Cancelled For Appearing On This Podcast - Vincent Harinam

Vincent Harinam is a data scientist, law enforcement consultant and a writer. Vincent came on Modern Wisdom 2 years ago. Shortly after that, he was pulled into a meeting at the prestigious British University he was teaching at to be reprimanded for his comments. Today we get to break down what happened, and continue our dating discussion that got him in so much hot water. Expect to learn why academia has such a problem with independent media, what has changed in the dating market over the last 2 years, what the future trends in mating crisis-land will be, whether men are actually lost or just need to work harder, whether polygyny can fix population collapse, Vincent’s thoughts on my male sedation hypothesis and much more... Sponsors: Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D and more from AG1 at https://drinkag1.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get an exclusive discount from Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/MODERNWISDOM (use code MODERNWISDOM) Get 20% discount on House Of Macadamias’ nuts at https://houseofmacadamias.com/modernwisdom (use code MW20) Extra Stuff: Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom #academia #dating #relationships - 00:00 Vincent’s Life Since Appearing on Modern Wisdom 08:09 Vincent’s Interview Where He Got Cancelled 19:00 Predictions for the Future of Academia 21:23 The Future Consequences of Young Male Syndrome 28:58 Can Marriage Solve Today’s Male Problems? 34:24 How Close Are We to a Massive Male Crisis? 40:50 Why Aren’t Men Approaching Women Anymore? 47:44 Should Polygony Be Encouraged to Increase Reproduction? 52:56 How Inner Citadels Are Destroying Society 1:00:36 Challenges & Benefits to Adopting Polygony 1:04:05 Hungary’s Policies to Increase Birth Rates 1:09:29 Vincent’s Ideas for Encouraging Higher Birth Rates 1:13:34 The Future of Men’s Advice 1:29:24 Where to Find Vincent - Get access to every episode 10 hours before YouTube by subscribing for free on Spotify - https://spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - https://apple.co/2MNqIgw Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - https://chriswillx.com/books/ - Get in touch in the comments below or head to... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/

• 0:00Speaker 1

  What has happened to you since our last episode?

• 0:03Speaker 0

  Ha. Well, it's a good question. I guess we take the uh the long the long route in explaining what exactly has happened here. You're of course well aware of the situation. Uh you've been you've been a great friend and a great uh uh confidant in uh in this affair, but uh what I can tell you is that uh I am no longer in the academy as a member of staff and a lecturer. I've left the academy because I was soft cancelled at a prestigious university in the UK. I won't say which one. I prefer to keep the details off the table. It's uh it's happened quite a quite a bit of way back now, so uh we'll keep that off the table. We can certainly talk about how we got there, or at least how we got here.

• 0:43Speaker 1

  Yeah, I was instrumental, at least in some regards. I facilitated your soft cancellation.

• 0:50Speaker 0

  This is correct. It was you and Michaela Peterson. So I have the both of you to uh thank for this software.

• 0:55Speaker 1

  Speakable duo of people to be associated with. Yeah.

• 0:58Speaker 0

  Awful individuals that try to improve the lives of others by putting out content to help them better themselves. Gosh, you people, you know?

• 1:04Speaker 1

  Okay, so take it from the top. What what was the issue? What was the experience? What were the conversations? What was the outcome?

• 1:11Speaker 0

  Well, I suppose it's the just to take it from the very beginning is that I'd went through an application and interview process for a professorial job at a as I said, uh a fairly prestigious university in the UK. And

• 1:24Speaker 1

  what were you at the time? What were you? I was a lecturer. I was a lecturer. What's the official is that lecturer of or is that associate

• 1:31Speaker 0

  professor? It's just a lecture ship, a lectureship or a lecturer, you would uh teach classes more so. It's it's it's sort of like um a contract-based professorial job at a non-UK university, so you would you would be seen as a teaching stream professor at another university, for example. Yes. Yeah, so I I'd I'd gone through the process of of this uh job, and I did end up getting it. So uh and the reason why I know all these details is because it was told to me by various members of staff and um various members of the hiring committee after the fact. So there's certain people that were very unhappy with what had happened, and they couldn't keep it themselves, and they gave me all these details about the things that had transpired behind closed doors. But just to just to explain what it happened is that um I was essentially chosen to be the professor.

• 2:20Speaker 0

  I was essentially given the job, but the contract was not sent to me, right? It you know, this was the decision was made on a Friday, and HR obviously doesn't work on the weekends, so you'd have to wait till Monday. But in between the Friday and the Monday, one member of the department or a few members of the department had heard that I would be the next in line for the job. And so they brought up the podcast that I was on, the podcast with yourself, the podcast with Michaela, and then it became an issue that I was not a worthy candidate because of my participation on these platforms. And so they'd essentially brought it back to a second interview, a a sort of kangaroo court, which was set up in such a way that it put me to be a bad candidate. Chris, before I even sat down in that seat for the second interview, they'd already plane the podcast that I was on with you, uh, decrying that I was a member of the manosphere.

• 3:13Speaker 0

  They they actually one member of the hiring committee actually uh circulated an article, salon.com article on the red pill and decried me as being a member of that community, that being the Manosphere community.

• 3:27Speaker 1

  Yes. We spent much of that conversation for the people that haven't listened to it. We spent much of that conversation uh the mildly criticizing to outright mocking the red pill, confusion confused ideas about what men should and shouldn't do. It was about two years ago when we sat down, and it was one of the really formative conversations that I had really you've written a number of great articles about this, but yours have been really, really sort of foundational in my understanding of the conception of what's going on, this toll girl problem, imbalance, hypergamy, all that stuff. But it was so overly delicate and and so softly spoken throughout that we would have been accused by anybody in the manosphere of being blue-pilled.

• 4:14Speaker 1

  Anybody uh in the manosphere would have said this is simping for feminists, this is you're you're you're wantonly bending at bent breaking your back because you want to be accepted by the wider community at large. And what it shows is just how far the spectrum can move that to internet people, you were so blue pilled that you're a cook, but to academic uh academic people, you're so bigoted that you're unspeakable. Do you know what I mean? And it's the same, it's the same conversation.

• 4:45Speaker 0

  Same conversation. And the thing which I found most interesting is that I was told that one member of the hiring committee was so appalled by this decision that they refrained from actually making a call as to who would receive the job. They'd abstain from voting at all because they thought it was it was simply a travesty, which kind of rings true to me because it it it seems to me I have two sort of takeaways from from this experience. The first takeaway is that people have this tendency to believe that cancel culture is something which is overt in public, that it's a public cancellation, right? Someone is is a public figure that is no longer uh working a job because members of their faculty or department have removed them because of some sort of public consternation. But my contention is that true cancel culture is pervasive and silent.

• 5:33Speaker 0

  It's behind closed doors, where members of the academy will uh essentially blackball uh potential candidates because of their political ideologies, let's say. Now, I would say that the other takeaway is that I don't think it's purely based on political animus, the these sort of soft cancellations. I think 50% of it is political and the other 50% of it is personal. I would say that a lot of these cancellations are premised around jealousy within the academic sphere. Jordan Peterson comes up as the optimal example. I think that half the people that wanted to cancel that guy, they did so because of his views on Bill C16. And I think the other half of the academics that wanted to cancel him were simply jealous of him. They didn't like the fact that he was courageous and bold in making a public statement regarding this particular policy, and that he was accumulating all of the limelight.

• 6:23Speaker 0

  Academics are very jealous and petty people by nature, just based on my experience. You ask any academic, they'll tell you stories about individuals in their department. Uh I think um it it's often a tribute to Henry Kissinger, but uh there's a quote out there uh from uh Wallace Sayer, who was a American politics professor out at Columbia University in the 1950s and 60s, and he said that the reason why university politics is so vicious is because there's so little at stake. And it ties into something called Sayre's Law, which stipulates that the intensity of feeling in a dispute is inversely proportionate to the uh value of the thing at stake.

• 7:01Speaker 1

  Yes. Well, one thing that it's got in my head is that personal vendettas masquerading as social justice or righteous call out is such a beautiful strategy to couch your own petty juvenile capitalistic personal egotistical aspirations in because it gives you it allows your questionable morality to stand on the shoulders of someone that you deem as having done something wrong. And it means that nobody's actually going to bother to look at you.

• 7:32Speaker 0

  This is right. This is correct. Uh I I would say that it's not a meme. I think it's probably correct based on the studies that are out there that a lot of American professors are probably far left and support far left economic policies. If, for example, we were to snap our fingers and make these individuals have a substantive salary, overnight they would change their their economic views. They would go all the way from the left to probably the center, maybe even the right regarding taxation.

• 7:59Speaker 1

  Are you saying that the problem to fix wokeness in academia is to pay people more?

• 8:03Speaker 0

  No one complains when they're highly paid, do they?

• 8:08Speaker 1

  I had uh Corey Clark on the show. I may have that one on uh on WhatsApp. And um you know, another skew is that the academy is now very heavily dominated by women, and women and men have differing ideas about what is isn't is not acceptable behavior, what is and is not acceptable findings to be discovered in research, how behavior between students with the lecturers and lecturers with each other and so on and so forth. It it's a shifting uh shifting tectonic plate, I think, beneath the academy in a way that it hasn't been previously. Uh and then again, the modern world of like leftism, not traditional liberalism, but like this sort of internet leftism is purpose-built to make the followers look good online.

• 9:00Speaker 1

  It's uh it's performative empathy, it's look at how much I care about this disadvantaged group. It's the tyranny of that minority, um, you know, trying to uphold whatever the most oppressed this week it's people with a club foot, and next week it's people with a gluten intolerance, and then because that makes you seem like an empathetic person. But as we've seen over the last couple of months, uh, you know, Ellen DeGeneres, Lizzo, Amy Schumer, you know, the most vehement forthcoming of the like card carrying we care about the the little people people are actually the ones that are the most bigoted behind the scenes.

• 9:46Speaker 0

  I I would completely agree with that statement, that sentiment in its entirety. I would say that within within these sort of institutions, it is the appearance of the thing without the thing itself. And and the the I I suppose the frustrating part though. Is that the effects or the downstream, the second third or third order effects of that is that you're not hiring the most meritocratic candidates. The best person does not receive the job simply because they don't hold certain ideologies which are in consonance with those within a department or within an institution, which drives down the quality of research if you're not hiring the best people to do the best the best uh form of research out there. So we are in essence taking institutions such as the academy, such as the news industry, and downgrading it because of political ideology, because of wanting to look good.

• 10:32Speaker 0

  We reduce the quality because we reduce the the quality of individuals that we hire based off of their ideology.

• 10:39Speaker 1

  Okay, so you turn up to this second interview, which actually turned out to be a struggle session where you were held up against a wall and had my podcasts our podcast episode shot into your face. What happened after that? Because that didn't necessarily mean that you needed to leave the academy.

• 10:56Speaker 0

  Right. Uh excellent question. I didn't care. That's that's the short answer. I think I I'd relay this point to you is that when this will happen today.

• 11:04Speaker 1

  Yeah, we spoke about it.

• 11:05Speaker 0

  Yeah, exactly. We spoke that day, and within the next 24 hours, I'd moved on to something different. I look, I'm the type of person I I take these sort of things in stride and I don't linger on them for very long. I like to move on to the next thing right away. And you know, in life, you have a lot of options, at least I'm I'm the type of person that can cultivate different options, and I took an option that was available to me. And um I'm very happy now. To be honest with you, I I looked at this particular soft cancellation very similarly similarly to the COVID lockdowns, in the sense that it was a form of accelerationism because I was always going to leave the academy at some point and join the private sector, joined industry, and they just did that for me, right? So thanks, I guess. I mean I I suppose I have no animus towards the people that did it. I understand, I understand uh their point of view.

• 11:51Speaker 0

  I understand how this happens in the academy. And to be honest with you, if you're an academic in uh at an academic institution and this sort of thing happens to you, it should be expected. It should be expected at this point. Uh cancel culture, as I said, is endemic within the institution, and it's a soft cancellation, it's never public, or very rarely is it public.

• 12:10Speaker 1

  The the the soft cancellation thing is so interesting as well, because it's another uh layer of protection from the accuser to the accusee. Exactly.

• 12:21Speaker 0

  Exactly. You know, we we we

• 12:22Speaker 1

  there's no point at which anyone in HR or some news organization could come in really where's the story from like right? Vincent wasn't allowed to sit at the cool kids' table in the staff tea room, you know, like where there's there's none of that. It's it's all the easy to disguise, second ordery, wishy-washy manipulative stuff.

• 12:46Speaker 0

  Right, I I agree with that. And I I would say that it's a pernicious brilliance where you can use the available machinery and mechanisms within an institution to be able to cover your tracks to be able to demonstrate that look, I I did all the necessary things that I needed to to ensure that this candidate had a fair hearing. I had a second interview where I had him or her, you know, say exactly what was on their mind and answer these questions, but in actuality it's done in a way that again identifies flaws in candidates, uh manufactured flaws, as it were, that makes them a candidate that's not viable for a job or a position.

• 13:20Speaker 1

  What were the

• 13:21Speaker 0

  particular issues?

• 13:22Speaker 1

  What were the particular issues that they took with our episode?

• 13:25Speaker 0

  Well, well, one thing was the comment that I made around um the ravisher and the ravish. So again, that conversation, the line of conversation was around compatibility between two people in a relationship. And so they made it seem as though I was in favor of women getting ravaged, something ridiculous along those lines. I

• 13:41Speaker 1

  think a lot of women are in favor of women getting ravished as well. I I

• 13:45Speaker 0

  don't want to comment on that, Chris, because I might get cancelled again.

• 13:48Speaker 1

  That's impossible

• 13:49Speaker 0

  at this point, second cancellations. But you know, that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about. It's it's nitpicking uh bits and pieces of podcasts, bits and pieces of media without any sort of context and presenting that as the person's views on a certain point without playing the first five minutes uh prior to that. And the mere fact that I was on a podcast with Michaela Peterson was also another problematic issue. Uh another thing that was interesting as well, I'm just remembering this right now, is that someone said to me, ah, you know, one of your podcasts, or at least the podcast with Chris was on Rumble. That's like an alt-right side. It must mean that you are somehow affiliated with these sort of people. So it's just it's just circle and circumstantial evidence that is clumped together to make an argument in favor of someone being a terrible person.

• 14:32Speaker 1

  Oh dear. Yeah, the guilt by network association or guilt by website association there. Yeah, I I've it's so strange, man. The um and this is the closest that I've been to someone uh going through this experience. I said it to you at the time, I am sorry for the for the uh annoyance it caused, even if it does end up being an accelerationist thing and it was you know a blessing in disguise and all the rest of it. The fact that you've managed to alchemize a shitty situation into a good one doesn't mean that the shitty situation should should have started in the first place. But yeah, to be this close to it for me, personally invested in you as well and your well-being is so bizarre because I see these stories on the internet and I know that they're happening. I know they're not a fiction, but because it's never been me, right, yet, and because it's never been anyone really close to me, it kind of seems like LAPing, or it almost seems like a story or something else that's not going, you know, like these Portland Antifa people, like it just doesn't seem like they actually exist.

• 15:35Speaker 1

  It just seems like they just exist on like Fox News or CNN or something, and yeah, I I don't actually see them, and this has made it a lot more visceral and real.

• 15:45Speaker 0

  Absolutely. Personal experience, I think is the greatest teacher. I'm I look there, I guess this is a general comment about reading versus doing things. I'm I I would say that when you're up close and personal and you're actually doing an activity, then that's a form of primary knowledge, right? You have a very good feel about what something is actually like versus secondary knowledge, which is something that you acquire from reading a book. You're just reading something that someone else did, right? You don't actually feel the thing, see the thing with your eyes. You're experiencing what is happening on a page. So I would say that it's it's far more impactful. Uh uh and it's far more instructive when you see something up close and personal, primarily.

• 16:22Speaker 1

  I'm glad that you went through it so that I didn't need to learn the lesson. Uh me and uh George Mack had this idea of 2D lessons and 3D lessons, and it maps exactly onto what you're talking about. So a 2D lesson is me reading Bill Perkins' book Die with Zero, in which he says that wealth, time and uh health, time and money are the three main parameters that you're playing with, and you want to end up enjoying your life as much as possible, which means maximize your health, spend your wealth appropriately and utilize time as best you can. And uh reading the book, the book's really impactful, it's great read, it's four hours long, everyone can go and listen to the episode I did with Bill or go pick the book up, it's fantastic. Reading the book was a 2D lesson, recording with him, and then him saying, Hey, what are you doing after this? And I was like, I don't know, probably gonna go home and like edit this episode.

• 17:10Speaker 1

  He's like, Johnicum wake surfing. I was like, Yeah, sure, I can wake surf. So within two minutes, he's made two phone calls. The driver that he had outside loops back around the block, picks us up, his boat captain jumps in the boat, drives, picks us up from Austin 360 bridge, and then I get to go to his house, which is the most expensive house in Austin ever sold. It was built by the creator of Bumble, the founder of Bumble built this fucking compound on the water. Um and then I got to see firsthand how he's instantiated the strategies from the book. You know, he's he's really utilizing as much as possible to free up his time to free up his mental uh ability so that he can have fun with his friends so that when he works, he's incredibly focused, and for when he's as time off, he's incredibly relaxed. And as I, oh yeah, like I didn't need to read the book.

• 17:55Speaker 1

  I could have just come and I could have just had the 3D lesson, not the 2D lesson.

• 17:59Speaker 0

  Absolutely. I think that's a really great analogy when it comes to learning, uh, especially in this age, is that would you so just a general question here? Would you rather take lessons on how to shoot a basketball from someone who's written a book about shooting a basketball or Michael Jordan?

• 18:14Speaker 1

  Michael Jordan, all day

• 18:15Speaker 0

  Michael Jordan, exactly, all day long. Not because he's Michael Jordan, but because he's been in the NBA and he has a uh a long, a long um many years of experiential uh knowledge on this sort of issue. So what I'm noticing, especially um with these sort of courses that a lot of the um the gum tree people are developing is that it's never people that are the best of the best in a particular area, it's always the people that are writing books that are selling courses. All the people that are that are doing these things are too busy making money. So you should be you should do like Nancy Pelosi and just copy trade all these people or just copy trade Nancy Pelosi or something because she's actually doing she's not writing a book on investment. Yeah. Yeah,

• 18:51Speaker 1

  it's interesting. Is that a political? No, not at all. Not at all. Yeah, the the the of all of the lines that I don't want to cross, it's Nancy Pelosi's insider trading, that's where it's gone too far. So final final thing, now that you are on the outside looking in to the academy, what is your prediction for the future? We have some close friends, Rob Henderson being one of them, uh that uh remaining in for better or for worse. What's your prediction for the future of academia?

• 19:19Speaker 0

  Twenty to thirty years. It's it's no longer going to be a viable institution because of things like this happening. Why, why would anyone, why would any parent uh send their child to a four-year institution soaking up all this money, all this debt for four years of ideological indoctrination and essentially not paying for an education? Why would anyone subscribe to that sort of model? I mean, there was uh there's an interesting tweet, I don't know on Twitter very often, but there's an interesting tweet I read the other day. What is one scam that uh we are uh aware of, but not is not as publicized. We haven't sort of um gotten rid of the scam. And the answer that came up the most was higher education. So what this means is that there's going to be alternative means for education, uh, not just the university itself.

• 20:05Speaker 0

  I think the university is going to fall by the wayside. You're of course going to get top tier universities that remain at the very top, but everything else uh within the periphery, all the second, third order or excuse me, third degree universities are going to be eliminated or have their their uh enrollment rates reduced significantly. I would say within the next 20 to 30 years.

• 20:26Speaker 1

  Yeah, well, I don't know. I can't work out whether that seems tragic. It does seem tragic to me, actually. I'd like the the antipathy toward higher education isn't toward the institution of university and it isn't toward academia, it's toward the people who are not using it for the thing that it was supposed to be for. And I try and check myself when I go like, oh, you're down with the universities. It's like, no, no, like the universities are fine. It's just some of the fucking people that are inside of them.

• 20:54Speaker 0

  This is correct. The institution in and of itself is is brilliant. Why do it was designed to educate a ton of people in a short period of time, that being four years, but it's become a degree mill tinged with ideology, and and um it's it's really just a business. I mean, that's that's another way of thinking about it. And and anything which is sort of sets itself out to be a uh principled but is based off of gaining money is not principled if money is the primary principle or the driving factor.

• 21:23Speaker 1

  What do you think's changed in the dating market since we last caught up? I know that you've had other things on your plate, like trying to save a career and then find a new one. But what have you been? What have you been getting particularly interested in the dating market?

• 21:34Speaker 0

  Well, I wanted to move away from all the descriptive stuff. So the last conversation we had was on what exactly was going on in the dating marketplace with relation to men and women, but I wanted to look at it from the perspective of the future. So examining, looking at the current dating trends and trying to extrapolate 20, 30, 40, 50 years into the into the future, what those results were going to be. And I haven't gotten around to building the simulation models. I know we talked about that. I'll eventually do that. But I've more I've mainly been looking at some statistics around um crime, violence, you know, the young male syndrome, as it were, and trying to make sense of all that.

• 22:10Speaker 1

  What is young male syndrome for the people who aren't familiar?

• 22:13Speaker 0

  Right. So young male syndrome is a concept that uh is sort of instantiates or says that young males, I guess between the ages of 18 and 30 who are not partnered, not married, are sort of low status or perceive themselves to be low status, they are the ones to engage in antisocial activity, uh, to sort of upend the existing political order, the existing social order, because of their inherent belief that they are downtrodden and low status.

• 22:41Speaker 1

  Right. And we have a interesting paradox on our hands at the moment that large numbers of men within the 18 to 30 cohort aren't having sex. They probably don't have a massive amount of meaning. We have got lots of uh unemployment in uh particularly previously employable groups, and they're probably not integrated very well into society, but we haven't seen an in-kind increase in antisocial behavior, mass shootings, etc. And this is something I put to you, my male sedation hypothesis, which has actually finally been cited by Bus and William Costello, which is pretty cool. Awesome. Um you have your background is actually like criminology statistician. Is that close enough?

• 23:26Speaker 0

  I would say so. I would say a data scientist that does criminology.

• 23:30Speaker 1

  Right, okay. That was clear close enough for me. So you are the guy, right? You understand the the dating market, you understand what's going on there, but you also have this very unique insight into antisocial behavior, criminal behavior, and it's it's coming at it from a demographic economist's statistician's lens. So what do you think? Like, what's the current trajectory got for young men and and what's going on? Why aren't we seeing everybody blowing everything up?

• 23:55Speaker 0

  I think we're headed for it. I think that there's a time lag or delay. And I think the thing with your thesis, the that's the docility hypothesis that it's correct, but the only element it's missing is an impetus towards violence, a galvanizing cause, as it were. I guess that's how I'll term it, a galvanizing effort. So it I'll give an example. So if you look at um research done by Scott Atron and Max Abram, so these are professors out in the United States. I think one guy was at NYU, they found that the vast majority of suicide bombers, in fact, all suicide bombers were male and single, young males are single. Um the vast majority, in fact, all of um uh terrorists were young, male and single. If we look at captured captured ISIS records, all of these individuals before they joined ISIS were young male singled, single, and then they got married once they joined ISIS.

• 24:49Speaker 0

  So you need some sort of galvanizing cause to to to sort of bring these docile men to wake them up in order to engage in violence. And the research on it is quite is quite phenomenal. Uh I was I was blown away by some of the things that I was looking at. So I'll give you one statistic. So one study looked at um percentage increases in single men within a population, and they found that for every one percent increase in single men within a population, the um proclivity or the probability of civil war increases by 0.25%. The number of terrorist attacks increases by something like 0.05 attacks, and the number of people that die in terrorist attacks increases by 0.7 people dead. And, you know, again, this goes back to that notion that you need an impetus to drive people uh towards some sort of endeavor to rouse them into being.

• 25:39Speaker 0

  It's why it's why I think Andrew Tate and ISIS have so much in common. I'm not equating them in in that sort of way. I'm just saying that they galvanize young men uh towards a specific cause.

• 25:51Speaker 1

  Here is a mission, here is a journey, here is a goal that is grander than yourself, you're not useless, you can contribute.

• 25:59Speaker 0

  This is right. And you know, to add a few more points here is that there is a historical precedent for uh polygyny's association that is um well, polygyny, you know, we can sort of break that down, but it's more so a surplus of single uh young men engaging in violence. So one particular example I can give you in antiquity is is um China in the 18th century. So this is Huapei. It was called the Nian Rebellion of 18 uh 1851 to 1863. And essentially what it happened in Huawei was that there was a massive famine, there was a infanticide, and the ratio of men to woman was 126 men to 100 women, which meant that there was an immense surplus of men, and all these men that were socioeconomically poor and deprived had to defer marriage by around six years because of this surplus.

• 26:46Speaker 0

  And I think 25% of them didn't end up getting married. And this was also affected by the polygynous practices of the rich. So rich men in Huawei China accounted for about 10% of the marriage, even though they accounted for maybe 1% of the population, something like that. And what this led to was massive riots and and and roving bands of thieves and criminals that would go around the Chinese countryside assaulting people. We see a similar example in medieval Portugal, where uh I think you know of this example. It's my favorite

• 27:19Speaker 1

  one.

• 27:19Speaker 0

  It's your favorite one. So medieval Portugal sees uh a I think it was 112 men for every woman. And because of primogeniture and and first son rights, the firstborn son was the one that would inherit and be able to marry, which meant that you had a cohort of second-born sons and poor men that were sort of listless. They didn't have a partner. So the the um the monarchy in Portugal decided to ship all of these surplus men out to conquest, out towards overseas, so they could get that aggression out there uh as a means of conquest and uh colonialism.

• 27:51Speaker 1

  Get the aggression off Portugal mostly.

• 27:54Speaker 0

  Exactly. Because they because I suppose the the leaders at that time knew that these men were were the the um the linchpin towards revolution and change. And their opponents knew that in order to to quickly change the political regime, to kill their enemies, to kill the ones in power, they would have to galvanize these men to action. Uh, give them some sort of um prize or uh benefit or incentive to engage in political violence, which is very easy.

• 28:19Speaker 1

  Yeah, I'm looking at this here. Uh landmark study of 500 high-risk males in Boston by criminologists John Law and Robert Sampson. Found found that marriage reduced the odds of criminal activity by a whopping 35%. This was corroborated by another major story of 400 London men who found a 44% increase in criminal activity during periods when men were single or divorced. Furthermore, men who stayed married saw an 80% decrease in their offending rate. Finally, a metro-analysis of the scholar scholarly literature found a negative association between marriage and crime in 78% of eligible studies. There's also an amazing one that I learned from Roy Baumeister. So they got men to cross the road and looked at how far the nearest car was to them when they did it, and men were either crossing the road in the presence of women or without the presence of women.

• 29:13Speaker 1

  And in the presence of women, shock horror. It was way closer. The car was half the distance away that they would do, and they were just prepared. So risk-taking behavior very much is informed by women, and wives very much do domesticate husbands. Absolutely.

• 29:29Speaker 0

  Absolutely. There's a lot of studies that that tell you okay, well, fair enough. I'll just make this point. Is that there's one caveat with these studies, and it's it's the age in which the men get married. But the the the overall study was that men's uh level testosterone drops when they have children. Now, is that mediated, or is that the case because they have children and they're married, or is that because they're of an age where their testosterone begins to drop? That's the question. But I even still I would say that that's that's quite a an important study with regard to the pacifying effect of a family on a man. And The two studies that you've mentioned, um, at least the criminological studies are linchpin landmark studies within criminology. So Samson Lobb, OG criminologists have, you know, round the gauntlet in terms of uh great studies. David Farrington, who did that study in London was a former colleague of mine at Cambridge.

• 30:17Speaker 0

  He's renowned for these sort of studies. And these are the sort of studies that that that really bring the notion of marriage into uh perspective as a force for um reducing potential violence in the future.

• 30:28Speaker 1

  Also, obviously, marriage means that you are less likely to grow up in a single parent household. And I'm sure that you, as a criminologist, have some terrifying statistics about the different kinds of crime outcomes and risk profiles for men, boys who grow up in single parent households versus two parent households.

• 30:47Speaker 0

  100%. So that's the second wing of the argument with relation to future violence, is that there will probably be a cohort of young men that grow up without fathers that engage in criminal activity. One study that I looked at found that 85% of prison inmates grew up in a single father, uh single mother household. Uh, you know, general increases, so one percent increases in male figures, not necessarily fathers, but male figures within uh neighborhoods decrease the crime rate by a substantive margin. It was something like 0.5% uh off the top of my head, it could be lower, it could be higher. But the point being here is that the presence of of two parents within a household is substantive and incredibly impactful when it comes to not just deterring young boys away from crime, but improving life circumstances.

• 31:33Speaker 0

  So, for example, uh single mother households have 40,000 less income relative to stable uh two-parent households. There's there's rates of of depression that are higher in single parent households, um, graduation from high high school, getting into post-second year institutions, living in poverty. You're at a complete disadvantage if you live in a single parent household. And sort of just to contextualize this in its entirety, 41%. I it's either 40 or 41% of children in the United States are currently born out of wedlock, and one in five children in the United States, so that means 21% of them live in single parent households. That is single mother households to be more specific.

• 32:12Speaker 1

  Staggering. I had Melissa Carney on the show. Have you seen that? The two-parent advantage, it's coming out in about two weeks' time. I have not seen that. You'd love it. So she uh she's been on with Rob and uh Robin showed me to her book and uh I had her on yesterday. Dude, it's shocking. Like she's a policy wonk type from like Washington and uh straight up economics, right? It's just raw economics is what she's looking at. And the outcomes are really, really scary. And then, you know, to fold back in the kind of social justice performative empathy line. I think that many people from the high falluting institutions from the uh parts of government that could instantiate policies that would be able to help these people feel like they're being like they're patronizing especially minority groups, you know, this is specifically a problem in the black community.

• 33:09Speaker 1

  Uh, this is specifically a problem, like it's it's not people that are uh college educated. If you if you've got a four-year college degree, none of this stuff touches you. And this is not

• 33:22Speaker 0

  at all. You you probably won't even get divorced, right? The the cohort of uh the the number one cohort that has the lowest risk of divorce are college educate educated women. Yep. Yep. And the thing is, Chris is I think that it it's actually racist in and of itself to to view the these views of these highfalutin individuals as actually a soft form of bigotry, it's a soft form of racism. So look at these people and say, well, ah, you know, they can't get married. Uh it it's okay if they don't have intact families, it's just how they do things. Well, that that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. I mean, Thomas Sowell has has looked at this issue in in a great level of of um uh a great level in in in his books, um, or at least one of his books uh was white white um liberals and and black rednecks. I believe I have that had that mixed up, but he looked at rates of of intact black families and the success that they had.

• 34:11Speaker 0

  And it's only when the Model Cities Act came into effect in the 1960s in the United States that we saw a degradation of the black family structure and therefore uh increases in crime within black communities.

• 34:23Speaker 1

  Yeah, that's

• 34:24Speaker 0

  interesting.

• 34:24Speaker 1

  Okay, so going back to male sedation hypothesis, young male syndrome. Is it your belief then that the right galvanizing activation energy flash point thing could light what appears to be kind of like the materials, the foundation, the tinder of a particularly disgruntled group of young men. Is that kind of what your concern is moving forward?

• 34:50Speaker 0

  Precisely. Precisely. I would say exactly that. We are one match being lit away from a massive crisis. And I know I stated some examples in antiquity, but there are modern examples to to really uh implicate this particular crisis. So China would be the operative example. So you know you you're well aware of the um the what was it called, the uh the one child policy in China, uh, yes. Uh the one child policy in China resulted in an approximate uh number, what is it? It's eighty eighty million lost women, so which means that there's a massive surplus of of young Chinese men that are now coming to age that are single. And what the statistics indicate is that five, there is a five to six percent increase in violent crime and property crime in China because of this surplus um uh uh amount of young single men.

• 35:43Speaker 0

  There's another study that indicated that between 1988 and 204, one seventh of the rise in in property and violent crime within China was due to the surplus of men between the ages of 16 and 25. Uh here's another one I'll give you. Uh I'm just listing statistics at this point. But um in Mexico, for every uh one for the decrease of one men per 100 within the population, there is a uh uh commensurate 0.43 reduction in homicides per 100,000. So less men you have within a population, surplus-wise, less homicides you have.

• 36:17Speaker 1

  For the people who don't understand why when we don't have a massive gender disparity here, like it's around about 50-50 men to women. We haven't had infanticide because everybody wants to have a male firstborn or whatever. Can you explain why it's the case that we have these disengaged out of relationship men if it is around about 50-50.

• 36:46Speaker 0

  I guess you're talking about um the imbalance of women that are in a relationship and uh the commensurate number of the or the associate number of men that are not in relationships despite the 50-50. Well, I think the reason uh is probably because of a soft form of polygyny, where you have a small number of men or an outsized, not quite an odd size number, but a decent sized number of men within the population that have relationships or dalliances with these women who think that the that they're in a relationship, which means that you have a cohort, an increasing cohort of men, perhaps the mighty the majority of men that are not in any sort of relationships. Uh this actually harkens back to a historical or an anthropological finding, which was that we have um 66% of our ancestors were female, something like 70 to 66 to 70% of our are female or ancestors were females, whereas 30 to 33% of our ancestors were males, which meant that a small number of males in antiquity and ancient times had sex and reproduced with the majority of women.

• 37:45Speaker 0

  We don't have as many male ancestors as we do female ancestors, and it's the same sort of principle here within the dating market.

• 37:53Speaker 1

  Yes, to put that into a little bit more easy to understand numbers, I think it's right. 80% of women reproduced, 40% of men reproduced. It's around about it's still the two to one, but that's within the the overall population.

• 38:08Speaker 0

  Yeah, yeah. So one sorry, go ahead. I was just going to state another statistic, but uh I would think well, one one thing I looked at was that um one anthropologist found that for every 17 females in uh for every 17 female ancestors of ours that reproduce one male ancestor uh ancestor of ours reproduced. So it's quite an imbalance between the two.

• 38:31Speaker 1

  Yeah, that's huge. Um okay, so if soft polygyny, which is one man capturing the attention of many women. Now we're not seeing, you know, uh polycules with just one Dan Belzarian floating around, but with

• 38:48Speaker 0

  paid women, yes.

• 38:49Speaker 1

  Correct. In a in a world that's got casual sex and situationships, and we're just seeing each other kind of labeless relationships going on, it's quite easy to see how one guy could capture the attention of many women. Uh Louise Perry calls them digital harems uh when it comes to online dating. And uh even if it's not that, you know, one guy of high value cycling through multiple women throughout his twenties, throughout his 30s, throughout his forties, and now I'm mid-40s and I'm finally going to decide to settle down, um, can leave a wake of sort of broken hearts that are kind of left for other men to pick up, which I think is one of the criticisms of the more extreme sides of the red pill uh and and manosphere advice, which is if the goal is to kind of raise up the well-being of men, a lot of the advice around how to date women creates precisely the broken, used and discarded women that men are now going to have to pick up and piece back together.

• 39:54Speaker 1

  It it's it's a at its worst, it's a philosophy that benefits some men at the expense of. Everybody else.

• 40:01Speaker 0

  That's right. I think that's entirely correct. That critique of the manosphere, at least the red pill is 100% correct. They create the problem with the ideology that they espouse that they rail against, which is young women that are having sex with multiple men that are incredibly promiscuous. Well, you're the ones that are preaching about having multiple sexual partners, that is going out with multiple women. So you're essentially creating this cohort of women that don't want to have a relationship that apparently use men for their resources. So it's it's it's staggering to me, and I do think that this is a serious problem that's happening in in modern society. Although there is evidence to suggest that there is, of course, a fertility crisis and a crisis around sex where we're no longer having a sexual recession, as it were.

• 40:49Speaker 1

  I found this is a uh Alexander date psych stat uh he's coming back on soon. He's like, I if I could do a dream round table for dating, I would probably get you, Alex, and William with Rob. Like you four as a round table would just be phenomenal to sit you guys down with enough enough caffeine and four hours and a few good mics. But he has um he did a really really big study. Um 50% of men aged 18 to 30 say that they haven't approached a woman in the last year.

• 41:22Speaker 0

  That's not surprising. That's not surprising at all. I I I'm not even shocked by that. I mean, there's a pew research study out there that that sort of corroborated well, actually the same finding that of the men that are not in a relationship, it's something like 53% of them.

• 41:45Speaker 0

  As the reason why they were not in a relationship.

• 41:47Speaker 1

  Oh, you need to send me that. I haven't seen that one. I thought you were going to cite the one that said 55% of men between the ages of 18 and 30 say that they're not looking for casual or long-term relationships, but we don't know what which of these are crossing over the top, right? Like presumably, a lot of the men that don't want casual or long-term relationships are not approaching women, but some non-insignificant number of people who do want to be in relationships are also not approaching women. So you have this very interesting thing about men at the moment among like a million other interesting things, is that you have a culture of guys who want to, you know, kind of take life by the horns, they feel like maybe antiquity would have been better for them, uh, that the modern world has kind of robbed them of something in terms of meaning or purpose or connection, uh, that there is an imbalance and some unfairness going on, and they want to kind of grab life by the horns and finally get a purpose at the same time as being sedated heavily by porn video games, social media screens, weed, convenience, uh so they're sort of pushing and pulling in in at least pushing ideologically and pulling in terms of what they're doing with their lifestyle, they're stated and revealed preferences.

• 43:00Speaker 1

  And then when it comes to the women thing as well, you know, a lot of the time the guys will uh applaud uh an Andrew Tate, somebody who really does the forge their own path when it comes to women, and I think he's got you know a number of kids by maybe a number of women, and he's doing all this stuff and it doesn't slow him down and he'll go do this thing. But then, you know, how many of the 50% of men that haven't approached a woman in the last year are part of that cohort? And oh, you know, me too, me too, it went to try and sanitize men and it sterilized them instead and all the rest of it. I I I don't disagree. I I think that you know the the fallout of an overly zealous Me Too movement has been catastrophic for women's dating desires.

• 43:42Speaker 0

  Completely, completely. I'll I'll give you a statistic there. They it was either Hare's poll or an American studies poll, I forget the exact polling institution, but they found no it was Pew. It was Pew. Uh it's always Pew. Pew found that of the individuals that they interviewed with regard to the Me Too movement, 69% of men said that it was deleted it had a deleterious effect on men's ability to know how to interact with women. 61% of women felt the same way. So of the cohort that they interviewed, which is supposed to be representative representative of the population, the vast majority of people view the Me Too movement as negative towards interactions, romantic interactions between men and women, because it it's sort of kneecapped then from taking the initiative and um asking a woman out because that could be viewed under the strictures of Me Too as harassment.

• 44:34Speaker 1

  Yeah, but yeah, 20% of Gen Z say that a man approaching a woman in person sometimes or always constitutes harassment, and that's only going to continue to get worse as people live life more vicariously through their screens. This aversion to doing anything in the real world uh it is the I remember I was out for dinner with a friend and I mentioned I was bored of him and I said that we should go and talk to talk to those girls over the far side. And this is years ago now. Um, and he looked at me like I'd suggested going and like hitting them over the head with a hammer and dumping their bodies in a rubber. He's like, I have been told under no circumstances that I am to go up and talk to a woman. I'm like, dude, like you are putting yourself on the back foot with regards to to dating.

• 45:24Speaker 1

  And and yeah, it's so strange. Uh uh, such a hydrahead, this sort of generalized risk aversion that everybody has, where whatever the safest lowest number of potential negative outcome approach strategy is the one that's right. That's the one that we should go for because you're not optimizing for what's best, you're optimizing for what causes the least number of potentially bad things. And I I I haven't said this on the show before. I'm gonna try and thread the needle, but if I'm clumsy, please forgive me. How many how many sexual assaults actually know? How many non-approaches by a guy to a woman is one sexual assault worth. Is it two million? Is it five million? Is it 20? Is it zero? Because there's a number, right?

• 46:10Speaker 1

  It could be, and I'm completely open to it's an unlimited number. No one woman should ever, ever have to face any sexual assault. Absolutely. And there is no um uh cash value of men not approaching women that would go with that. But you can see why it's an interesting question, because you think if you are creating an environment in which men never approach women, I would imagine that well, maybe it doesn't reduce sexual assaults. Maybe it doesn't even do that. I don't know. But let's say that it does. You would say, okay, well, there is it is a trade-off then, right? Because if you have a sort of a trickle-down effect of men who aren't sexual assaulters not approaching women who they wouldn't be sexually assaulting in an attempt to reduce sexual assault, you have this uh collateral damage with regards to approach anxiety.

• 47:02Speaker 0

  Absolutely. That that's a phenomenal point you've raised. And look, uh this sort of goes back to our last conversation, and it's all about risk. No one wants to take any risks anymore. That's that's that's the main thing I see from Generation Z. We're very much inclined to be on our phones and scrolling through our phones and not wanting to go outside, starting businesses, approaching people, meeting new people, right? We have a generation of of kids, both men and women that are entirely risk-aversed, that would prefer to live life in a bubble. Maybe maybe COVID and the lockdowns are feeding into this. Maybe this is a side effect, but I think this was going on way before that. I think that we're only now seeing this metastasize, and it's only going to get worse as things progress forward.

• 47:44Speaker 1

  Mads Larson, you sent me a paper of his, and he's actually coming on the show in a couple of months. I met him at HBES, the human behavior and evolutionary society conference a couple of months ago. Sex ratio studies suggest that women's perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygynous mindset, which in prosperous monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair bonding. More than six million years of hominin evolution under promiscuous, polygynous, and monogamous regimes shaped make preferences that evoke different cultural and behavioral responses as environments change. The church's imposition of lifelong monogamy contributed to the emergence in the modern world. But if this world's gender-equal societies no longer motivate reproduction, being more open to polygyny could be worth considering as a means for increasing fertility.

• 48:30Speaker 1

  What do we think, Vincent?

• 48:32Speaker 0

  Here we go. Here we go. So just to break down the argument for the audience, the fundamental question we're asking here is whether or not polygyny would be able to end or reverse the fertility crisis. Whether relationships or marriages where there is uh one man married to multiple women, in this case that would be polygyny. Uh yes, polygyny would be conducive to more children being born. And I guess we can sort of break this conversation down into two parts. The first part would be well, what is the historical precedent regarding uh uh polygy uh polygyny or polygamy and whether or not it actually is conducive to increases in the fertility rate. So uh my contention, and I think that a lot of evolutionary psychologists, so your Amira Grossbards, your Robert Wrights, your uh Matt Ridley's would probably agree with me in in saying that polygyny is actually or polygamy is actually the norm and not the exception.

• 49:27Speaker 0

  It is actually monogamy that is the exception, that is the new fangled uh in invention in terms of the institution of marriage. So just to break down the historical evidence, there was a uh American psychologist by the name of George Murdoch, who wrote a very influential book uh called the Ethnographic Atlas, where he surveyed 1,170 societies. And what he found was that 850 of those societies partook in polygamy of some of some kind. They were polygamous in nature. Now, the interesting thing now is that another anthropologist by the name of Francois Nielsen took Murdoch's data. And re-analyzed it. And he wanted to identify how many of these societies were monogamous. And so what he found was that it was something like 21.5% of herding cultures were monogamous.

• 50:13Speaker 0

  6.5% of advanced horticultural systems were monogamous.

• 50:24Speaker 0

  All of this is to say that monogamy is again the rule, but the exception. Just to interject. Just

• 50:31Speaker 1

  to interject there, what you notice, at least even in those sort of four different types of societies, is that as the ability to accumulate wealth and resources increases monogamy decreases. Because if you are a nomadic hunter-gatherer type person, how are you going to support two wives, bro? Right. Like the meal that you eat is what you kill tomorrow.

• 50:53Speaker 0

  Excellent observation, Chris. Excellent observation. So that's that that exactly that in and of itself is a is a fundamental truth of these of these statistics, that the more wealth that is that is sort of distributed across society, and I guess the less centralized it is, uh, the more likely it is for us to have a monogamous society. Uh, but but that but that being said, just making the general point here around uh monogamy and polygyny, I do think that our species is more uh I say geared towards that, naturally geared towards that in terms of a factory setting that is polygyny. So uh Joe Hendrick, I believe you had him on the podcast a little while. Weirdest people in the

• 51:29Speaker 1

  world, Joe's great.

• 51:30Speaker 0

  Yeah, he's awesome. He's a Harvard psychologist for uh the audience uh to know. And uh he often conducts studies of his undergraduates, uh particularly women, and he often asked the question well, if you were given the choice of being the second wife of a billionaire or the primary exclusive wife of an average man, what would you choose? What do you think in terms of percentage of women chose to be the second wife of a billionaire, Chris?

• 51:54Speaker 1

  Do they think that their answers are going to be seen by the rest of the class?

• 51:58Speaker 0

  Let's just forget about that.

• 52:00Speaker 1

  If they did think that their answers were going to be seen by the rest of the class, it would be way, way, way toward the monogamous thing.

• 52:05Speaker 0

  Completely completely private and anonymous.

• 52:08Speaker 1

  Right. Oh I would still think maybe only like 30 to 40% of women would say the billionaire at an absolute top end. I can't imagine more than that. 70. Uh 70%. Elon keep popping them out, baby.

• 52:26Speaker 0

  Oh boy, yeah. Well, that that's that's staggering, right? So there is historical present for for polygamy, and there is a modern precedent for it. I think if women were were given the choice as they are uh today, in the sort in the in the form of soft polygyny or or soft polygamy and soft harems,

• 52:43Speaker 1

  there

• 52:43Speaker 0

  is a lot of evidence to to substantiate uh uh this institution of marriage.

• 52:48Speaker 1

  Well, I wonder uh it would not surprise me. We have seen uh retreats into varying inner citadels all the way back. Did I tell you this one, Isaiah Berlin's idea that Rob Henderson taught me? This is fucking awesome. Let me Citadel. So Isaac Lynn says when the natural road toward human fulfillment is blocked, human beings retreat into themselves, become involved in themselves and try to create inwardly that world which some evil fate has denied them externally. If you cannot obtain from the world that which you really desire, you must teach yourself not to want it. In short, if you cannot get what you want, you must teach yourself to want what you can get. This is a very frequent form of spiritual retreat in depth into a kind of inner citadel in which you try to lock yourself up against all the fearful ills of the world.

• 53:35Speaker 1

  And Rob explained it in a simpler way. He said, if your leg is wounded, you can try to treat the leg. If you cannot, then you cut off the leg and announce that the desire for legs is misguided and must be subdued. So wow. It's like the it's the I don't need to lose weight, these airplane seats are too a too narrow argument, right?

• 53:54Speaker 0

  Maybe some bathwaters, right?

• 53:55Speaker 1

  Yeah. So what you see or what we have seen is an increasing number of different retreats all the way back is, you know, um I don't need a man. Uh children don't need a father in the home to be able to raise them. That is an inner citadel retreat of I have struggled to find a man, a father who was stuck about after we've had a child together. Um from guys from the guys' side, uh, just hold on, boys, the sex robots are coming, the entire make town movement, um, you know, all of the Sigma male lone grindset bro culture, all of that is a retreat from I don't need to be hurt by other people, I don't need to be hurt and betrayed by friends or by partners or or or by society at large. And don't get me wrong, dude. I s I understand and have massive sympathy for all of these people that have retreated into it, but I do think it's important for the people that are doing that to understand where this compulsion comes from, that this is them teaching themselves to get what they can uh to want what they can get, not to get what they want.

• 54:58Speaker 1

  And you know, we're our own desires and what it is that we truly feel. We we are so duplicitous to ourselves that we don't even know that we're being duplicitous, right? It's unbelievably easy to make the world believe a lie if you believe it first. Right. So uh that's that's an effective way to do it. But you know, we've got all of these different retreats. One of them you saw with that uh TikTok girl with like the blonde Bob, and she was wearing like 1950s uh it's the Trad wife, the Tradwife movement. Oh, that meme. Yeah, she even dressed in this sort of frilly floral kind of dress thing. Anyway, so can I ask you a

• 55:35Speaker 0

  question regarding Trad wives? Just a straight question. What trad traditional Catholic wife, just a trad cathol woman is on TikTok behaving like that.

• 55:44Speaker 1

  Yeah, well, that's a good question. And she doesn't mean right now. I don't mean that kind. I don't mean that kind of traditional.

• 55:52Speaker 0

  Okay, so you've clarified for me, great.

• 55:54Speaker 1

  So that was one. That one is probably a not everything's in a citadel. I don't want to make it an unfalsifiable theory, but that is that is a recanting of uh having to be too independent, uh having to make too many decisions, and you know, that some people may say that that's a return to a more sort of ancestral form of living. Um you've also got one that would be uh it's bimboism, which is the opposite, a similar, similar but opposite end of the of the spectrum, which is women retreating from contributing to uh like the earning potential or socioeconomic uh uplift of themselves by themselves. So I'm not going to go to university, I'm not going to bother uh trying to get a job, I'm not going to bother chasing down a career, I'm just going to chase down the man.

• 56:42Speaker 1

  It's not quite trad wifey because I'm not doing it kind of in praise of the man, it's still a little bit more atomized, solipsistic, like individual kind of is what it is. In some regards, but it's it's there's there's a there's an amount of narcissism in there as well because it's uh it's all praying at the altar of going to brunch with the girls on Sunday. It's not praying at the altar of I want to make like acute family with sandwiches that are cut in triangles, which is like the trad wife equivalent of this. But what and then to get my long meandering fucking tale to get to where I'm going is it would not surprise me if we see a movement that tries to somehow empower women that polygyny is an effective strategy for them to move into because you have to create a cultural meme that legitimates people wanting what they can get, and if what you can get is being the second wife of a dude that earns 500 grand a year, how am I going to justify this to myself?

• 57:42Speaker 1

  And if there is a number of people trying to justify it to themselves, that creates essentially a market for a meme, right? We interject something into the culture, this is now the new broad it's it's it's Sigma wives, or it's like fucking like whatever, I don't know, and then poof, there you go.

• 58:01Speaker 0

  So the meme becomes reality. That that's that's what you're stipulating, and I think I I think that we're gonna get there. So Joseph Hendrick was involved in a Canadian court case. This was in British Columbia in 2011. I think he was uh he was also involved with an academic out of Oakland University by the name of Todd Shackelford, and they were brought in as academic experts on the concept of polygamy and whether or not it should be legalized uh within the the province of British Columbia. British Columbian government, of course, shot it down. It's now five years in prison for marrying more than two people. But nevertheless, uh there was a interesting statistic that I saw the other day that stipulated that 36% of Canadians were in favor of polygyny or polygamy, they were in favor of that form of marriage institution coming along.

• 58:55Speaker 0

  In the United States, I believe it was another Pew Pew Research statistic. It said that in 2003, 8% of the population was in favor of polygyny or polygamy. And now in 2023, 23% of people were in support of this institution of marriage. So we have seen a significant increase over the course of 20 years.

• 59:23Speaker 0

  It was gay marriage, but now it will actually be

• 59:26Speaker 1

  polygamy. Yeah, that's interesting. Can you work out what the change in fertility would be from a polygynous society? Have you looked at this? Because obviously what we've spoken about is women with no partner are unlikely to less likely to have a child. Uh, but not it's not impossible. A one-night stand will get you a child pretty effectively if you time it right. But you have other contradictory challenges associated. Especially if you're talking about polygyny, especially if you're talking about living in the same house together. You've got infanticides, you've got poisoning of different kids. You've got uh, you know, I found this out that a child that lives in a house with a non-biological mother takes a huge number fewer lifetime visits to the doctor.

• 1:00:17Speaker 1

  Just way less likely to the kids ill, like whatever, like he'll be fine, he's not my kid. Even if you love him like he is your kid, seeing raw Darwinian forcing functions are a hell of a motivator. So yeah, so talk to me, talk to me about the birth rate change, the fertility change that occurs due to polygyny in some of the challenges.

• 1:00:40Speaker 0

  I think the literature on it is quite scattered. So there really is no definitive evidence as to whether or not uh polygyny or polygamy, I guess we're kind of flip-flopping between these concepts. If it does have a substantive increase or impact, I should say, on fertility rates, I would say that the answer is probably no. So the historical examples that I've looked at would indicate this. So uh a study was conducted in Ghana looking at um fertility rates in 1988. So they're taking Department of Health Service records and trying to identify whether or not uh polygynous marriages equated to more children than monogamous marriages. And Ghana is an interesting example because it's it's one of a few West African countries, well, one of the few countries on the planet where 30% of marriages are polygamous.

• 1:01:30Speaker 0

  And what that study found was that there was no difference between the couples, that is uh polygamous and monogamous in terms of the amount of children had. The only mediating factor that determined the total fertility rate of a woman was how old she was at the point she was married. So the younger a woman is, the more likely she is to have woman over her her reproductive lifetime, which makes complete sense. So the only conceivable reason as to why uh polygamy would have a an impact on fertility rates is because it may influence women to get married to a a uh a resource-rich man at a younger age. That's the only possible explanation. But even still, when PubMed uh sort of accumulated statistics of West African countries, they looked at Senegal, Togo, Guinea, Niger, Nigeria, uh, and um uh Ghana, and again, they compared uh the rates of total fertility between monogamously married women and uh polygynous um women in polygamous marriages, and they found that there's no difference in the total fertility rate between these two marriage institutions in these West African countries that hire that had rates of of polygamy above 30 percent in terms of all marriages.

• 1:02:42Speaker 0

  The difference was about 0.1 to 0.5. In fact, in Ghana and Burkino Faso, the rates of total fertility were higher within monogamous marriages.

• 1:02:51Speaker 1

  Women in poly polygymous unions desire more children than women in monogamous unions. However, they do not have higher fertility rates than women in monogamy. This is

• 1:03:03Speaker 0

  correct, and they're less likely to use contraception or birth control.

• 1:03:06Speaker 1

  Yeah. That's right.

• 1:03:07Speaker 0

  So there is there is no evidence for it.

• 1:03:09Speaker 1

  Okay, so how the fuck is polygyny going to fix the birth rate problem then? I thought this was your golden pill. I thought this was your I thought this was your magic bullet that was going to solve. You're trying to

• 1:03:19Speaker 0

  get me canceled again,

• 1:03:20Speaker 1

  bro.

• 1:03:22Speaker 0

  No, this is not this is not my golden pill. I I don't I it's such a silly argument to make. It's it's it's I I you know what I despise the most, Chris. It's when people uh present public policies that don't have any sort of empirical backing, or the evidence on it is entirely scattered, and they don't consider second and third or third order effects. So let's say, for example, that we did institute this policy of polygamy. We made it legal and it obviously doesn't work, but what is that effect going to be what is that what effect is that going to have on crime rates with regard to to listless men no longer in marriages? It's gonna be catastrophic. Exactly. It's gonna be catastrophic. But uh I suppose we should turn two solutions. We should have a discussion around that and what we could potentially do. Have you looked at any countries or cases where they've increased their fertility rate?

• 1:04:09Speaker 1

  Hungary spent some ungodly proportion of their national GDP. Uh is Hungary the

• 1:04:16Speaker 0

  That's right. 4.9% of their national GDP went towards family and and child care spending.

• 1:04:22Speaker 1

  And they did 25%, 50%, and 100% discount for the first second and third plus child, and that was discounted exclusively to the woman's personal income tax or the family income tax for the rest of time.

• 1:04:38Speaker 0

  Yeah, so I I'll break it down in its entirety. So Hungary was the exact example I was going for. The Yoroba administration is given a lot of flat, but by God, do they have some good policies with relation to families and incentivizing children being born? So there's uh there's something called a hung the fundamental law of Hungary, which stipulates that the Hungarian government must have a vested interest in supporting Hungarian desire to have children, which means that Hungary in 2019 uh devoted, as I said, 4.9% of their national GDP towards family and and child care spending. Uh the OECD average uh for that, for that type of spending is 2.55% of the national GDP. So Hungary is miles above in terms of spending. And in terms of the actual policies, they have one particular policy, it was the loan policy that you're referring to here, where uh any married couple where the woman is between the ages of 18 and 40 can take out a general purpose loan interest-free.

• 1:05:37Speaker 0

  And if within the f first five years of taking out that loan, a child is born, the loan continues to be interest free and the payment is expanded or suspended for another three years. If a second child is born, then 30% of that uh of the remaining principal is taken off the books and it's expanded for another three years. If a third child is born within that span, the remaining principal is wiped off the map entirely, so it's gone. And I I can list another set of policies that they've implemented. They they have, and you know, actually, just to go back to that to stipulate the the total loan, it was like 31,250 euros that you could take out interest-free. But another policy that they have is with relation to a tax imperson. So every family uh if they have a child can have a tax reimbursement of 196,000 Hungarian forints, which is equivalent, I think if you do the the conversion, it it's about 550 US dollars every single year.

• 1:06:35Speaker 0

  Now, you know, maybe for the audience, 550 is not a lot of money, but if you take into c in into consideration that 30 per 37% of Americans do not have 500 to 1,000 dollars saved up in terms of emergency spending, it's a lot of money. And um I think the most popular uh policy that they have out there is with regard to taxation. So if a woman in Hungary has four or more children, she is exempt from taxation until the age of retirement. So she pays no income tax whatsoever. And there's like a 15% flat tax in Hungary.

• 1:07:08Speaker 1

  What did that do to their birthright?

• 1:07:10Speaker 0

  It increased it. So uh from the early 2000s, I get the I guess the late 1990s throughout the 2010s, Hungary's birth birth rates, or at least sorry, the the fertility rate, the total fertility rate was 1.3, right? So it remained uh stagnant and flat. Orban comes into power in 2010 or 2011, Fidesz wins, and these policies were implemented in uh 2015. In 2010, when Orbon was in power, uh, the fertility rate in Hungary is 1.3. Now in 2023, the fertility rate is 1.54. So it it hasn't had a massive increase, but it's had it it has had an increase. So we had 10 years of stagnation, 20 years of stagnation, and all of a sudden these policies are implemented, and you see a growth in the fertility rate.

• 1:07:58Speaker 0

  There is evidence that this stuff works.

• 1:08:02Speaker 1

  Yes. However, we haven't got ourselves back to 2.1. We haven't really even got ourselves close back to 2.1, and it's cost five percent of global GDP of a uh national GDP. So in terms of interventions, yeah, Hungary are trying some things, but I think that there are more uh fundamental forces at play here, and it does seem a little bit like trying to swim upstream.

• 1:08:27Speaker 0

  Absolutely. So just referencing the the you know fertility statistics a bit more internationally, uh, there's a study by Volcett in 2020, and they found that 23 countries would have their population reduced by 50% of more or more by 2100, and 34 uh countries would have their population reduced by 25 to 50 percent by 2100. 150 countries will no longer be able to sustain their current population by 2050. And this is because they're no longer having children at a replacement rate of 2.1 or whatever it is, 2.33 globally.

• 1:09:03Speaker 1

  Yeah, for every hundred Koreans, for every hundred South Koreans that exist now, there will be four great grandchildren. The 96% extinction rate over the next hundred years. It's they're in their

• 1:09:16Speaker 0

  low ones, I think. Um point

• 1:09:18Speaker 1

  eight.

• 1:09:18Speaker 0

  Oh my goodness. Yeah,

• 1:09:20Speaker 1

  0.8. Um so yeah, we okay, we have birth rate bad. We've spoken about it before. Um birth rate is not good. Have you got anything by way beyond tax incentives and making child care more aff affordable and allowing people to have loans and this sort of pyramid scheme staggering thing where more babies come out, more money goes in. What else have you considered anything? Have you got any more ideas? Aaron Powell

• 1:09:46Speaker 0

  I have to think about it more because the the issue here is doing research around public policy and and what to and what exactly to implement, but I would say that what really will solve this issue is more of a social and Investment in families, re-invigorating the institution of the family. Because I don't think we care about the family as an institution very much, and it's the reason why a society is crumbling. If you look at the Roman Empire, for example, Brian Ward Perkins wrote a book called The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, where he was looking at well, the zenith of the Roman Empire and then the collapse. And he said that the reason why the Roman Empire was not able to sustain itself was because it was not able to perpetuate institutions from one generation to the next. Romans in one generation were not able were not able to pass down the tenants and the importance of an institution to the next generation.

• 1:10:34Speaker 0

  The same thing applies to families within the West today.

• 1:10:41Speaker 0

  We're not able to pass down the importance of this institution from one generation to the next. So it's no surprise why there is a reduction in fertility rate, because we as a society are individualistic, overind individualistic to the point of atomization. We no longer care about families, we simply care about ourselves. And so if you if you only care about yourself, there's no need to have any children. There's no desire to focus on anything but your career and how much money is in your pocket. And that's not to say that these things aren't important. It's obviously important to have money and be able to provide for the people around you, but you can't spend that money if if you have no family. Who are you going to spend it on? Yourself.

• 1:11:16Speaker 1

  Yeah, you need a pro-mating culture, which I don't think that we have. And it it's you know, family is is totally right. This Melissa Carney book, Two Parent Advantage you're gonna love. Um, but more than that, even before that, just the concept that men and women should get along, that they should be compatriots or collaborators, as opposed to enemies or competitors or an adversary to be used and discarded or avoided altogether, you know, it it doesn't from the very very beginning of men and women interacting with each other, this situation doesn't lend itself to them working well together. So yeah, I think cultural uh uh changes very much needed, uh, individual agentic changes very much needed, but yeah, I it's fucking a roll of the dice, man. It's a real sort of coin toss about what's gonna happen.

• 1:12:01Speaker 1

  I mean, ultimately it's not an existential risk, right? Like I've spoken about population collapse a lot over the last year. It's not a genuine existential risk. It's not the same as like nanotechnology or bioengineered weapons or AI. Uh I mean, it's kind of not far off nuclear war because nuclear war wouldn't wipe everybody out, it would just fuck a lot up for a lot of people for a long time.

• 1:12:23Speaker 0

  Yeah, so uh uh an example actually would be I I guess it would be like the those you know, those Marvel movies where the purple guy snaps his fingers and half the people go away. That's actually the outcome. That's not far

• 1:12:34Speaker 1

  off, it's not it's just a bit more protracted. Yeah, but the the thing is as well, like the quality of life for people the only way that this doesn't absolutely annihilate quality of life for people is if we have AI that can supplant the current supplementation.

• 1:12:52Speaker 0

  Yep. That's right. And I well, look, that's what we're headed to. I mean, I would say that the only institutions that will not integrate AI right away are public sector institutions, law enforcement, for example, I know working with law enforcement organizations, they're not going to get rid of people. Uh uh governments are not going to get rid of people. Uh, they're gonna keep them in their chairs doing work that a computer could do. But you are going to see this a lot in the private sector where uh sort of the needs of people, perhaps healthcare, healthcare is one, uh, certainly transportation, um uh delivery services, these are all going to be automated, right? We're not we're I would say within the next 30 years, we won't have any truck drivers. This is all going to be automated, more than likely, self-driving trucks and whatnot.

• 1:13:32Speaker 1

  Talk to me about your perspective on men, men's advice moving forward over the next few years. They're kind of at one of the linchpins of what we've been talking about today, you know, what it means to be a man, the culture of manhood, masculinity, uh, and the advice as well that they're being given. What's your sort of feelings on where we're at now and your projection moving forward?

• 1:13:52Speaker 0

  I would say that the the current situation is pretty bleak. So my view is that the current advice given to men is that you should have as many women as possible, level up, which is level up is is fine, but leveling up to what extent is the question, but it's more so engaging in vapid sexual relationships that yield nothing in the long term. So there is it's always the advice I would say is always geared towards short-term gain, but no long-term gain with relation to personal relationships. And what I notice most about the relationship the advice given is that it lacks honor, right? We have a a cohort of men that retreat within themselves and have no interest in in benefiting society and the people around them. It's always about me, me, me. And if I if I were to give advice to men in terms of how to meet a viable partner, I would say go to places where you think you'd meet the people that hold the same ideas that you do, that have the same values you do.

• 1:14:42Speaker 0

  Perhaps it's a church or religious institution, maybe it's a uh a political conference where the like-minded are. And you be very upfront and honest about what it is that you're looking for. You can really only be yourself. I know some some guys in the red pillar are gonna be like, ah, he's a he's a cuck, he's he's blue pill. That's terrible advice. But if someone doesn't accept you for who you are, they're never going to accept you. So you might as well just be yourself and see and see where that takes you.

• 1:15:09Speaker 1

  Yeah, a lot of men's advice would rather you get into a relationship with someone who falls in love with a person that you aren't than you stay single for longer and finally find someone who gets into a relationship with the person that you are.

• 1:15:21Speaker 0

  That's right. Whenever you're on a date with someone, I always find that it's it's often like the person that you're sitting in front of is just a representative of that person. You know, they're they're trying to present the best and secretary. Yeah, press secretary, just presenting the best possible image of that person. It's only when you really get into the third and fourth date that you kind of realize that this person may not be who they said they were in the first date when uh Mr. or Mrs. Press Secretary was uh listing all the talking points.

• 1:15:46Speaker 1

  One of the things that I've sort of noticed throughout today's conversation has been this rapid uh culture counterculture dispensing of moving on to the next one of tiny memes and of uh uh of lifestyles, and I think we've definitely seen that with the red pill, you know, only probably two years ago when we last spoke, it was still in its ascendancy, probably. You know, you didn't have big dating panel shows as the sort of uh de facto manosphere format, and in that time they've ascended and now kind of dropped off on the back end, both Andrew and Tristan Tate distancing themselves from the red pill, saying that it's for like incel autist virgins or something, and um yeah, they they're so interesting to me how quickly these things ascend and how quickly these things uh descend on the other side.

• 1:16:43Speaker 0

  I have a theory about that, and it's it's with relation to have you heard of the concept of Lindy? Yes, Nasim Telep's concept of Lindy, so that which is a historical precedent will continue to be a precedent moving forward. I believe that Lindy applies to the red pill manosphere in the sense that ideas which are naturally bad, so the internal logic is is just awful or not sound. When it's brought into the mainstream, it accelerates its destruction. So in this case, the the the worst thing to ever happen to the red pill was that it was mainstream because it means that a lot of grifters are now going to be joining this environment, joining this circle of people that degrade the overall idea because again, the idea was subject to degradation in the first place. So I would say that there's a natural life cycle to this sort of um content, right? There's a natural life cycle to all sorts of content, but I would say in the next five years, I'd be very much surprised if you still had the certain I'm not gonna name the people.

• 1:17:36Speaker 0

  Why give them cloud on your on your channel? But I would I would assume that we wouldn't be seeing those faces on YouTube, at least not having the audiences that they do now. I mean, Ray William Johnson was a big YouTuber back in the day, where is he now?

• 1:17:49Speaker 1

  It's an interesting one, man. I I really really like that idea of um acceleration public accelerationism, we can call it, or like exposure-based accelerationism, where any idea gets molested and perverted as it becomes way more popular. Absolutely. And that means that you need to have an unbelievably high purity, very, very robust idea at its center. And if there are any cracks as it starts to get expanded out, those cracks will get expanded out too.

• 1:18:20Speaker 0

  Absolutely. And and I would just say this point. So you mentioned Tate, which I thought was very interesting with relation to his his affiliation with the red pill. I've always found him to be interesting because you know, he he's the type of person that professes to be for men. You know, he he's he's all for men's uplifting and improvement. When he was a guy that was promoting OnlyFans, like he was running an OnlyFans or a website of that nature, and and he sort of rags on men for being on OnlyFans. So it sort of seems a bit hypocritical that someone that is actively involved in perpetuating this sort of content would then essentially be selling the cure to this content in terms of his ideology. It it actually kind of ironically enough mimics a lot of what he says regarding COVID-19, where the same sort of people that apparently spread the disease are the same sort of people that make money off of selling the cure.

• 1:19:10Speaker 1

  Do you understand what I'm saying? It's very ironic. Well, you also have you know, uh only fans and and webcam girls and stuff like that are porn. So being being anti-Porn whilst being in the essentially the porn industry seems like uh an odd duality to be able to hold together. I think his argument would be something along the lines of that is an older version of me. That was me doing what I wanted to do then or what I needed to do then in order to be able to achieve the level of success that I needed to get to. Um, and there are cohorts of his fans that are absolutely uh have like selective amnesia about what it is that happened, and yeah, no, no, no, no, but that's that's an old version, and now there's like you know, the Islam version or whatever it might be. And dude, like I've spoken to Andrew again.

• 1:19:57Speaker 1

  Good bit over the last five years, and you know, I I've brought him on the show, even though I didn't publish the episode. And one of the interesting pivots I think that needed to be made by him and like everything that he was doing was he needed to stop pointing the finger at women because it was getting him too much negative attention. Right. And you notice you can go back about 18 months ago and you will see that up until that point, um, a lot of the like finger pointing stuff. He did that um that date with that girl. It's like a British, she's a British girl, she does like loads of different dates. Grilling thing, I used to do it. Grilling things, that's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever it's called. I don't know. Yeah. That what everyone knows what I mean. It's got like millions, it's tens of millions of plays.

• 1:20:44Speaker 1

  And just before that was when I noticed, or round about that time was when I noticed that the rhetoric had stopped from being like women are and women should be to men can be. And I think that that it's a much more sanitized version of this, right? Because saying that people can be better is significantly harder to see as being nefarious than like you are for like why aren't you in the kitchen, make me a sandwich, blah blah blah. Like, and that that that's a way to sanitize it. And maybe that's uh an awakening that occurred, or maybe it was a tactic to be able to kind of keep the same audience but pivot the talk about it. It's a

• 1:21:21Speaker 0

  shifting of political messaging. I I think that that could be what it what it is as well. But the the selective amnesia thing is interesting, but because it was only 2020 that he was running these campsites, right? It's not that far away. I know COVID has sort of extended people's memory of these sort of things, but 2020 was only three years away and or three years ago, and uh, you know, I I think with the Hustlers University, there was a modular around pimping your the girls in your life. Okay, I'm not I'm not making trying trying to make this out to be an Andrew Tate, you know, uh criticizing our but I I I like to be very critical of everyone and try and try to look at it from a very logical perspective and understand what exactly people's ideologies are and whether or not they're being completely bulletproof and truthful in what they're presenting or whether or not it's just a grift.

• 1:22:07Speaker 0

  I'm very conscious of of this issue now that that very famous people are are sort of getting one over the general population. Uh you know, it's why I'll come on to podcasts like yours because I I know who you are on the camera and I know who you are off the camera, and those people are the same.

• 1:22:23Speaker 1

  Well, it's hard, it is hard in some degrees, and I I can see why definitely as scrutiny increases. Andrew had started talking about this, he he sort of had this line that he's been trotting out for a good while, which I think is true, which is the things that you say when you've got a thousand people watching aren't the things you can say when you've got a billion people watching. And I I think he's he's right in that regard, like kind of the same as the purity of the idea thing, uh, you know, in efficiencies and inaccuracies in what you say and how you put it across, they become magnified when you have a city's worth of people watching everything that you do, you know, like million to one odds happen eight times a day in New York.

• 1:23:10Speaker 1

  And this is kind of the same. You know, the million to one misinterpretation happens tons of times a day if you're the most if you're the most Googled person on the internet. So yeah, I think you know it would be interesting to see what the space of men's advice looks like over the next few years. The Washington Post, Christine Ember's article uh was fantastic, another one just came out today. Uh Politico did uh a what's it called like the men's issue or something like that, and among that was seven different articles. That's nine articles in total that I've told you about there. Zero were written by men.

• 1:23:49Speaker 0

  Ah, that's

• 1:23:50Speaker 1

  true.

• 1:23:50Speaker 0

  Well well, I suppose I could turn the question on you now. So, what do you think the future of of this uh the sphere will be?

• 1:23:57Speaker 1

  Um I I don't think that Jerry Springer for the TikTok generation can continue much longer.

• 1:24:07Speaker 0

  That's

• 1:24:08Speaker 1

  right. Uh because I I just don't think that there's any there there. Uh and ultimately the way that you feel after you've watched some of this stuff, there is some great manosphere and red pill content out there, and even you know, the guys that sometimes get a bit more wayward also have like diamonds in the rough and and and fair fucking play. But ultimately, like your content diet should be spirulina for your soul, not fast food for your amygdala, and the way that I feel after I watch some manosphere content, to be frank, even if I watch like Destiny having a debate with like a pro-lifer or something which has got really nothing to do with the manosphere. I like I'm tense and my shoulders are high, and there's a ringing in my ears, and like the back of my head feels tight, and I just don't want to feel that way.

• 1:24:58Speaker 1

  And even if you can limbically hijack your way to getting lots and lots of plays, I do think that sooner or later people are going to catch on the same way as most people that are moderately educated aren't eating McDonald's every night, even if it would taste good. Like it's food in some ways, but it's also not food in some ways, too. So yeah, I don't know what the future of of the men's advice stuff has, man. Like it's uh it's a real fucking coin toss at the moment. Um the choice between sedated and listless or angry and listless. I would rather not have everything be set on fire, but only by like the tiniest of slivers, and the only reason that I can make that choice is because we're not at war. You know, if there was some sort of enemy force that everybody needed to be galvanized against, just turning the switch off on Pornhub, Instagram, TikTok, and video games and Xbox and PlayStation would be the best thing that you could do.

• 1:25:55Speaker 1

  Like, all right, sure, like men are angry, predominantly men have been uh victimized by this crime, what they're gonna do, get angry and then okay, well, point it point it in the fucking enemy's direction.

• 1:26:08Speaker 0

  Yes. Yes. Uh it's tough to say. I mean, I with regard, I suppose, with regard to the manosphere and and this sort of um content. The most interesting person, I think, in terms of a change or shift for me has been that Sneeko character, that guy.

• 1:26:25Speaker 1

  Because

• 1:26:26Speaker 0

  he went all the way from being sort of a degenerate in in terms of his messaging to now sort of level headed in in what he proposes. It's it's quite interesting because he may be emblematic of the overall movement of that of that movement that they they may shift from sort of the the gotcha Jerry Springer content to more wholesome content. It it is very much possible. Going from a heavy metal band to Christian rock.

• 1:26:48Speaker 1

  I wonder, I've asked this question for ages. I wonder how many of the realizations and personal growth arcs that we end up uh relying on are just byproduct of getting older. Like how much of it was you manifesting your reality, and I wrangled entropy and I did the agentic sovereign individual thing, and how much of it was, yeah, dude, and now you're just 35. Like and now you've got a bit more time and wisdom under your belt, and it was coming along for the ride. The insights were there along for the right. Roosh, B.

• 1:27:22Speaker 0

  Yep.

• 1:27:23Speaker 1

  Neil Strauss, uh, I'm talking to his assistant at the moment about bringing him on the show. Uh I sat next to I sat next to Tucker Max at dinner on Saturday night. Um we've known each other for a little while, so that was cool. You know, I'm sat next to his wife, and he's telling me about his five kids that are at home, and it's uh the problems he's having with his lambs, it's lambing season or some he's got lambs or some bullshit, and one of them like got caught in the kids' climbing frame, and I was like, This is a guy that wrote I hope this served beer in hell. And Neil Strauss, Neil Strauss sounds like a born-again, like unreligious born-again Christian, and Roche actually is a born-again Christian. And you know, you just have this, you absolutely have this um sort of Chad to Dad arc right

• 1:28:07Speaker 0

  growing

• 1:28:08Speaker 1

  up. The growing up pipeline, yeah.

• 1:28:10Speaker 0

  Yes. That's funny, isn't it?

• 1:28:13Speaker 1

  Yes, the people cycle of of young

• 1:28:15Speaker 0

  adulthood to adulthood, and then you're gonna be able to do it. I mean,

• 1:28:18Speaker 1

  again, think about the fact that like if you're growing up, you're you know how the accusation always gets more attention than the retraction in headlines. That's it's almost it's almost like the most effect. The most egregious version of yourself is the one that'll get all of the plays, and then the the milk toast vanilla I've got lambs and four kids at home version of yourself has as exited. So it's it's like permanently making accusations for the more hedonistic, gregarious, out there, shiny, shiny object lifestyle, but you don't ever actually publish the retraction, which is oh, and I grew out of that, so everyone's like left with this open loop of I bet Tucker Max is still slaying pus. And you're like

• 1:29:01Speaker 0

  he's gonna farm someone's. He's a true blaming. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 1:29:06Speaker 1

  Yeah. Look, Vincent Haranam, ladies and gentlemen, dude. I I love you to bits. I'm really, really glad to see you back again. Uh, I'm super excited. We haven't spoken about what you've got coming up next, but I'm sure that'll be released and made public within the next year, probably within the next few months to a year. Uh where I do you are you intending on getting back on anything publicly, you're still a digital ghost, no?

• 1:29:27Speaker 0

  Still digital ghost. I I thought about it. I know you and I were having a discussion about whether or not I would sort of come on and be a public facing person and be a public intellectual, but it's just not gonna happen. Well, you know, with me, if I have to think about something and I'm not actively doing it, I'm probably not interested in doing it. And I think my writing style and the way in which I I produce my work just isn't conducive to this environment. Everyone wants content very quickly, uh, a week,

• 1:29:50Speaker 1

  you know,

• 1:29:50Speaker 0

  every day. I can't do that. I need to think very closely and carefully about an idea and get it out in a couple months. And that I don't think is conducive to a a um a long career in this sort of environment. And I just don't want to do social media. Kind of just want to be left alone. Just to have my head down and do the things that I want to do. I Goggins is my man. I mean, we look, we all have a patron saint in this sort of environment. I think yours is kind of like maybe uh Rogan, you know, sort of the podcasting sphere. Mine is Goggins, man. You know, just getting after it, getting your head down and doing what you need to do.

• 1:30:18Speaker 1

  Get back to the lab, man. I appreciate it. Absolutely. Chris,

• 1:30:21Speaker 0

  buddy, thank you so much for having me. I love you, brother. If you enjoyed that episode, then

• 1:30:25Speaker 1

  press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few weeks. And don't forget to subscribe.