Rachel Wilson, thank you for joining me in the trenches
again. Well, thank you for having me
back. I'm so happy to be back.
It's been a minute. You and Andrew have been
fighting on Piers Morgan's show with feminists.
Yes, we got to go a few rounds with Clementine Ford, one of the
most notorious and annoying feminists anywhere in the world.
So that was that was pretty golden.
She was as rude and awful as I could have imagined her to be,
and I was able to fire right back.
So it was. It was actually a pretty fun
exchange I finally got to. She's like an avatar of
everything that's wrong with feminism and feminist mindsets,
you know? She insisted to me that my
husband does not respect me and called him a loser.
So I was able to fire back and ask her who the hell she is, to
tell me if my husband respects me or not and call him names
straight to my face. They get this idea that because
I submit to him that like, I'm not going to give them any
trouble. Like I'm just going to sit
there, you know, quietly and take it.
And then they get to find out differently, which is always
very satisfying. So I was happy.
To do it. Tell me a bit more about that.
Actually that whole submission thing.
I mean, you can understand where the feminists are coming from.
They don't. They don't get it.
Yeah, I mean, they don't know that they've been subjected to
about 150 years and billions of dollars in propaganda telling
them that, you know, submission to a husband is tantamount to
slavery. And it means that you don't have
a brain of your own and that you can't leave the kitchen, you
can't read, you can't drive. You know, it's like all these
these crazy myths that are still persist so heavily, especially
if these women like Clementine have been like really immersed
in the feminist propaganda, like the the feminist literature, the
gender studies garbage, right. If you've been in that world a
long time, you're convinced that men are the evil oppressors and
that women are in this perpetual fight for liberation and that
your husband is the most dangerous person to you.
Having a husband, you know, is puts you at risk of being
abused. And so they hear something like
the word submission and that word triggers almost all women,
even even myself, You know, when I, I was younger, if I heard
that word, I probably would have had just a knee jerk reaction to
submit that I don't have now, now that I've realised that
there's kind of been the spell cast to, to programme us to
react that way. If you say submit to your
husband, women's instant knee jerk reaction is never, you
know, I'm not a slave. I've got a mind of my own.
No one's going to tell me what to do.
And it it kind of tells you just how much it has pitted men and
women against each other and made women believe that the men
that love them the most are simply there to put a boot on
their neck. It's crazy.
But what do you mean by submission then?
So submission is, is not like a I think people would associate
it with like, you have no will of your own.
You don't have a voice. Like these are all propaganda
buzzwords We've heard like women didn't have a voice, which is
not true. If you've ever read my book, I
go in detail over the history that women have always had a
voice. Just because they didn't
participate in politics in the same way that men did doesn't
mean that they didn't have a voice there.
So submission is just this idea that you and your husband are
the 2 are one flesh and that, you know, wherever there are two
consciousnesses, you can't have this perpetual wrestling for
dominance or there's just going to be never ending conflict.
So one consciousness has to submit to the other to some
degree, right? Doesn't mean your husband
doesn't love you or he's not going to take your well being
into account. It's actually the opposite.
It's actually this idea that what's best for him is what's
best for me because it's best for us.
So I'm not going to fight him on his leadership.
I'm not going to constantly be in a state of perpetual
revolution against his leadership.
I'm going to submit to his leadership.
Maybe even at times that in the back of my mind I have questions
or things like that. It's really the only way that
relationships can work. And that doesn't mean it's
slavery. It doesn't mean I don't have my
own brain. Germs talk to me plenty.
And I think he would tell you that I indeed do have my own
brain and my own thoughts about things.
So just the word. We've been conditioned to think
submission. Is this like slavery, you know?
And if you're a Christian, you're actually following a
biblical principle. Absolutely.
And by the way, men submit as well.
Men are supposed to submit to God and to the Church.
So it's not like we believe in Christianity that men can be
these awful tyrants and they can do whatever they want to.
You certainly if your husband and you are in the Church, like
Andrew and I are Orthodox, he has to submit to what our priest
and Bishop would say. So if, if he was doing something
abusive or, or something like that, you would definitely think
that our priest and Bishop would, you know, tell him he
can't do that. And then he would have to submit
to them or be, you know, punished, excommunicated,
something like that. No, of course, we've never had
to do that. This is the magic, right?
Is that when women try this submission thing, this crazy
Christian submission idea that I'm always talking about, you
find that it doesn't, it doesn't feel like work because there's
so much less conflict in the relationship.
There's just the woman gets to relax, right?
It's like this big weight off your shoulders that you don't
have to fight your husband on everything.
You don't have to battle him for for dominance and prove that you
can make the decisions too. And he trusts that you're going
to that he's got your well being in his hands and so he has to do
a good job. So men tend to like, rise to the
occasion when this happens and so it doesn't feel like a
struggle anymore and it doesn't feel difficult.
It feels like much more relaxed and the conflict just kind of
melts away. It's not like we never disagree
on anything, but it's certainly nothing like it was, you know,
the first few years of our relationship when I was still
really programmed with all the feminist stuff that I didn't
even realise I was doing, that I don't think most women realise
they're doing. I guess a standard feminist
response would be OK, but why must you, the woman, submit?
Well, there's a whole bunch of reasons.
So if you're not a Christian, you probably wouldn't care that
this is what God's design is for us.
This is what the Bible says we were.
Women were created for man. We are created to be a helpmeet
to man. Now that doesn't mean we're not
equal in the eyes of God or that, you know, we don't have
equal worth or value to God in his eyes.
Of course we do. But we don't live in this
egalitarian utopia that and we can talk about where that came
from, but this, this idea people have that everyone should be
equal and everyone should be the same is just not the actual
world God created. He created a very hierarchical
world where it's God, man, woman, child.
And then we have like the the earth is man's dominion.
It's our nature and the way we were created has a hierarchical,
hierarchical structure to it. So you can see this in our
biology, for example. It doesn't.
There's a reason there's never been a true matriarchal society.
There are some societies, like tribal societies that have had
some matrilineal elements to them where maybe you know, the,
the women have a role that's, you know, very honoured or maybe
the last name or something is passed through the woman.
But certainly Christian societies, we haven't ever had
that. And even in the world, through
the history of the world, there's never been a matriarchy.
And you might ask yourself why. And it's because ultimately any
notion of women's rights or women's autonomy, we don't have
the use of force at our disposal.
Men collectively will always be above women in that way.
So you can you could never have a situation where women
collectively overthrow the male power structure because we
simply can't use force to do that.
We rely on men to use force to enforce any notion of our
rights, to protect us, to provide for US.
Men are this protective circle around us, between US and nature
and the big bad world. And they've always been.
But since we have such that this cosy technological world that we
live in now, it gives women this illusion that that doesn't exist
anymore, that we don't need men, that we can do anything men can
do. And all that is it really truly
is just a technological illusion.
How do I know this? How can I prove it?
Because when the power goes out, nobody's a feminist anymore,
right? When there's when there's a
hurricane, the feminists aren't out there, you know, rescuing
people from the floodwaters and putting the power lines back up.
It's always men and it will always be men.
And it's part of our ontological being.
It's the way we're we were created.
And there's nothing you can do about that.
Now, as I said, that doesn't mean women are slaves.
It doesn't mean I'm advocating for the mistreatment of women.
It means that we should embrace the fact that men by nature are
very benevolent and they love us and they want to take care of us
and provide for us and protect us from the men who might be a
problem, Right. And what feminism has done is
it's separated women from the good men, from all the men in
their lives who do have this deep vested interest in their
well being, their fathers, their husbands.
And it tells them be aware of those guys, they're going to try
to tell you what to do. They're going to try to impose
their will on you and you need to be liberated.
So go live with your boyfriend, play the field, have a roster,
you know, stack up a huge body count and waste all of your
child bearing years in college. And then, you know, maybe think
about getting married when you're 3540.
Terrible idea. And in the book, I go over a lot
of statistics of how negatively this is affected, not just men,
but women primarily. Women are the primary
benefactors of patriarchy. It benefits us the most.
And when you try to destroy that, you end up with single
mothers, you end up with cohabitation, you end up with
women having the highest rates of alcoholism and drug use that
we've ever seen and, and much, much more.
But it's been, it's been terrible for women for their
well being, for their protection, and for their
provision to completely separate them from the men in their lives
who want to do those things for them.
Well, you've just created my Segway into your book.
So let's talk about your book, Occult Feminism.
It's one of the best books on feminism and the history of, I
suppose, feminism that I've read in a long time.
And it very, it very clearly shows that, Rachel, you can
think for yourself. Isn't that amazing?
That's incredible you didn't ask your husband for permission to
write this book. You know what though?
He did. He was one of the people who
encouraged me. There were two men who really
encouraged me to do it. Because if if the listeners
don't know, I have 5 kids. I skipped college.
I had my first baby at 20. Everybody told me it was going
to ruin my life. I was making the worst decision
ever. I was never going to recover.
I could never be anything and I could never do anything if I
went about life this way. But I'm 44 now, and the kids are
pretty much grown up. The oldest three are all grown
up and moved out adults. And then the younger 2 are in
their, you know, teens. And they're pretty independent
at this point. They're homeschooled, so they're
very competent. They don't need me all day
anymore. So a few years ago, I was kind
of like, I should probably start preparing for this next phase of
life where I'm going to have an empty nest and like, what am I
going to do then? And I have so many interests
that it was hard for me to kind of choose something to focus on.
And my husband was like, you know, you're so good at, like,
this feminism stuff and you know so much about the history of it.
He's like, you should really do something with that because you
just know all this crazy stuff that people just don't know.
And my friend Aaron Cleary, who's a a really great author
who has multiple books out there, he was like, maybe try a
book, you know, give it a shot. You're pretty smart.
You should probably do it. I don't hear anybody who talks
about this the way that you do, so you should try that.
So it was two guys who kind of encouraged me and pushed me a
little bit to try to try to do that, which is so funny when you
think that they want me chained to the stove.
I mean, yeah, they sound completely sexist, right?
And yeah. Exactly so.
Let's talk about your book. Let's talk about your book.
All right, so take me through it.
So, well, when I started writing the book and I started the
research phase, which lasted about 2 1/2 years, I knew that I
was going to make claims in this book that we're going to
completely go against the current narrative.
And whenever you do that, you'd better have your research in
order and you'd better have your facts straight because people
are going to really tear into it and see if they can dismantle
it, catch you in a mistake, anything like that.
So I knew I had to do to really nail the research.
So I took 2 1/2 years to do this and I went through all of the
primary sources, like feminists writings themselves.
I read stuff like Mary Wolston crafts, you know, and all of her
written work that I could find. Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, and then a lot of the other more obscure figures in
early feminist history because I wanted to know from their
worldview at that time. We're talking the late 1700s all
the way through the 19th century.
Like in their world, in their mind, what were they thinking?
Where were they coming from? What were their foundational
beliefs that led them to, you know, become feminists and and
do this writing? So I went through and read all
of that. And what was shocking to me, I
thought it was going to be, I thought the book would be about
like the funding of feminism and who kind of pushed it and
propagated it. And I definitely go over all of
that. There's a lot there, but as I'm
reading and I'm doing profiles of these early feminists, I find
this common thread that almost all of them were either very
outwardly opposed to Christianity.
Like Matilda Joslin Gauge wrote a book called Woman, Church and
State which was basically about how Christianity is the problem
and is the patriarchy and we need to get rid of that and then
eventually get rid of the rid of the state.
She was kind of this proto anarchist.
I'd say that's what I would class her as.
Maybe other people wouldn't, But she felt that the church in the
state were what oppressed women, and she thought Christianity was
the problem and needed to be done away with.
And I thought that's interesting, you know, And then
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was supposed to be a Christian, like
if you read her Wikipedia, it would say that she was a
Christian. But in her own book, she wrote a
book called The Woman's Bible with a couple dozen other
feminists, where they gave an entire commentary on the whole
Bible from the feminist perspective.
And they're writing this in 1895.
OK, this isn't 1969 or 2025. This is 1895.
And in the foreword she says herself, and she doesn't really
believe what's in the Bible at all.
She doesn't believe God ever came down and incarnated or
spoke to man. She doesn't believe that the
Bible was truly divine. She thinks the Bible was written
by oppressive men for the purpose of keeping woman in her
place and oppressing her. And so this whole project, she
said, if I could erase, you know, the Bible and Canon law
from the face of the earth, I would.
But it's too influential. Everyone's got a Bible in their
home. It's it.
People believe it. So instead, we're just going to
subvert it. We're going to twist the meaning
and change the meaning to make it more feminist.
And, you know, those two things were a big impact on me.
And then I started noticing this other thread of a lot of them
being full, what do you call it? Theosophists.
So theosophy and spiritualism was huge in the 19th century.
They were spirit mediums. They were tarot card readers.
A lot of them claimed to be automatic writers.
So a lot of the early feminist literature, the writers said it
what? This isn't coming from me.
I'm channelling a spirit which is giving me this information.
And a lot of historians will say, oh, they were just saying
that because they didn't want to kind of get in trouble for their
views. They didn't want to say it was
their own thoughts because there could be some backlash.
And that might be true. It probably is.
But I do think many of them really believed this.
A lot of them, you know, practised this stuff as as a way
of life and it really formed their worldview.
And so multiple aspects of like a cult religion, proto New Age
religion was involved in this. And so I found this great book.
It's a PhD thesis that I reference in my own book a lot
by Parafaxnell. He's a Scandinavian professor.
It was his PhD thesis that's now on Amazon.
So you can buy this yourself and read it now.
From his perspective, he's a Satanist, so he thinks this is a
good thing. He and I have come to a lot of
the same conclusions, even though I'm a Christian and I
think that's bad and he's a Satanist and thinks it's good.
But we both agree that in the 19th century, Lucifer was the
symbol of women's liberation. They claimed Lucifer as their
symbol. A lot of these early
suffragists, they had either a, you could say it was a Gnostic
view, you could say it was an occultic view, or you could say
it was a straight up Satanic view that the God of the Bible
is actually the bad guy and that Lucifer was the one trying to
enlighten and liberate woman from, you know, the evil
oppression of man. And I thought to myself, why do
we never hear this? You know why in gender studies
classes and women's studies classes are we never told this?
How come when we're going over the basics of suffrage and in
high school history class, even nobody mentions that these
suffragettes, you know, who are always portrayed as heroes?
They're they're across the board portrayed as brave, courageous
heroes who did something good. Even by most people who don't
like feminism, they'll say, well, it's gone way too far.
But first wave was good, right? First wave was fine.
Women's voting rights, women's property rights, at least in the
West. And they don't know that these
women were deeply opposed to Christianity and had either a
true occult practise that informed their world view or at
least a symbolic one that informed their world view.
And looking into that further, what I found is that a lot of
the history of first wave has literally been whitewashed.
And they took out large portions.
There's a paper by a professor named Josie Miller who studied
college history textbooks that went over suffrage, first wave
feminism. And he found that from 1920 on,
as the decades progressed, a lot of stuff was actually taken out
and removed. So they removed things like the
fact that there was much higher membership in anti suffrage
groups among women than pro suffrage groups.
It was so bad and and women were so unsupportive of the suffrage
movement, especially towards the beginning, that when they did
let them vote in like a referendum on whether they even
wanted the vote on the ballot, the few women that came out to
vote voted against it. It was only like 4% in in the
largest referendum I found, which was in Massachusetts, only
4% of the women who came out to vote voted for the 19th
amendment, that they even wanted it on the ballot.
It was so bad. That the Women's Suffrage
Association stopped any further referendums.
They said women can't vote on this because they're just, you
know, they're too comfortable. Susan B Anthony said this.
She said women already have pretty much everything they
want. They can work outside the home
if they want. They can go to college if they
want. They have higher literacy rates
and high school graduation rates than men.
And they enjoy all this provision and protection under
patriarchy that they don't want to give up.
So we can't ask them if they want the vote.
We have to just push it on them because they just they don't
know what's good for them, which is so ironic.
Yes. So women didn't want to vote,
which would mean therefore Rachel, that the husband voted
on behalf of them. Yes, yes.
And that's, that's the system they wanted to keep.
And if you go back, you can find anti suffrage documents and read
what they wrote. There was a lot of public debate
between the groups, between the anti suffrage groups and the pro
suffrage groups. And they would publish these
things in pamphlets and newsletters and newspapers and
they had, you know, posters and stuff they would circulate on
this. You can go back and read their
their reasoning. And I include a lot of this in
the book as well. I think they had fantastic
reasons. It's almost like they could see
what was coming. They knew where this was going
to go. And they said, look, why would
we want a husband and wife to be able to vote against each other?
You know, they're they're going to naturally have different
interests. You know, women are going to be
more focused on protection. They're going to want like, you
know, things like welfare, maybe a nanny state.
They're going to want less risk and more safety and security,
and they're going to want to vote that way.
And men are going to want to vote to have more freedom and
more liberty, to pursue greatness and to take risks and
chances and provide for their family.
They're probably going to want less taxation, things like that.
And they're not going to want, you know, the same things.
So why do we want to pit households against each other?
We're going to see marriage start breaking down.
We're going to see family start breaking down if we do this.
That was one reason. Another great reason they had
was they said, what if we end up being drafted?
What if they include women in the draught?
If we're now political equals with men, we might have to do
jury duty and hear the details of grisly, awful crimes that we
don't want to be subjected to. And we'll I'll have to leave my
house for two weeks to go do jury duty.
And who's going to take care of my children if I do that?
And now we do see a lot of some feminists in Congress in the
United States have tried to get bills passed to draught women.
They're actually floating the idea of having a selective
service for women. And I think there's other
countries as well there are doing, they're doing this now.
And the, the anti suffragists were very opposed to that.
They also thought that it was going to mean less children.
Women are going to have. If you take women out of the
home and you make them politically active, you know,
they're not going to have as much time for raising kids if
they're out, you know, doing political activism.
Which is funny because if you ever go back and watch the movie
Mary Poppins, the Disney movie with Julie Andrews at the
beginning, it opens with the the Jane and Michael's mother is
this big suffragist and she needs a nanny for the children
because what's she doing? She's always out marching with
the suffragettes. She's out doing political
activism and her husband's a banker.
And so they have to hire a nanny, you know, to take care of
the kids. And the the moral of the story
is the parents weren't paying enough attention to the kids.
It's so funny. So they could see like a future
where families are going to be broken down and women are going
to be too busy with these kind of things to really devote time
and effort to the family. And that that would be bad, that
this is going to be a bad thing. And they had many other reasons
as well. They thought that if they lost
their neutrality, their political high ground, they
would no longer actually be consulted.
They would just be another voting bloc and that they would
just be targeted by, you know, which they are.
Women are very highly targeted by like NGOs and super PACs, and
we're very easily subjected to propaganda.
So now, I mean, I don't know how it is in your part of the world,
but here, every time we have an election cycle, all of the ads
are very much targeted at emotional appeal.
It's not like if you go back and look at political ads from the
1800s and you see like them debating the issues here.
Now when we debate the issues, it's just an emotional appeal.
It's always, you know, scaremongering that the other
side's going to take away your welfare or the other side's
going to, you know, deport illegals, Yeah, or you're going
to lose your right to abortion. And this is what it's ended up.
They they were right. The anti suffragists were right
because the only issues that feminists care about generally
abortion's the number one. That's all the it's their main
issue. There's a tonne of feminists
that are 1 issue voters. They only care about the right
to abortion. It's their only measurement for
whether women are liberated or not is if they have the right to
to kill children. Rachel, just sorry on that, just
for a moment. I used to be pro abortion and
and and God bless COVID because that whole era changed me and
changed a lot of people in the way we see the world and the way
we think. If you just take a moment to
think about it, right, you have been given the right, the you've
been given what liberation you have the freedom to kill your
child. Just let that sink in for a
moment. What is it that that you
actually doing? It's disgusting.
Oh yeah. That's why in the book I take a
whole chat, a whole chapter to talk about Margaret Sanger and
Planned Parenthood and the founding of that and all the
lies it was built on. I mean, lies, lies, lies.
It's crazy what they got away with the, the myths that persist
to this day about things like back alley abortions, about
overpopulation, about, you know, women just dying in childbirth
because they were having too many, right?
This idea that if you have more than one or two babies, it's
going to destroy your body and wreck your health and you're
going to die young. The the amount of lies that the
abortion rights movement was built on would boggle your mind.
I was, it was so upsetting to me to write that chapter that I
actually had nightmares because I was just so filled with anger
because so many women and men are completely psyopped into
believing that unless women can can get abortions, they are
oppressed. And it's just so pervasive, the
amount of money and the amount of propaganda.
And it's not just here in the US with Planned Parenthood, the
Marie Stopes International in the UK, same thing, possibly
worse. I've been meaning to get around
to writing a Substack article about that because it's the same
kind of story. Like, you know, rich, wealthy,
progressive industrialists who wanted, you know, women in
factories and not at home with kids are, you know, providing
all the funding and all the money.
And there's all kinds of crazy, funny business going on behind
the scenes to convince people that children are oppressive,
that having families is bad for you, that you're going to be
poor, you're never going to have anything.
Just the fear mongering. And I see it now when I go on
panels and I talk to these girls that are 2025 years old.
They're convinced that having a child will ruin their life, ruin
their body, ruin their prospects, that they'll be a
loser. And I was told this, by the way,
when I was 20 and having my first baby, which is what your
body is supposed to do when you're 20.
When you're 20 years old is the best time to have children.
You're going to have the lowest rates of complications.
You bounce back much faster. Ask any woman that's had a baby
at 20 and then a baby at 35, which was easier, right?
We are made to be having families when we're young and
there's a lot of life after that, you know, after 40 for us
to do all kinds of other things if we want to at that point.
Or maybe you'd be like me and just hope for huge amount of
grandkids and to be busy with that.
But until I get the grandkids, I'm just going to try to break
this spell for as many people as possible because women just
believe that children and motherhood are this evil,
oppressive ball and chain that they have to escape from.
And you can see that when you look at quotes from Sanger, who
said women woman will never be free until she can decide if and
when she'll become a mother at all.
But there's the tug of war, right?
It's it's having kids and then not being able to have a career.
Right. Yeah.
And I just would like to ask the women listening if they're
listening to this and they're feeling confused and upset and
like, why is this woman saying this?
Why does she hate herself? Why does she hate women?
Ask yourself, who gave you this idea that having a job in a
cubicle somewhere is the best thing you could do with your
life? That going to college and
getting into an average of like $60,000 in debt to earn a degree
in psychology and then go and, you know, listen to people's
problems all day in a field where the replication crisis
kind of proves that it's practically not worth doing.
I mean, the psychology, I think 80% of the field is now filled
with women and women are just doing the same things they've
always done. If you look at the top 20
careers held by women now and held by women in 1920 at the
passage of the 19th amendment, they're almost exactly the same.
The only category that really changed is they don't do much
farm labour anymore. They're doing HR work instead.
So what? What do women do for careers?
Just despite 40 years of trying to force women into STEM fields,
trying to force them to do male oriented jobs, trying to make
them be CEOs. Like think of all the propaganda
of the 80s, nineties and early 2000s from Oprah, from Sex in
the City, convincing women that they need to be the CEO.
They got to own a business. They got to close the big the
business meeting, you know, they got to close the business deal.
You want to be in the cubicle, you want to pay the taxes,
right? You want to get up and do the
9:00 to 5:00 for your whole life and then just, you know, die
shortly after you retire and they'll replace you with someone
else. It's awesome, It's empowering.
Like, why do we think that having a middle management
retail job, which that's what most of us are going to get, OK,
most of us are not going to be head of Google.
Most of us are not going to be a powerful attorney or a senator.
What most women do is retail work, child care, early
childhood education, nursing, bookkeeping, their waitresses,
their cooks. They are doing all the same
things they would have done in the home for their family for
free. But instead they are paying to
have a have a separate wardrobe, have a second car, have
insurance on that car, leave for work everyday.
The average American family spends over 25% of their income
on daycare. We're paying now and then we pay
you know how much of what you make in income tax as well.
So you're actually paying the state and paying daycare so that
you can have the privilege of having a cubicle job because
that's going to be what makes you meaningful and fulfilled and
and happy. Not OK.
Here's the contrast, right? What my life looked like.
You have a bunch of kids, you get up.
When they get up, everybody has breakfast and the rest of the
day I get to decide what my schedule is.
I get to decide what I want to do with them, what we want to
focus on in home school, what I want to teach them.
I can look at each child and say, oh, this one has different
needs than the other one. You know, he's doing great in
math and she's struggling, but she's doing great in English and
he's struggling. Let's put them together and have
them help each other out. Let's have fun here.
Let's go to the park. Let's get outside and exercise.
Let's cook our own food at home and have healthy food rather
than the processed garbage that kids are given all day at
daycare and public school. My days belong to me.
I am the empowered one. Now, if I and I have worked, of
course that's chunks of my life where I have worked a full time
job. My days didn't belong to me.
I wasn't empowered. I just had to go and submit to
my boss instead. And my boss's boss, right?
And then I had to pay the government and pay a daycare for
the privilege of going somewhere and being told what to do all
day. But I'm supposed to believe that
by being a stay at home mother, I'm oppressed, that that I have
no freedom, that I can't do anything with my life.
It's, it's so inverted and it's so backward.
It's just another sign that this is a very Luciferian satanic
agenda, because it's telling you not to believe your own eyes and
your own experience. To add to what you're saying, if
both parents are working, the kids either go go somewhere else
or they come home to an empty house.
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And what I always say to people
is I don't think there's any coincidence that the passage of
the 19th Amendment, by the way, this happened around the world,
the Western world at the same time, and actually in the East
as well. I've got a second book coming
out about like Russia and the Eastern Bloc.
I'm hoping to get it finished this year, but here in the West,
women's suffrage all came about kind of around the same time.
Australia, the UK, America, around 1920, we start to see the
passage of women's suffrage. And in the United States, you
have the creation of the central banking and you have the income
tax, all passed right around the same time.
And then there's another thing that passed around the same
time, which was compulsory public education.
So this was a giant project. And you don't have to believe
me. Again, the source material is
the people themselves writing and telling you that they did
this and why they did this. You can go to the Rockefeller
family archives and read about it.
You can go to the Vanderbilt archives and read about it.
What happened was we had this crop of new wealthy
industrialists from, you know, the 19th century who built
railroads and built a lot of the infrastructure in America,
factories and became incredibly wealthy in a way that, you know,
we really hadn't seen in the world before where it's not just
a king or a politician who has this tremendous power.
We now have billionaires who have endless money.
And because they have endless money, they can buy politicians.
They have their own banks. They can, they have tremendous
power, arguably more power than a monarch would have, I would
say. And what these guys wanted and
needed, they couldn't get enough immigrants into America to work
in factories and on railroads fast enough.
And they saw women as this huge pool of very cheap, easy labour.
They're already here. We don't have to pay them as
much as men. And if we can get all these
women out of the home and into the factory, we can also tax
their income. So we double our income tax
revenue overnight. And and if the mothers are not
at home, the children have to go somewhere.
So we'll create this public education system.
There's a whole video on my YouTube about the founding of
the American public school system and how it's based on the
Prussian military model, which was meant to create good
soldiers and good factory workers.
That's why we have bells, you know, at the beginning, bell at
the end, a bell to leave class, a bell to start class.
It's actually a Pavlovian mechanism to train you to do
what you're supposed to do, right?
So it's public school was never about creating like these kids
who could critically think about the world and solve problems and
be innovators. It was literally created to make
good little cogs in a wheel who are going to do what the state
tells them to do and, you know, follow the narrative and follow
the programming. That's what it's there for.
So all day while mom and dad are at work making these people
money and making the government all this new income revenue, the
income tax revenue, the children are going to be educated by the
state with the values of the state and whatever the state
wants them to have and believe. And that's exactly what we did.
Then in 1970, the Ford Foundation, with some help from
Rockefeller and some others, created women's studies.
And what happened in 1970 when they created Women's studies as
a discipline in universities? They gave, you know, huge grants
to multiple big universities to create a gender studies
programme. We see this huge dissemination
of propaganda telling women to go to work. 1970 was a huge year
for this because not only the creation of gender studies, but
also the founding of Miss magazine by Gloria Steinem and
the CIA, it's ACIA funded magazine.
It was part of a much broader propaganda programme.
The CIA had to tell women, you know, that the home life was
oppressive, that they need to have a career, that they need to
have a college education. Otherwise you're not informed,
you are ignorant, you will never do anything with your life and
you are just a slave. And then we see this massive
amount of propaganda come out. So in the 70s you had a tonne of
movies and TV shows like Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Stepford
Wives, all this propaganda convincing women that being a
housewife, being a mother is this oppressive, boring, stuffy,
awful thing. You could be out.
You could be out having 5 boyfriends and doing cocaine.
Why do you why do you want to be at home?
You could be the fancy businesswoman and have an
exciting life in the city where you're working, but you're in
the suburbs and you're bored and it's unfulfilling.
And it's really created this view you that women did not
have. If you look at what women were
saying 50 years before that, none of them felt this way.
There was never this idea that the family life was a
suppressive drudgery. It was this horrible, boring,
awful thing that women were just forced to do because they
weren't allowed to do anything else.
I have an interview with my 99 year old grandmother on my
channel asking her, you know, being born in 1926, growing up
in the 30s and the 40s, what it was like for her and her
friends. And I asked her, did you guys
ever have this sense that you were oppressed or that, you
know, you didn't have options? Did you feel like you were just
going to be stuck at home bored and you've had to get married
and have all these kids? And she thought it was crazy.
She was like, we, no, she's like, we've never felt like
that. We never did.
That wasn't even a topic that ever came up among her and her
sisters and her friends. So this was all a culture
creation project to convince women of this.
And all I'm trying to do with my work is break this spell and
help women understand. Like, why do you think going to
work 40 hours a week is liberation?
Where did you get that idea? Because if you stop and think
about it for five seconds, it's ridiculous.
Of course, that's not freedom and liberation for you.
And who benefits from that? Let me see if I can quickly
summarise where where this conversation is at.
OK, so men and women have obviously got certain roles that
we just simply can't change. It's just it's just how it is,
all right. And men drove this idea to bring
women into the workforce to help the central bankers create more
income tax and and effectively lower the wages of men.
Which which then? Made it more difficult for a man
to provide for the household because he was not earning less
because now he was competing against a woman, which also is a
bad idea because men should compete against men, not against
men and women. All right, OK.
Then on top of that, you've got all these organisations who
think this is a great idea to break apart the family.
And we have a situation today where we have a decline in birth
rate. Yes, yes, you nailed it.
So what? When we were talking about the
70s, this is exactly what happened.
Because this is my most common pushback that I get from people
when they say, well, it's really nice that you got to stay home
with your kids, but not every woman has this privilege.
And with the first thing I would ask is OK, but wait a minute,
you probably believe that your grandmother's and your great
grandmother's bought this hard won fight for you to be able to
be a career woman, that you didn't have that choice before.
Which isn't really true by the way.
Women have always been allowed to work.
It's maybe they weren't as accepted in certain professions
for very practical reasons, but they were never like across the
board, barred from having a job everywhere.
But you believe this, right? You believe that women had to
fight for the right to be a career woman.
But now you're also telling me that me being able to stay home
like my great grandma did is a privilege that I'm only afforded
because I must be wealthy or something, which is not true.
Andrew and I were not wealthy when I was staying home with the
kids at all. We had to sacrifice a lot.
We had to change our lifestyle. We had to make a lot of
accommodations to make it work. And I'm very, very aware of how
tough it is for most women to stay home with their kids even
when they want to. Number one, they're afraid to
say they want to because if you even say that, you're probably
going to get, you know, a bunch of wrinkled noses and people
telling you that's silly and why would you want to do that?
There's all kinds of reasons. It's bad, but they do want to
stay. Frowned upon.
Oh yeah, it's frowned upon. And then also people, it's
practically difficult. It's very difficult and they
say, well, most people can't afford to raise a family on one
income. And I go, yes, I know, but have
you ever asked yourself why and what they'll say as well as the
economy is bad, right? The economy is bad, or maybe we
need better wages, or this is no, here's what happened and you
can go back and look at economic graphs and things that will
completely highlight this for you.
In 1970, with the creation of gender studies, Miss magazine
and all this propaganda I was telling you about, we doubled
the workforce in the West in about a decade, decade and a
half, 10 to 15 years. We had like less than 6% of
women with children under 5 in the workforce prior to this.
After 1980, it becomes like 40%. By the 90s, it's almost half,
right? Almost half the workforce is
women now. We doubled the labour pool in
such a short period of time and men's wages have never
recovered. The buying power has never
recovered. Now, are there other factors
that you could probably point to because economics is very
complicated, yes. But this is by far the biggest
correlate. It's the biggest change.
We've never had this happen in all of human history where we've
taken the majority of women out of the home and plopped them
into the labour force in such a short period of time.
And it has my, my friend Erin Cleary I was talking about,
about has a great book on this. It's called A World Without Men.
And it's this female based economy we have now, which is
like a consumerist economy. Women have like 80% of all the
buying power now. We, we revolutionised our
economy and our home life in such a short period of time.
And when you add the fact that we had no fault, divorce and
hormonal birth control come about right at the same time as
well. We shouldn't be shocked that the
family has dissolved that most children are in homes with no
dads. And if you look at the risks for
that, it's like it puts kids at risk for every possible negative
outcome to not have their dad in the home, to have a broken home.
And it's also not very good when you look at the stats about how
children are abused in daycare, about family cohesion when both
parents work outside the home. It's just destroyed everything
and it has made it practically impossible to afford raising a
family on one income. Whereas in the, you know, prior
years to that men could have five to seven children and
afford it on one income for all of history until 50 years ago.
So you're never going to convince me because we, of
course, we've had bad economic conditions.
We've had all kinds of of things happen throughout all of human
history, and it never produced this outcome of all the women
having to work outside the home. The women all have to work
outside the home because all the women went to work outside the
home, if that makes sense. So we did it to ourselves.
And to the extent that we can get more mothers to stay home
and more women to stay home, it will increase men's wages.
It will increase demand for men's jobs.
But Rachel, it does appear to me that it's still ultimately the
fault of men. I would say it's a handful of
very powerful men who orchestrated this and
perpetuated it on everyone. And I think that what happened
is historically, only about 40% of men throughout all of history
have been able to reproduce, while 80% of women throughout
all of history have been able to reproduce.
And this is according to like genetic studies.
The reason for this is all you needed to do throughout all of
time and history as a woman to have a baby is just be fertile.
If you're fertile and you live long enough, someone's probably
going to inseminate you and you're going to have a baby.
If you're a man, though, it wasn't like that.
Men have always had to like prove their worth, prove that
they could support a wife and a family.
They had to be chosen. Even if you were in a like a, a
past history where there were dowries and things like that,
the, the woman's father still had to approve and things like
this. So not every man could just get
a wife and have a kid. And a lot of men ended up just
cannon fodder in a war or dying young in a very dangerous
occupation or from disease or something like that.
So I think when the sexual revolution came along, it took
this large swath of kind of disenfranchised men and
convinced them that if they went along with this women's
liberation stuff, they could get access to sex.
And you see this like in the 60s.
Think of your boomer parents at Woodstock, you know, dropping
LSD, rolling around in the mud and doing free love, this free
love stuff, which this is not new.
Free Love's been around for at least a couple 100 years, and
it's always been a tenant of feminism, even going back to
like the 1700s or before. I think men went along with it
because they thought the free love stuff was going to work out
for them and because women, I mean, when the voices of these
feminists got loud enough, they made it seem like all women were
demanding this when that wasn't the case.
But they were. They.
They put Gloria Steinem on TV, they gave her her own magazine.
They gave Betty Friedan A bullhorn.
You know, they put these these really loud feminists out there
and saturated the, the new telecommunication system with
it. And I think men thought that
everyone wanted this. And I think they, they love
women and they want to please women.
So they thought, well, if it'll make you happy and if it'll give
me sexual access, I'll go along with this.
It's, you know, they're making it sound like a good deal.
The feminists are telling me that, you know, if I just give
my wife, you know, whatever she wants and I let her go to work
and that this will work out for me.
So I think men did allow it, but I think that they don't realise
they were completely duped. I think they're starting to now
for sure, for sure. We're starting to see men wake
up and go, wait a minute, we've been had.
This is a terrible idea. It was not a good deal for us
and it's not a good deal for women or for kids either, right?
But it does seem like it's a bit too late now.
Yeah, I mean, that's the big question, is like, what do we do
now? Because we've opened Pandora's
box and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
However, I don't think that this is good news necessarily, but we
are on the precipice of another revolution.
I do think I've made this prediction before.
We'll see what you think about it.
But I think that in about 200 years or so, people are going to
look back on the feminist experiment and they're going to
say, wow, that was crazy and silly and awful.
And I'm sure glad we got rid of that.
And here's why. Because countries like South
Korea are facing a birth rate crisis that is literally
civilization ending. I think the average South Korean
woman now has 0.7 children per woman.
They're not even replacing themselves.
They're not even coming close. And everywhere in the world,
everywhere in the world except for a handful of African
countries, is well below replacement and has been for
decades. And we are, you know, here Elon
Musk talking about this. I don't think he has the right
reasons for talking about it, but at least he's talking about
it. That that we are on the
precipice of like a serious global birth rate crisis and
people have been fed anti natalist overpopulation
propaganda for 200 years now. So they're having a really hard
time understanding it. Like, but we have billions of
people in the world. We have too many people.
It's actually not true. We've practically solved hunger
and people don't think about this.
Remember all the farm aid stuff in the 80s and all the
everyone's starving. People are dying.
It you don't hear it too much anymore because in most of the
world, except for a few like really poverty, like third world
nations where it's more of a logistics and corruption
problem. It's not that we don't have a
global food supply that can feed everyone.
We do. And we do have like the
logistical infrastructure to get food pretty much everywhere now.
So the places that are still starving, it's, it's more of a,
a geopolitical type of a problem than it is a practical problem.
That's never been the case before in history.
And it's because we have this massive global population that
can support this. And so if you see that
population contract really fast, you know, like I think China is
expected to lose like 1/4 of its population over the next several
decades. If you see the population
contract that quickly, it will cause massive disruption to food
production, to logistics, to getting the food where it needs
to go, to being able to treat water, to the medical
infrastructure. It's a very big problem.
And the UN, even the corrupt UN has a tonne of stuff they're now
putting out. They, they had all this anti
natalist overpopulation propaganda up until about 10
years ago. And in the last 10 years the UN
has even switched and changed its tune and said, oops, wait a
minute, we overdid it. Now we're going to have problems
from population collapse and we need to address this.
So you see countries like Japan and Canada offering free
euthanasia for the older population because they know
that in just a few years they won't be able to support the the
ageing population because there's not enough young people
to take care of them. So I mean, that's the situation
we're facing. And in a situation like that,
feminism will die out of necessity.
It will die out of necessity. And on top of that, I think men
are far starting to figure this out.
That's why there's this huge popularity.
Even if you don't like Andrew Tate, right?
Even if you don't like what he says, there's a reason this red
pill stuff is so popular. And it's because men are
starting to figure out, wait, this is a really bad deal.
We, we're not doing well. The women don't really seem to
be doing that well either. 26% of American women are on at
least one psych, psych, prescription medication,
depression and mental illnesses like through the roof and women.
So is addiction. We have two huge studies on
women's happiness, the paradox of female happiness, and then a
big follow up study that was done a few years ago showing
that to the extent around the world, in every culture that you
liberate women is the extent to which they get more miserable.
And it doesn't seem to matter what country you're in, what
religion you are, what your socioeconomic status is.
The more we liberate women from, you know, motherhood and family
and home life, they seem to do worse.
They seem to be more stressed. They report higher levels of
dissatisfaction and loneliness and addiction and mental
illness. So I think people are waking up,
I think they're realising that this was a terrible mistake and
the only question for me is how bad is it going to get before
things have to turn around and it could get really bad?
I hope not. I hope that we catch it in time
and start to reverse the trend. There's some hope that that
could happen. I'm seeing glimmers of hope
about it, but it may get really, really bad before it gets
better. The suffragette movement.
Women's Liberation. Rachel.
What were women liberated from? Well, that's the big question,
isn't it? And nobody asks that question.
When you hear feminists talk about women's liberation, they
they'll say the patriarchy. But it's like, OK, for a
practical woman, what does that mean?
It means her dad. It means her husband.
It usually means like her pastor or priest at her church.
It means don't let a man tell you what to do, and don't let
yourself be held back in life by children, by childbearing, by
all the obligations that you might have to your family and to
those men who love you and care about you.
You'd be better off alone and in a cubicle all day working for a
boss. And let's let's just say you
don't have a job you hate. A lot of women will tell you
they like their job, and that may be the case.
You might like your job, but how do you know that you wouldn't be
happier at home with kids instead?
And maybe maybe you say, well, I have both.
I have my job and I have my kids and I like both and I like to
have a work life balance. You may say that, but you cannot
be everywhere at once, and you only have 24 hours in a day and
there's only one of you. So if you are at work all day,
someone else is with your kids for most of their waking hours,
you will spend 95% of all the time you'll ever spend with your
children. By the time they turn 18, it's
gone and you can't get it back. Once they're adults, you see
them when they can see you, and some more than others, But most
of that time is gone and you can never get it back.
And you don't know how things would have been different had
you not been distracted by 40 hours plus a week of work, how
you might have done things differently, or how you might
have bonded with your children if they were spending all day
with you, not with the daycare lady.
So I think what we liberated women from is our greatest
purpose. It's like only men can build
infrastructure and use force to protect women.
Only men can do that. And only women can bear and
raise the next generation of human beings because the men are
busy building the infrastructure and maintaining it and, you
know, keeping things peaceful and keeping borders protected.
These are things that no matter how much feminist propaganda you
put out there, you cannot and you never will change them
unless, unless you're one of these gender abolitionists that
wants all of us to be a they them.
And you want the men to be, you know, low T, you know, non
binaries. You want the women to be
hypermasculine lesbians or something, which there are
feminists that want that for this reason, because they know
that biology is the final like stopping block for them and that
they can't change it. But I mean, that's
transhumanism, ultimately. It is.
It absolutely is. Yeah.
And this is another point is that most of these early
feminists we're talking about in the 1840s, Margaret Fuller, she
was probably the first popular feminist writer in the United
States. She was writing about gender
abolition. She was writing about
transhumanism and a future where technology would allow us to no
longer be male and female. She wanted that world and she
she was imagining that world in 1840, you guys.
So this is these are old ideas and again, the underlying belief
system. Like you asked yourself, why
would she want something like that?
Because they are transhumanist, because there's usually an
occult religious foundation, like a type of Gnosticism where
they believe that biology is oppressive and that ultimately
what women need to be liberated from is biology.
Alexander Colentai was another highly influential, a popular
feminist writer in Russia. She was part of the Bolshevik
regime, one of the most powerful women in the world at the time.
She was writing the stuff. And she imagined a future just
like this, where the final frontier was going to be
overcoming nature and biology and that in a future technocracy
we could make men women and women men.
Or that we would all be these non binary beige people with no
differences among us, right? That this was the and she
thought it was the final goal of communism as well.
And when they started gender studies programmes in the 70s,
they fused the Western and the Eastern ideas of feminism.
They fused the Marxist feminism with the liberal feminism and
created this hybrid feminism that we have now which
incorporates all these Marxist ideas.
And what they wanted was to get rid of the patriarchy.
Well, how do you do that? You get rid of patriarchs.
So you get rid of the dads. You get rid of.
You take the dads out of the home.
You make the state the dad. And Colin Tie is a person who
was writing this explicitly. It wasn't a secret agenda.
It wasn't implied at all. She has papers you can go read
on the Marxist archivemarxist.org where she's
imagining a future where children do not know who their
biological father is, where we will intentionally have, you
know, no marriage. We won't have partnerships.
We'll all have, you know, throuple or we will all have
polycules. We will all have multiple lovers
and nobody will know who the father of the child is because
that's the only way to stop private property ownership,
transfer of wealth from one generation to the next and
eliminate fathers from the home. And she said Lennon should be
your father. It shouldn't be, you know, your
child's dad. He's just another worker.
It should be Lennon who is your daddy.
Like, literally. So this is what they wanted.
And they've been really successful at sneaking this into
universities and then through their getting it into the pop
culture and making everybody believe this without even
knowing it. And now we have a situation
where girls are trying to sleep with 506 hundred 700 guys in six
hours. Yes, exactly.
Yeah. And we have a culture that
believes that, you know, being a virgin when you get married is
silly and stupid and passe, and it's unrealistic.
You know, my own mother told me this when I was growing up.
It's unrealistic to get married as a virgin now.
I don't think that's true at all.
But you know, I was raised in the 80s and 90s with a Marxist
feminist mother who told me, you know, that that was fine and
that you can just, you don't need marriage and you should
have a career and all this sort of stuff.
So it's kind of a miracle I ended up where I am, but it's I
had to learn the hard way. So like I had to go through
mistakes that made me think about all this stuff because I
was just as programmed as everyone else.
Every girl growing up now only knows what Taylor Swift and
Beyoncé and Megyn Kelly. And like maybe not all the young
girls listening to Megyn Kelly, but she's, you know, women like
that are influential. They see the TPUSA boss babe.
So even on the like Republican right in the United States or
even on the Conservative right in the UK, the women are all
politicians. They're career girls, they're
boss babes, they're CEO's. And these are the women you see
in media. And then you see Instagram
models and you see only fans models becoming overnight
celebrities. By doing the crazy sex stunts
that you're talking about right now.
And it's so common that it barely raises people's eyebrows
anymore. People barely even notice.
They're like, oh, it's just the way it is now.
Yeah, basically it's cooking, holding a baby in your one arm,
doing your job in the other arm, wearing a bikini and and then
doing that Hock to a thing that that girl did, whatever that
thing was. But it's it's also stupid.
Yeah, yeah, It's very stupid. And it's like my big thing when
I'm trying to help break women out of this and help them see
that they've been totally conned is that, you know, what were the
promises that feminism made us? What were you told that we were
going to get out of this deal? Right.
You're going to be liberated. That means your your husband
can't tell you what to do if you're unhappy in your marriage.
You can just leave. You don't even need a reason.
You're going to have your own money, you're going to have your
own stuff. You're going to be powerful.
You're going to be empowered and and sexually liberated.
You can sleep with whoever you want whenever you want and you
can, you don't have to have babies, you've got birth control
and you've got abortion. So you don't ever have to be a
mom if you don't want to. And you're going to be safer,
right? Because we're going to liberate
you from all the abusive husbands, which we get into that
too. And that's not what happened.
It's not what's happened at all. So when now that they've had a
few decades to study this, we have a massive report that the
government in America does about every decade or so.
It's called the National Incidence Study.
And they do this periodically. And what they do is collect from
every type of agency that would get reports about abuse from of
women and children in the United States.
So like socialist school workers, policemen, women
shelters, CPS, like, so it's not just one data set, it's all the
data. And we have four of them now.
And what we see over the last 45 years is that as we've broken
down the family and we've liberated women from marriage
and liberated them from the home, is that women are in more
cohabitation situations where they're just living with a guy.
That's the most like common thing now is just live with a
guy, whether he's your boyfriend or your baby daddy or whoever it
is, or maybe you divorced your husband and now you're living
with your new boyfriend. And what we see is that in those
situations where women are cohabitative are the situations
with the highest rates of abuse. I like 12 old, it's the most
abusive situation. Whereas we see the safest family
situation for both women and children across the board by a
huge margin. We're talking like a factor of
10 to 12 times For a woman to live with her children's
biological father and be married to him is the safest situation,
the safest living situation with the lowest rates of all types of
abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse,
everything. So what we've done is actually
make women more vulnerable, make children more vulnerable to the
men who are going to be the most predatory.
Because if you're say you're some kind of kid creeper, of
course you're going to want a single mom with no dad around
because you're going to have easy access to her kids.
She's going to need you for resources.
You can get trapped. You can get trapped more easily
into a cohabitative situation. I would argue then you're going
to be trapped by being married. So it's like you don't have
rights as you know, you don't have any property rights or
anything like that if you're just living with a guy.
So what feminism has promised US versus what it has delivered us.
Oh, let's see, women are more abused, they're more miserable,
they're more stressed out. They have higher rates of
alcoholism and disease. We have raising.
We have rising rates of babies born to alcoholic mothers for
the first time ever. Like women's rates of alcoholism
historically have been much lower than men's, and that's no
longer the case. Women are now making up the
majority of Alcoholics for the first time in history, and 26%
of us are on at least one psychiatric medication for
mental health problems. And women who live alone are
much more economically vulnerable than married, their
married cohorts. So all the things feminism
promised you, it was going to protect you from, it actually
made you more vulnerable to Women are not safer, they are
not happier. They're not doing better overall
than they were in the 60s or the 40s or the 1840s.
Rachel, there's an interesting by product of all of this, I
mean, we're talking a lot about the effects on women, but the
effects on men have also been very negative.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I mean, what we've done to men
is take away any incentive they had to overcome obstacles, to
strive for greatness, to have purpose and meaning.
And what men, men really need like a mission, they need a
purpose and they need a meaning. And when they don't have that,
we have what we see now, which is like this, this rising group
of young men who do not ever move out of their parents house.
We have the lowest rate of male labour force participation in
the United States that we've ever had.
So we have this strange new phenomenon of men just not
working, which has never happened.
And then men's mental health is worse.
Men's suicide rates are on the rise.
It's it's been very bad for men as well.
And now there's like a huge chunk of the younger generation
that have never been in a real relationship.
A lot of them are completely sexless.
But even of, of the ones that are having sex, it tends to be
hookup culture. And they're not even thinking.
They've kind of decided I don't want to do the marriage and
family stuff because men get shellacked so badly in the
family court systems that they look at the risk and decide it's
not worth it. And this is another really huge
catastrophic problem that we have on our hands because if men
are looking at family and going, it's not worth it because I have
no way to protect myself if anything goes wrong.
If my strong independent wife decides the neighbour makes her
feel sexy, she can take my kids and half my stuff and I get
zeroed out and I have to start over in my midlife like I'm not
doing that. And they've this younger
generation has seen it happen to their dads and a lot of times to
their grandfathers. And they're just saying, no, I
don't think so. And by the way, this how did we
end up with family courts? How do we end up with no fault
divorce? How do we end up with marriage
being in the state it's in? It's that same woman I was
telling you about Alexander Cole and I in Russia became Russia
became the first country to take marriage and make it no longer
like a sacrament that was tied to the church and made it simply
a certificate that you get from the state.
She completely removed church from the equation and they had
no fault divorce in Russia in like 1918 and the the marriage
rates just plummeted there. The divorce rates skyrocketed
and Russia has not really recovered from it.
And other places around the world followed suit with that
shortly after. So like in the United States,
there was an organisation called the National Association of
Women Lawyers and they had been working since about 1911 to get
no fault divorce pass to make it easy cheap to get a divorce.
And basically, I mean, their stated goal was to kind of
destroy marriage. So we're in this situation where
for a man, does it make sense if there's literally there?
First of all, there's no spiritual purpose to marriage
anymore, right? Everybody thinks it's like a
living arrangement. It's like a roommate contract,
Like, oh, we split the bills and we'll live together and we'll
have a kid. So why are we surprised that
nobody stays married anymore? It's practically meaningless.
It's kind of like your gym contract, you know, it's, it's
harder to get out of your apartment lease than it is to
get out of your marriage now. And men are just looking at this
and going, why would I do that? And to be frank, I think that
they're correct to think that now.
It doesn't mean I'm against marriage.
I think it means that we need to turn it back into a sacrament,
make it meaningful again. And I don't think it should be
so easy to dissolve a family just because you're not into him
anymore. And women leave 75 to 80% of the
time. Most divorces are initiated by
women and feminists love to say, well, that means that the men
aren't doing enough. The men aren't trying hard
enough. The men need to get it together.
It's what you'll always hear in the media especially.
This is my big bone to pick with the conservative right.
They always want to completely blame the man.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't make men responsible, but
generally we hold men responsible more than we hold
women responsible for anything. So this idea that men just need
to do better, I don't know. What's their motivation for
doing better? What do?
What do men get out of anything anymore?
We've taken away all the incentive.
What is the moral of the story? Oh, man, that's a big question.
But I think the moral of the story is that Christendom had it
right. You know, we had 2000 years of
history where nothing is guaranteed in this life.
There, there are no guarantees that everything's going to work
out for you, that you're going to be happy.
Happiness isn't the goal. Happiness is kind of a byproduct
of living a meaningful life and striving toward virtue and
trying to avoid vice. It's just like a a happy side
effect of righteous living. And when the Enlightenment came
and all of its secular anti Christian attitudes, the
egalitarianism, the feminism, the scientism, right following
science as a God instead. And then we had this big
industrial boom that created this technological world that
has convinced us that we're God and that we can remake reality
in our image. Instead, I think what we're
learning is that when you try to do those things, when you try to
make men, women and women men, and you try to blur those lines
and you try to negate nature and you reject human ontology,
meaning like, what's our purpose?
Why were we created? Who were we created by and for
what reason? When you try to say I don't need
any of that, I'm going to, I'm going to completely go against
all of reality and all of nature and against God himself, which
is really what feminism is at the end of the day.
It's not a rebellion against men, it's a rebellion against
God the Father and the structure and the nature he created.
You're going to have a really bad time, right?
Everything. When you take on this Luciferian
agenda of trying to invert God's order and make it your own and
do things in your way, you're going to end up with strife,
suffering, chaos. We're seeing, you know, the
family breakdown. We're seeing nations and
infrastructure breakdown. We're seeing birth rate
collapse. It literally is a death cult.
Feminism is a death cult. And all the abortion and
antinatalism that comes with it, and it causes suffering for
everyone. It's not good for women, it's
not good for men. It's certainly not good for our
children. And I think we're learning it
the hard way. And I just hope that we can
correct the ship before things get like infinitely worse
because they're bad now, but they could get worse.
So I hope that how people think about this stuff and kind of
stop trying to do this crazy Luciferian project of inverting
all of reality. How can I follow your work and
get your book? You can get my book on Amazon.
Good news by the way, my Kindle book has been down for like a
year because crazy feminists wanted it taken down so they
reported it as not being my intellectual property.
So I had to go through this whole legal process to prove
that it was indeed mine. And then I had to do some work
to get it re uploaded and put back in the store.
But it is finally back so I win and all those jealous hags can
just, you know, suck it. So you can go buy my Kindle
book. I also have an audio book
version, paperback and a hardcover.
It's all on Amazon, Audible and Kindle, and then you can follow
my YouTube channel. It's just Rachel Wilson.
If you type me in the search, all kinds of videos with me will
come up and then you can follow me on Twitter.
X at Rach for patriarchy. You didn't mention your book's
title. Oh, it's occult feminism, The
Secret History of Women's Liberation.
And if you don't, if you're not sure you want the book, you can
also go to my sub stack. I have a tonne of great articles
on there that'll kind of give you a taste of that and what my
writing and research is like. And my sub stack is R
wilson.substack.com. Rachel Wilson, thank you for
joining me in the trenches. Thank you so much for having me,
it's been fun.