telling me about propaganda machine. Okay. There are men here that are been abandoned from their kids. They've been alienated. I'm talking about today. I'm not talking about in the church. I'm talking about today. You're telling me about some scenario where you're going to change liberalism and bring in righteous conservativism. That's not going to work today. We need solutions for men today, not 50 years from the Turning Point meeting. Okay. At this point today, we have men that are in dire need of help. They're going through unsettling situations and divorces. This is who I speak to. And you keep telling me obvious answers about propaganda and changing this and going to church. This sounds great on paper, but that doesn't happen today. You don't start that today. Can you give me a one solution you got that starts today, mister? I got all the solutions. We can start today.
Yeah. If you fund, if you just real quick, I love this debate. I love this conversation and I think it's fascinating how it's going. Andrew is getting upset at CGA because he doesn't offer I guess maybe in this part he doesn't seemingly offer any prescriptions or any arguments against any of his points. And I would argue that Andrew has elicited a lot of different prescriptions. And the thing is is like, hey, listen. If it took 40, 50 years to destroy this [ __ ] it might take 100 to 150 years to build it back up. It's way easier to tear the bottom of the Jenga block up than to build it all on. But I think that CGA's defeist attitude, as it refers to the black community, to be honest, I think although he's being debated about it right now, I do think that there's many black people that have the same damn attitude of it. those that may get up out the hood and never look back towards the hood. And I get it. Although that's where you from, the hood don't owe you a damn thing. And in fact, if you go back into it, it increases the chances of something bad happening to you. All available options to help fix it is going to require a heavy degree of sacrifice from a large population of people. And those people will have to be men. So for many black men, it's like, why even bother? just live as happy and as free as possible because as a human being I have free will and I can utilize my time that's left on this earth to do whatever it is that I want to do. He's exercising his free will and I get it because the opposite would require your life getting close and cool with influential people within the culture changing the mainstream narrative. overweight, the powers that be, the mainstream media, and the most influential amongst the people all would take pay reductions if what you're trying to push to make good normalized will take a pay cut because good ain't sexy. It don't sell tickets. It doesn't set precedents. It doesn't go viral. It doesn't move the needle. Good is anti- capitalist. So, you'd be sacrificing so much by fighting a monumental uphill battle. Let's proceed with funding MRA groups today. MRA groups today who are trying to legislate and get legislation passed today to create preventative measures for those men today. Now, if you ask me, can Andrew can you do anything about a man who might be willing to blow his right this second because he's already going through the events of divorce, which I had nothing to do with. wasn't there for could never do anything about. Can you do anything? Can you prevent? Of course, nobody can. But that's built in
your righteous reverend from the bull.
Yes. But it's built into the question. What you're building into the question is probably the it's probably the worst framing ever. Andrew, if somebody right this second is willing to do something bad, can you stop them? Here it comes. Look, look at the scenario. But your scenario is to change MRA funding when women vote out vote men 60 to 40%. And you have women lobbyist groups and zero men lobby groups. That's what you're telling me. We're going to change to fund MRA groups. Sir, when when MAS are on some terror lists?
Yes. So you're telling me that they're going to start just switching funding? We're just going to switch funding over here to a terrorist organization according to some of these uh websites.
Yeah, I would say this is just up high in the sky. solutions are completely
not only is it not pie in the sky, but I'll give you an example. I'll give you an example.
The the least possible situation that
I'll give you an example of where it's already happened. So, I would I would argue that the traditional churches are MAS, that they are men's rights advocacy groups, and that that's where traditional masculinity is mostly found today. Uh where men are even allowed to be masculine. Oh, hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me finish my point.
And it is the case that those MAS, in this case, the traditional churches already got abortion rolled back, didn't they? They're already moving these things back. They're already at the forefront of fighting degeneracy. They are also the ones who are at the charitable forefront of helping those same veterans who are blowing their heads off when the government doesn't even pay any attention to them. When by the time the government was all done doing any of these reforms when it came to veterans associations, it was those pesky old traditional churches that from Sky Daddy that you hate so much. They were the ones on the forefront who were actually assisting those people and not doing that. While you you you asked me this question, Andrew, what can you do right this second for a guy who's going to blow head off? Well, probably nothing. But neither can you. But at least we can do something about that not happening to others.
Okay, so that's very easy to accomplish in red states. And red states overwhelmingly were the states that got those things passed. They were already going to get it passed without the interaction of these so-called righteous individuals that state level.
Yeah. through Donald Trump and federal level California, Nevada. These are all states that you can easily drive to and get it done because they're red. And at that particular point, are we going to get a federal ban? You believe
we possibly could. Yeah,
possible.
It looks good. It looks good.
It looks good, but we don't have it today. All right. So, we don't we're not again, we don't have it. More than likely more than likely. I'm going to tell you, you said it's possible, and I say more than possible, you're not going to get it.
All right. So, at that point, Roie Wade and they were wrong.
They're wrong today. They're wrong possibly. We possibly might get it, but California is they're not doing it. I can drive to California. There's a woman I could drive it. I could take a woman to ne Nevada,
but it's already decreasing the rates. It's already working. Like, what are you talking about? It's already effective.
All it does is just send women to another place
and it reduces the amount of abortions.
It reduces it so we're not that's all we're talking about reducing it. We're talking about now the unsettling experiences.
So, do nothing.
We're doing something. Yeah, I'm doing something. I'm informing people. I'm informing people. I'm giving people the information and you're telling me what men should do.
I'm telling you what they're doing. All right. At this particular point, this is the question that you've been wanting to ask me. All right. I've been I put out a book called 52 things that men should do prior to considering marriage. Okay.
What it does is take it through a stepbystep approach of what they need to look out for just to detect. Hold up for a second. Hold on for a second. just to detect this man's considering. I've had plenty of men that said they were considering marriage. They found the red flags because of my book and they stopped getting married to a woman that eventually they saw would have been bad for them that would have cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, I'm doing something very positive. Now, watch this. You mitigate the you mitigate the red flags. You allow men to understand what the process of marriage is. Then you're going into possibly telling them what the state is involved in, how your children are affected, parental alienation, the odds of selfdeion,
and so forth and so on. So that's an opportunity.
So I want to make sure I got this right.
Opportunity for men to learn.
So I want to get this right.
You're telling me a pie in the sky possibility of changing laws when women outvote men 60 to 40%.
So you you
again, they're debating each other as if both of their answers to this don't help or they don't contribute. I would say that Andrew is more focused on the proactive more macroeconomic prescriptions that can aid or assist in what we see is wrong or incorrect as CGA is more focused on, hey, listen, this [ __ ] probably ain't going to change anytime soon. It is what it is. Understand the rules to the game right now in order to mitigate risk. So, it seems like Andrew is a little bit more offensive within his takes and CGA is a lot more defensive within his takes, but I think both are great. I think both are absolutely necessary. Creating content for men to understand red flags is great because if you increase a man's knowledge into what is an incorrect type of woman to get into a long-term marriage with, which can be mentally, emotionally, physically draining to a man if he chooses the wrong one. It could be life draining, lifestyle draining to that man. It could mess up the rest of his life if he chooses incorrectly and he is at the whim of the family court system. But I think it was an interesting point that CGA subverted Andrew's prescriptions, like macro prescriptions of things that can be done with saying, "Well, what can you do to help the man right now that is considering these very negative thoughts about himself and what he might do?" But I also thought it was strong for Andrew to turn it back and say, "Well, what can you do right now?" The fact is is that we are in the [ __ ] right now. So to expect to save everybody or the lion share of those that kind of went in with rosecolored glasses and are now feeling the full brunt of what this system is. It's just not realistic
wrote it doesn't dude you don't even understand the political process and how it works. Voting itself when you're talking about um lobby groups
yeah lobby groups what men lobby groups what what what male lobby groups do they have?
Traditional churches. Okay, we're back to we're back to church again.
They're the ones who do all the lobbying on behalf of men.
They're doing it on behalf of the men that they that follow them. That's not on
It's for all men. This abortion ban helps all men,
not some. Their charities to men who are going to kill themselves helps all men, not some.
It doesn't help all men in that situation. It helps the men cuz listen, I'm going to tell you where it doesn't. There might be a woman considering getting an abort and he wants to keep the kid. He has no mitigating risk. They're the only ones trying to change that.
Exactly. Who is
the tra traditional church?
You're saying the traditional churches. All right. At that point, that doesn't help him.
Yes, it does help him.
So, you're saying at that point it's only the traditional church when you have hundreds of female lobbyist groups and you have them out there.
They're the ones combating those female lobbying groups and that's it. How are they doing? Only the red. Only the red states.
No, at the federal level they're doing great. You're wrong.
You can still go to other states to get it done.
Yes. But we've still managed to mitigate it even in those states. It's a war. It's a political war. That's how it works. And not only that, let me let's point this out. Your whole solution here. I wrote a book to help mitigate future events. Oh, great. Andrew, what are you trying to do? Help mitigate future events. Oh, right now, right this second, what can I do to help? Andrew says, right this second, if guy has a 357 in his mouth, he's going to pull the trigger. He can't do anything. You're totally right. But neither can you by your own admission. Correct. So, there we go there. When when we're looking at the future though and I say let's do all of these different prescriptions which we can actually politically accomplish and move towards. You say that's all pie in the sky blah blah blah blah blah. I ask well what can you do as far as future prescriptions? You say blacks are and I have absolutely no prescriptions for it. I wrote a book 52 things that men could consider
to mitigate divorce risk. The same thing I'm trying to do
if they're marrying the right woman. So you're just mad you're just mad that I have one solution you have another and we don't agree with it. That's what you believe. I think yours is pie in the sky. So that's just
I don't see how it could be pie in the skying way more men than your book is asking your No, no. My book actually has 15 plus thousand. You have You have how many? Hold on. You have how many? You have how many ecclesiastic marriages that your church pastors are going to go into the bedroom and enforce marriages? You can't even give me a number. You can't even give me a number. You said that.
Nobody said that the pastors are going to go in the bedroom and enforce anything.
Social pressure.
Stop lying. All your social pressure. Listen. Where's your social pressure? How many people do you have in your ecclesiastic marriages? How many people got married under that?
Millions. Give me a number.
Millions of people have it up. Go ahead and type it up.
People have an ecclesiastic marriage. They may have under your scenario. You want me to type?
Yeah. We don't
How many you don't know exactly, but you're sneezing at my number, but you don't know at all. Hey, listen. There's a lot you don't know.
Even if it was the case, you never adopted the state.
But you don't have any number.
Even if it's the case. Hang on. number. Hang on. Even if it's the case that uh all they ever did was get a state marriage certificate and never even followed that portion of what I'm saying, right? The number is still lower by their own by the state's own numbers. It's still lower in traditional.
Give me a number of your marriages that you're proposing that we're all going to follow. We don't know. We don't have polls. We don't have a number.
Yeah, we don't know for sure.
I would venture to say it's very little under 100. All right. So, now we got No, it's not under 100. Okay. Certainly under 100. No, it's not.
All right. I don't hear anybody talking about it other than you.
Yeah. Well, that's cuz you're not around traditional churches by your own admission. But yeah, there's people who have crowning ceremonies, get married by churches who don't get a state
traditional churches.
In fact, there might be data on that. You should look.
Please look it up.
There might be
under your under your scenario.
Yeah. Under my scenario. But the thing is is that even if we even if we were to 125
even if we were to grant it.
Yes.
Still from the state's own admission, the divorce rate still significantly lower for a reason. 20 to 30%. Okay, so it's still lower. It It is nice.
Significantly lower.
It would be nice. You still have men under unsettling divorce conditions. You still have men under state funded divorce. You still have men under child support. You still have men under parental alienation. You still have sexist marriages. You haven't accomplished most of these things.
Two out of 10.
Two out of 10. What?
That would be two out of 10. It's 20%, right? It's two out of 10 of those marriages. As opposed to your system,
four out of 10.
Yeah. In your system. Five out of 10. In your system, it's much higher. It's the system that exists.
No, it's not.
But you're telling me 150 marriages. This is all of these scenarios. I And I have to be I have to be honest with you.
Um
this wasn't much of a debate because No, listen. Much of your scenarios were make believe to be honest. They were they were pretty make believe. You would have to have a an extremely considerable movement
to be able to accomplish them.
You would have to have millions of people to do how many Catholic in the United States. It's my turn to ask. I can ask him if we do, but that's not the number I'm looking for. That's not the number. It is the number we're looking for.
We're looking for ecclesiastic marriages under your scenario.
No. Listen, even if it were the way it works for you, Even if it were the Do you agree with me that if you take the state out of marriage that that is going to assist in the reduction of divorce?
You can't take the state out of marriage.
Why not?
That's what you're telling me. Tell me how many people have done it.
Yeah. But why can't you? This is a major argument within the space that many men would consider or are considering marriage but don't want to get married to the state. I'm actually surprised that Andrew agrees with that. Let's proceed
because no fault divorce a woman can go into divorce you even if cuz you're not you're not under her control if you're not married authority
by the states. You're not married. How can she take you to divorce court? Can you explain that to me? I
asked you this earlier. Have you been through a divorce?
It doesn't matter. Answer the question.
That's a yes. So, you've been through a divorce.
Why does that matter? What is it pertinent to the debate?
This is why. Can I Can I finish? You've been telling me I'm cutting you off. You won't let me finish,
bro. I want an answer to my question.
Here we go again.
Can you answer my question?
I mean, I can play the game you're playing.
You You just won't answer questions,
please. All right. Listen, I mean, I thought you were a tough guy. Listen, under this scenario,
div a marriage, even if it's ceremonial,
okay,
religious,
it doesn't matter if she files for the divorce, you will still be going in court to fight that. I don't care.
If you file for divorce, if you're not married by the state, dude,
listen, you can answer my question.
You're completely missing this. This is what tells me you haven't been through one. Have you talked to a divorce attorney? A woman can file. You have to respond and provide evidence that you were not married. Now you in your common law living with your kids is going to be difficult. I'm trying to give you some information.
Common law marriage.
Okay,
that's different. In some states, there is no common law marriage. So just not common law marriage.
So just answer I'm California doesn't even have common law and that exists.
It could be ceremonial. My understanding is is that you have to be legally married in order to get divorced. There's no wiggle room for that. And there's there is common law marriages. So that's the rough in between. But if you've had if you're in a non-ommon law marriage state and you've had a girlfriend for 20 years, she can't divorce you. Now, I have heard of cases where they throw a lawsuit on you. I I have heard of that. And they'll try to sue you for money as if it was a divorce. Right. if she was a stay-at-home and you worked and you made sure that she didn't, you know, gain any skill sets or anything like that. I've I've heard of that, but not that they can go to divorce
Court, can get married in Fiji. It doesn't matter. Soon as you get back here, if you practice marriage, the whole institution at that particular point, if she files, you sir will have to respond to that suit. If you do, I would hope and pray that the judge, not God, grant you your wish.
At that point, your argument fails because you then would have to say, "My ecclesiastic reverend on the little house on the prairie granted this marriage, but it doesn't count under the state. She can do this and you have to respond."
Can you help me with this? Cuz I am I am actually confused. Uh, so let's say a woman and a man went out to a field and declared themselves. You got a scenario. Let's say if Yeah, let's say if a man went out to a field with a woman and declared that they're married. Correct. You're saying she can still go to a divorce court and divorce him. She can file for the divorce. You have to respond. Yeah. Respond. Yeah.
What does that mean, though? That doesn't mean Again, I'm I'm informing you. What does that mean? This is how a lawsuit works. She's a petitioner. She files. She says, "We walked on coals. We went outside. This was a This was a union. I consider it a marriage. Everybody knows and addresses us as a marriage. This is in non-common law states. We receive mail at this place. We've been living under the same roof for this many years. You will have to respond to these allegations."
Now, you're going to have to say, "Yeah, on your petition, this is not true. We have an ecclesiastic marriage and a prenup under God." and we lived together but we weren't married. That's a response to the lawsuit and then you proceed to trial and hearing.
This is this a lawsuit or a divorce? Divorce is a lawsuit. Okay. So, I'm Divorce is a lawsuit. Can you look this up? Can you file for divorce without ever getting married? Yeah. I don't Oh my goodness. You are slow. You can file a lawsuit for anything. So then it's not anybody can sue you for anything. Okay. So if you go into there and she So they're just suing you. A divorce is a lawsuit, but a lawsuit is not necessarily a divorce. Yes, it's a lawsuit. That's not a divorce. Come on, dude.
Can we pull this up? Can you file for a divorce without getting married? Divorce is a legal process that ends in legally recognized marriage. You never obtained a marriage license and your marriage was never registered. Summarized according to the state law, the courts have no marriage to dissolve. You're full of [ __ ] Saying that they can Yeah, you're full of [ __ ] They can just sue you for whatever. You said they have no marriage to the to saying that they're just going to sue you. No, no, no. You still have to You still have to respond to the law. Yeah, but you don't have to go to divorce court, dude. You do file a response. You still have to That's not a divorce court. That is the divorce. No, it's not. It's a court of circuit court or some [ __ ] Not the divorce court.
Listen, this is You got caught in 4K. You're full of GBT. That's GBT. In this situation here, we can bring a lawyer into this and say, "Can she file for a divorce?" You're saying, "Well, the outcome is," Hold on. Where's the lead attorney? You're saying the outcome, they can't legally enforce it. That's what you hope the outcome is. You hope the outcome is you still have to respond. All you're saying is that a woman can sue you for anything. Correct. Yeah. But that's not the same as filing for divorce in the divorce court. That's where they would file it. No, they can't. No, they're not filing it in the divorce court. My gosh. All right, that's where they would file it in the divorce court. They would file a lawsuit. No, they would file it in the family court. Trust me. Now, here's the thing. Family court's different. That's the divorce court. Wait a second. Wait a second. Family court is a divorce court. Wouldn't you have to do that under specific criteria for family court like a kid's involved or something, you can just Correct. So, in the scenario, Hold on for a second. That's not the same as this is ridiculous. That's ridiculous.
Listen, listen. The family court is what people call the divorce court. There's no building that says divorce court. You understand that? Yeah, I agree with that. So, you have a woman with children. Yeah. That you say you're not married to you. If she files Yeah, you still have to go under family score jurisdiction. She could you still have to respond because there's children. Yes. Because there's children. At that point, my point is made. She has filed. She They may say the divorce doesn't count, but now how do we deal with these children? No. That is a part of marriage. Did you not have children with the woman? Come on, dude. So, if you're not that is a part of So, as long as you don't have children, then they can't do that. Correct. That's what you're saying. But you're saying I'm actually asking. You're saying they're going to have children. Correct. Yes. You're going to go to family court. Yes. You could go to family court if she files for the divorce. Not not for divorce. They could go for like motions for support or all sorts of things. Any of these divorce court? Yeah. When we talk about what men deal with when they deal with marriage and the result is a divorce, one of the things they deal with is child support, also domestic violence which falls under the the family court. So you cannot be married. You have a you have a problem here with this. Listen, so I agree fall under I believe that if you have children that that could go through the family court system. Nobody ever disputed that though. Still dealing with issues. Hang on. But that's the different one. That's different than filing for divorce. You can't file for divorce. You're never married. That's one two and hang on two. The second problem here is the reason that men usually lose their custody when when it comes to uh divorce and divorce court is because legitimize they plot escape hatches. So what they do is they go, "Okay, of course they do. Look, um, you know, I'm going to take two years to make sure that you're [ __ ] destitute on the way out and then I'm filing in divorce court." Correct. You're going to get hit over the head from what happens in divorce court. Whole different ballgame though. If it's the case that you have children with a woman and she goes and she files for custody, you're actually in a much better position to get custody at that point than if it was the case that you were married through the state. Dude, much better position. Uh, that confuses me a little bit. No, I think you're in a much better position to get custody is if you were married.
Guys, I'm going to stop the content right here. This was such a fantastic damn conversation. I got to give a round of applause for the two brothers right here for getting it up and talking like this on this platform. Again, I'm going to leave a link to it down description box down below. We went through 25 minutes of it. 20 25 minutes of it. It's over 2 hours long. So, go click down there to ensure that you can look at the entirety of the conversation. I should go call the lead attorney up in here right now to give his thoughts on that lack section right there. My understanding is is that you can't file for divorce if you're not married. But I think that CGA's point there, even if he was wrong about filing for divorce, the point is is that she can just file a lawsuit on you for being in this long-standing relationship if you guys were married on a prairie somewhere. And that also doesn't include common law marriage that exists in some of the states. You know, that's why the state that you're living in is actually important. You should probably for all you long-term situation shippers, right? And your girl might be living with you or something like that. You might want to check out the common law laws within your particular state that you live in just so you can plan effectively. Nevertheless, again, shout out to both of them. Getting up on here and doing a debate is not easy, right? But it is dope that it gives us the opportunity to dive a little bit deeper on these topics so that we can continue to discuss some of these solutions or these prescriptions as they put it. All right guys, let me know what you think down in the comment box down below. Put a time stamp so I know what exact portion of the conversation that you were speaking about. And I think I'm done here for today. Until next time. Peace. So what's our first dirt like we in charge capital like steel bars and rapping like here we are here we are mediocre tutorial reviews like comment share my views come up and I pay my duce in my black shoes he break it down yeah it's empty check out the sign it's empty no one put it down like it's to y'all.